Math Exercise User Training vs Cost of Good Security and BDR Plan
-
We had to do like 20 minutes per day, every day. You could save it up for a week and do it all at once or whatever, but there was a constant stream of it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Neither are the right answer but both are helpful.
The right answer is hiring people who are motivated to learn the right way of doing things, who want to improve at their work, who want to use the most efficient tools for the task at hand.
You have 2 types of hire, those who don't want to grow and those who do want to grow.
No amount of training will help those who just don't want to grow. They will always click on the spam emails, click on the malware links and ignore you.
When faced with management pressure they will either grow to change their behaviour or dig their heels in.
Although lots of companies need "fodder" workers. You need to account for those. The average worker can't be a good worker.
I was thinking the same thing. Also, when hiring minimum wage or barely over ($22-25K/yr) you can't expect to get the best people, and those that you do get will probably leave you looking for better pay, etc.
-
@Dashrender said:
I was thinking the same thing. Also, when hiring minimum wage or barely over ($22-25K/yr) you can't expect to get the best people, and those that you do get will probably leave you looking for better pay, etc.
But that is surely the right candidate, you want some ambition and a desire to improve and if you can't offer it inside your structure, whilst they are in your organisation would they not be far better than an "Average effort" but will stay for 5 years?
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@Dashrender said:
I was thinking the same thing. Also, when hiring minimum wage or barely over ($22-25K/yr) you can't expect to get the best people, and those that you do get will probably leave you looking for better pay, etc.
But that is surely the right candidate, you want some ambition and a desire to improve and if you can't offer it inside your structure, whilst they are in your organisation would they not be far better than an "Average effort" but will stay for 5 years?
Why? Why is someone that wants to grow better than someone who is better suited for the job at hand?
-
I've worked in low end jobs, and pretty universally the people who wanted to learn and grow did, and left, but were never the best people, just the most ambitious. The best people typically were the ones that liked what they did, were comfortable, cared about the job, were vested in it and were at their level of competence but not higher. They had the seniority, experience and reliability far above the other people who came and went.
In most cases, people looking to move to "another job" are not the ones I would want to hire. I want to hire the right people, not good enough wrong people using this job as a path not a goal.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@Dashrender said:
I was thinking the same thing. Also, when hiring minimum wage or barely over ($22-25K/yr) you can't expect to get the best people, and those that you do get will probably leave you looking for better pay, etc.
But that is surely the right candidate, you want some ambition and a desire to improve and if you can't offer it inside your structure, whilst they are in your organisation would they not be far better than an "Average effort" but will stay for 5 years?
Perhap they are, but the reality is the job needs to be filled now, today. I really can't afford to wait months and months for the right candidate, it's not that kind of position.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
But that is surely the right candidate, you want some ambition and a desire to improve and if you can't offer it inside your structure, whilst they are in your organisation would they not be far better than an "Average effort" but will stay for 5 years?
I'm going to say no, this is an "IT-ism" I feel. I hear this from IT all of the time, ambition for something greater is more important than being good at the job they are in. It's a weird thing that causes us to look down on jobs that we feel are beneath us and see the world as stepping stones rather than potential destinations. It's an article I have been meaning to write. I think it is an unhealthy thing in IT that we feel that everyone should be "passing through" rather than finding where they are good and what makes them happy.
-
hmm... I'm guessing most people probably stop "passing through" once they find something that makes them happy.
I've know tons of people who have worked on a help desk, but only a rare few who actually like it and wanted to continue doing it.
-
@Dashrender said:
hmm... I'm guessing most people probably stop "passing through" once they find something that makes them happy.
I've know tons of people who have worked on a help desk, but only a rare few who actually like it and wanted to continue doing it.
But the ones that DO want to stop there are happy and generally the best people to have, from what I've found. The unhappy people passing through generally are terrible at it. They often are not that good at it and rarely are happy doing it. Their ability or ambition to do something else has effectively no positive impact on working on the helpdesk.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I think it is an unhealthy thing in IT that we feel that everyone should be "passing through" rather than finding where they are good and what makes them happy.
