When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator
-
@scottalanmiller By enterprises yes, which is not remotely similar to SMBs which is what we're talking about. Big entities can hire their entire infrastructure and ecosystems for efficiency, which is also why they can't do much quickly or with much flexibility in most cases. IBM has historically been an exception to that rule. Disney is an exception to that rule as well.
Even large enterprises struggle with bad management, because most managers are bad too. Again, the problem throughout every industry at ever size and scale in every business in every country on earth is an issue of having the wrong people in the wrong roles at the wrong times more often than not. Leaving only a handful doing what they will excel at, in a role that suits them. It's not a scale thing. Scale just tries to compensate for the wrong people in the wrong place problem with some success, but it varies and is not as universal as you're saying imo.
-
@scottalanmiller Getting a good MSP, and getting a good MSP that can provide services as required by the organization for a price that they can, or are willing to pay are very different things though.
I'm not saying that there aren't good MSPs that could be contracted, but just that they won't contract with a lot of businesses in ways that are agreeable, so the businesses look elsewhere. Because the good MSPs opt to demand X amount of resources for their services, they created the opportunity for less-good MSPs and internal IT to fill that void. Just because there are good MSPs out there doesn't mean that everyone else agrees that they're worth what they believe they are. Some organizations may simply decide that their scale is too much for their needs, so their cost does not justify the value they perceive, so they leave the MSPs offer on the table because they failed to offer an agreeable solution. It's just capitalism on display.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@scottalanmiller By enterprises yes, which is not remotely similar to SMBs which is what we're talking about. Big entities can hire their entire infrastructure and ecosystems for efficiency, which is also why they can't do much quickly or with much flexibility in most cases. IBM has historically been an exception to that rule. Disney is an exception to that rule as well.
Actually Disney is famous for having the worst IT ever. Disney is the best example of your rule, rather than an exception.
But exceptions, to me, seem to be the norm. Find me any enterprise OTHER than Disney with these problems. It can't be simply that every enterprise I've worked for or with is the exception, that seems to always be everyone's answer. Big entities have the resources to dance and the management that knows why that is important. What real enterprise (not Dashrender's one weird small example) has these problems? They exist, but I don't know of one.
But what SMB doesn't? I talk to SMBs every day and consistently an answer I get is that they are way too rigid, lack the resources and structure to be flexible. Their management can't handle change and their IT can't handle it - either through lack of skills, support, resources, exposure, peer assistance, ability to pivot due to being alone, etc.
All things that MSPs can fix.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@scottalanmiller Getting a good MSP, and getting a good MSP that can provide services as required by the organization for a price that they can, or are willing to pay are very different things though.
Willing to pay is the piece. All this means is that the SMB is dumb. Nothing more. It doesn't mean that the MSP isn't cheaper or better. Or that internal IT makes sense. You've just make "SMBs make bad decisions and screw themselves" the available reason, and I agree. For all intents and purposes, every SMB that doesn't use an MSP does so because they aren't willing to do what is right for their business because business results are not what are driving their decisions.
I agree 100%. An MSP can always come in cheaper than internal staff. But many SMBs simple burn money to flaunt that they can waste it. It's fun for them. It's hubris. Owners of SMBs commonly show off how much money they can waste, it's a thing. And not just in IT. In all kinds of ways.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
I'm not saying that there aren't good MSPs that could be contracted, but just that they won't contract with a lot of businesses in ways that are agreeable, so the businesses look elsewhere. Because the good MSPs opt to demand X amount of resources for their services, they created the opportunity for less-good MSPs and internal IT to fill that void. Just because there are good MSPs out there doesn't mean that everyone else agrees that they're worth what they believe they are. Some organizations may simply decide that their scale is too much for their needs, so their cost does not justify the value they perceive, so they leave the MSPs offer on the table because they failed to offer an agreeable solution.
I feel like you are missing that all of this is just explaining why MSPs are the right choice.
That something is the right choice or not; and whether someone makes good choices; are two totally different things.
