Slashdot Mirror
The Living Dilbert?
AirmanTux asks: "Next march I will be separating from the US Air Force, after six years wearing 'the uniform', working in the closest thing to IT that the military has. For certain reasons, I've come to the conclusion that I will be more effective in serving the US public out of uniform than in it. There seems to be a common belief that the civilian sector is just as disorganized and mismanaged as the uniformed services. Do you think this is true? Are there any 'honest' places to work any more (where promotions/awards are based on work preformed and bureaucracy, and politics aren't encouraged to supplant the 'mission), or has America become one big living Dilbert strip?"
did you try searching for a GS job at usajobs.com? I plan on getting a GS job when my enlistment is over. if you have a clearance try clearancejobs.com. hope that helps.
I work for a large organization, which as a result of it's size, has a sizeable ammount of beaurocratic BS. Perhaps I've been lucky, but I don't feel my management is as pathetic as portreryed in the strips...not even close. I think it helps to work for a company that takes IT seriously, as a genuine method for improving the business and not a dreaded tax to be paid like waste removal or maintenance. Unfortunately I have no insight as to how to determine this from the outside.
But, people are people. I might make a vague generalization about the personality types that join the military, but that probably won't be productive.
Blar.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Not really...there are places where performance and ability advance, but they are few and far between indeed, and primarily in small establishments. To most employers, employees are disposable commodity, a necessary evil that is to be pruned or removed at the earliest possible convenience. Management has become the science of keeping up appearances, with many managers being completely ignorant of the trade they are in, or the tasks of the workers they supposedly manage. Color me a pessimist, but the way I see it, Dilbert has gone from a sarcastic parody to a photorealistic portrait of the American workforce.
After 4 years in the Marines I was ready to get out to the "real" world... a world free of BS and well paying cool jobs. Well I got my degree in Comp Sci and was ready to face the world. Upon getting a job with a large corporation, I was amazed at the amount of BS there. It made the military look like an efficient & well-oiled machine. After 5.5 years now in the corporate world I ahve come to one conclusion... you alone can't make a damn difference. Either you will like it or you won't. I have finally realized that being my own boss is the way to go and thus I am pursuing that vigorously.
As for you my friend, take a walk through the corporate jungle and see if its your kinda thing. You can always do your own thing!
http://psychicfreaks.com/I value nothing more than being the master of my own destiny - which should explain why I live in the South Pacific and am more or less retired from corporate life at 42. Here, in a nutshell is the modus vivendi I've developed:
Any organisation beyond a certain size inevitably becomes pathological in its behaviour. It sometimes reverts to normalcy for periods of time, but it will swing, and you will swing with it. Avoid long term commercial commitments to any large organisation. Working with groups or individuals within them for finite terms is fine, and sometimes really enjoyable, though.
Find a niche where you can work with a number of trusted individuals (perhaps as a consultant or contractor) and either work for yourself or work in a small company of less than 50 staff. The material benefits won't be as easily accessible, but your life will be infinitely more enjoyable, because you'll actually have some control over it.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
But that can be avoided! If, instead of working at a large company, you seek out a small fledgling business to work at, you will find that the benefits are proportional to the results and not to politics. A small business, especially one with 20 employees at the most, cannot afford to play these political games. These businesses are usually owner-operated, and the owner cares about moving forward in life. That's why he is taking the tremendous risk and creating jobs for his employees. These organizations usually have one boss, around whom the whole business revolves. There might be one other manager, but usually, everyone runs around the boss asking questions and finding out what he wants them to do. This is the perfect business to work in, if you're a people-person. You go over there, and start at whatever level you can get. Since there aren't thousands of employees, the owner of the business will quickly see how you learn and operate. If you do a good job, you'll find yourself earning a lot of trust and capability in the company. Your opinions will be heard. And if you can be a team member, not just by doing your job, but by learning a bit about everyone's job, learning how the owner thinks, what he wants to accomplish, etc., you can take a lot of that pressure off the owner.
