IT Employment

Can larger companies still be passionate and quirky?

Companies with fewer employees often have a quirkier environment. Can that spirit be maintained once a company grows?

Writing for The New York Times, Adam Bryant conducted an interview with Tony Hsieh, the chief executive of Zappos.com. Part of the interview that intrigued me was Hsieh's explanation of why he and his roommate sold their company LinkExchange to Microsoft in 1998.

Part of it was the money, he admits. But, mostly, it was because the passion and excitement that permeated the company in the beginning was gone, and he'd grown to dislike its culture:

"When it was starting out, when it was just 5 or 10 of us, it was like your typical dot-com. We were all really excited, working around the clock, sleeping under our desks, had no idea what day of the week it was. But we didn't know any better and didn't pay attention to company culture. By the time we got to 100 people, even though we hired people with the right skill sets and experiences, I just dreaded getting out of bed in the morning and was hitting that snooze button over and over again."

To avoid this happening with Zappos, Hsieh says he formalized the definition of the Zappos culture into 10 core values; core values that they would be willing to hire and fire people based on. Read the interview with Hsieh for details on how they went about this.

I think it's an admirable goal -- to try to maintain an exciting culture by formalizing hiring guidelines to support it. At least they're making an effort.

But I wonder if any company can maintain, at 100 employees, the same culture they had at 5 or 10 employees. It has always seemed to me that when a company grows, it has to make concessions in order to introduce needed processes and procedures.

For example, whereas one could make personnel decisions on a casual basis in a very small company, you have to follow formal procedures more closely in bigger companies in order to be fair and avoid prejudicial practices. You can't just promote someone on a whim if there are several other people who are interested in the same position and would be upset if not given an opportunity to apply.

I will go out on a limb here and say that goals and priorities are always clearer and feel more personal in a smaller company than in bigger companies.

I once worked for a publishing startup that had us working all hours -- not because long hours were required but because we all felt a great sense of accomplishment at, say, getting a book to the printer seconds before a deadline. But the larger the company is, the less an individual employee can see how his or her contribution directly affects the company. And the result is a less passionate environment.

The communication is less frequent in a large company since there are more channels for it to travel through, so things aren't felt as immediately either.

At least that's how it's always been in my experience. I wonder if this phenomenon of growth can be "managed out"?

Get Career Management tips in your inbox

TechRepublic's Career Management newsletter, delivered each Tuesday and Thursday, offers tips for how to find a job and how to cope once you're there. Automatically sign up today!

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

38 comments
ivoyhip
ivoyhip

I have this experience. My current workplace used to have only fewer than 20 full time staffs. It has more than 50 full time staffs now. The working environment is so different. 1) The company structure was very simple in a small company was small. There were no official departments. It is very easy to work with everyone. Currently, we have multiple departments in the company. Each department is accountable for certain types of work. This leads to the mindset of We vs. They. Sometimes, there are conflicts among departments. 2) Communication flow was better in a small company. Each coworker pretty sure what other coworkers are doing. Currently, this is not the case in my workplace

major.malfunction
major.malfunction

Once the original core gets settled in after a few years, all the new employees are forever treated as second class because "they weren't here when we were building the place!". The old timers get up on their pedestal regardless if they even deserve it. Just because you answered the phones when we were small doesn't mean you are now an executive when the company has 75 employees! I worked for 10 years in a company that grew like that. Even though I was considered a "charter member", I didn't feel any sense of entitlement or think that new processes were beneath me. In fact, I tried to push through the changes. But I found that there were just too many "ol'timers" who wanted to keep it simple and not have to actually let other people in the company know what they did with source code, etc. And although the founders of the company readily agreed that it was hindering operations SEVERELY, they would rather not upset the Old Guard since they had so much knowledge, etc. Phhhhhhhhhtttt! that was enough for me and I walked away after 10 years of it. Now climbing new mountains and I couldn't be happier!

