

Guess What Happened To The Guy With The Microsoft Tattoo - ekrangel
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/2/guess-what-happened-to-the-guy-with-the-microsoft-tattoo-msft

======
TomOfTTB
I feel bad for the guy but I do think there's a lesson here...or at least a
sad reality. We aren't in a world where you can be fiercely loyal to a company
anymore.

Surely you should still do your job and do it as well as you can. But in
today's market you really need to squash that inclination to become attached
to one company

Even if you have to replace that inclination with loyalty to something else. I
find dedication to the industry and to making the world better through the use
of technology acts as a good replacement for me. But even if it's just
dedication to your own self interest it's an improvement over company loyalty.

~~~
raganwald
> We aren't in a world where you can be fiercely loyal to a company anymore.

I understand where you are going, but surely you mean something else, such as:
_We aren't in a world where loyalty to a company is rewarded in kind_ , or
perhaps _We aren't in a world where loyalty to a company is an optimum career
strategy._

~~~
jjames
Given those two interpretations, it sounds irrational to be loyal to a
company. Coupled with a bias towards an employee's best interest, I think
saying "can't" is reasonable.

I might personally expand on what is meant by "company" and perhaps more
importantly, an employee's position in it. It certainly makes less sense to be
fiercely loyal the more expendable you are. A larger company can make more
people look expendable (imo).

~~~
raganwald
> Coupled with a bias towards an employee's best interest, I think saying
> "can't" is reasonable.

I was pointing out your bias, and now I will point out that even your
expression "an employee's best interest" is likewise biased. Not that I feel
differently, of course, however there are people who are fiercely loyal to
companies for a variety of reasons that you or I may not embrace.

The OP, for example, wants to go back to work at Microsoft. Why is this wrong?
He obviously identifies strongly with the company and obtains some emotional
satisfaction from his association with them.

Let's compare and contrast to relationships. Many people fall into
relatinships I would consider asymmetrical: One person is more fiercely loyal
than the other. Many people feel this is a bad thing, and indeed some peopel
are hurt in these affairs, especially if they secretly wish the other person
to reciprocate in kind.

Yet there are people who are perfectly happy to be in these relationships
where they are the expendable party. The movie "Adaptation" featured an
example of this where one of the two Nicholas Cage characters describes having
a High School crush on a girl that despised him. His "twin brother" felt
differently, of course.

Please don't misunderstand, I fully agree with you that being an "expendable
asset" is not financially advantageous, however I can't ignore the fact that
may people out there seem to derive some satisfaction from such employment and
I'm not sure they are ignorant of the potential consequences.

I conclude that there are people who are being perfectly realistic and
rational about such employment choices, even if they are not the choices I
would embrace.

------
mst
The Blue Monster is, to me, symbolic not so much of MSFT but of the "change
the world or go home" attitude the creator was trying to bring back to the
company.

Personally, I agree absolutely with that attitude, and I salute the guy for
keeping the tattoo :)

------
jcl
That other guy didn't do too badly:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Petzold>