By doing all of this, you can help the business grow in terms of profit, which will make it grow into a larger company. Eventually, that means the office will become a Dilbert strip, or something out of Office Space. You'll have a Lumberg working under you a few levels down. But who cares? At this point, you will have helped the U.S. economy, you will have created jobs, you will have grown the company into something successful and long lasting, and you will be at a high position at the top, earning a high salary, and no doubt owning a good portion of the stock. You'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You can work at a Start-Up. In those types of jobs, there's not a lot of money to go around so there's no room to slack off. Thus, everyone around you should, in theory, be top quality. Your reward for long hours and lower pay is a lot of stock options... But if the company doesn't work out, all you're left with is toilet paper. (No, I'm not bitter, not at all)
Or you can work at Big Corporation. All of them are the same, with varying degrees of B.S. Some have very little office politics and your hard work is noted and rewarded. Others are just one big C.Y.A. environment. Even worse, even if you do work hard in your local I.T. area, upper management may decide to oursource your job, so you get screwed anyways.
Remember, the goal is not to work hard. The goal is to work smart. Put in a lot padding on your estimates so you can slack off and still meet the deadline. If your co-workers in other areas / departments ask you to do things for them, pretend you don't know so they won't bother you anymore. (After all, you only answer to your boss.) Be sure to take the credit when something works and pass the blame when it doesn't. Don't complain about new projects or moved up timelines. You'll still have to complete them anyways if you still want to keep your job. Instead, agree with management and discuss how much more revenue the company will make once the project is finished. It gives the impression you actually give a shit about your clients and you'll be remembered as the "can do" person instead of the "can't do" complainer. I do all of these and have steadily advanced in position & salary.
I happen to be in the Air National Guard currently and am well on my way to making it my career, though not in IT. I have my Master's Degree in Computer Science, and had the privledge of doing my research work with the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada. I can tell you with a great amount of certainty that the driving forces between government and public IT are worlds apart. In Air Force/Government IT, there is little motivation to strive to learn more skills. Pretty much anyone can enlist into a technical field and they're all put through the same relatively short, simple training. In my opinion, they're amateurs on an unjustified power trip. There is significantly higher motivation for learning new skills in the public sector because it will actually make a difference for the individual. When you become invaluable, your status and pay reflect that, generally, in the public sector. Definetly not so in government positions. I do completely agree that an individual with a strong desire to learn and expand skills and knowledge can be of immense use in the public sector. However it takes a supernatural kind of driving force to penetrate the mundane aura of government IT.
Stay away from state-run universities if you want to avoid the same sort of red-tape and bullshit you find working for Uncle Sam.
I'm working for a very wealthy private univesity and it's much better than the state one where I worked before. It's easier to get fired at a private place so do you work and obey the rules. If you like total job security despite the BS factor, you might enjoy working for the state--here in Texas, it took an act of God to get fired because the managers (at least where I worked) never kept enough of the right paper work to do the necessary documentation to terminate an employee.
However, universities have a bad habit of higher their own graduates and favoring them in promotions--they've never been anywhere else so changes come slow if not 10 years behind everyone else. The management types are usually not as sharp as the managers in the corporate world--mostly because they wouldn't survive out there so they're also playing the job security card.
There's also little upward mobility. But, in the right position, you're an 8-5, weekends off, extra week off between Xmas and New Years Day kind of cush job.
Oh, at the pay scale is usually lower than the corporate market bears--but you won't get laid off.
There's lots of trade-offs but you have to decide what you want.
Good luck--having "USMC" on my resume qualified me for prison guard, police work, or mall security. Hope USAF is more helpful to you.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
short answer: no
long answer: hell, no
In my experience, a small company is the best place to focus on the work at hand, rather than the overhead. It's also easier to get permission to do things, because there aren't as many people to have turf wars. Plus, at smaller companies, you'll see more of the mechanitions of real business decisions, rather than the fodder of low-competence managers and colleagues.