bastokyg
bastokyg

I'm a designer. I worked for Chevron alternative energy for almost 10 years from the mid-70s to mid-80s. The company is very large (80k)and conservative and was organized along military lines, that is top-down. Innovation and passion were pretty much only possible within departments. I can't imagine describing Chevron as passionate and quirky. Then I went to Microsoft in the late 80s and it was like night and day. The company was still relatively small (1200 people) compared to what it is today. Every day for the first few years, I felt that I was making changes and improving the products, and I think we all felt that way. Over time, as MS got bigger and people started hiring graduates from their alma mater (Harvard, Yale, and the like), as opposed to people who could do the job, it got bogged down in levels of management that took quirky out of the picture. I think the company would have done better had it been broken up into smaller independent units with fewer levels of interference. I think it's the nature of the beast for companies, as they grow, to become more and more conservative. As a designer, I find myself in a position, often as not, where I'm creating standards, because when I came in there were none. With the best of intentions, I am creating a level of "management" if you will, that could be perceived as stifling creativity (although I don't see it that way). We all do our best to stay creative, but often times this gets lost in the bigger companies.

rcfoulk
rcfoulk

I have a lot of experience in the human services sector. One of the phenomena that can be witnessed there is how small agencies that have a focus on the client evolve into what is best referred to as ?people processing? organizations. Size is the culprit here as it appears to be in the for-profit experiences of those noting here. Part of that particular phenomenon is that with growth the continuations and benefit of the organization itself becomes the core priority. All other priorities are subsidiary to that. Where it is relatively easy to make decisions and set priorities in a small group environment, growth and necessary attendant complexity demand that what had previously been ad hoc become formalized. There are real limits to participatory democracy with respect to decision making as the number of potential participants grows. Management of larger out of hand demands that there be a class of individuals that have as a primary focus that management; their goals focus on efficiency of process. It is easy to damn the ?bean counters? but to be honest they are doing the job for which they were hired. That having been said on an individual basis some can be more narrow in focus than others. It also becomes an issue of managing personnel. One other post noted the issue of avoiding what could legally be viewed as disparate treatment. Then there are the occasional ?problem? employees and the policies promulgated to constrain them that effect adversely the working environment of everyone. Think of it in terms brain capacity relative to an organism?s function: a planaria can get by with a very small brain because, bluntly, it doesn?t take that much horsepower to be a planaria, but a planaria?s brain in a human would be totally inadequate to handle the complex body it is assigned to control. It?s basically a case that bigger requires almost out of hand more complex management and it is the nature of the standardization that doing so imparts that kills the fun and creative environment that existed when things were small (and not complex). It?s a sad fact of nature, not malevolence on the part of any actor.

dbecker
dbecker

In my experience, the breaking point seems to be around 50 people -- whether it is a business, government agency, a church group or other social unit. I would say, Toni, that your experience is the norm, although there may be some exceptions. Perhaps others here can contribute to explain the phenomenon. Here are a few of my speculations [which may not mean much]: 1) The standard wisdom of management orientation is that there are four structures: Growth, role, authoritarian and task oriented. Growth orientation ALWAYS goes to one of the other orientations over time -- and hence the energy dynamics of a growth oriented culture is self-limiting. Or that's what organizational analysts would have us believe. 2) Dr. Robert Hare and others postulate [from statistical analysis] that psychopaths represent 2% of the population. Furthermore, he and Dr. Paul Babiak postulate [based on their studies] that psychopaths are attracted to high growth organizations: The lack of structure and rules and roles are an attractive environment to ply their craft. Therefore, at 50 people, there's a good chance [statistically speaking], one psychopath will show up, set up and start playing games -- to the destruction and chaos of the environment. 3) Standard management wisdom [if there really be such a thing] says that the outside limit of managing others stands about 7 or so. Beyond that, all sorts of difficulties crop up. So if you have 7 people managing 6 other people with one person managing the seven under him or her, you have 50. Throw rocks if you must, but at 50, you can still have a flat organization. A few observations: A flat organization [which seems to be the ideal here] generally should [if managed properly] lead to an adaptive, innovation friendly, inspiring and empowering culture. Less is more. In a culture of a small size that is working properly, the leader should, as General George Patton said, tell people what to do -- not how to -- and then let them surprise them with the results. This works best when all the participants have not just commitment and take ownership, but also when they abide by reasonable ethical and moral standards. Cooperative and consensus based cultures will usually work best because everyone has a say and, hence, has a stake in the outcome. Part of the problem with large organizations is that there is on one side, no accountability, and on the other side, no incentive because people believe that what they do doesn't really matter. Apathy results from the "work to the rules" ethic from above, when the workers fully understand the hypocrisy of those above them. "Nothing ever changes," is a sure indication of this. Is big bad? It doesn't have to be. The problem is that when management loses sight of the fact that the only reason for their existence is to help those doing the real work to get the real work done, they become arrogant narcissists filled with themselves, resisting and opposing anything to change the status quo because it is of no advantage to them to have anything change. When the workers realize that nothing they do matters, they just work for the paycheck and basically give up. One would think that so called leaders would realize this by now, but no, the CEOs getting millions of dollars a year for losing billions of dollars for their company just don't get it. Anyone who tries to explain it to them is like someone trying to explain rainbows to earthworms. Then the management consultants and MBAs come in and try to resolve spiritual problems with management tools. Matthew 7:6 is something I'm striving for more these days: I am trying desperately to stop giving that which is holy to the dogs, casting my pearls before swine, because I'm just so tired of their trampling them underfoot and turning and rending me. Warning utter fools is, well, a foolish thing to do. And painful. Action items? Public humiliation works in a quirky innovative way -- sometimes. It isn't the humiliation. It just makes it impossible to operate the same way any more. The downside: You'd be surprised how innovative scoundrels can be. Get them dismissed or fired through legal channels. The downside: it costs money, time and effort. Quit and go elsewhere. Downside: You will probably encounter the scoundrel recycling program. Or the Psalms 37 approach: Fret not yourself over evil doers. They'll get theirs. Downside: None that I can see, and it's a lot more peaceful as well as a whole lot less expensive.

