What's Important to YOU?
Yesterday's post over at Chemjobber's place really caught my attention. Paul Sturgeon, writing in trade mag Plastics News, opined that employers don't attract top talent due to fundamental misunderstandings in what "next-gen" employees really care about.
Made me wonder, if you asked some current science professionals about their top two workplace criteria, what would you get? Would Mr. Sturgeon be dismissed, or vindicated?
OK, readers, here's the game: Please list your top two workplace criteria in the Comments section. Once I get ~10 entries, I'll start to input them in a super-sciencey gizmo called a pie chart. Hopefully, we'll get a few more entrants, and I can start to pin down what's important (and what's really not).
I'll go first: My top two criteria are 1. interesting / meaningful work, and 2. length of commute.
Can't wait to see your responses!
(N.B. Certainly, a wide demographic visits chem blogs, but I'd argue the results will skew towards slightly younger, highly-educated, potentially job-seeking professionals. Exactly the demographic the above article argues companies wish to hire!)
Made me wonder, if you asked some current science professionals about their top two workplace criteria, what would you get? Would Mr. Sturgeon be dismissed, or vindicated?
OK, readers, here's the game: Please list your top two workplace criteria in the Comments section. Once I get ~10 entries, I'll start to input them in a super-sciencey gizmo called a pie chart. Hopefully, we'll get a few more entrants, and I can start to pin down what's important (and what's really not).
I'll go first: My top two criteria are 1. interesting / meaningful work, and 2. length of commute.
Can't wait to see your responses!
(N.B. Certainly, a wide demographic visits chem blogs, but I'd argue the results will skew towards slightly younger, highly-educated, potentially job-seeking professionals. Exactly the demographic the above article argues companies wish to hire!)
