"To conquer others makes you strong;
to conquer yourself makes you fearless."
[Lao Tse]

Maybe I'm rationalizing, or maybe over the years I've finally learned that discretion is the better part of valor and that true happiness requires sacrificing one's ego. From my current perspective, it's difficult for me to judge, but history will do that for me in time, of course.

A few days ago my current employer closed its doors rather abruptly, leaving me unemployed. I'd already begun pursuing other opportunities, but just barely, and I had to scramble to find something quickly, anticipating that I'll likely not receive either my last payroll nor any severance. I have been very fortunate, and after a few days of lengthy interviews I have two serious options to consider. It's my intention to render my decision by end of day tomorrow (hopefully by lunch).

Both job offers entail essentially the same work, the same title, even near-identical salary and benefits, making the choice come down to "the intangibles": who I'd like to work with, what kind of work exactly I'd prefer to do, do I want an existing staff or try to build my own, and so on. And this leads me to an interesting philosophical (and pragmatic) decision, and that leads me to sitting in front of my laptop writing for the first time in ages. As I've often done in the past, my attempt to illustrate the situation here often also illuminates it in my own mind.

The crux of the dilemma is this: at one company, I know many people, while at the other, I know only one. At the larger where I know more people, most I like just fine (some, in fact, I'd be happy to work with again), but there is at least one with whom I do not particularly get along, and who is sure to make things difficult. I am a very diplomatic person, and I have strong interpersonal skills. I think I can say with honesty that I don't fear working with them, just that the thought leaves me unsettled. But then, maybe I'm just rationalizing. Working with strangers would also come with its share of trepidation, no doubt, but something said in an interview there struck a good chord in me: "there are no egos here".

Essentially, my inner conflict stems from the same dichotomy which most of my larger problems do: "east vs west". On the one hand, from a more Western approach, I should go with the larger company, immerse myself with a bigger crowd, and if necessary, "conquer" this person I fully expect to be adversarial. But maybe that's just my ego talking. On the other hand, from a more Eastern approach, perhaps I need to sacrifice my ego, take the easier path that has laid itself out before me, and "do not contend", knowing that my day-to-day stress level will no doubt be lower as a result.

I have little doubt how I'd have gone with this decision when I was younger. I'd have chosen the larger social circle, the bigger risks, and trouncing anyone in my path. Now I'm older, and more inclined to the latter, but is it cowardice or wisdom that brings me there? Perhaps more importantly, is this really the basis on which such a decision should even be made in the first place? Probably not. And perhaps I have it backward, and my desire to be the big dog on the block is what drives me toward the smaller company where I will have more discretion and power, and it's little more than the promise of a larger circle of friends that draws me to the larger.

At this point, only two things are for certain: first, that this won't be an easy decision to make tomorrow, and second, that long after it's passed, I will find myself wondering if I've made the right one.