Another "Give me a Title" thread
-
I looked on SW, it didn't come up in my feed there.
-
@Nic said:
I like "sysadmin" - short, simple, describes what you do. Unless you're higher up the food chain, or a specialist, no reason to go with anything else.
The "admin" part is good, it's the "sys" that i don't like. Too specific to what he does.
-
Scott, something that makes these discussions with you more difficult is that you appear to consider your experience to be normative, and it is anything but. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments, but in this, and other threads, it comes off that way.
-
A "System Administrator" manages a system
A "Network Administrator" manages a networkAdministrator means you manage everything.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
A "System Administrator" manages a system
A "Network Administrator" manages a networkAdministrator means you manage everything.
Networks are systems - unless you only manage networks then I wouldn't go with network administrator, I'd instead go with systems administrator because that covers everything.
-
@Nic said:
@DustinB3403 said:
A "System Administrator" manages a system
A "Network Administrator" manages a networkAdministrator means you manage everything.
Networks are systems - unless you only manage networks then I wouldn't go with network administrator, I'd instead go with systems administrator because that covers everything.
I've seen piles of systems admins that barely have a clue what a VLAN does.
-
@Kelly said:
Scott, something that makes these discussions with you more difficult is that you appear to consider your experience to be normative, and it is anything but. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments, but in this, and other threads, it comes off that way.
Well, a couple things there...
- What makes it non-normative?
- What makes the viewpoint I'm countering normative?
- How does any one person know? I've been in IT for 27 years and have seen a lot of scenarios. I've worked more than 60 companies directly and tons and tons as a consultant. So my cross section of IT is pretty broad compared to most.
In the example of going from SMB to Enterprise, I know how it is done, and how it happens. People who have failed to get hired in the enterprise but wanted to don't provide useful feedback because all they know is that they failed and then they try to guess why. I've been a hiring manager hiring (and not hiring) those people and have broad insight into why they generally don't make it that they would not have.
Is my person experience "normal". No. But is it useful? i think extremely so.
-
@Nic said:
@DustinB3403 said:
A "System Administrator" manages a system
A "Network Administrator" manages a networkAdministrator means you manage everything.
Networks are systems - unless you only manage networks then I wouldn't go with network administrator, I'd instead go with systems administrator because that covers everything.
they aer "systems" but not in the IT terminology. Systems Admin is short for "Server Operating System Admin".
-
@scottalanmiller said:
they aer "systems" but not in the IT terminology. Systems Admin is short for "Server Operating System Admin".
That I didn't know. So no to that title lol.
-
@Kelly said:
Scott, something that makes these discussions with you more difficult is that you appear to consider your experience to be normative, and it is anything but. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments, but in this, and other threads, it comes off that way.
I have the same issue with many of the people on SW - I've worked with thousands (literally) of people with specific titles, no enterprise barrier, pay scales ... all that are defined as "impossible" by the SW crowd. Which is more accurate... a few thousand people saying that something is impossible or a few thousand people proving that it is very possible and not even realizing that it was considered "hard" by the other group?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
Scott, something that makes these discussions with you more difficult is that you appear to consider your experience to be normative, and it is anything but. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments, but in this, and other threads, it comes off that way.
I have the same issue with many of the people on SW - I've worked with thousands (literally) of people with specific titles, no enterprise barrier, pay scales ... all that are defined as "impossible" by the SW crowd. Which is more accurate... a few thousand people saying that something is impossible or a few thousand people proving that it is very possible and not even realizing that it was considered "hard" by the other group?
Reminds me of how screwed up the health care website was when it first launched and how Google and a few others wanted to fix it because it wasn't an impossible task for them but was for others.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
Scott, something that makes these discussions with you more difficult is that you appear to consider your experience to be normative, and it is anything but. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments, but in this, and other threads, it comes off that way.
Well, a couple things there...
- What makes it non-normative?
- What makes the viewpoint I'm countering normative?
- How does any one person know? I've been in IT for 27 years and have seen a lot of scenarios. I've worked more than 60 companies directly and tons and tons as a consultant. So my cross section of IT is pretty broad compared to most.
In the example of going from SMB to Enterprise, I know how it is done, and how it happens. People who have failed to get hired in the enterprise but wanted to don't provide useful feedback because all they know is that they failed and then they try to guess why. I've been a hiring manager hiring (and not hiring) those people and have broad insight into why they generally don't make it that they would not have.
Is my person experience "normal". No. But is it useful? i think extremely so.
I am not discounting your perspective. A man I know once said, if you respect me you will challenge me, or words to that effect. In this thread, and other employment threads you have pointed to your own experiences as examples. Perhaps it is your phrasing, but my interpretation of them has been that you think they are normal, or maybe should be normal. In my own experience, and the communicated experience of the majority of others, yours is far outside the norm.
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
Scott, something that makes these discussions with you more difficult is that you appear to consider your experience to be normative, and it is anything but. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments, but in this, and other threads, it comes off that way.
Well, a couple things there...
- What makes it non-normative?
- What makes the viewpoint I'm countering normative?
- How does any one person know? I've been in IT for 27 years and have seen a lot of scenarios. I've worked more than 60 companies directly and tons and tons as a consultant. So my cross section of IT is pretty broad compared to most.
