I've had an idea for a while that (for those at the top of their field, and have their pick of the litter so to speak as to who their employer will be) generally speaking salary only does so much for you when looking at the package a potential employer offers. Would it be a safe assumption that, generally speaking, those at the top of their field not only want to get paid what they're worth (or more), but want the whole package, whether that is a guarantee to work on projects that interest them, or carte blanche in terms of your ability to choose how you spend your time.
Would such folks ever consider taking lower pay to work for what you'd consider to be a "socially conscientious" employer?
The reason for this question is I've wanted to begin compiling data that would make it easier for those at the top of their field to make the more "socially conscientious" decision about who writes their paycheck. And even in the rare case persuade those at the top of their field to pursue employment with the more "socially conscientious" company. The analysis (as to who is more worth) of course comes in many forms and would be interpreted in many different ways, so I envision more of a repository where a person would go to get the raw data in an organized / accessible fashion, instead of that data being hidden behind a "5-star rating" for example.
The hypothesis I'm considering here is that empowering people to make the right decisions about who employs them has the potential to (over time) help to ensure that those companies who have the best track records as being socially conscientious could end up being market leaders and not just an after thought within the markets that they serve.
Would such folks ever consider taking lower pay to work for what you'd consider to be a "socially conscientious" employer?
The reason for this question is I've wanted to begin compiling data that would make it easier for those at the top of their field to make the more "socially conscientious" decision about who writes their paycheck. And even in the rare case persuade those at the top of their field to pursue employment with the more "socially conscientious" company. The analysis (as to who is more worth) of course comes in many forms and would be interpreted in many different ways, so I envision more of a repository where a person would go to get the raw data in an organized / accessible fashion, instead of that data being hidden behind a "5-star rating" for example.
The hypothesis I'm considering here is that empowering people to make the right decisions about who employs them has the potential to (over time) help to ensure that those companies who have the best track records as being socially conscientious could end up being market leaders and not just an after thought within the markets that they serve.