"Should I take this job" filter- replete with ethics & other snowflakes
February 9, 2016 3:27 PM Subscribe
After almost a year of unemployment, during which I have been living with my parents (and going crazy in the process) I am about to get a job offer from a company whose ethics don't quite align with mine. The job would pay me extremely well, and would allow me to be independent and save money to work toward my future career goals. Help me decide if it's worth the cost. Bonus: help me negotiate my salary. More inside...
I am an environmental scientist. When I was in school, I thought that by now, 5 years after graduating, I'd be working for Greenpeace, or another non-profit. Unfortunately, because of my location, I've ended up with expertise (in environmental compliance) that is in demand only by big corporations doing ethically questionable things. Which brings me to now: after a year of un/underemployment, during which I went through the demise of a long-term relationship and moved back home with my parents, I am about to get a job offer managing a project that is fairly high-profile, and fairly shady in my opinion. It would be excellent job experience, and would pay me extremely well. Living rent-free in particular would enable me to save a lot of money. But if I take the job, I'll feel like I've sold out. Should I do it?
Bonus question: In the phone interview, when they asked me about compensation, I indicated that I would like to get paid the salary I did when I last worked for them, or more. After doing a bit of research, I think I undersold myself initially. Full interview is later this week- can I renegotiate once an offer is on the table? Any tips for doing so? I'd like to avoid joining the ranks of underpaid women in America, especially in STEM fields.
I am an environmental scientist. When I was in school, I thought that by now, 5 years after graduating, I'd be working for Greenpeace, or another non-profit. Unfortunately, because of my location, I've ended up with expertise (in environmental compliance) that is in demand only by big corporations doing ethically questionable things. Which brings me to now: after a year of un/underemployment, during which I went through the demise of a long-term relationship and moved back home with my parents, I am about to get a job offer managing a project that is fairly high-profile, and fairly shady in my opinion. It would be excellent job experience, and would pay me extremely well. Living rent-free in particular would enable me to save a lot of money. But if I take the job, I'll feel like I've sold out. Should I do it?
Bonus question: In the phone interview, when they asked me about compensation, I indicated that I would like to get paid the salary I did when I last worked for them, or more. After doing a bit of research, I think I undersold myself initially. Full interview is later this week- can I renegotiate once an offer is on the table? Any tips for doing so? I'd like to avoid joining the ranks of underpaid women in America, especially in STEM fields.
Take the money. Save it, and don't get on the hedonic treadmill of living up to your means. Once you get into a place of financial stability and greater independence, you can work for an organization that better reflects your views, this time with experience and industry insight from the other side. This offer could be a blessing in disguise.
posted by Atrahasis at 3:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Atrahasis at 3:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Take it! I once went out with some people and a dude whipped out a Halliburton credit card to pay the tab. Felt skeevy for a minute until I realized somebody'd be getting that Halliburton booze, might as well be me! Questionable ethics company is gonna hire someone to do that job, might as well be you! Donate part of your paycheck to Greenpeace - we'll still think you're awesome
posted by jabes at 3:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by jabes at 3:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
From your position within the heart of darkness, if you can move the rudder a fraction of an inch when helping figure out how close to the line things can go, isn't that a valuable real-world contribution and Making A Difference in line with your ethics?
Any tips for doing so?
Not from me. Perhaps you could suggest that you're willing to work for less salary than you're worth if you get great benefits and vacation and perks. If the company prefers to keep those compensations standard, then you'd like to go back to the standard salary range too then?
No idea if that will be useful, just a thought.
posted by anonymisc at 3:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Any tips for doing so?
Not from me. Perhaps you could suggest that you're willing to work for less salary than you're worth if you get great benefits and vacation and perks. If the company prefers to keep those compensations standard, then you'd like to go back to the standard salary range too then?
No idea if that will be useful, just a thought.
posted by anonymisc at 3:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'd be inclined to take the job, but not for the money.
This company has questionable ethics? This is a chance, perhaps, to do something about that. They're looking for ways to comply with environmental polices, right? So help them! Make it as easy as possible for them to take the "good" choice over the damaging one.
You're not going to win every battle, and there's a chance you won't win at all, but it's not necessarily the sell-out you're thinking of. And if it doesn't work out for you, fine - quit and add that to your resume and go to Greenpeace and say "I tried to help from the inside and it didn't work, so here I am - hire me for my ethics and knowledge of the enemy!"
posted by ninazer0 at 3:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
This company has questionable ethics? This is a chance, perhaps, to do something about that. They're looking for ways to comply with environmental polices, right? So help them! Make it as easy as possible for them to take the "good" choice over the damaging one.
You're not going to win every battle, and there's a chance you won't win at all, but it's not necessarily the sell-out you're thinking of. And if it doesn't work out for you, fine - quit and add that to your resume and go to Greenpeace and say "I tried to help from the inside and it didn't work, so here I am - hire me for my ethics and knowledge of the enemy!"
posted by ninazer0 at 3:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
I was you several years back, and this was my Ask.
I took the job, and while ultimately (for a number of reasons unrelated to my fears) it wasn't a great fit, I am glad I did. I learned a lot, and it was the jumping-off point that allowed me to save up an emergency fund that let me move to follow my heart, and the experience that qualified me for my current, great job.
You are in a better position to positively influence a powerful organization from within.
posted by samthemander at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I took the job, and while ultimately (for a number of reasons unrelated to my fears) it wasn't a great fit, I am glad I did. I learned a lot, and it was the jumping-off point that allowed me to save up an emergency fund that let me move to follow my heart, and the experience that qualified me for my current, great job.
You are in a better position to positively influence a powerful organization from within.
posted by samthemander at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think there's no way we, a bunch of strangers, can effectively advise you. It's a complicated weighing of values and ethics and personal finance and where you're at in your life.