While I agree that focussing on an area that is somewhat related to the poster's military career is good advice, don't be fooled that IT security is less BS prone than any other area. Having done security for a Fortune 100 company for ten years, I can say emphatically that Dilbertesque moments abound. I've gone into meetings on my management's behalf and given the message I was told to give only to be censured afterwards because the other people in the meeting didn't like the message. I've been told by a man who received all his promotions from his uncle that political harmony is frequently more important than security ideals. I've had to spend MONTHS collecting data and statistics from external sources to convince a division that Internet email is not an appropriate delivery platform for mission critical communications that absolutely MUST be received, unaltered and unread, within 2 minutes of sending.
If you can make the intellectual leap that a paycheck is its own reward and that, as long as you are receiving one, it doesn't really matter much what the company does, then working in the private sector can be both rewarding and relaxing. If, on the other hand, you truly belive that you can make a difference and/or save the company from itself, then perhaps you ought to consider a career with a greater chance of success, such as carrying ice cubes on the palm of your hand across the Sahara before they melt.
At least in the military, "I was just following orders" is still a plausible excuse.
Dilbert can be classified as a form of observational comedy, similar to Seinfield. The reason why this is so funny is because it takes observations from real-life situations, and exaggerates them. Therefore, they aren't a 100% mirror reflection of reality, however they start off with a kernel of truth to them. They bring about a representation of the way we feel about situations, but just as New Yorkers aren't quite like portraied on Seinfield, the private IT sector isn't exactly like Dilbert either.
There is one place that is as honest as you
want it to be... working for yourself.
It's a shitty thing to say, because starting your
own business (or more realistically a partnership with
others you know) is not easy. Maybe you have to slog through
some soul crushing bullshit at a large corporate job to get the
money and contacts you need to do it.
But once you do it (success of failure), you will know what
it is to work for an honest organization where true merit counts.
Once you do, you never want to go back.
Having spent 5 years in the military myself and the last 18 years in the civilian sector, I can say with great confidence that the civilian sector in no way is anywhere near as disorganized and incompetent as the military. The military is another branch of the federal government. That means it falls to the same economic problems the government has. No accountability for output or productivity.
No competition in govt. means the quality of output is not compared to a competitor. There are no standards nor metrics that have any independant oversight. The result is obvious. Poeple in govt. tend to get lazy and do less and less for more and more pay because they can. What standards can they be compared to? Who holds them accountable? The govt. is too big to have any real accountability.
In the civilian sector you have to make money. Yeah there is plenty of fat/red tape/ incompetance in large corporations. But it doesn't last forever. Any company that gets fat, happy and lazy will eventually lose in the marketplace. Just look at any large tech company in the last 10 years to see what a difference competition makes. When was the last time the military or fed govt. laid off a _large_ portion of it's workforce because they stopped bringing in enough income? The last time I checked, the govt just borrows more and more money when income goes down. It'd be nice in the civilain sector if companies could just borrow their way out of financial woes but unfortunately the civlian sector has to budget and follow normal economics.
Therefore no waste, incompetance and lazy tenured people who are mean, lazy and disfunctional (been to get a drivers license lately? Imagine millions of poeple in one organization just like that. Now think of the fed. govt.).
Hopefully getting into the civilian sector is not too much of a shock since you will now have to justify your value by production and not by how much "time" you have put in (unless you go union - that has the same problems fed govt has).
My $.02.
-- Mean People Suck
> Are there any 'honest' places to work any more (where promotions/awards are based on work preformed and >bureaucracy, and politics aren't encouraged to supplant the 'mission),
The United States Military is many ways a highly inefficent organization in the micro, and lord knows it is filled with bureaucracy that is phenomonal. That said, one of the strong points of the military is the promotion structure.
I have worked at a lot of different jobs in the 17 years since I have been out of the military, from very small shops to enterprise situations, and have never seen anywhere that the promotion situation is as clear-cut as the military. The rules for promotion in the military are phenomonally well definied. There is no guessing and the need for promotion politicing is *by far* the lowest of any organization I have ever been in or even heard of.
It is also completely color and gender blind, which is getting to be the standard in the US, but sure isn't in every shop I have seen.