kwilson
kwilson

I've worked for 2 companies that started out small (around 30-40 employees) and grew to 400-700 employees during my time there. In both cases the fun, quirky culture that we started out with transformed into a stifling, uptight culture by the time I left. Open-door policies became secrecy policies. Fun company events became tedious events where HR determined the level of fun that could be had. In both cases they went from fun places to work to miserable places to work.

hamguin
hamguin

Toni, when a company is under 10 in employee count, there is a great deal of seat-of-the-pants operating methodology because that's what allows the greatest energy devoted to the mission. If a company wants to keep that sense of all-together, push-to-the-finish energy, it has to become a conscious effort as the company gets larger. That's why it falls apart, not because it is impossible. When small enough, it is automatic, but when a company grows it requires dedicated effort and focus to retain that common feeling and quirky style. Very few companies bother, as the focus becomes growth in every sense of the word (and maturity of the culture, a horribly misspoken way of phrasing it, is usually by design instead of protecting the existing culture). Can a 10,000-employee company be fun and quirky to work for? YES! There better be a small group which is fully dedicated to maintaining that culture, though, because it will be lost otherwise.

lmw94002
lmw94002

In my experience the more the company tries to maintain that "culture", the more oppressive and intrusive that culture can become upon everyone in the company. Rifts between groups of people or departments grow. I see some of the best people, and very early employees that just get sick of it and leave. Once you hit a certain # of employees or a certain company age, you need to refocus... it's not just about the fun, it's about staying afloat. Sure you want to have fun doing it, but if you're not making money you won't be doing it much longer.

mjc5
mjc5

No, and its very simple. There are two main reasons. At some point, an organization gets large enough that it becomes difficult to know everyone, and the other is that there is a point where the bean counters take over, at that point the emphasis of the company shifts from whatever the company was making or doing to making sure the paperwork was filled out, and keeping track of the pencils.

thomas.l.deskevich
thomas.l.deskevich

Sometimes 'be yourself' is the worst advice you can give someone. :) Bringing out their true personality may be a dangerous thing. I am certainly up there on the weird scale. And have felt like the square peg in the round hole often. That being said, I always feel that you are to confirm to what the company requires of you (with reasonable boundries, of course) when you are at work. They PAY you for that. I often go back to the biblical mandate, slaves, obey your masters. Sounds rough, but true. I just wonder who is doing the work while the silliness is going on. There are people who just want to go to work (like me) and not have to go to the company sponsored silly string battle after hours. I want to go home to my family. That is the REASON I work, to provide for them.

john.keil
john.keil

It very much depends on what the company is creating. Companies such as Cadbury have been going for a long time; is this because of the 'family' element of the management. Does the passion come from 'ownership'?