But you asked me, one of a bunch of strangers, and I say Try It! You can always quit your life as a corporate shill and work at a co-op in Vermont.
Talk to some people you know and trust. Meditate on it. Then make the best decision you can and move forward.
Negotiating for salary is a wholly separate topic. Do your prep work, be assertive. There are so many great resources out there. Here's one of them.
posted by boghead at 4:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
But you asked me, one of a bunch of strangers, and I say Try It! You can always quit your life as a corporate shill and work at a co-op in Vermont.
Talk to some people you know and trust. Meditate on it. Then make the best decision you can and move forward.
Negotiating for salary is a wholly separate topic. Do your prep work, be assertive. There are so many great resources out there. Here's one of them.
posted by boghead at 4:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
No employer's ethics ever completely align with yours. This is a fact of life.
I can pretty much guarantee that as much as you think Greenpeace would be a great place to work because you agree with their principles, they are probably also crappy place to work because as an NGO they don't have a lot of resources to spend on good benefits or office morale or training. (My friends who work for NGOs in the environmental field have complained about this sort of thing.)
Returning to the job on the table: if the purpose of the job is to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, then this is an opportunity for you to make a difference. Because without you or someone else there, these guys really are going to screw up, and dump their hazardous materials on the back 40, or kick their old batteries into the water, or burn lead-paint covered timbers in an open pit.
Learning how to manage environmental regulation in a resistant culture is actually a great skill set. Give it a year, get some training out of them if you can, build up your quals, and make connections in the environmental field.
If you still really want to go the NGO route after you've gotten some financial stability, you will be in no worse a position then than you are now. Plus you'll have a fresh resume and a more sound financial situation.
posted by suelac at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I can pretty much guarantee that as much as you think Greenpeace would be a great place to work because you agree with their principles, they are probably also crappy place to work because as an NGO they don't have a lot of resources to spend on good benefits or office morale or training. (My friends who work for NGOs in the environmental field have complained about this sort of thing.)
Returning to the job on the table: if the purpose of the job is to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, then this is an opportunity for you to make a difference. Because without you or someone else there, these guys really are going to screw up, and dump their hazardous materials on the back 40, or kick their old batteries into the water, or burn lead-paint covered timbers in an open pit.
Learning how to manage environmental regulation in a resistant culture is actually a great skill set. Give it a year, get some training out of them if you can, build up your quals, and make connections in the environmental field.
If you still really want to go the NGO route after you've gotten some financial stability, you will be in no worse a position then than you are now. Plus you'll have a fresh resume and a more sound financial situation.
posted by suelac at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
You need the work and the experience and the money. Get enthusiastic about it. Once you are in, use your time wisely. Learn as much as you can. Find good people in the org and learn about what they do. Use your insider status to see how things really operate. Take some skills that you wish you were better at and hone them. Save your money. Sock away for retirement and sock away for changing careers a little down the road.
posted by amanda at 4:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by amanda at 4:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Consider taking the job with the specific intention of using it to get a job that better suits your ethics later on. Give yourself a timeline, say 6 months or 1 year. Milk the job for everything it's worth in the meantime. Get more experience under your belt. Save your money. Find a mentor if you can. Then, when your 6 months or 1 year is up, you'll be in a great place to apply to Greenpeace or wherever your career aspirations take you.
Or, you could skip directly to the "find a mentor" step right now. This could be someone you call up at Greenpeace as suggested upthread, or someone you already know in your field. Ask them what steps they'd recommend taking in order to get the position you want. Then do those steps (and taking or declining this specific job may turn out to be a relevant step).
posted by danceswithlight at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Or, you could skip directly to the "find a mentor" step right now. This could be someone you call up at Greenpeace as suggested upthread, or someone you already know in your field. Ask them what steps they'd recommend taking in order to get the position you want. Then do those steps (and taking or declining this specific job may turn out to be a relevant step).
posted by danceswithlight at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
You seem to be convinced that the company seeking to employ you is “unethical,” but I doubt that it is. More likely, it is engaged in a development project that you disagree with for personal and/or political reasons. But you are not going to change its direction from the outside. Very likely, you will not be able to change its direction from the inside, but you can influence how it gets there.
Once you are inside, you can follow through with your ideals by ensuring that you do your job in an ethical manner, and influence others to do the same. Most companies that are involved in high-profile development projects are doing everything that they can to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirements that are being imposed by regulators.
After a few years, if you find that you are indeed uncomfortable working for the developers, you can look for work on the other side of the aisle. The other side, though, is not Greenpeace and other organizations. The other side are normally the state regulatory agencies that regulate and monitor the actions of the developers.
posted by megatherium at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Once you are inside, you can follow through with your ideals by ensuring that you do your job in an ethical manner, and influence others to do the same. Most companies that are involved in high-profile development projects are doing everything that they can to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirements that are being imposed by regulators.
After a few years, if you find that you are indeed uncomfortable working for the developers, you can look for work on the other side of the aisle. The other side, though, is not Greenpeace and other organizations. The other side are normally the state regulatory agencies that regulate and monitor the actions of the developers.
posted by megatherium at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
You don't have to compromise your ethics at all by working for them. If they demand that you do something unethical or they'll fire you, let them. You won't be any worse off than you are now.
If this job doesn't work out though, have you considered looking into careers in the government? Lots of environmental regulation jobs there.
posted by randomnity at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
If this job doesn't work out though, have you considered looking into careers in the government? Lots of environmental regulation jobs there.
posted by randomnity at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
How do you know if your work with the company is going to be unethical?
You also mentioned salary and Greenpeace: non-profits typically do not pay well (I work for a non-profit and I can only do it because I get paid in USD and live in a Low Cost Country). It's also pretty hard to get a job at Greenpeace without a strong social network so at this point in your life this goal may be a little unrealistic.