I've pointed out that the MSP model is superior. You've pointed out that SMBs are bad at business. Those two things are not opposing viewpoints. One just explains why the market isn't causing the other to happen.
-
@scottalanmiller Have you ever considered that because you're actually good, that you have only worked at good places for quite some time?
Would it not make sense that because you are good, the only places that recognize your value are the ones that are also good enough to offer you what you're worth? It would be a bit of a mark on you for taking stupid jobs, or good roles from stupid employers would it not? I would say that yeah, it's far more likely that you have persistently worked for employers who are exceptions to the rules if you are exceptional. That makes sense if you think about it, because dumb enterprises aren't going to recognize talent, nor value it nearly as much as smart/good ones.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
It's just capitalism on display.
Not really. Capitalism suggests and is based around that wanting to succeed in profit making will drive decisions. SMBs actually display something very, very different.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@scottalanmiller Getting a good MSP, and getting a good MSP that can provide services as required by the organization for a price that they can, or are willing to pay are very different things though.
Willing to pay is the piece. All this means is that the SMB is dumb. Nothing more. It doesn't mean that the MSP isn't cheaper or better. Or that internal IT makes sense. You've just make "SMBs make bad decisions and screw themselves" the available reason, and I agree. For all intents and purposes, every SMB that doesn't use an MSP does so because they aren't willing to do what is right for their business because business results are not what are driving their decisions.
I agree 100%. An MSP can always come in cheaper than internal staff. But many SMBs simple burn money to flaunt that they can waste it. It's fun for them. It's hubris. Owners of SMBs commonly show off how much money they can waste, it's a thing. And not just in IT. In all kinds of ways.
I remember working as a sole IT person for a 250 person company. This company was going through layoffs and the owners (two brothers) constantly flaunted their money around even during the layoffs. In fact the owner bought a new private jet, and a some dumbass human size robot with facetime built into it. This was back in 2010 so it was pretty damn expensive at the time (a few grand).
-
@scottalanmiller At the same time, your explanation fails to accommodate the fact that the MSPs are making the exact same dumb decisions, so how are they better just because they're bigger and making the same stupid decisions?
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@scottalanmiller Have you ever considered that because you're actually good, that you have only worked at good places for quite some time?
People say this a lot and I admit it has some merit. BUT... you have to consider that I've worked at something like 80 companies over something like 30 years in nearly every field you can imagine. And that's worked AT 80, not FOR 80. I've worked for hundreds or thousands because I consult a lot.
And for a very long time, I wasn't good. I was low paid, entry level and all over the map. I've had good jobs and bad ones. I've been good at my job and bad at my job.
If we had just a few recent examples, I'd buy that maybe I've created a bubble of finding good jobs. And I'll admit that my practices around job finding are, I think, extremely good which is why I teach them so much. Although, of course, when I teach people how to find a great job I get told "well yeah, that works for you" as if it won't apply to others and that, again, I'm a unique case.
-
@irj said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
In fact the owner bought a new private jet... This was back in 2010 so it was pretty damn expensive.
Thankfully they are cheaper now
-
@scottalanmiller You have a lot of confidence, that means something (a very important something imo). You're good at what you do, you like doing it, and you seem to like constantly progressing up the ladder(s) of your choice because it sounds to me like you see no real impediment to doing so. I really do highly respect that.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
Would it not make sense that because you are good, the only places that recognize your value are the ones that are also good enough to offer you what you're worth? It would be a bit of a mark on you for taking stupid jobs, or good roles from stupid employers would it not? I would say that yeah, it's far more likely that you have persistently worked for employers who are exceptions to the rules if you are exceptional. That makes sense if you think about it, because dumb enterprises aren't going to recognize talent, nor value it nearly as much as smart/good ones.
It's hard to argue with flattery. But the reality is, I work with insane numbers of incompetent SMBs. So SMBs are bringing me in, one way or another, in very different situations. So I see tons of problems there. And I've seen enterprises with some pretty extreme problems. But not around these kinds of things.
