Would You Accept a Promotion That Leads to Very High Stress?

[brainstormer]

Don't give an ideal answer. Select the option you'd most likely go for, in real life.

And feel free to elaborate.

 

[FemMecha]

I voted no, and have quit high stress jobs that have much higher status and kind of higher pay than what I do now, and haven't applied for high stress jobs. When I work those, I feel nauseated, have headaches, get dizzy, and sometimes pass out.

 

[Hitoshi-San]

I said no b/c how am I gonna be able to enjoy the benefits of it if I'm just so stressed all the time that maybe I can barely even function?

 

[Taibreah]

No. I wouldn't be able to function in a high stress job to begin with.

 

[Yama]

No. I can barely handle normal amounts of stress.

 

[Falcarius]

[MENTION=33040]brainstormer[/MENTION]

It depends what is meant by 'very high stress'; is the OP talking about more stressful than the original job or stressful which is likely to make one ill.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Nope. I (partially) measure my success in life by how much stress and, er, responsibility I am able to avoid .

I am a person who wants to enjoy the process....so if the end goal is great but the process is miserable, then no thanks. And money and status aren't really that great if spoiled by stress (and they can even bring their own stress that offsets their benefits.... "mo' money, mo' problems").

I don't believe it is virtuous to work yourself to the bone. A lot of cultures hold that work ethic in high regard, but I question if it's truly ethical or merely propaganda for the benefit of higher-ups (i.e. they get a lot of relatively cheap work horses who feel "paid" in their pride over a concept). I would ask myself if my needs are being met as-is....and if not, is this the only way to meet them? I look for the sweet spot of maximizing my needs and minimizing my stress/efforts. If that spot is nowhere to be found, then I do what I need to in order to meet actual needs. But rarely, unless you get tunnel vision, is that spot nowhere to be found or at least nowhere on the horizon.

 

[Blacksheep2017]

I wish I could say "no" but the flatter from being offered, the inability to feel like I'm letting others down and the pressure I put on myself to "succeed" would send me into the position. I deal with stress and anxiety all the time anyway, so if the money was right, why not?

 

[ceecee]

It depends. I wouldn't shy away from a high stress job simply because it's high stress. It would have to have a bigger purpose or meaning to me. It wouldn't be due to not wanting to let people down or because some internal pressure to succeed - it would have to have a return on investment to me - not necessarily financial.

 

[Abendrot]

Yes without question.

 

[Kierva]

Nope. I (partially) measure my success in life by how much stress and, er, responsibility I am able to avoid .

I am a person who wants to enjoy the process....so if the end goal is great but the process is miserable, then no thanks. And money and status aren't really that great if spoiled by stress (and they can even bring their own stress that offsets their benefits.... "mo' money, mo' problems").

I don't believe it is virtuous to work yourself to the bone. A lot of cultures hold that work ethic in high regard, but I question if it's truly ethical or merely propaganda for the benefit of higher-ups (i.e. they get a lot of relatively cheap work horses who feel "paid" in their pride over a concept). I would ask myself if my needs are being met as-is....and if not, is this the only way to meet them? I look for the sweet spot of maximizing my needs and minimizing my stress/efforts. If that spot is nowhere to be found, then I do what I need to in order to meet actual needs. But rarely, unless you get tunnel vision, is that spot nowhere to be found or at least nowhere on the horizon.

You get it! There is more to life than working your ass off.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I already did. My field is often considered one of the most stressful and it might be partly why my blood pressure is higher than it was when I was a lowly factory worker (although that was a trade off for more wear and tear on my body). However, I like not being completely broke as well. If I were single and without kids then I'd be happy to quit today, be a dishwasher or forklift driver and live in a simple one-bedroom apartment with my music gear. Family is expensive, men should think long and hard before getting high on the dream of romance and family, it involves a lot of self-sacrifice that rarely goes acknowledged. I wouldn't take another promotion because my supervisor looks miserable.

 

[miss fortune]

already did take a promotion with a significantly higher stress level than my previous job... and the benefits are the same as I previously had and it wasn't that much of a raise (though I was at the highest level of pay for my previous role), but the status got a definite boost and it much more easily clears the way for further promotions

like [MENTION=19700]Anaximander[/MENTION] said... less wear and tear on the body... the physical stresses were getting to be too much

 

[Poki]

I tend to remove stress because I refuse to sit in it. So yes and if I cannot fix the stress disaster I will part ways.