There's also the idea of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. "Self-actualization" is at the top of the hierarchy, but at the moment you're just trying to secure employment, which is lower down on the hierarchy.
It's more important for you to get back into the workforce doing work that you have trained for. Getting back into the workforce gets you plugged back into the world of work.
If you have a job it's always easier to get another job. If you're living in your parents' basement in the middle of nowhere it is just going to be tough, period.
Most important thing at this point is to get plugged in, get some breathing space and look around for opportunities you really want to do. And do a good job.
posted by My Dad at 4:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
You also mentioned salary and Greenpeace: non-profits typically do not pay well (I work for a non-profit and I can only do it because I get paid in USD and live in a Low Cost Country). It's also pretty hard to get a job at Greenpeace without a strong social network so at this point in your life this goal may be a little unrealistic.
There's also the idea of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. "Self-actualization" is at the top of the hierarchy, but at the moment you're just trying to secure employment, which is lower down on the hierarchy.
It's more important for you to get back into the workforce doing work that you have trained for. Getting back into the workforce gets you plugged back into the world of work.
If you have a job it's always easier to get another job. If you're living in your parents' basement in the middle of nowhere it is just going to be tough, period.
Most important thing at this point is to get plugged in, get some breathing space and look around for opportunities you really want to do. And do a good job.
posted by My Dad at 4:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Take the job, and use it to get information and experience regarding how these companies work from the inside. Then you can take that knowledge to a non profit that can use your insider information to better fight against the unethical things.
posted by MexicanYenta at 4:40 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by MexicanYenta at 4:40 PM on February 9, 2016
My boss is a 75 year old man from a Southern Baptist family who owns a wine distributorship. He likes to tell the story of how his grandmother told him when he bought the business in 1971, "Well, Billy, if somebody's got to sell wine I'm glad it's you."
Take the job! Unemployment is so soul-sucking and the cliche is true about how it's easier to find a job when you have a job. Take the job, do your best to make moral decisions and learn as much as you can, save some money, and keep working on finding your dream position. Taking this job right now doesn't mean you're going down an irrevocable dark path. You're doing what you have to do to survive in a terrible job market.
posted by something something at 4:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Take the job! Unemployment is so soul-sucking and the cliche is true about how it's easier to find a job when you have a job. Take the job, do your best to make moral decisions and learn as much as you can, save some money, and keep working on finding your dream position. Taking this job right now doesn't mean you're going down an irrevocable dark path. You're doing what you have to do to survive in a terrible job market.
posted by something something at 4:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I was in a similar position many moons ago when I began my career. I wanted to work for a cause, "save the world" etc. I did end up in this line of work, thus allow me to share with you something I learned over the years, which is that nonprofits spend a truly mind boggling amount of time on cultivating individual donors - recruiting them, growing them, creating "evangelists" etc.
You don't have to physically have your hands in the dirt to be doing the work. Innovative new initiatives happen because someone funds them. You can be that person - and nonprofits are looking far, wide and ceaselessly for those people.
Also you get the emotional satisfaction of sticking it to the man by taking this agency's dirty money and giving it to a group that's doing something against their interests, which is very satisfying in my experience.
posted by Imogenetic at 4:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
You don't have to physically have your hands in the dirt to be doing the work. Innovative new initiatives happen because someone funds them. You can be that person - and nonprofits are looking far, wide and ceaselessly for those people.
Also you get the emotional satisfaction of sticking it to the man by taking this agency's dirty money and giving it to a group that's doing something against their interests, which is very satisfying in my experience.
posted by Imogenetic at 4:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Take the job and do an excellent, ethical job within it. Big companies need people to advocate for change from within. Donate and volunteer for the good guys.
I have a good friend who works for a giant MegaCorp notorious for using sweatshops and other skeezy labor practices, in a department focused on improving the ethics of their global business practices. She is one of the most ethical people I know. She is proud of the work she's doing and very much considers this an extension of her prior work in nonprofits and public advocacy.
And regarding salary "When we initially spoke, I referenced the amount I made when I last worked for you. Since our initial talk, though, I've had a chance to look into current salaries for this role, and market rate now appears to be closer to $X."
posted by The Elusive Architeuthis at 5:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have a good friend who works for a giant MegaCorp notorious for using sweatshops and other skeezy labor practices, in a department focused on improving the ethics of their global business practices. She is one of the most ethical people I know. She is proud of the work she's doing and very much considers this an extension of her prior work in nonprofits and public advocacy.
And regarding salary "When we initially spoke, I referenced the amount I made when I last worked for you. Since our initial talk, though, I've had a chance to look into current salaries for this role, and market rate now appears to be closer to $X."
posted by The Elusive Architeuthis at 5:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Take the job.
Learn all you can about the big corporate.
Do all you can to ensure that the big corporate meets (not avoids) its compliance obligations. Know that there will be a limit to what you can do, but do your best.
Save your money. Donate to Greenpeace.
Keep looking for your non-profit job. When you get it, you will be better equipped to help them, knowing what you know about big corporate operations. But, in the meantime, you need to eat.
Is it selling out? Yes. That's basically what work is. You sell your labour and knowledge. But you could make this project better, from an environmental standpoint. That could end up being more effective than what Greenpeace could do, lobbying from the outside.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Learn all you can about the big corporate.
Do all you can to ensure that the big corporate meets (not avoids) its compliance obligations. Know that there will be a limit to what you can do, but do your best.
Save your money. Donate to Greenpeace.
Keep looking for your non-profit job. When you get it, you will be better equipped to help them, knowing what you know about big corporate operations. But, in the meantime, you need to eat.
