“Have to” vs. “Get to” Jobs
In our company meeting last week, we talked about what makes a job a “have to” versus a “get to” type of job.
This thought struck a chord for me. Most of the jobs I’ve had in the past have been the “get to” type of job. When I came in for the day, I was happy and excited to be there. I looked forward to going to work, seeing my co-workers and I enjoyed the challenges the job offered. This is a great feeling, and if you’ve had the opportunity to be in the same place, then you know what I mean.
I liked the jobs when I started; I chose to accept the job offers. Then why are these jobs part of my past?
The reason is, because at some point, these jobs shifted from a “get to” job, to a “have to” job. I have to go to work, I have to deal with my co-workers, and the challenges I once loved so much turned into unnecessary fights I have to face.
The turning point may be different for everyone; for me, it was when the policies changed to limit the amount of projects I was working on at one time. I went from a happy six projects at once down to three. Even when I was at a standstill in one or all three, I was unable to start another. Often, at the busiest time of the year, I found myself with nothing to do, which affected my earning capabilities.
So again, I ask, when do jobs turn from a “get to” job to a “have to” job, and what makes that change happen? Maybe the more important question to ask is what can we do to keep this shift from happening to us? Is it the employee’s responsibility alone, or does the employer have any responsibility?
I’d like to hear your thoughts.