I had an upper that labeled me her cabana boy because she knew if I was working on problem she could relax and let go. I do this to my life as well. I don't like stress, it's causes issues which creates more stress. Unhealthy circle.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I sip martinis and make music in the evenings to help with the stress.

 

[FemMecha]

Nope. I (partially) measure my success in life by how much stress and, er, responsibility I am able to avoid .

I am a person who wants to enjoy the process....so if the end goal is great but the process is miserable, then no thanks. And money and status aren't really that great if spoiled by stress (and they can even bring their own stress that offsets their benefits.... "mo' money, mo' problems").

I don't believe it is virtuous to work yourself to the bone. A lot of cultures hold that work ethic in high regard, but I question if it's truly ethical or merely propaganda for the benefit of higher-ups (i.e. they get a lot of relatively cheap work horses who feel "paid" in their pride over a concept). I would ask myself if my needs are being met as-is....and if not, is this the only way to meet them? I look for the sweet spot of maximizing my needs and minimizing my stress/efforts. If that spot is nowhere to be found, then I do what I need to in order to meet actual needs. But rarely, unless you get tunnel vision, is that spot nowhere to be found or at least nowhere on the horizon.

This is a wonderful post, and I do think that part of the problem with working your fingers to the bone is that there is no time for mental reflection on life and oneself. There is constant menial distraction that makes it impossible to really think.

It charmed me a bit when a friend of mine was saying that a big problem in the world is that people keep doing "stuff", and if people would just sit quietly and quit doing, that there would be much less suffering in the world. We've all heard the old saying "idle hands are the devil's playground", but it is interesting to consider the opposite is true. I do think that a lot of ambition does cause suffering because it is based on ego and domination - even wars require that ambition. If all the harmful people in the world were just a bit more lazy, they couldn't act out their harm, and they might even have time to reconsider their need to control and dominate in the first place. Even the people who ambitiously do helpful things are often acting directly against those ambitiously doing harmful things (except during natural disasters and other examples one could find, but still, there is a point here to consider).

 

[EcK]

Depends. If it s stressful because i m likely to be murdered - no

 

[Cellmold]

No.

But I'm a weak and cowardly person if i go by my natural instincts (which i spend enormous amounts of energy resisting in order to live). So maybe I'd actually do the opposite just to spite my own patterns of behaviour. Or maybe since I seem to find every waking moment of living in a world of other people whose actions already dictate how much comfort I'm allowed to have, therefore I desire influence so as to tip the balance in my favour.

It's bizarre to me how most people (as part of a general populous) don't realise how much their existence depends upon the inconsiderate whims of a minority & i never needed a concept of a 1% in order to see this; it's blatantly obvious.

The unreasonable (though not always unethical or negative) push their way through by taking advantage of the social image fears of the rest of those around them. People are scared to be the one with responsibility because even if their behaviour sometimes contradicts this: they fucking care. Emotional disturbance is only a puzzling factor for the naturally emotionally distant, who cannot see outside the solipsism of their own lack of this issue

How can you fear something you have an absence of? This is not to be confused with a fear of the unknown, which is about lack of certainty and tied up with death as a driving force.
I've spent far too much of my life ignoring my natural emotions in order to 'push through' to some standard of success in work. But all it did was cripple me and drive me unconsciously towards my various failures. More than anything it increased the negative nihilism that brings no useful progress in one's thinking.

For all our brain plasticity, we have yet to collectively accept the powerful truth of causality. Some people were, and are, quite simply not born to succeed.

Or rather, they are not built for the kind of narrow, self-interested and specific form of success that is forced upon them through finance in order to survive.

So we get promotions that count as us succeeding at work.

But as a consequence we fail as human beings.

 

[Hiraeth]

Personally for me, I don't think I'd be able to handle it without going through a panic attack constantly. I'm a low stress kind of person and find my life more fulfilling when I keep it that way. However, if there's a lot of money offered and it's something that has to do with my ideal career, then I would reconsider and think about it. It also depends on how high stress it is. My father for instance took the opportunity when it came because of the higher pay and perks, but his mental and physical health inmensely declined due to the large amount of stress involved. The three people before him who had his position each died from cardiac arrest while on the job. I'm happy my father was smart enough to leave before the the heart attack "curse" came for him, but he stayed at that job for four year before he caved in. I know for certain I wouldn't have lasted that long. All in all, it may be fine at first, but I think the pressure and stress at some point would eventually get to a person if it is a lot to handle.

 

[citizen cane]

It depends on how much more stress the position would entail, as well as the money:stress level ratio.