Is it selling out? Yes. That's basically what work is. You sell your labour and knowledge. But you could make this project better, from an environmental standpoint. That could end up being more effective than what Greenpeace could do, lobbying from the outside.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Take the job. I had the same dilemmas in my youth. I erred on the side of idealism. I've since gone pretty corporate, but sometimes I wish I'd gone fully corporate from the start, for an even better material position than I have now, and a better idea of how that world works from the inside.
I still have my idealism. I still contribute to causes I care about. I also have acquaintances that made those compromises from the start, but did not let those compromises affect their ideals. There are a lot more good people working from the inside than you might expect, and they have much more ability to influence things for the better than those working from the outside.
I also know people who took the opposite route, starting at the bottom of these idealistic organizations, and lost their idealism to the petty politics that occur in any group of human beings.
A professor (business) who I knew was fond of asserting that there is such a thing as moral compensation. Not only do organizations like Greenpeace and the ACLU pay less because their employees get paid in idealism, but morally dubious employers like tobacco firms and oil companies also tend to be among the most comfortable to ease their workers' moral unease. Be aware of the tradeoff you're making.
posted by Borborygmus at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016
I still have my idealism. I still contribute to causes I care about. I also have acquaintances that made those compromises from the start, but did not let those compromises affect their ideals. There are a lot more good people working from the inside than you might expect, and they have much more ability to influence things for the better than those working from the outside.
I also know people who took the opposite route, starting at the bottom of these idealistic organizations, and lost their idealism to the petty politics that occur in any group of human beings.
A professor (business) who I knew was fond of asserting that there is such a thing as moral compensation. Not only do organizations like Greenpeace and the ACLU pay less because their employees get paid in idealism, but morally dubious employers like tobacco firms and oil companies also tend to be among the most comfortable to ease their workers' moral unease. Be aware of the tradeoff you're making.
posted by Borborygmus at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016
A fucked-up fact of non-profit/NGO life is they will likely value you much more highly if you go back to them in a few years with that morally ambiguous private sector experience under your belt.
posted by kelseyq at 5:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kelseyq at 5:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Came in to say what's been said about change from the inside. There's a couple of things to consider here about the moral compass:
1) First and foremost, organisations like Greenpeace are designed to move the agenda forward. They do fantastic work, however they are limited in scope and effectiveness to advocacy, communications, and policy influence. The ultimate driver of environmental change is the market, what and how people consume things. And the supply chains that supply them, and the companies that build those supply chains.
Having worked in the sustainability/renewables sector, the hardest work is done on the ground – in the companies – and that's where the greatest change happens. I'm not going to slag off Greenpeace, for as said, they do wonderful work. The reality is that customer markets demand products, and someone has to make them – whether that's industrial concrete, energy, food, or paper. Working in those companies requires balancing a series of trade-offs.
What we need are more people in more companies able to understand those trade-offs and make them strategically.
Three examples:
A) A friend went to work for McDonalds, in the product innovation department. She was a strong environmentalist and activist. I was surprised. Her reasoning was that the scale and scope of McDonalds is such that even small changes reverberate massively. McDonalds can change entire industries nearly overnight if they so choose. Her view was that going into the machine gave her the greatest scale – much greater than working in environmental consultancy – and personal impact.
B) A project came across my desk years ago. Carbon and water reduction for one of the world's largest tobacco companies. Which led to a conflict that the firm hadn't had before. Tobacco itself is a harmful product, yet a legal product. There's nothing illegal about adults consuming tobacco, and therefore orientations about the production and consumption often come down to matters of personal preference. It was easy to refuse tobacco work – and our team had done that before.
However, the potential impact given the square hectares of land in scope was absolutely massive. We were some of the best people in the country working on sustainable business models, and could have a tremendous impact in reduction. The matter was complicated by the fact that their agenda was not being driven by impact reduction (although they would happily use that), but rather by operational efficiencies that would increase profits. One colleague argued – rightly – that it did't matter how we felt about tobacco, or why the company was to invest in the project. Rather, we could reduce carbon emissions and water consumption by an order of magnitude, and the project was replicable, so we could repeat it for other firms in the industry and potentially start a domino effect of impact reduction. Those colleagues against the project could only argue on moral ground – which was that they didn't want to work on a project that resulted in a tobacco company making more money for shareholders.
I'm not going to say how it worked out, only that these are the situations where the real work gets done and the real decisions are made. Situations where you have decide if potentially millions of tonnes of carbon and water is worth the trade-off of making money for a tobacco company.
C) As younger financial managers come into their own in a number of large funds around the world, they're beginning to implement policies that decarbonise their portfolios – often starting with coal investments. These would be the same people that have generated profits off coal/oil/gas for the first twenty years of their careers. In many cases, one has to go into the mouth of the beast they which to change. For twenty years, they traded in things they may not have agreed with, to gain the credibility and take the portfolio in the direction that they wanted to take it.
I was once at a lecture where someone asked how one of the world's leading feminine psychologists became a feminine psychologist. Her answer was that "first, I had to become a psychologist. I had to go into a system I did not agree with, a system that was biased against me, and frankly, a system that didn't want me and I wanted no part of. Because without becoming a psychologist, I simply would have remained a feminist, and I would not be here before you today."
2) Ultimately, the people that control corporate environmental policies are those in the government – who sets policies and trading conditions. While Greenpeace can be a road into that world, so can corporate work. If your ultimate goal is to change environmental conditions for the better, the ultimate role is within federal-level policy in America, European policy, or China national policy, for regulation is the ultimate lever. Unfortunately, if one looks at many of the financial, environmental, and social ills, there's often enabling policy behind it.
One of the reasons that fossil fuels remain so strong is federal subsidies of fossil fuels. One of the reasons that we're facing superbugs resistant to antibiotics are a range of policies, from malpractice to insurance policies.
Policy is the ultimate lever, and while Greenpeace is great for lobbying and promoting policy, the people that get policy done are often the ones that have worked in the field and understand how things actually get done. How to become feminine psychologists.
