After the age of 30, you should avoid working in a big company.
Editor’s note: This article is from WeChat public account “People and God” (ID: tongyipaocha), author People and gods work together.
01. “35-year-old phenomenon” and occupational risk
I wrote an article about “The problems I encountered in my 30s, the answer is 20”. I didn’t expect to blow up a bunch of readers around 35 years old and mention the classic. Question: How to face the “35-year-old phenomenon”?
Most of the company’s recruitment of positions below the middle level, the Metropolitan has the “age under 35” requirement, people feel that 35 years old, suddenly depreciated in the human resources market.
Someone said, then I haven’t changed jobs after 30, and I’m not in the original company’s security. But this kind of idea has been seen through, and it has led to the phenomenon that “the 90/95 can only be boasted after 90/95, and it is easy to squat after 70/80”.
In fact, as far as I know, the recruitment requirement of “under 35 years old” is not necessarily effective in the real world. After all, recruiting people must first recruit people who can use them. It is the imbalance of the workplace mentality caused by the “35-year-old phenomenon” mentioned later, which has a greater impact on you.
To solve the “35-year-old phenomenon” problem, you must first understand what is called “occupational risk.” First, please make a judgment. The following two working conditions, which one do you think is less risky:
A: After working in a big company for ten years, the company’s business is very stable, the work is very convenient, the relationship between the colleagues is very harmonious, the salary is not high, but there is nothing dissatisfied;
B, freelance, income fluctuations, there are some basic old customers, but need to constantly find ways to expand new customers
It is estimated that most people think it is A, because B gives people a feeling of leisure, it is really reassuring. For example, last week I said in my article that I am now “professional writing and semi-professional investment”, and readers feel that the risk is great:
In fact, most ordinary people can’t really understand the meaning of “risk”. This is the view in the book “Anti-Vulnerability”. Many people may have heard of this book, author Nassim Nicholas Tal. Cloth, to blackThe books such as Swan and Random Strolling are famous, and Anti-fragility is a collection of reasons behind his summary of the “randomness” and “black swan phenomenon”.
02.Anti-fragile: attack with poison
What is “anti-fragility”? Three states are proposed in the book Anti-Vulnerability:
Vulnerable state: The glass is very hard, but it falls to the ground and is easily broken;
Strong state: The plastic cup is easily deformed, but it falls to the ground and is generally intact;
Anti-fragile state: Imagine a cup made of a material that turns into two small cups when it falls to the ground.
Simply, the ability to resist external risks is called “tough structure”; the ability to profit from external risks is what the author calls “anti-fragile structures”.
Why is the plastic cup more resistant to falling than the glass? Not because it is stronger, it can resist impact, but its material is elastic, it can use “fluctuation” to digest external impact; and those seemingly sturdy things will inevitably be destroyed when the risk exceeds its design tolerance. .
This logic is further extended. The author believes that the disorder, uncertainty, chaos, imbalance, and unpredictability of similar volatility, which we usually seem to be in a bad state, are often the most risk-responsive. Good means.
Continue with this logic and get “anti-vulnerability” – when “fluctuation” is cleverly designed, it can make us profit from risk.
For example, bacteria, as individuals, are vulnerable to antibiotics, but the sacrifice of a large number of individuals frees up space for individuals who are resistant to genetic mutations, allowing groups to continue, even stronger, this system is “Anti-fragile structure.”
For example, in the financial crisis of 2008, the giants such as Lehman Brothers, whose asset allocation was too single, were closed down, but Goldman Sachs, which made the product allocation more balanced, made a fortune in the crisis. Goldman’s “anti-fragile structure” was better. One.
Everyone wants to resist external risks by “enhancing physical fitness”, but there is always a “black swan event” that exceeds your risk resistance. There are always “random events” that will easily bypass your “Machino line of defense”. “Even if you can withstand this risk, hardship will only make you feel bad.”
The best way to deal with risk is to “attack with poison” and design an “anti-fragile structure” to expose yourself to risks, improve the “volatility” of your life, and use “volatility” to balance risks. Opportunity to take advantage of risk.
