Skip to main content

word choice - Which is more appropriate — "I work for" or "I work at"?


If you are working as an employee at an organization, when you tell about it to others which usage would be more appropriate?




  1. I work for company.

  2. I work at company.



Or are both usages correct?



Answer



Both usages are correct, and they mean the same thing.


The only minor wrinkle is that at can be used to refer to a physical location as well as a company itself:



I work at Microsoft.


I work at the Microsoft Redmond campus.



Whereas for cannot be used this way:



I work for Microsoft.


*I work for the Microsoft Redmond campus.



The last sentence would somehow indicate that you are employed by the campus itself, which probably isn't what you mean.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more