Disclaimer here is that I am in no way saying that Greenpeace is a poor aspiration, or that they don't do great work. What I am saying is both that that is one piece of the fight – and obvious piece – and that there are a lot more pieces that are not obvious pieces.
Bonus answer:
You have three bullets in the gun here, so to speak.
The first is benchmarking against previous pay, which is what you've done. That sets a minimum expectation, which is to say, "I won't work for less than you've paid me before"
The second is benchmarking against the field itself, which you have now also done. Keep in mind that in your previous conversation, you set a minimum. As you find out more about the job, you've now benchmarked it. That's an easy conversation that you've benchmarked it against the field, and you would like to be paid the going rate.
If you want to move the needle on this one, you frame it by the company's position, and the range of the salary. "You're company is in the top quartile of your field, and therefore I expect a salary commensurate – which I see as the salary that is the top quartile in the field." By extension, if a company in the top quartile in their field is hiring you, you assuredly are one of the best professionals in your field. This is a good point of leverage, for it relies on external measures of salary and also reputation.
Finally, there's the personal adjustment, which is your own benchmark and standard.
If you're feeling gutsy, you can say "I turned down a job with Competitor X for $xx,xxx earlier this year. I was thinking about going to Greenpeace, but I've worked with you before and can add a lot of value here. My price for this job is $xx,xxx"
If you're not feeling so gutsy, you can say, "I can see why you want me on this project, and we agree I can add a lot of value. I think there are a number of risks that you haven't considered. Risks that I would like to address for the sake of both of our reputations. That makes it a bigger job that I saw initially. I'll do it, and I ask for $xx,xxx in compensation."
Finally, there's the balls-out methodology, which is "here's my price – $xxx,xxx – and that's a bargain compared to the amount you're going to save when I do this right. When I first looked at this project, I thought 'that bit's fucking shady'. If can see that, other people are going to see that and that's something we really need to work on."
Regardless, on compensation:
1) you've set a minimum
2) you've benchmarked that higher
3) they're not going to offer what you don't ask for
In a way, the salary can make your decision easy, for you choose what the cost of not working for Greenpeace is. Set that price, be true to it, and if they don't pay it, go work for Greenpeace.
For an example of that, we worked for a client who wanted us to do more tobacco work. We did not want to do more tobacco work, yet to refuse would put us in the pokey with client, who represented over 50% of our billing that year. The usual polite declines didn't work – "we're busy" was met with "we'll pay to expand your team for the duration of the project." It was basically down to the fact that we simply didn't want to do it.
Our advisor said, "Fine, give them a price that they won't accept." Normally for that kind of project, we charged in the low six figures. So the partner went back and said, "we'll do it for a million," sure that they would refuse and go elsewhere. They simply agreed. Increasing our already-healthy margin to legendary margin.
I'm not going to tell you the outcome, for that is irrelevant. The point is that the worst thing someone can say in a salary negotiation is "no, we'll stick to our original offer" so you may as well ask for the salary that you want to do the job. At the end of the day, you're the one that has to get up in the morning and do the work, so ask for the price of your time. If they say no, decide if you will get up and go to work for the lower price.
To the point about women in STEM, I've seen it documented that women don't negotiate salary as often, or as a hard as men, and end up with lower salaries. Two things there. First is that your starting salary is the largest determiner of your ongoing salary. When you consider raises, often they are either done on pay grades, or percent. If they're done on pay grades, you must consider if you want to work for a pay grade company. If they're done on percent, you must consider the compounding effects.
There were two women that worked at the same ad agency. Both started around the same time, both performed exceptionally well over the following ten years. Both received the maximum 5% annual raises.
One took the offered starting salary of $40,000.
The other agreed to start at $40,000, but wanted a supplementary review at six months with a lift to $45,000, which was her rate at her previous job. Her annual review was then to use the $45,000 as her base salary rate.
Compound the effects over 10 years:
$40,000 > $65,000
$45,000 > $73,000
While that difference looks like a difference of $5,000 > $8,000 over the years, the cumulative difference is $100k.
Only it didn't work out like that because as it turned out the woman that negotiated her salary more aggressively negotiated everything more aggressively, including promotions and teams.
Point being, negotiate your salary as hard as possible, especially for a job where it sounds like they need you as much as you need them.
Good luck. Always remember that there's a lot of different battles in the good fight.
posted by nickrussell at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
1) First and foremost, organisations like Greenpeace are designed to move the agenda forward. They do fantastic work, however they are limited in scope and effectiveness to advocacy, communications, and policy influence. The ultimate driver of environmental change is the market, what and how people consume things. And the supply chains that supply them, and the companies that build those supply chains.
Having worked in the sustainability/renewables sector, the hardest work is done on the ground – in the companies – and that's where the greatest change happens. I'm not going to slag off Greenpeace, for as said, they do wonderful work. The reality is that customer markets demand products, and someone has to make them – whether that's industrial concrete, energy, food, or paper. Working in those companies requires balancing a series of trade-offs.
What we need are more people in more companies able to understand those trade-offs and make them strategically.
Three examples:
A) A friend went to work for McDonalds, in the product innovation department. She was a strong environmentalist and activist. I was surprised. Her reasoning was that the scale and scope of McDonalds is such that even small changes reverberate massively. McDonalds can change entire industries nearly overnight if they so choose. Her view was that going into the machine gave her the greatest scale – much greater than working in environmental consultancy – and personal impact.
B) A project came across my desk years ago. Carbon and water reduction for one of the world's largest tobacco companies. Which led to a conflict that the firm hadn't had before. Tobacco itself is a harmful product, yet a legal product. There's nothing illegal about adults consuming tobacco, and therefore orientations about the production and consumption often come down to matters of personal preference. It was easy to refuse tobacco work – and our team had done that before.
