TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I guess I have to disagree. In my experience, big/small seems irrelevant.
It's the company culture, ethics, and values that make the difference. Those
factors come from the people involved.
In my last job (as a tech writer), I worked for a small startup. They seemed
to be more interested in huge salaries for the "executive staff" than in
business direction and product quality. The managers all got fantastic bonuses
-- we worker-bees could never see why. However, at the company where I
currently work (another startup), the people are generous with their
interpersonal assistance and support. There is rarely any contention. People
work phenomenal numbers of hours, etc., etc. Yet, it's one of the best places
I've worked in the last 15 years (and I've worked 22 years at major
corporations, out of my 30 in the data processing industry).
Penn
- - -
DURL wrote:
> My experience duplicates Bruce's. Big companies are run by almost
> anything other than the good of the company; small companies are run for
> nothing else. Maybe it's because, in big companies, there is no
> ownership (no matter how many co. newsletters talk about it); and there is
> no way to stand back and see the big picture because
> it's *too* big. (Even if someone in sr mgmt wanted to, which I have no
> reason to believe is true.)
> Top mgmt in smaller companies actually care if the widgets work
> when they go out the door. While there may be exceptions to the "small
> co." rule, and wildly varying ideas of what "the good of the company"
> *is*, I really haven't seen anything to make me think that there is any
> exception to the "big companies" rule: they are run by people who are
> utterly
> indifferent to the company's success, quality of product or service, or
> anything remotely resembling a good greater/other than self.
> BTW, "big" here means at least a thousand people, hundreds of
> millions
> in sales, and multiple physical locations.
> Mary
> Mary Durlak Erie Documentation Inc.
> East Aurora, New York (near Buffalo)
> durl -at- buffnet -dot- net
>
