A lot of controversy exists over whether staying in a company for one's entire career is benefitable or not. Although a majority of workers and employees are likely to desire for their company to guarantee their jobs for their entire lives, I see it's not realistic and good both to the workers and the companies in the long run. This is because under this circumstance of no competition there is no incentive for people to strive to improve themselves and also it's hard to find a job at a time that is perfectly proper to one's ability. (good intro...I think)
To begin with, we first of all should admit the fact that people tends to stay in a comfortable state. That is, if a company guarantees one's job position for his or her life, people will not attempt to improve themselves to develop their skills that are required for the company to be more competitive. This is due to that the process of development is not comfort easy and even it brings sort of hardship and pain. A recent trend of Japanese companies which are throwing out the entire life job policy illustrates this best. As you know, guaranteeing a job for one's full career life has been one of the most pivotal characteristics of Japanese companies. However, since the companies began to consecutively lose in the global market competition by the U.S. companies which does not guarantee one's full-life job, instead firing one who does not fit in the position and hiring one who can perform better at that position, it has been changing their employment policy to more competitive direction. Likewise, it's not easy to keep the positive tension that encourages people to develop oneself themselves spontaneously in the guaranteed job position.
In addition, it is also hard to find a job at a time that is perfectly complying with one's talent and interest. So people should be able to find second and third jobs that could be better fit to their talents and interests so that he or she can draw their full capability into their works. This is benefitable not only to the employees but also the employers. Regarding to? this argument, my elder brother's story seems to be the best example. He had been worked(not a passive; working) as an officer at a bank. However, since he failed in a promotion to a higher position, he hashad to choose whether to leave the company or stay as an officer who cannot be promoted anymore.(This example seems to me out of point in a sense...) Recognizing his talent would be more effective in a broader social relationships, he quitted the job and started a new career as a salesman. Fortunately, since he has a chance to think again of his talent and interest, he is now having quite a successful career in the new career as a salesman.
In summary, while competing could be stressful and unguaranteed job position seems to be risky and unreliable, I firmly believe that guaranting one's job position during their whole lives, regardless of their performance and profitability, is not recommended at all. This is because it would make it easy for people to be lazy in developing themselves, harmful to employers, and could also prevent people not to move to find a more proper position suited bettherbetter? to their talents and interests. (good conclusion...)
-> Except the second example, almost all things seem great to me~ |