However, the potential impact given the square hectares of land in scope was absolutely massive. We were some of the best people in the country working on sustainable business models, and could have a tremendous impact in reduction. The matter was complicated by the fact that their agenda was not being driven by impact reduction (although they would happily use that), but rather by operational efficiencies that would increase profits. One colleague argued – rightly – that it did't matter how we felt about tobacco, or why the company was to invest in the project. Rather, we could reduce carbon emissions and water consumption by an order of magnitude, and the project was replicable, so we could repeat it for other firms in the industry and potentially start a domino effect of impact reduction. Those colleagues against the project could only argue on moral ground – which was that they didn't want to work on a project that resulted in a tobacco company making more money for shareholders.
I'm not going to say how it worked out, only that these are the situations where the real work gets done and the real decisions are made. Situations where you have decide if potentially millions of tonnes of carbon and water is worth the trade-off of making money for a tobacco company.
C) As younger financial managers come into their own in a number of large funds around the world, they're beginning to implement policies that decarbonise their portfolios – often starting with coal investments. These would be the same people that have generated profits off coal/oil/gas for the first twenty years of their careers. In many cases, one has to go into the mouth of the beast they which to change. For twenty years, they traded in things they may not have agreed with, to gain the credibility and take the portfolio in the direction that they wanted to take it.
I was once at a lecture where someone asked how one of the world's leading feminine psychologists became a feminine psychologist. Her answer was that "first, I had to become a psychologist. I had to go into a system I did not agree with, a system that was biased against me, and frankly, a system that didn't want me and I wanted no part of. Because without becoming a psychologist, I simply would have remained a feminist, and I would not be here before you today."
2) Ultimately, the people that control corporate environmental policies are those in the government – who sets policies and trading conditions. While Greenpeace can be a road into that world, so can corporate work. If your ultimate goal is to change environmental conditions for the better, the ultimate role is within federal-level policy in America, European policy, or China national policy, for regulation is the ultimate lever. Unfortunately, if one looks at many of the financial, environmental, and social ills, there's often enabling policy behind it.
One of the reasons that fossil fuels remain so strong is federal subsidies of fossil fuels. One of the reasons that we're facing superbugs resistant to antibiotics are a range of policies, from malpractice to insurance policies.
Policy is the ultimate lever, and while Greenpeace is great for lobbying and promoting policy, the people that get policy done are often the ones that have worked in the field and understand how things actually get done. How to become feminine psychologists.
Disclaimer here is that I am in no way saying that Greenpeace is a poor aspiration, or that they don't do great work. What I am saying is both that that is one piece of the fight – and obvious piece – and that there are a lot more pieces that are not obvious pieces.
Bonus answer:
You have three bullets in the gun here, so to speak.
The first is benchmarking against previous pay, which is what you've done. That sets a minimum expectation, which is to say, "I won't work for less than you've paid me before"
The second is benchmarking against the field itself, which you have now also done. Keep in mind that in your previous conversation, you set a minimum. As you find out more about the job, you've now benchmarked it. That's an easy conversation that you've benchmarked it against the field, and you would like to be paid the going rate.
If you want to move the needle on this one, you frame it by the company's position, and the range of the salary. "You're company is in the top quartile of your field, and therefore I expect a salary commensurate – which I see as the salary that is the top quartile in the field." By extension, if a company in the top quartile in their field is hiring you, you assuredly are one of the best professionals in your field. This is a good point of leverage, for it relies on external measures of salary and also reputation.
Finally, there's the personal adjustment, which is your own benchmark and standard.
If you're feeling gutsy, you can say "I turned down a job with Competitor X for $xx,xxx earlier this year. I was thinking about going to Greenpeace, but I've worked with you before and can add a lot of value here. My price for this job is $xx,xxx"
If you're not feeling so gutsy, you can say, "I can see why you want me on this project, and we agree I can add a lot of value. I think there are a number of risks that you haven't considered. Risks that I would like to address for the sake of both of our reputations. That makes it a bigger job that I saw initially. I'll do it, and I ask for $xx,xxx in compensation."
Finally, there's the balls-out methodology, which is "here's my price – $xxx,xxx – and that's a bargain compared to the amount you're going to save when I do this right. When I first looked at this project, I thought 'that bit's fucking shady'. If can see that, other people are going to see that and that's something we really need to work on."
Regardless, on compensation:
1) you've set a minimum
2) you've benchmarked that higher
3) they're not going to offer what you don't ask for
In a way, the salary can make your decision easy, for you choose what the cost of not working for Greenpeace is. Set that price, be true to it, and if they don't pay it, go work for Greenpeace.
For an example of that, we worked for a client who wanted us to do more tobacco work. We did not want to do more tobacco work, yet to refuse would put us in the pokey with client, who represented over 50% of our billing that year. The usual polite declines didn't work – "we're busy" was met with "we'll pay to expand your team for the duration of the project." It was basically down to the fact that we simply didn't want to do it.
Our advisor said, "Fine, give them a price that they won't accept." Normally for that kind of project, we charged in the low six figures. So the partner went back and said, "we'll do it for a million," sure that they would refuse and go elsewhere. They simply agreed. Increasing our already-healthy margin to legendary margin.
I'm not going to tell you the outcome, for that is irrelevant. The point is that the worst thing someone can say in a salary negotiation is "no, we'll stick to our original offer" so you may as well ask for the salary that you want to do the job. At the end of the day, you're the one that has to get up in the morning and do the work, so ask for the price of your time. If they say no, decide if you will get up and go to work for the lower price.
