Sometimes, to pass time in traffic or have a laugh in a restaurant while waiting for our appetizers, my husband and I will play, "Would you rather?"
It’s innocent and simple enough — just asking one another questions that start with "Would you rather …" (Would you rather live on the beach or in the mountains? Would you rather have $1 million or an extra 10 years to live?), then giggle and chat over our responses.
I thought of that today as I read a post in the Wall Street Journal’s "Juggle" column, dedicated to the struggles and successes of balancing work and family.
In the post, a reader was debating whether to take a new job that would offer her more flexibility but wouldn’t be very interesting, or stay in her current job, which was stimulating but not flexible.
I asked myself: Would you rather have a job that was flexible but boring, or interesting but rigid? Thankfully, as the Editor of EBN, I get the best of both worlds — this job is both flexible and interesting.
But if I absolutely had to choose, I would pick a flexible boring job every day of the week and twice on Sunday. As the mom of two little ones, being able to drop everything, rearrange everything, reschedule everything to be there for them is a top priority.
For example, as I was working from home today, I received a call from my daughter Mia’s teacher. Mia’s eye was red, puffy and drippy — classic call signs for pink eye. Pink eye at school is a no-go, so I picked her up, brought her home, and as I type this she’s settled on the couch with her brother doing puzzles on their iPad.
I was able to rearrange my work schedule and tasks (thus, why today’s post is later than usual) to tend to my sick little one, but still be present and available for both.
I’ll likely be working later this evening, but it’s a small price to pay — a fee I wouldn’t be able to negotiate if I had a fascinating but inflexible job.
So, your turn to play: Would you rather have a job that was flexible but boring, or stimulating but rigid? Share your thoughts in the comments.
