I don't understand how these thoughts:
"I wasn’t sure at the time, but having had enough free time of late to ponder such questions, I think I’ve come to the conclusion that having a father who can pay for a top-notch education outweighs the disadvantage of being raised by a hypocrite. Sticking with the job for the sake of a paycheck passes the children test."
. . . resonate with the final part of the opinion article:
"As hard as it was to decide whether or not to stay at my job, it was easy to pass up the hush money. Mistake or not, my future hypothetical children deserved to hear their father’s story, and $16,000 did not seem like a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. After rejecting the offer, I enjoyed a full night’s rest."
So doing the right thing when it only cost him $16,000 was okay, but it was not worth it if he had to sacrifice a top-notch education for potential future kids?
For a start, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows BCG aren't invoking the non-disparagement clause for telling his kids "yeah, management consulting is a big con and I never really knew what I was doing" or anything else even their actual clients have heard a million times before.
Maybe someone could put together a PowerPoint with the benefits of having an $16k extra in annual revenue and then he'd get it.
. . . resonate with the final part of the opinion article: "As hard as it was to decide whether or not to stay at my job, it was easy to pass up the hush money. Mistake or not, my future hypothetical children deserved to hear their father’s story, and $16,000 did not seem like a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. After rejecting the offer, I enjoyed a full night’s rest."
So doing the right thing when it only cost him $16,000 was okay, but it was not worth it if he had to sacrifice a top-notch education for potential future kids?