Good/Bad, To Avoid, and Etiquette

[Maury <alsacien -at- IBM -dot- NET>]

Ms. Paula Puffer addressed an important issue in the discussions about
agencies to avoid and the lists of good/bad companies, perhaps THE issue
that has made many lists hesitant to become involved in such a task. It is
one thing to report irregularities, another to use a public forum for a
personal vendetta. The amount of policing that is needed to keep a list
free of wanton bashing is considerable, which is why most lists are very,
very hesitant -- and with good reason.

I wouldn't use the words "rude, obnoxious, and really has no place in the
business of Technical Communication" to relate to the topic because the
issue is definitely NOT one of etiquette, but it is one that concerns many
technical communicators directly. This problem is intensified by the fact
that the role of the technical communicator is a bit like gelatin: it
assumes the shape of its container, even if it has its own personality.

As a technical communicator, I've dealt in:

* Information engineering
* Interface designing
* Proofreading
* Production management
* Spell-checking
* Desktop publishing
* Translation
* Editing
* Original writing
* Advertising
* Web designing
* Instruction and training
* Establishing departmental standards
* Preparing and displaying presentations

and on and on and on. I don't mind doing all these things and then more,
but when I'm asked to do these things by a manager, I don't appreciate it
when later it comes back to me that I'm not doing my job, that I'm dealing
in tons of extra projects, and that I have to remember why I've been
brought onto the job, when I was complying with a request from the person
who hired me! If a company says that it wants me to manage a project
according to guidelines and I don't do it, then the company has a
legitimate complaint, but if I do comply, meet all the deadlines, and the
people who receive the work are happy with it, I don't like hearing later
that I did other things that weren't related when I was asked by the
managers to do so. Basically, what it boils down to is good will; companies
who want to get work done for free play this trick often, but companies who
are looking for a person to assume responsibility and to do the job won't.

In the words of Ms. Puffer, my experiences with company ABC are relevant
ONLY IF someone asks me directly about them and I would make it PERFECTLY
clear that these are my perceptions of how things worked. However, while I
can only represent myself, I know the feeling of walking into a trap and
then having others stand on the side and laugh that I was the fool who
didn't know that I was dealing with the biggest con artist in hi-techdom.
The fact that I didn't have insider information costs me my livelihood AND
reduces my standing in the professional community when I acted innocently;
that, I think, is what is rude and obnoxious, and it DOES happen.

Ms. Puffer says, "If I were a hiring manager, I would be scared to post
anything on this list.  I would be afraid that 1) my writing would be
ripped apart, and 2) my company would be discussed in a negative light."
With respect, I don't agree at all. I don't see TECHWR-L as a negative
organization at all. In fact, I think it is a very positive statement for
technical communications as a profession. I've benefitted from it
enormously. If a hiring manager posts on the list, I'd approach him/her as
I would any other company: with the basic understanding that just as I'm
being interviewed, I'm interviewing as well. Success stories have to have
two satisfied parties, and the candidate who isn't interviewing his/her
prospective employer to the same extent that the employer is interviewing
him/her is a fool who needs to be brought back to reality quickly. Call it
"proactive interviewing," if you will, and sometimes hiring managers are a
bit startled when I offer to spend a day or so on site to do my own
investigation of a prospective place of work, but I don't think it's such a
shocking thing; just as a company is investing in a new employee in the
hopes of having a success, the employee is also investing in a new job and
wants the success, and there's really no conflict of interests here.

Ms. Puffer notes that "the number of job postings on this list have
decreased over the last few months, and I am beginning to wonder if the
constant haranguing that happens when one is posted is not the reason why!"
I've also noticed it, and I'm saddened by it. On the other hand, there is
such a thing as sense and sensibility. A company that shies away from the
list would make me suspicious for sure. A company that comes forward to
speak on its own behalf doesn't; I'm given an opportunity to judge for
myself and reach my own conclusions. I think that most of us would tend
towards companies that make themselves visible rather than go to some
back-alley operation with three staff members and a cat that claim to offer
a writer the world on a plate.

I do hope Ms. Puffer does not unsubscribe to techwr-l, because I feel that
she exerts a positive influence on the list. Also, I was glad that Mr. Squire
addressed the list for the reasons that she stated. Of course, I have some
personal information on Mr. Squire and KTI that would debunk any hate mail
that he or KTI would get, so I'm in a privileged position, but even so, he
spoke up for his company, which, in my book, is already admirable.

Something I must say as well: every company, without exception, is going to
have disgruntled employees from time to time. That's only natural; there
isn't a match in every case. I've worked for companies that I hoped would
burn to the ground, but I have friends at these companies who are still
there and content. These companies weren't for me, but they suit them fine.
I think it's this aspect that concerns Ms. Puffer and many others who have
expressed concern over turning TECHWR-L into a gossip column about
employers. Again, it's back to the policing aspect. I know that if I was
forced to leave a company because of a dispute with a senior staff member,
it's my problem; if I'm forced to leave because the manager hates blonde
males, that's discrimination, and I'm compelled to speak up. YOU tell ME
where the line should be drawn.

No, I agree that TECHWR-L isn't the forum for this activity. It would take
a tremendous investment of human resources to manage such an activity
properly. I see it as a suggestion for some other forum, definitely not for
TECHWR-L. Perhaps it isn't possible, but it's been done in the past in
print, so there is a precedent.

- Maury

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html