That said, to be fair to the poster, in the critera for promotion, work performed tends to come about the middle of the list of things that determine your promotion status. Military bearing (a catchall for how well you meet the basic military requirements for behavior and action) for example, is often at least if not more important than your actual job performance at the lower ranks (which the poster is if he served 6 years). But if you are joining the military in the first place, you pretty much know that unless you aren't too bright. At least I sure did.
I am not pushing the military here, nor disagreeing with the poster's basic tenent that the military can be a phenomonally frustrating work envrionment. My decision to get out was definitely the correct one for me and I haven't looked back. But once I got a good taste of civilian experience, the one thing that kept impressing me about the military was the promotion system. Of course, that said, I have gotten a *lot* further in civilian life than I ever would have in the military rank structure. I sucked with the military bearing stuff, but that wasn't the fault of the military, I am the one who signed up to wear the green suit.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
In my opinion, they're amateurs on an unjustified power trip.
First of all, my hat's off to all who have served our country in the military, but something is very, very strange and wrong going on with the way the AF and Army train their IT folks and what quality of actual usable knowledge, experience and attitudes those people have when they leave the service and apply for their first civilian IT jobs after leaving the service. I used to be a hiring manager for an organization that primarily did systems integration, installations and support for state and local government and we interviewed a lot of newly ex-mil IT applicants and the above statement generally hits the nail right on the head. Of course there were exceptions to the rule, but by and large it seemed like most of these applicants got very little broad-coverage training in the real IT world, but instead were all pidgeon-holed into little isolated sub-sections of IT training and knowledge without being able to be immediately competant at the "big picture" without substantial re-training and what I'd call "reverse brainwashing". Yet every one of them thought they knew it all better than everyone else, and one of the most common answers in the interview questions about where they saw themselves in 3 to five years of working for us was "to become the senior manager/director of the whole IT department"... in other words to run off the existing boss and take over. Wrong answer.
Amateurs on an unjustified power trip indeed.
We did hire a few of these over the years and they turned out to be some of the worst IT employees we ever had. A recurring theme was a lack of respect for proper software licensing. One particular worst offender would take a master copy of the full corporate MS Office Professional edition and install it on every desktop he touched regardless of whether the customer had purchased the full version for that machine or not. Of course the end-users loved it, but when the tech was confronted with what he was doing he said that he knew he would not be the one getting in trouble for it, but rather his boss would and the sooner he could get the boss in trouble or fired, the better chance he thought he'd have to move up, take over and "rule with an iron fist".
I'm posting A/C because now my company considers ex-military IT techs at the very bottom of the list when hiring due to too many problems we've had with them in the past. We actively discriminate against them due to getting burned too many times.
The best quality IT folks we've been hiring the past couple years now come from two radically different groups of people. The first group is the young Computer Science geeks right out of college who are still trainable/mouldable before they can pick up too many bad habits, and the second groups is older college degreed people (late 30's to early-mid 40's) who have had one non-IT professional career for a while (but were above-average proficient as technology users) and then have gone back to school to get their CompSci or MIS degrees and have changed careers to the IT field.
I think I have a pretty good perspective on the "Dilbert factor". I have worked for Chevron (9 years), IBM (3 months) and McKinsey (2 years) and was 1 degree of separation from Scott Adams when he was at Pacific Bell. So there's my big company experience.
On the other side, I am the owner of a 15 person IT consulting firm which services only companies of 10 to 200, and so I have worked with over 50 companies of this size - in addition to owning one.
Here is the simple truth of the matter:
If a small company runs on politics, rather than business sense, it goes out of business. Yes there are exceptions - owner has a huge chunk of cash to burn - but this is very largely true. So there is very little b.s. in small business.
In large businesses, sad but true, it becomes very very hard to distinguish the true business contribution of one person from another. Also, the consequence of a good / bad decision may take years to come to light. So, whether people say so or not, you are judged on how well you fit into the culture. If you know this, understand it and accept it, you will do fine. If you act like a typical engineer and say "but my idea was better", you will be miserable. Instead of being upset at the fact that the MBA's are running the show, sit back and ask yourself why that is. If you are as smart as you think you are - you will figure it out.
The fact is that the success of big business depends on people working together. And this quality, one of fitting in, is easier to pick out than what the true ROI of converting all those Windows servers to Linux is.