After a brief introduction to the basic concept of “anti-fragility”, let’s look back at the two previous work options:
A: I have been working in a big company for ten years. The business is very stable, the work is very smooth, the relationship between my colleagues and the subordinates is very harmonious, the salary is not high, but there is nothing dissatisfied;
B, freelance, income fluctuations,There are some basic old customers, but you need to find ways to expand new customers
In fact, the seemingly stable A is a “fragile structure,” and the seemingly unreliable B is a “strong state.”
It is worth analyzing why the work always gives the illusion of stability?
03.Anti-vulnerability at the expense of the individual
If you have worked for more than a decade, you should have experienced two major economic recessions in 2008 and 18 years, at least one industry depression, and several times the company’s own business crisis. And your fate usually has two kinds of results: Most people have survived after panic, but there is no direct loss except for the year-end award; while a small number of people are laid off for various reasons. , into the low point of career.
Think about it, is it like a glass falling from a high altitude, or intact, or a broken bone or a crack in the corner and can not be used.
And another type of free or semi-freelancer is different. I used to work with freelance designers when I was in the advertising industry. The “fluctuation” of their income is very big. Once the economy is not good, the income will decrease immediately. When the economy is too good, it will be too much because the business is too much. Give up part of the income.
But the volatility of this kind of work is precisely the best way to fight against the economic cycle. When the economy is too good, they will raise the charging standard, give up some difficult and low-profit businesses, and offer preferential deals to cooperative companies with more business. To increase the stability of the business;
When the economy is not good, they will lower their business standards and even find a job temporarily to tide over the difficulties. On the contrary, an unemployed person wants to start a freelance career from the beginning of the economic downturn. too much.
Think about it, is it like a plastic cup falling from a high altitude, relying on the elasticity of the material itself to avoid the fate of crushing.
Although the freelancer does not fully realize “anti-vulnerability”, after all, it is to get rid of the vulnerability and move toward a tough state.
Of course, some people will feel that being laid off is not a big deal. You should not pin your hopes on a company. As long as you are professional, you can always sell a good price in the human resources market. This is not a kind of ” “Strong state”?
Yes, this is precisely because the human resources market has “anti-vulnerability”, and it will always exist regardless of the economy. But everyone thinks about it, the market’s “anti-vulnerability” is fromWhere did you come?
The book Anti-Vulnerability has a vibrating view: “The system’s anti-fragility is achieved at the expense of the individual.”
How does a country survive the economic downturn? It is by dying a large number of uncompetitive enterprises and letting the companies that have survived reduce their competitors. The economic recession last year is terrible. I believe that a large number of enterprises have died. It is the sacrifice of these enterprises that can survive. Businesses live better.
The same is true of the “anti-vulnerability” of the “human resources market”: during the economic recession, the elimination of a group of uncompetitive people makes it easier for those who stay behind to find a job; when the economy is overheated, the batch is eliminated. Companies with high salaries make it easier for people who can afford high pay to find someone.
“Anti-vulnerability” sacrifices the interests of some of the most vulnerable people to improve the efficiency of the use of the living resources of the entire system. This is the essence of the “35-year-old phenomenon” because some industries that rely on age to gain advantages Occupation, when you are 35 years old, the vulnerability will increase greatly.
Not only “35 years old”, all the things that give you an edge have the risk of becoming “fragile”. For example, many technologies may be replaced overnight, giving you the advantage of ten years of hard work. For the big customers who have contributed most of your business, once you lose, you may never be able to stand up again; a fight against corruption is enough to turn the safest civil servant into the most vulnerable profession.
As a risk of “inevitable, but not necessarily happening”, the best response to the “35-year-old crisis” is to establish an “anti-fragile occupational structure” for yourself. You not only need to change from a glass to a plastic cup, but also There is the ability to profit from the risk event – after breaking it into two “anti-fragile cups.”
But before that, the hardest part is to give up all the inertia thinking about “stability”, for example – big companies are more stable.
04. How is a big company stable?
Before 30 years old, working in a large company helps to systematically establish working methods and accumulate business resources; but after 30 years old, you should avoid doing too long in large companies.
The first half is well understood, and the latter half is estimated to violate most people’s perceptions. Most people think that a large company is stable and has strong anti-risk ability. It should be the best safe haven to resist the “35-year-old phenomenon.”
But have you thought about it, why are big companies stable?