TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Stephen P. Victor wrote:
>Isn't "top performer" just marketing speak for "accomplished" or
>"experienced" or "a really neato person, just the sort we want to hire"?
>I don't see why you were offended. Did I miss a code word somewhere?
It can also mean "we expect you to work nights and weekends for free."
That has nothing to do with how experienced you are or how good
you are...it has everything to do with how willing you are to
work (or at least look like you're working) for 60+ hrs/week.
Many possible subtexts there, none of them particularly attractive
if you actually have a life outside of work.
On the less cynical (or shall we say experienced) side of the
question, a good performer in technical writing is one that
produces good quality manuals quickly with a minimum of handholding
from management, other tech writers, and other members of the
technical team. I have heard that the range of productivity
among programmers is 10 to 1 or better; the range of productivity
among tech writers is probably at least 5 or 6 to 1 (all things
being equal, which they never are, but you get the idea).
That's right, the "top performer" can do in a day what the
"bottom performer" takes a week or more to do.