rimpac99
rimpac99

When a company starts to grow, a peculiar thing starts to happen. They add more layers of management. That is usually the beginning of the end of creativity and 'quirkiness'. The managers introduce 'systems' and procedures to gain control and a moral advantage. In the end, it is the same 'systems' that prevent innovation and creativity.

jkameleon
jkameleon

And it doesn't matter whether the company has 5, 10, 100, or 100000 employees. Afer that, work should be tolerable enough to be done without passion. IMHE, geek enthusiast founded R&D startup companies burn out in about 5-10 years. As the number of finished projects increases, so does the maintenance and gruntwork. Founders don't want to do it themselves, of course, and, being R&D geeks, neither do they want to manage employees doing maintenance & gruntwork. And, this is the point, when startup must either be sold, or liquidated.

JustinSmithIT
JustinSmithIT

Toni, you touched on the real question here. It's not "can a company still be passionate and quirky?" but "*should* a company still be passionate and quirky"? As an organization grows it must become more organized, dispassionate, and disciplined in order to handle the larger amounts of work and responsibility. Failure to understand this results in company that is perpetually "small" or simply being bought out or crushed by a larger competitor. As a company grows (if that is what the owners and management want) the owners have a responsibility to their employees, customers, and investors to create a solid disciplined business process for the good of all. Of course this cannot happen when the head of the company does not have the self discipline to get out of bed on time and show up at work. And note that I said "work", apparently Hsieh did not realize that he was working - he thought he was playing.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

appears to be doing a good job of maintaining a quirky, upbeat working environment while keeping their customers satisfied. I think mindset of company leaders/dictators makes or breaks working atmosphere.

dbecker
dbecker

rcfoulk, your comments are right on target. For corporations, particularly those which are traded publicly, it is a given that the corporation exists for the sake of the existence of the corporation. Someone once wrote a story about a corporation which started out making androids. After a time, the androids bought the stock and ended up owning the corporation. Then they made it a closed corporation with no humans involved. The point of the story was just what I said: It was an extreme example of a [fictional] corporation existing for the sake of existing. It gets worse, though. Robert Jackall points out that the only thing that matters, and what is moral in a corporation is what your superiors want from you -- I would add, your peers and sometimes your reports. You leave your morals and ethics at your church or at your home. Middle managers told him in his research for "Moral Mazes" that they just couldn't see any point of what they were doing. So the masses serve the interests of an "It" -- a "Thing". We've become so Stockholmed that we cheerfully accept that we've become the Borg Collective. This phenomenon extends to the government as well, because it has now adopted the worst of the corporate model and implemented it very badly -- so much worse than ever before. People, particularly those of the last generation coming up, are just fine with that, since they've never seen anything else, it has become the norm. Being alarmed is little more than hyperbole to generation whine. Beyond the wisdom you shared with us though, is the reality that sometimes an organization exists solely for the benefit of one or two people who have taken control. Right here in this governmental agency, we have a flat organizational model. It works well. It is highly efficient. The married couple as managers run everything, and that is why it has a flat organizational model. For the most part, IT exists here for them. Yes, there are clients outside IT and things have to have the appearance of still working, but the first priority is for two people to look good and get all the credit [and not just a little salary]. So sometimes, it isn't just the organization that becomes the core priority, sometimes it is the narcissism of some of those who are in control of the organization. The rest of what you said certainly applies, except, maybe, sometimes it is molevolence on the part of one or two of the actors who should know better, given the "Administrative Guidelines" for Career Service as outlined in Section 3, under "Conflict of Interest": A. No employee may engage in any occupation or outside activity which is incompatible with the proper discharge of official County duties or which may impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of such official duties. B. A conflict of interest shall be deemed to exist when any employee has the authority or practical power to directly supervise, appoint, remove, discipline, or is responsible for auditing the work of, or where other circumstances exist which would reasonably place the employee and one of the relatives listed herein in a situation of actual or potential conflict. The relatives to whom this section applies are as follows: l. Mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, son-inlaw, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, stepbrother, stepsister, stepson, stepdaughter, stepmother and stepfather, domestic partner or a like relative of the domestic partner. 2. The existence of a conflict of interest shall preclude the continued employment of one of the parties when such conflict is created after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Title. When it is necessary to terminate or transfer an employee because of a conflict, the persons involved shall be given the opportunity to determine who shall have or retain employment. In the event the persons involved cannot agree, the decision shall be made by the Appointing Authority.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