To the point about women in STEM, I've seen it documented that women don't negotiate salary as often, or as a hard as men, and end up with lower salaries. Two things there. First is that your starting salary is the largest determiner of your ongoing salary. When you consider raises, often they are either done on pay grades, or percent. If they're done on pay grades, you must consider if you want to work for a pay grade company. If they're done on percent, you must consider the compounding effects.
There were two women that worked at the same ad agency. Both started around the same time, both performed exceptionally well over the following ten years. Both received the maximum 5% annual raises.
One took the offered starting salary of $40,000.
The other agreed to start at $40,000, but wanted a supplementary review at six months with a lift to $45,000, which was her rate at her previous job. Her annual review was then to use the $45,000 as her base salary rate.
Compound the effects over 10 years:
$40,000 > $65,000
$45,000 > $73,000
While that difference looks like a difference of $5,000 > $8,000 over the years, the cumulative difference is $100k.
Only it didn't work out like that because as it turned out the woman that negotiated her salary more aggressively negotiated everything more aggressively, including promotions and teams.
Point being, negotiate your salary as hard as possible, especially for a job where it sounds like they need you as much as you need them.
Good luck. Always remember that there's a lot of different battles in the good fight.
posted by nickrussell at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Ethicswise - I don't think there's anything in the world wrong with taking the job, performing it to your standards, and leaving, if it's as fishy as you think it is. You could work towards a plan B, while you're there. But I think you'd have to actively work toward this, all the time, because inertia would make that hard. (That's not a world I know about, but if this company is like most companies, I don't know how likely "change from within" would be, if you discover you feel that's needed. I imagine there are lots of pressures and processes and tradeoffs that might steer you away from that. But I don't know.)
Is there a chance this job would damage your credibility down the line, if you did try to switch over to Greenpeace etc. later? And how common is switching? I don't know, maybe people do it - what do the LinkedIn profiles of people with the kinds of jobs you want look like?
But even if they've all been consistently working in Greenpeacey jobs - what's your alternative to taking this job? Are you prepared (realistically - after this breakup, after these past few years) and willing to put in the time to get the experience that would get you closer to Greenpeace or something like it, maybe staying poor for however long? If so, maybe it's worth trying, if you haven't given it a real shot and you honestly think you have it in you.
If that idea sounds really bad to you - if what you want more than anything is to be financially independent and secure, and the idea of taking this job really fills you with relief - that's ok. It is ok to want to not be poor. This economy is still crazy. Few would take issue with you for taking the job, quite the contrary. Seriously, sometimes you have to take advantage of the real opportunities that present themselves, instead of chasing a dream that's so far off it's not doable for most, or for you, at this time. If you're able to at least take care of your own needs, that's a good in itself. You might be placed to contribute in other ways. And there might be other options, like working for government down the line (that does seem like an easier switch). Or something you haven't thought of. Life is unpredictable. All you can do is act within the constraints of your conscience and ability, given the options available to you at the time you have to act.
on preview: nick russell and others clearly know things I don't! (listen to them)
posted by cotton dress sock at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is there a chance this job would damage your credibility down the line, if you did try to switch over to Greenpeace etc. later? And how common is switching? I don't know, maybe people do it - what do the LinkedIn profiles of people with the kinds of jobs you want look like?
But even if they've all been consistently working in Greenpeacey jobs - what's your alternative to taking this job? Are you prepared (realistically - after this breakup, after these past few years) and willing to put in the time to get the experience that would get you closer to Greenpeace or something like it, maybe staying poor for however long? If so, maybe it's worth trying, if you haven't given it a real shot and you honestly think you have it in you.
If that idea sounds really bad to you - if what you want more than anything is to be financially independent and secure, and the idea of taking this job really fills you with relief - that's ok. It is ok to want to not be poor. This economy is still crazy. Few would take issue with you for taking the job, quite the contrary. Seriously, sometimes you have to take advantage of the real opportunities that present themselves, instead of chasing a dream that's so far off it's not doable for most, or for you, at this time. If you're able to at least take care of your own needs, that's a good in itself. You might be placed to contribute in other ways. And there might be other options, like working for government down the line (that does seem like an easier switch). Or something you haven't thought of. Life is unpredictable. All you can do is act within the constraints of your conscience and ability, given the options available to you at the time you have to act.
on preview: nick russell and others clearly know things I don't! (listen to them)
posted by cotton dress sock at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The way I see it, there are two ways you can help save the world.
a) be on the frontlines, work for Greenpeace.
b) take a better-paying job and help fund the work organisations like Greenpeace do.
One isn't necessarily better or more valuable than the other. Me, personally, I care deeply about the welfare of disadvantaged minorities in India. I had two options. Stay and do advocacy work I wasn't qualified for and paid peanuts at best... or get out, go to graduate school in a completely different field, and donate generously to organisations back home who DO know what the hell they're doing. My money will do more good than I as an individual will.
posted by Tamanna at 7:21 PM on February 9, 2016
a) be on the frontlines, work for Greenpeace.
b) take a better-paying job and help fund the work organisations like Greenpeace do.
One isn't necessarily better or more valuable than the other. Me, personally, I care deeply about the welfare of disadvantaged minorities in India. I had two options. Stay and do advocacy work I wasn't qualified for and paid peanuts at best... or get out, go to graduate school in a completely different field, and donate generously to organisations back home who DO know what the hell they're doing. My money will do more good than I as an individual will.
posted by Tamanna at 7:21 PM on February 9, 2016
Greenpeace? The Greenpeace that inadvertently defaced some of the Nazca lines?
I realize that may just have been an example, but you can do better, and I don't think they hire compliance specialists, possibly because they're not industrial polluters. I understand you probably can do a lot of other things, but companies and hiring manager types can be remarkably obtuse about this sort of thing.
However, there is a call for environmental compliance at places like dairy farms, and academic institutions. A compliance specialist at my old company spent most of his time working with universities. Pretty sure there's nothing ethically wrong about that. I know another compliance specialist who spent a lot of time working for an airline. Air travel's going to happen, so it's better that he helps them pollute less into the air as he can.
