Re: OT: Support Documentation
- From: "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:30:17 +1200
On Sep 9, 1:55 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
In article <8es7kjFsh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK. Why would you work for such a company?[snip]
Absolutely.But why would you work for such a company?[snip}
Why would you work for such a company?[snip]
Why would you work for such a company?[snip}
So, I guess you'll be moving on soon? No? Got plans to change
things?... No? It's a living and it's handy to home...
Sure. I understand :-)
Dear Mr. Pete, I know you're just *delightfully engaged* with the Doc,
so I can cut you an inordinate amount of slack :-), but assuming your
question is not entirely rhetorical, allow me to answer "why would *I*
work for such a company?"
There have been an abundance of reasons for me, including -
1. To be close to an aging or ailing relative.
2. Because I like the co-workers.
3. Because I like and support the _business end_ of the organization,
which I feel good about because it is socially constructive.
4. Because the _application_ (the "business" of the business) is just
5. Because the pay is good.
6. Because it was in a City that I wanted to experience.
7. Because the scenery (wimmin) is good :-).
and probably what historically has been the most important or
frequently occurring reason for me,
8. Because I wasn't aware of these shortcomings when I signed on, but
because when I sign on I sign on to the FINISH THE JOB, and when I ask
myself, 'Can the job be FINISHED, and FINISHED SUCCESSFULLY despite
these shortcomings?', I get an Answer of 'Yes', so then I stick around
and FINISH the $#@!*^! job! Guess that's why I end up being a
'software cleaner' - with apologies to Harvey Keitel a la _Pulp
Fiction_ and _Point of No Return_ (my gawd, Brigette Fonda was such a
fox in that one...) :-)
But hey, that's just me. Maybe others have a much lower tolerance for
There are any number of reasons, and most of them are not related to
technical issues, that we find ourselves working where we do. And that
does not, and should not, deter us from trying to make the place a
little more bearable despite its shortcomings, rather than just
pulling up stakes in that quest for the 'nearly perfect development
And that's what I'm hearing from Alistair.
No matter, Pete, I still can't write quite as well as you do. That's
OK. I can write gud enuf to get my point across :-).
Your point is very well made, Ken.
Having knocked around the IT scene for a number of years, I am well aware
why people stay in jobs and much of what I wrote to Doc was rhetorical.
(Although I do believe that people should look for another job if they are
REALLY not happy with conditions.) It seems to me there are only three
1. Do something about the things that are wrong.
2. If you REALLY can't effect positive change, move on. This is not
petulance; it is because working in a place that is not satisfying is
represseing your own career (and personal) development.
3. If there are other un-work-related reasons why you need ot be there, then
shut up and get on with it. You're not going anywhere and whingeing about it
just increases the load for everybody.
Usually, it is the management that determine the corporate culture and if
the management don't value the work force, then that is not a company you
would really want to be working for. Definitely not long term.
Successful employment is symbiotic; they help you achieve your goals (and it
isn't just about money) and you do the very best you can to see they stay in
business so they can keep on helping you achieve your goals as well as
I have worked in corporations that were well managed with a positive culture
where it was a pleasure to go to work, and I have worked in the other kind
There actually are very good companies around but it seems like we only hear
about sick ones here.
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."