VEH
VEH

The masters of the spreadsheet start looking at costs and decide they could save money by eliminating the free coffee. And the MBA types see labor as nothing but a cost, and can't figure out how to measure "creativity" so it isn't considered to be an asset. You can look at Toyota as another company that was engaged and purposeful, until it got to be the biggest automaker--now every time you turn around, it's more bad news (the floor mats aren't the problem, it's far more serious). Some manager probably decided they could save a yen or two by cheaping out on the accelerator pedal design...

eric.gudenius
eric.gudenius

I have worked in small companies and big (VERY big!) companies. I have worked with passionate and dispassionate people in all of them. I love what I do and do it with aggressive passion (have for over 30 years). I love going to work, setting objectives, testing my own capabilities and those around me, and succeeding (or failing) based on my best efforts. If I am surrounded by like minded people I will thrive, if not it is time to move on.

slatimer76
slatimer76

There is a big difference between being disciplined and having fun. From what you are saying, having fun is not being disciplined, and therefor you will not be a success. I don't understand that. Being passionate and having fun at what you are doing are the biggest factors to being a success. Discipline, while being important, is not a factor. I would rather love what I am doing, having fun at it every day, then work in a passionless company just going through the motions. Both take discipline to show up to. Which one will I make more money at?? Which one will want people to work for me?? Which one will bring customers?? When the "passionate and quirky" is done in the corporate culture correctly, the company will be a success and all employee retention rate will be very high. Over all good for both the employees and company.

rimpac99
rimpac99

I worked on an autonomous project (we were still part of a large company but our project was almost a skunkwork) which had a team of 8 developers. We got a working version of the software in no time at all. When we did a demo, it came to the notice of the 'bigwigs' and they decided to increase funding for our project. That was the end of that. We were hit with all sorts of 'managers'. Change management, Impact Analysts, you name it. Ordinarily to bring what we had to production would have taken another 3 months with the original team. Instead, with the addition of nearly 20-odd staff, we didn't have a product even after another 2 years. We had to retrofit a working application to conform to a 'methodology' that was approved by the company. The smallest fix required a ton of paperwork. Eventually, the project never saw the light of day. It was so disheartening that nearly all of us moved on.

codepoke
codepoke

2 answers: 1) Malcolm Gladwell and others set the limit of human relationship maintenance at 150-200 connections. You can handle that many people as individuals whom you "know". More than that, and you have "a crowd." Our Infrastructure group of 260 is a crowd, but my Middleware team of 15 is a team that can be quirky. 2) Until our mid-30's, we humans seem to be all about building connections. After that we can still do it, but it gets to be a progressively more conscious effort. (Personally, I think that's one of the collateral impacts of our highly mobile culture - the bonds we form in our malleable twenties could last our whole lives, but we keep moving.) I think a company or team run by a management in its 30's is always going to be quirkier. Not that I haven't known quirky people in their 50's and 60's, but you should have seen them in their 30's.

zant
zant

The best experiences I've had at work have been due as much or more to my immediate managers and teammates than the corporate culture. For instance, we built a special solution for a customer with an ad hoc team--developers, QA people, tech writers, product managers, and the business person responsible for performance of the solution. It was a tough couple of weeks. At one point, I said the the "owner" of the project, "I don't think we can finish this on schedule, but I'm going to keep working as if we can unless you tell me otherwise." Turns out that we finished our solution before our client was really ready to deploy it!

DelbertPGH
DelbertPGH

I don't think an overall atmosphere of sweetness is possible in a workplace of more than 300. It doesn't need to become a snake pit, though some offices within it will deteriorate in mood. In the film Dangerous Liaisons, Valmont, a rogue, asks the marquise, "Do you think a man can change?" She replies, "Yes, for the worse." Organizations are like that.

toni.bowers
toni.bowers

They don't have their pilots wearing fright wigs or anything do they? ; )