I know everybody loves them some charities and nonprofits, but there are plenty of other ways to help out that don't involve charities and nonprofits. For example, let's say you did do compliance work for that company. Couldn't you be a hardass about making them comply fully? My time working in environmental remediation showed me how frequently companies are out of compliance, sometimes about something as simple as drums of waste staying longer at a site than they should be. Making them comply all the time could be doing a lot to help, as many people above me have suggested. If they refuse to comply, you can be a whistleblower. Or you can use this corporate experience to maybe eventually get a job working for the government, inspecting and forcing compliance.
You say you worked for them before? Were they unethical then? How so? Companies tend to do the minimum required by law because it's typically expensive to do more.
As a consultant, some of my clients included a big oil company, a former telecom, a pharmaceuticals company, and a defense systems manufacturer. Half the sites I worked on weren't even their original problem, but part of another company they bought. I felt just fine about it. Why? Because regardless of who I was working for, I was contracted to clean up the mess. Regardless of who paid and why, it was still a good result, and the oil company client was the worst to work for, but I derived pleasure from the fact that they were forced to clean up a mess. They didn't want to pay my company to do anything, but they were stuck with it. Not the worst possible outcome.
Bad companies can be forced by law to do better things, or at least to mitigate the worst of their offenses.
Corporate america is miserable to work for, almost certainly worse if you're a woman. But that's a completely different issue you weren't asking about. If that's also a problem, raise hell, demand better pay, and give your managers a hard time if they're unreasonable.
posted by Strudel at 8:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I realize that may just have been an example, but you can do better, and I don't think they hire compliance specialists, possibly because they're not industrial polluters. I understand you probably can do a lot of other things, but companies and hiring manager types can be remarkably obtuse about this sort of thing.
However, there is a call for environmental compliance at places like dairy farms, and academic institutions. A compliance specialist at my old company spent most of his time working with universities. Pretty sure there's nothing ethically wrong about that. I know another compliance specialist who spent a lot of time working for an airline. Air travel's going to happen, so it's better that he helps them pollute less into the air as he can.
I know everybody loves them some charities and nonprofits, but there are plenty of other ways to help out that don't involve charities and nonprofits. For example, let's say you did do compliance work for that company. Couldn't you be a hardass about making them comply fully? My time working in environmental remediation showed me how frequently companies are out of compliance, sometimes about something as simple as drums of waste staying longer at a site than they should be. Making them comply all the time could be doing a lot to help, as many people above me have suggested. If they refuse to comply, you can be a whistleblower. Or you can use this corporate experience to maybe eventually get a job working for the government, inspecting and forcing compliance.
You say you worked for them before? Were they unethical then? How so? Companies tend to do the minimum required by law because it's typically expensive to do more.
As a consultant, some of my clients included a big oil company, a former telecom, a pharmaceuticals company, and a defense systems manufacturer. Half the sites I worked on weren't even their original problem, but part of another company they bought. I felt just fine about it. Why? Because regardless of who I was working for, I was contracted to clean up the mess. Regardless of who paid and why, it was still a good result, and the oil company client was the worst to work for, but I derived pleasure from the fact that they were forced to clean up a mess. They didn't want to pay my company to do anything, but they were stuck with it. Not the worst possible outcome.
Bad companies can be forced by law to do better things, or at least to mitigate the worst of their offenses.
Corporate america is miserable to work for, almost certainly worse if you're a woman. But that's a completely different issue you weren't asking about. If that's also a problem, raise hell, demand better pay, and give your managers a hard time if they're unreasonable.
posted by Strudel at 8:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I say take it. Getting a new job is a lot easier when you currently have a job, and you've already got a year's gap on your resume, which doesn't look great is going to keep looking worse the longer it lasts (and I say this as someone currently in that particular boat). Gain some experience, save some money, and in 6 months or a year or whatever get serious again about finding that dream job - you'll be in a much better place to get it.
posted by naoko at 4:36 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by naoko at 4:36 PM on February 10, 2016
This job exists. May I tell you how VERY much I prefer that someone with your mindset be in it, rather than another candidate eager to seek out every loophole at the expense of the environment? Go for it. Nthing the advice above: learn, work from within, donate to the causes you support.
But also: check in with yourself from time to time. Being deep within the corporate world, and adrift there socially among the conflicting ideologies, can make people lose track of their own values. It's insidious. Make an effort to cultivate like-minded friends, even if they're online relationships...a support group of sorts. Now would be an EXCELLENT time to start a journal for yourself, including a current mission statement and summary of your beliefs on relevant topics. Revisit as needed, or annually as a minimum.
No advice on salary, but whatever you get, live below those means and save save save! I wish you all the very best.
posted by Nancy_LockIsLit_Palmer at 4:13 AM on February 11, 2016
But also: check in with yourself from time to time. Being deep within the corporate world, and adrift there socially among the conflicting ideologies, can make people lose track of their own values. It's insidious. Make an effort to cultivate like-minded friends, even if they're online relationships...a support group of sorts. Now would be an EXCELLENT time to start a journal for yourself, including a current mission statement and summary of your beliefs on relevant topics. Revisit as needed, or annually as a minimum.
No advice on salary, but whatever you get, live below those means and save save save! I wish you all the very best.
posted by Nancy_LockIsLit_Palmer at 4:13 AM on February 11, 2016
« Older How do I sort folks into groups based on their... | Lopsided GRE score and grad school apps: great... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
To deal with the salary question, you can wait for the offer to hit the table, review it and say "The total package doesn't come together the way I had hoped. Can we discuss a salary figure of $Y?"
posted by DarlingBri at 3:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [19 favorites]