In Retrospection...
Lots to write about. Have been able to read a lot ever since my last day at work. Quite a content feeling when you finish a book that you've wanted to in a long time. And then another. And hopefully another soon. More on the books later but first on my new 'freedom.'
I agree with Scott Adams (Dilbert creator and author "The Dilbert Principle" and "The Religion War" - both highly recommended) when he says one should not work at one place for more than two years. (I agree with most of Scott Adams advice on handling the IT-firm corporate culture. His "The Dilbert Principle" should infact be made compulsory reading for an engineer before he/she can graduate into the big bad life-force sucking corporate world).
Ofcourse it would be wrong to generalize and large organisations that take very good care of you and your furniture and your kids and their education still exist, but most of us prob'ly work in one of the smaller firms that provide some sort of service to these large organisations and are not as lucky. (or if you're really unlucky, in firms that provide services to firms that provide services to these organisations). Two years is more than enough in today's world of cutting-costs, smaller profits, long hours, (afternoon shifts,) not to mention increasing oil prices. Two years is enough to make you learn the tricks of the trade and move on. Maybe even if the experience is bad and you find out you're stuck in a rut, two years won't be a bad idea as it'll ensure the lessons learnt are not forgotten too soon.
Ofcourse it's good to be a little stingy and save as you work so that you CAN think about making that move after two years.
Another reason why a break from the job should be necessary is that it makes you think about it from the outside. While at work we may follow orders and go about our tasks blindly, its only when we are not attached to the job any more that we can take a critical view of it. The 'once-serving men-in-uniform' political analysts of today who are strong critics of govt. policies are a case in point. Another example is of the atomic scientists who were part of the Manhattan Project and later became strong opponents of the use of nuclear weapons.
Many people today climb the corporate ladder while being profesionally uninterrupted in their careers. While the society as a whole and their dependents and acquantainces takes pride in them as successful professionals, they merely are replacements of their former bosses. Very little change can be expected in work ethics, the work environment or other social factors involving the work environment in this way. To bring about real change one needs to be unconnected from the corporate world for some time to be able to think out of the box - to think about issues like the distribution (or trickling down) of earnings throughout the company. One also needs to think in the "larger view." More specifically: Where does the work an organisation does fit in the larger scheme of things?
I agree with Scott Adams (Dilbert creator and author "The Dilbert Principle" and "The Religion War" - both highly recommended) when he says one should not work at one place for more than two years. (I agree with most of Scott Adams advice on handling the IT-firm corporate culture. His "The Dilbert Principle" should infact be made compulsory reading for an engineer before he/she can graduate into the big bad life-force sucking corporate world).
Ofcourse it would be wrong to generalize and large organisations that take very good care of you and your furniture and your kids and their education still exist, but most of us prob'ly work in one of the smaller firms that provide some sort of service to these large organisations and are not as lucky. (or if you're really unlucky, in firms that provide services to firms that provide services to these organisations). Two years is more than enough in today's world of cutting-costs, smaller profits, long hours, (afternoon shifts,) not to mention increasing oil prices. Two years is enough to make you learn the tricks of the trade and move on. Maybe even if the experience is bad and you find out you're stuck in a rut, two years won't be a bad idea as it'll ensure the lessons learnt are not forgotten too soon.
Ofcourse it's good to be a little stingy and save as you work so that you CAN think about making that move after two years.
Another reason why a break from the job should be necessary is that it makes you think about it from the outside. While at work we may follow orders and go about our tasks blindly, its only when we are not attached to the job any more that we can take a critical view of it. The 'once-serving men-in-uniform' political analysts of today who are strong critics of govt. policies are a case in point. Another example is of the atomic scientists who were part of the Manhattan Project and later became strong opponents of the use of nuclear weapons.
Many people today climb the corporate ladder while being profesionally uninterrupted in their careers. While the society as a whole and their dependents and acquantainces takes pride in them as successful professionals, they merely are replacements of their former bosses. Very little change can be expected in work ethics, the work environment or other social factors involving the work environment in this way. To bring about real change one needs to be unconnected from the corporate world for some time to be able to think out of the box - to think about issues like the distribution (or trickling down) of earnings throughout the company. One also needs to think in the "larger view." More specifically: Where does the work an organisation does fit in the larger scheme of things?
posted by Omer at 10:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home