interiors

#1 Over the years - yes I am a somewhat jaded older worker - the idea of being a good highly productive employee has really turned. I am still highly productive, creating quality software products for people, or leading people to positive outcomes, but I am much more aware that companies don't matter. Few corporations have a mission that is worth devoting one's energies to. They are just business entities that don't deserve our commitment. I am much more likely to ask, how good is that employer, and how good is that employer for me. After 25 years in the financial sector, I took a role with a major cancer center, and part of the reason behind that was its high rating as an employer. Compared to finance, which is harmful to our collective welfare, my new employer devotes resources to human development and provides a better quality of life, besides having a mission one does not feel ashamed about. Sadly, the US will never be a country concerned about human welfare - at ...

As part of the Damore-related article I responded and posted about , I later wrote responses to other posters in response to a NY Times article An Open Letter to James Damore by Debra Sterling . Additional responses are below: To someone criticizing, rightly, Damore's gender views... In Hofstede's cultural dimension models, the drive for status is part of the masculinity dimension, and it varies a great deal, with the Scandinavian societies on the low end, having equivalent gender expectations, as opposed to the more traditional societies like the US. Although one might find that such traits are heritable, it is obvious that culture has a large influence on social norms. Equally important, Damore does not realize that the men entering the profession have turned the industry toxic, e.g., high pressure, not that the industry was toxic and therefore drove women away, or that what he assumes is the profession is simply emblematic of life in corporate America. Several years...

I posted a comment in response to An Open Letter to James Damore by Debra Sterling , below: It doesn't get mentioned, but some of the same stereotypes that Damore claims make women ill-suited for technology, e.g., extroversion and emotional management, are the same traits that in some studies have been shown to make teams more productive. The concern about managing relationships, regardless of gender, has been shown to correlate with more effective team leaders. Extroversion in programmers has also been shown to correlate with team productivity. I'm sure there are findings that might contradict the above, but Damore seems to have a very narrow view of what makes one effective. Leadership, or at least getting to the top, in Damore's view, and in traditional masculine societies, might require a desire for dominance and a penchant for combativeness, but ideal styles of leadership typically require driving consensus, presenting a vision, social cohesion and charisma, obvious...

While I don't support wasting time and energy on worthless activities, I can't vouch for ever having found the recommendation to research to be of any value. I am definitely 'promiscuous' with recruiters, and not a believer in networking, although I have a fairly high profile in LinkedIn. Unlike most people that have a job that many people are qualified for, I am a niche contractor, not looking for permanent work. I work in a common language, or a set of tools, that few people specialize in, with a background at major corporations. When someone needs one of my specialties, I'll get calls and emails from 5 different recruiters. My specialization is also why I can never commit to one recruiter; when I need work, they don't have openings, but someone else does. And I have had repeat engagements from different clients, and with different recruiters. They find me jobs, take a percentage of the rate, and if the engagement is long-lasting, they barely have to milk the ...