-
I loved IBM, and boy could they dance (and that's where that term comes from ... Can Elephants Dance?) but boy were they loaded with issues.
-
@scottalanmiller TBH, what you do probably doesn't and won't work for most people. They aren't you, or like you in many ways. That doesn't mean your advice is bad, it just means that for those that won't, they refuse to adapt that way. For those who can't, they simply cannot operate that way. Not everybody is the same, nor possesses the same capabilities, it's just life.
For me, I don't want more money. I don't really care tbh. Sure I'm worth more than I'm paid, and I tell my employer that regularly. I also tell them why I haven't left, which is why I have so little stress and such a good work environment. I could look around and find a better one in all likelihood, but I like where I'm at as far as physical location, and I've yet to see any great indication that there are any other such places in my area, so for now I'm staying put.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@scottalanmiller TBH, what you do probably doesn't and won't work for most people.
I don't believe this to be true, partially because I know people who follow them and they work when it isn't me, and partially because nothing about them is centered around me, and partially because I've not always been this person and they worked for me long ago.
-
@scottalanmiller I'm big on intangibles, for instance, that my wife HATES moving lol. Both of us moved a lot growing up (my dad worked/works for NASA rather high up now), so I lived in about six different states, and moved around within a few of those states a few times much like Military do. My wife lived in about 5 states growing up. Both of us want to settle somewhere for a good while, so I'm really just not interested in the typical org-hopping required to climb the IT ladders most places. It's not that I can't, I just don't want to.
You might not believe that what you do won't work for most people, but I'm talking in pretty broad and general terms. For those that are exceptional, sure it will work, because they too are exceptional. Part and partial to the whole genie gig, if you'll allow for my stealing a movie line from Aladdin ^.^. We've already agreed that most people aren't great IT, so naturally most people aren't going to be in positions where they actually have or deserve the levels of acumen or clout to do what you do. Most people in general aren't that bright, as a general rule. Doesn't mean they're dumb, it just means they're not really capable of doing some of what you do. I for instance lack the drive to do what you do to be frank.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
You might not believe that what you do won't work for most people, but I'm talking in pretty broad and general terms. For those that are exceptional, sure it will work, because they too are exceptional.
Here is one of those interesting statistical things about this kind of employment / career thing, though. Only exceptional people will ever take the time to sit down and find someone in the industry to get advice and ask about it. That I'm having the conversation with someone has already eliminated the majority of the "chaff" of the field. That alone doesn't make someone elite, but it does make them the exception, and a very rare one, as a starting point.
It's like the college video I did yesterday that isn't posted yet - I point out that while people often talk about college numbers as industry wide things, hundreds of thousands or millions of students, that such a tiny percentage of people take my advice or are in a position to, that even if ever single one did it, it's not a market-skewing number and the "niche" effect of it would still apply. Only a small percentage are applicable, only a fraction of them follow the ideas. Put that together, any for all intents and purposes, anyone actually listening has an extremely high chance of it working for them.
Would it work for most people. Maybe, maybe not. Will it work for most that know that I said it? Yup.
It's the same effect you mention with jobs but in reverse. You say only good companies take the effort to find and hire people like me? Okay, but only good IT people take the time to seek out people like me for career advice. I'm not tooting my horn, I'm tooting theirs. Taking effort to get good career advice is a rare thing. Those that do it, are likely to be the ones that advice based around being driven, high performance, career minded, pushing the envelope will work for.
-
Although I have to say, my advice has often been used by random people I meet in life before they start their careers and have no idea who I am (or knew me before I had any real job and was bussing tables to pay the bills) and it pretty much always worked for them, too.
-
@scottalanmiller Perhaps I should have been more specific in saying that I was referring to IT folks taking your career advice. I mean, those that ask for it and apply it should have at least some level of success, but I doubt many will have the same level as you have FWIW. I'm not even necessarily trying to flatter, but if you're great at something, it's no less rude to fail to acknowledge and talk about it as it is to fail to acknowledge and talk about how someone is failing and can do better when it's recognized imo.