In the example of going from SMB to Enterprise, I know how it is done, and how it happens. People who have failed to get hired in the enterprise but wanted to don't provide useful feedback because all they know is that they failed and then they try to guess why. I've been a hiring manager hiring (and not hiring) those people and have broad insight into why they generally don't make it that they would not have.
Is my person experience "normal". No. But is it useful? i think extremely so.
I am not discounting your perspective. A man I know once said, if you respect me you will challenge me, or words to that effect. In this thread, and other employment threads you have pointed to your own experiences as examples. Perhaps it is your phrasing, but my interpretation of them has been that you think they are normal, or maybe should be normal. In my own experience, and the communicated experience of the majority of others, yours is far outside the norm.
I think it's normal to flick boogers.
-
So SAM - what's the generic title for a jack-of-all-trades IT person then?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
Scott, something that makes these discussions with you more difficult is that you appear to consider your experience to be normative, and it is anything but. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments, but in this, and other threads, it comes off that way.
I have the same issue with many of the people on SW - I've worked with thousands (literally) of people with specific titles, no enterprise barrier, pay scales ... all that are defined as "impossible" by the SW crowd. Which is more accurate... a few thousand people saying that something is impossible or a few thousand people proving that it is very possible and not even realizing that it was considered "hard" by the other group?
I'm not necessarily saying this about your SMB to Enterprise transition. I have no experience there, and don't want any. It was the tone that I inferred from your statement, and others like it. Again, as I said, I think we could hash this out over beers, but it is likely not going to go anywhere in a text format.
-
@Nic said:
So SAM - what's the generic title for a jack-of-all-trades IT person then?
Who does Systems and Network Administration for a majority of their time.
-
@Kelly said:
@Nic said:
So SAM - what's the generic title for a jack-of-all-trades IT person then?
Who does Systems and Network Administration for a majority of their time.
Yeah, or who just does everything IT - the lone IT person at an SMB.
-
@Kelly said:
@Nic said:
So SAM - what's the generic title for a jack-of-all-trades IT person then?
Who does Systems and Network Administration for a majority of their time.
I only know 1 guy that does. We have 10+ offices. He's our internal admin for networking, systems, voice, security, PC's, printers, mobile stuff, etc. He's a true jack of all trades. He's 1 of the only people I know that's good at everything and great at a few other things. All of our offices are fairly small though.
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
Scott, something that makes these discussions with you more difficult is that you appear to consider your experience to be normative, and it is anything but. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments, but in this, and other threads, it comes off that way.
Well, a couple things there...
- What makes it non-normative?
- What makes the viewpoint I'm countering normative?
- How does any one person know? I've been in IT for 27 years and have seen a lot of scenarios. I've worked more than 60 companies directly and tons and tons as a consultant. So my cross section of IT is pretty broad compared to most.
In the example of going from SMB to Enterprise, I know how it is done, and how it happens. People who have failed to get hired in the enterprise but wanted to don't provide useful feedback because all they know is that they failed and then they try to guess why. I've been a hiring manager hiring (and not hiring) those people and have broad insight into why they generally don't make it that they would not have.
Is my person experience "normal". No. But is it useful? i think extremely so.
I am not discounting your perspective. A man I know once said, if you respect me you will challenge me, or words to that effect. In this thread, and other employment threads you have pointed to your own experiences as examples. Perhaps it is your phrasing, but my interpretation of them has been that you think they are normal, or maybe should be normal. In my own experience, and the communicated experience of the majority of others, yours is far outside the norm.
I think EVERY individual's experiences, at least in IT, are outside of the norm. I don't believe that there is any norm, at least not in the SMB. That's one of the things that I keep running up against is that in the non-SMB there are very solidified tracks and clear titles and such and in the SMB it is a free for all. But people in the SMB often think that their own version of the SMB is the only one and that everyone is like them. Even having worked with tons of SMBs, getting to SW taught me that my experience was unlike anyone else's in there and none of them were like each other yet they all thought that everything worked as they saw it.
The difference, I hope, is that I'm pointing out that the perceptions from the SMB trenches that their individual failures mean that things are impossible are incorrect and that things like moving from the SMB to the Enterprise are totally possible. The thing is, when people move from the SMB to the Enterprise, they leave SW, for example, or never join. The people who remain in the SMB are either the people who like it and choose to work there or those that wish that they could work in the enterprise and keep failing. The result is that there is a natural filtering of people repeating that it is impossible to get to the enterprise when, obviously, this can't be true as the enterprise employs most of the industry, hires lots of IT people directly from high school or college with no experience of any type, let alone years of SMB, and people make the transition regularly (I know many.)
It's not that I'm saying that everyone working in the SMB will get awesome, unsolicited enterprise offers magically. I'm saying that the barriers are imagined and that the assumption that the filtered SW general consensus is a fake one created by the natural filtering of what brought the community together.
-
@Kelly said:
@Nic said:
So SAM - what's the generic title for a jack-of-all-trades IT person then?
Who does Systems and Network Administration for a majority of their time.
That wouldn't be a SMB person. Find me anyone doing network administration even 5% of their time in the SMB. That simply doesn't happen.
System administration CAN happen, but I'm not sure I know of anyone working on server administration half their time or more. Do you know many doing that? Most that I know are doing other tasks, like desktop support, application support, working with the business, etc.
