In my post yesterday, "Is the Federal Government the Answer to Your Job Woes?," I shared some insights from Laurence Shatkin, a career information analyst and author who has a lot to say about why you should seriously consider employment with Uncle Sam.
Shatkin has even come up with a list of nine reasons why you might want to consider pursuing a federal government job rather than one in the private sector. Check out his list:
It really didn't occur to me after I spoke with Shatkin, but later, after I examined his list, something jumped out at me. All of the reasons Shatkin gives for why you should consider working for the federal government have to do with what's in it for you. Every single one. Even the final reason, that "Federal jobs can give you the satisfaction of serving the nation," is all about you and what you can be given.
Maybe it should be the other way around. Maybe service should be offered for the sake of the service itself, not for the sake of being given something in return. Maybe the best reason to work for the federal government is to serve our country, even if that service requires sacrifice. Maybe the right question to ask isn't whether the federal government is the answer to your job woes, but rather whether you can do a job that's the answer to the federal government's woes.
Is that Kennedyesque question outdated? What would happen if we all stopped asking, "What's in it for me?" and started asking, "What's in me that can benefit others?" Would we be in any worse shape than we're in now?