Think really, really hard on this. Don't reject reality and say "it stinks" - use a bit of ju jitsu - accept reality, understand why this reality exists, and use that understanding in an effective way to achieve your personal vision of success.
A way of thinking
This reality stinks
It shouldn't be this way
I can't affect what happens
A better way of thinking
What is really going on here?
It is this way, why is that so?
I can affect how I react to what happens.
Do this and you may be very happy at a big business since you will learn how to rise within it to the point that you have real influence. If you don't understand this you will be frustrated regardless of where you work.
Upon getting a job with a large corporation, I was amazed at the amount of BS there. It made the military look like an efficient & well-oiled machine.
I agree. After leaving the Army, I moved through several jobs. The nonprofit world was amazing. Determining accountability for anything was like trying to nail jello to a wall. Government contracting made me realize that people who create small contracting companies and latch onto a contract or two are on the gravy train. The way government spending works, you pretty much *must* spend the money your contracting agency has allocated for you. If I had the stomach to put up with Inside-the-Beltway bullshit, I would have gone into government contracting. Big businesses (I speak only from experience with the Silicon Valley kind) are often full of energy, but the biggest problem, as with the rest of the civilian world, is that organizational leaders simply do not have much leadership training.
I don't know how it was for you in the Air Force, but I was in general impressed with the leaders I worked for in the Army. I'm sure to some degree it's a matter of your specialty, plus luck of the draw. But when you find a set of good leaders in the civilian world, in my experience it is a rare treat. Even the juggernauts of the Information Age have a great deal of employee churn, and they seldom devote necessary resources to adequately training leaders (mid-level managers in particular). That's where the Dilbert Factor is nurtured and brought to full bloom.
Others have mentioned this, but you may truly find that going small and/or going it alone may work for you. If you can maintain the military work ethic, you'll probably have an advantage over most of your competitors, at least in the areas of initiative, attention to detail, knowledge of the importance of planning, and ability to prioritize.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
When Bob got his project greenlighted when my supervisor did not, because Bob was capable of making a business case for it at a meeting chaired by the guy he'd been grooming for months, was that B.S? Seems to me like thats "creative use of resources". You can either continue to laugh ruefully at the world and scorn "small talk" and "politics" and "useless meetings and reports and that bureacratic "#$"%" or you can be like Bob.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I'm posting A/C because now my company considers ex-military IT techs at the very bottom of the list when hiring due to too many problems we've had with them in the past. We actively discriminate against them due to getting burned too many times.
My last company was just the opposite. About 1/2 our IT team was ex military (myself included). Navy and Air Force. No prima donnas, no ego trips.
Not voting is no good.
I will happily grant you that both major candidates may suck in any given election and that you might well want to protest by not voting for either one. (I do not agree with your idealistic "sullying my hands" position - I think if one of those candidates is less bad to you you should vote for them, and I think in most real cases one candidate is less bad to you if you bother to check. But that's not my major point, so I'll assume they're exactly even for now.)
But the _biggest_ consistent problem we have which makes the two candidates both suck is that the two incumbent parties have a strangehold on who we get to choose from. Voting for a third party candidates drives up the visibility of third parties existing and drives up the likelihood that OTHER people will vote for third parties.
As a bonus, if enough people do it for a presidental campaign then they get federal election money.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
You can achieve a similar effect in a large organisation by keeping an eye out for intelligent people who are seeking to achieve meaningful things. Every large organisation is made up of smaller groups and the dynamics and suck/un-suck factor varies between them. My old boss is working for a different government department entirely, but has managed to attract a pool of taleneted, motivated people and they have a good project to work on where they reall have a chance to make the country a better place (I'd go join him, but I'm already working in quite a nice team on some rather cool stuff).
The goal is to work for people who appreciate your skills and talents so that when you apply for work elsewhere, you have a cool resume and a bunch of people who really like the work you do.
Similarly, there are also wastelands filled with disillusioned people who spend 12 hours each day stressing over pointless management failures. If you end up in one of those, consider it a platform from which to find something less awful.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"