Employee, civil servant, boss or shareholder?

Four statuses and above all four ways of living. Whether we are employees, civil servants, bosses or shareholders, our way of understanding the world varies considerably. The concerns of some of these roles may indeed seem trivial to others. Let us see in a synthetic manner what are the advantages and disadvantages of each. Of course, this typology is somewhat arbitrary, as these roles can differ quite significantly depending on the regions, professions and sectors of activity. In addition, some people combine several of these statuses at the same time.

To differentiate these four roles, I will rely on theMaslov's pyramid of needs, already used in This itemAs a reminder, this details the hierarchy of the different needs of human beings, starting with survival, followed by security, belonging, esteem and finally self-realization.

The classification used below is based only on general considerations, without validation by empirical data. As already mentioned at the beginning of the article, these four statuses can vary considerably depending on the circumstances. The scores range from 1 (the worst) to 5 (the best). Each of Maslov's needs is detailed by three to four criteria.

From the point of view of basic survival needs, it is the shareholder who comes out on top, being covered by a normally sufficient income (but which can vary depending on his wealth and investments). The shareholder especially benefits from much more rest (holidays, free time, less restrictive hours) than other statuses, which also explains why he is subject to less stress (unless his investments are precarious and not very diversified). The civil servant is not too badly placed, with a fair amount of rest time and little stress. The boss can rely on a good income, but to the detriment of a very heavy workload and a lot of pressure. Finally, the employee brings up the rear, with significant stress, which is not compensated for by either rest time or a good income.

From the point of view of security needs, the situation is almost similar. The shareholder comes out the winner, with almost all the criteria in the green. He is above the norm for the growth of his income, wealth and stability of his job. On the other hand, he is well below the point of view of social support, which is somewhat normal all the same... The boss is in the same boat for the growth of his income and his wealth, on the other hand his job is clearly less stable since he can go bankrupt or be thanked by the shareholders. He benefits from a little more support from society than the shareholder, but it remains very modest. The civil servant, for his part, benefits from strong social support and job stability, but on the other hand from less wealth and sluggish income growth. The employee once again comes at the back of the pack, also with stagnant income, modest assets, average social support and to top it all off, precarious job stability.

As for filling the belonging needs, the situation is a little different. The boss comes first, with a high social status, communication exchanges also very present, but nevertheless also a somewhat weak social bond, with the famous solitude of the boss. Civil servants and employees are on an equal footing, with a strong social bond, average communication but a lower social status. Finally, the shareholder comes in last, with the three criteria poorly provided, in particular the social bond.

For the satisfaction of recognition needs, The employee and the boss come first. The usefulness of the work of the former earns him the esteem of society, but he enjoys very little power. On the contrary, the boss has a great influence on society, his work is also recognized as useful, because it provides jobs, but he is hardly esteemed by the lower social classes, especially in France. The civil servant comes in 3rd position, with very little power, a work that is considered of little use and average social recognition. The shareholder brings up the rear, with a usefulness considered insignificant, a zero esteem of society (especially since 2008) and a power that is quite weak, because dissolved among the mass of shareholders. Only the large majority shareholders benefit from real influence.

Regarding the self-realization, shareholders and bosses clearly come out ahead of employees and civil servants. The first two benefit from a large degree of autonomy, the ability to co-decide and can flourish in their daily lives, unlike the two dependent activities.

Overall, we have two distinct entities, the "decision-makers" (bosses and shareholders), who come far ahead of employees and civil servants. bosses are quite good in all areas, with a small downside in terms of quality of life (lack of rest time and stress). shareholders have needs that are more than satisfied in terms of survival, security and self-realization, on the other hand they have many problems in terms of belonging to a group and the social recognition that often goes hand in hand. civil servants have needs that are generally moderately satisfied. It's not too bad in terms of survival, security, social belonging, but a little less well in terms of social recognition and self-realization. For the employees Finally, it is quite mediocre in everything, except in terms of the esteem that society has for them, notably thanks to the usefulness of their work.

In short, there is no miracle status., who would see all his needs met. Nevertheless, even if there are gray areas, it is better to be a boss or shareholder, than a civil servant or employee. But you already knew that.