If leaders and employees get the same salary, would you rather be a leader or an employee?

This is not a real problem, but the most real first reaction in my heart is to choose to be an employee, if the salary is really as much as the leader. Those, when you obviously have no idea, but you have to pretend to be confident, when you obviously don't like it but force yourself to socialize, when you obviously don't agree but you have to say something insincere. . . I really don't like it, and these "benefits" that come with the job are absolutely impossible to refuse.

If leaders and employees get the same salary, would you rather be a leader or an employee?

But is it really so? If the salary is as much as the leader, would I not envy those who get promoted? Thinking about it carefully, it’s not, I still yearn for a promotion in my heart—although every promotion brings new pressure, the moment I learned that I was promoted, I was really happy!

If leaders and employees get the same salary, would you rather be a leader or an employee?

What are the benefits of a leadership position? Except for wages.

Don't have to work? Are you high up? These may be seen and superficial by others, and what each person pursues is indeed different. But what the leadership role itself can give you is—the power to mobilize resources within your purview. For example, within the scope of your own tasks, you can determine priorities, determine the workflow and presentation methods; deploy or select people who match the tasks; allocate your own working time. . . and many more.

According to the level of your position, you will indeed have more resources that can be allocated, room for choice and freedom than ordinary employees. Personally, this is indeed what I like; and as your power to allocate resources increases, Of course, there will be more and more people who hope to exchange resources with you. The more initiative you are, the more people will take the initiative to please you, which is also what many people will like.

As for the pressure brought by leadership positions, in fact, even in the position of ordinary employees, they will also face various work pressures, and the bargaining chips that can be negotiated are not enough, and it is easier to feel frustrated. From this perspective, those pressures are nothing.

If leaders and employees get the same salary, would you rather be a leader or an employee?

So why do you sometimes wish you were an ordinary employee instead?

From my own experience, it should be the stress of encountering "Peter Heights" that makes me physically and mentally exhausted. This theory, called The Peter Principle, was derived from Peter's analysis of thousands of instances of incompetent failures in organizations. Its specific content is: "In a hierarchical system, each employee tends to rise to a position where he is incompetent".

So yeah, there are benefits to being a leader, but it's not for everyone, and you can't fit in any leadership position.

How to do it?

The first step, if you are just an ordinary employee, unless you are engaged in some really irreplaceable scientific research tasks, I would recommend that you work hard to improve yourself in the initial stage of your career, and enter the grassroots management position in the shortest possible time.

This step is actually relatively simple. There are two main technical points: one is to do well in your own work, and you can actively summarize and help others improve; the other is to maintain the stability of your work, especially in the comparison of job turnover rates. In a high place, sticking to a position is also a way to improve the chance of promotion (all kinds of relationships are not discussed here, because for us ordinary people, this one is useless to us).

Even if the salary is the same, or only a little more than that of ordinary employees, I also suggest that you try your best if you have the conditions, and at least give yourself a chance to try, because the space of ordinary employees is too small, and it is more to follow the process and rules. Even from the perspective of business skills, the improvement that can be achieved is not large.

The second step, if you are already a grass-roots or middle-level manager, you should see what is more suitable for you at this time. If you are not good at management convenience, it is better to plan your own direction early, such as taking the technical route and training route. These are not leaders in the general sense, but there will be room for advancement in the ranks. However, these all require a relatively solid foundation, and it is easier to achieve this career goal by planning ahead and accumulating early.

Final tip: This is indeed not a realistic problem. Generally speaking, employees and leaders do not have the same salary. However, if you see this problem, your first reaction is the same as mine, and you are more inclined to be an employee; then, it is very likely that you really It is not suitable to take the management path. You may pay more attention to things and prefer to study the rules. Even if you like to deal with people, you want to help others instead of commanding and controlling others. It is better to plan your own career path, there is no need to really go It will actually be very difficult to rise to a position where Peter is incompetent.