But once your skills/knowledge out grows the environment you are in and it is impossible for you to get that extra needed challenge which you crave, surely that pushes you to move on then?
-
http://mangolassi.it/topic/6514/what-is-your-educational-goal/31
Does the fact you had 40 jobs in 7 years make you a worse candidate than someone at the same job for 3-5 years? Albeit a consultant job there is definite benefits to someone pushing rather than someone who is stagnant/stuck.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I think it is an unhealthy thing in IT that we feel that everyone should be "passing through" rather than finding where they are good and what makes them happy.
But once your skills/knowledge out grows the environment you are in and it is impossible for you to get that extra needed challenge which you crave, surely that pushes you to move on then?
No, that's not what studies in business have shown after decades of research. Quite the opposite. Once you hit your level of competence, going beyond that results in failure and frustration.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No, that's not what studies in business have shown after decades of research. Quite the opposite. Once you hit your level of competence, going beyond that results in failure and frustration.
But what I'm trying to say is if you could have someone who was at say...level 8 for competence out of 10, or level 5 out of 10 but they'll stay for quite a few years because they have reached their limit, will 5 outperform 8 in a single year?
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
http://mangolassi.it/topic/6514/what-is-your-educational-goal/31
Does the fact you had 40 jobs in 7 years make you a worse candidate than someone at the same job for 3-5 years? Albeit a consultant job there is definite benefits to someone pushing rather than someone who is stagnant/stuck.
No, the fact that I was a consultant does not imply that. That someone has changed jobs is totally different from hiring someone passing through versus someone looking to do this job. Completely different concepts.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
But what I'm trying to say is if you could have someone who was at say...level 8 for competence out of 10, or level 5 out of 10 but they'll stay for quite a few years because they have reached their limit, will 5 outperform 8 in a single year?
That's a very uncommon scenario. In many cases, yes the 5 is better. If the reasons are what I stated. If you look solely at factors other than the ones in question, then the pure factor of competence would favor the 8 over the 5. But if the 5 is happy and a long term investment and the 8 is good but unhappy and immediately trying to move on, the 8 won't likely do you much good.
-
@Dashrender said:
I've know tons of people who have worked on a help desk, but only a rare few who actually like it and wanted to continue doing it.
I'm one of those... but I also have to pay the bills, and sadly, a helpdesk job isn't going to do that.
-
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
I've know tons of people who have worked on a help desk, but only a rare few who actually like it and wanted to continue doing it.
I'm one of those... but I also have to pay the bills, and sadly, a helpdesk job isn't going to do that.
I've known some that were pretty good. You generally end up being an L3 HD or a lead and only some companies will be able to support that, but it happens. I've known $80K+ helpdesk people.
-
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
I've know tons of people who have worked on a help desk, but only a rare few who actually like it and wanted to continue doing it.
I'm one of those... but I also have to pay the bills, and sadly, a helpdesk job isn't going to do that.
This is probably because we undervalue good helpdesk personal. Probably most important skill on a helpdesk is people skills (something I'm horrible at). If you have that, the technical can come.
I wonder why more companies don't value their helpdesk personal, typically not paying them more than $30-35K/yr basically forcing those people into possibly uncomfortable roles of IT in order to make more money but not be as good for the company?
Is it because there are always an influx of new noobs to work on the helpdesk and this is somehow OK?
-
@Dashrender said:
This is probably because we undervalue good helpdesk personal. Probably most important skill on a helpdesk is people skills (something I'm horrible at). If you have that, the technical can come.
Absolutely. Good helpdesks rarely hire for many tech skills. Those all need to be unique to the situation anyway. It is very much a people job.
-
@Dashrender said:
Is it because there are always an influx of new noobs to work on the helpdesk and this is somehow OK?
I think that it is because the rest of IT look at helpdesk as a stepping stone and treat it with disdain and create a culture of it being a place to just pass through combined with management not stepping in and putting a priority on it because they see it as a waste of energy hand holding useless employees.
