Job organizational preference: Fishes and ponds

[DGuller]

I generally like to be a big fish in a small pond, because I believe that happiness is determined much more by relative things like status rather than absolute things like income.  However, when it comes to work, stability is supreme, so in that case bigger pond is better.  My current situation is about perfect;  my company is big enough to be big, but not big enough that running into a CxO is like running into Obama.

[PDH]

I do both.  I don't try to hustle for enough adjunct hours to sort of pay the bills while still not having healthcare, so I work for the University full time and teach a class each semester.  That makes me both a little fish and a (somewhat) more big fish - at least I get to do what I want without interference as long as SOMEONE teaches the freshmen.

[The Brain]

I do what I have to do to pay the bills.

[CountDeMoney]

at least I get to do what I want without interference as long as SOMEONE teaches the freshmen.

My sister became an adjunct instructor this semester, and taught her first two freshman/gen ed requirement Biology classes for the first time.

It didn't take long to utterly destroy her faith in the future of America with today's youth.

[PDH]

I get some good kids, to be honest.  Still, there are the mind numbing ones that just make me want to bring out the "claw-hammer" method of instruction.

[Jacob]

My preference is to be a biggish fish in a small to medium pond, or even better, in a small to medium cove of the ocean.

[Zanza]

Hard to say. I've never really worked in a company that has less than a few thousand employees, so I only know "small fish in big pond". It certainly has its advantages and disadvantages and I can understand it's not everybody's preferred work environment. I am occasionally doubting that it is the right thing for me too, but then it's all I know, so I don't know if "big fish in small pond" would be more my thing.

[Iormlund]

My case goes similarly, but the other way around. I've worked in places with at most 30 employees and a distinct lack of hierarchy.

[Zanza]

My case goes similarly, but the other way around. I've worked in places with at most 30 employees and a distinct lack of hierarchy.

I currently have five hierarchy levels above me (manager, senior manager, director, vice president, board member). My department (headed by a senior manager) has more than 30 people.

I can't spend a Euro without approval by my senior manager and have to check with my manager for a lot of operational decisions too.

[The Brain]

I won't share details regarding my job with you people.

[Grey Fox]

I won't share details regarding my job with you people.

We know, monkeybutt.

[The Brain]

I won't share details regarding my job with you people.

We know, monkeybutt.

WTF no way I parrot him constantly.

[Barrister]

Hard to say. I've never really worked in a company that has less than a few thousand employees, so I only know "small fish in big pond". It certainly has its advantages and disadvantages and I can understand it's not everybody's preferred work environment. I am occasionally doubting that it is the right thing for me too, but then it's all I know, so I don't know if "big fish in small pond" would be more my thing.

Well in my experience working in a "small pond" your co-workers know you better and your direct supervisor has a much better ability to assess how you're doing.  That leads to generally greater trust in your ability, and less bereaucratic nonsense.

The downside, of course, it that fish grow to fit the size of their tank.  You can only go so far up the ladder in a small pond.

I was probably at a point in my career where moving to the big main office was a good idea.  But it sure is easy to get lost in the crowd, and hard to stand out.

[Legbiter]

By birth and location I am a small fish in a small pond (oh, hello Mrs. Prime Minister).

[Ed Anger]

I won't share details regarding my job with you people.

We know, monkeybutt.

WTF no way I parrot him constantly.

I'd give you a cracker.