TheComputerator
TheComputerator

I'm not sure these are completely out-of-line. Most government agencies and most larger corporations also have rules about supervising relatives because of a possible conflict of interest or favoritism. For that matter, a fight between the 2 could overflow to work. (I remember a movie or tv show from many years ago where a married couple had to pretend they weren't because their employer said couples couldn't work for the corporation. When the rule was finally rescinded, it seemed like half the employees were actually married to each other.) Usually, reassignment is the method of handling the situation; though I can see where in a small organization or a very specialized job that may not be available in another part of the agency might require that one of the pair be terminated. Now I would wonder about a married couple managing an agency or even a department, espcially in light of these regulations.

darpoke
darpoke

- given the stability of American conglomerates of late, coupled with the fact that Kraft has borrowed something like $7 billion to make the purchase, it seems inevitable that jobs will be lost and working conditions will suffer. Even Kraft's biggest shareholder voiced concerns about the deal. It seems that neither the shareholders of Kraft nor the workers of Cadbury, those most likely to lose out, will get a say in this deal. But hey - at least the Cadbury shareholders get a tasty kickback now. Who needs job security anyway?

JustinSmithIT
JustinSmithIT

I didn't say anything about not having fun. Read it again and put it in the context of the article. And let's not assume that I'm saying you have to be a drone when I said a company has to be "dispassionate". What I meant was that it can't have management running around like a bunch of five-year-old kids jumping from one game to another. There has to be a careful consideration (dispassionate consideration) to the decisions being made in order to benefit the company, its employees, customers, and community. Ask yourself this, if the owner of the company in the article was truly "passionate" about his company (the way you are using the word) then why is it he lost interest in it when it began to grow? In this case passionate does not have the same meaning as "committed". He wanted a club. He got a business. And so he failed at both.

TheComputerator
TheComputerator

I would say that being passionate creates its own discipline. If you are passionate about what you are doing, you don't need outside discipline to make you do it.

glenstorm_98
glenstorm_98

If I believed all change were deteriorative, what encouragement could there indeed be in continuing to work (other than the obvious need to eat!)? I think it comes down to a question of *evolution* (which by definition is an uncontrolled process) being consistently downward, but *revolution* (which requires positive, guiding energy to be constantly injected into it) being possible. That is, if things are allowed to take their own natural course, then yes, that course will be downward, and that initial culture will be lost, along with the energy that fueled it; but if the right vision-driven energy is put into it, yes, a maturity-appropriate measure of that culture can be maintained. Realistically, there is a limit to how long "startup energy" will last, but that doesn't *have to* mean that workers must lose their sense of the significance of their contribution. A larger company must value each player's contribution--and make sure every player knows it. If a player truly isn't contributing, then they need to move on, and management has to have the perspective, and the guts, to do the right thing for both itself, and that player! And yes, office politics is a killer of many things; culture, innovation, and staff satisfaction being just three examples of what is sapped by it. I believe this is so because it has its basis in self-interest, with a lack of the big-picture perspective that would keep those three things alive.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

but when I do I fly Southwest. With one exception (an 'act of God'), Southwest has been on time. Cockpit and cabin crew interact with passengers on an upbeat and humorous note. Though I also rarely have anything but carry-on, when I do it has yet to be 'lost'. Best of all, straight-through flights are easy to get, and prices are within my budget.

NotSoChiGuy
NotSoChiGuy

...the cabin crew are known to break out in song randomly (usually at landing, but I've heard them do it while serving beverages); they routinely refer to kids as their 'First Class Passengers' (as a budget airline...they don't offer First Class seating) and their CEO famously got into an arm wrestling match to determine rights to a phrase with the proceeds going to charity. Oh, and they continue to be one of the few remaining profitable airlines running in the US (though, a big reason behind that was oil hedging, and this advantage is disappearing little by little as time goes on). With the other airlines scaling back their services, adding on fees for everything but the air you breathe on the plane (and I don't doubt for a second that a carbon reclamation fee is coming) and consistently providing p_ss poor service, I can't justify taking another airline over Southwest for personal travel (provided they service the destination) anymore.

techrepublic
techrepublic

Also if you are passionate about something, you are more likely to do it properly, rather than just doing the minimum to get by at that stage, which may require additional follow up work later when it becomes a problem.

glass2dl
glass2dl

I saw a video about Southwest that was very inspiring. I would suggest doing a little research on them. It might offer a different perspective on the workplace.

toni.bowers
toni.bowers

Those are great instances of a vibrant and creative work environment. Thanks for sharing!

Editor's Picks