Am I making a bad decision?
-
I'm looking to leave my job, of course still looking for another job first. A few months ago I would have called this a dream job.. working for a fortune 100.
Unfortunately there have been several management changes. New Director of IT who doesn't want to get involved when we have issues. We've had two companies we bought out this year without adding any IT staff (we didn't keep IT from the companies we bought out). We have 14 IT staff members in total, only 6 of them Systems Administrators (me being one) We support 40,000+ users. All the new stuff with acquisitions plus our corporate servers and such are my responsibility. Along with one location with a plant. The work load has just gotten too much. I'm salary so I'm having to work all hours. I want to take vacation but can't because we have no one else to support some of the systems we got from the acquisition so I have to be available. a few weeks ago I even had to go to a remote site, left my office at 2pm drove until 10pm then worked once I got there until 3am drove back got back around 7am, took a shower and got back to my office around 8am for the normal work day..
To me it's just getting insane. But maybe that's me. All the other guys say it's not fair that I have such a high workload. The main reason I do is as they say I'm the one who can learn to do just about anything. None of the other guys of course want to learn because they've seen how it's affected me and they don't want the responsibility. These systems actually were suppose to go away after the acquisition but have not because unlike our previous IT Director our new one isn't telling them when to be off, he's asking the users when they would like to switch.. (he doesn't like conflict and would rather take the easy way IE if they want to keep using the old systems and not our standard, just let them and make me keep supporting it).
And to top it all off Managers yell at me all the time anymore because they expect things at the same speed as before even with the additional workload. Our previous IT director would have gotten their Managers, CEO etc involved and told them that isn't proper. The new one does not when I tell him about it, he's more of "Well, that's stupid" again, he doesn't like dealing with issues.
So is it stupid to leave over this seemingly small stuff?
-
If you have sat down with the new IT Manager and made your frustrations known, and he won't let you train any of the other guys on the systems, then yes, it is time to move on.
If he won't give you authority over the other guys on the team, then yes.
If he says you can train the other guys, then tell them "Boss told me to." ... and if they gripe about it, explain that two heads are better than one, etc...
But honestly? If you feel like it is time to change your job, then yes, that may well indicate it is time to move on.
-
My standard advice is... if you have to ask the question, it's already time to think about leaving. There are exceptions, of course, but generally once that seed is sown, deep down you know the decision already. We don't tend to like change and we tend to resist it, so by the time that you are talking about it, you normally are well past where leaving would probably be the better choice.
As always, secure a different position before leaving. Don't burn bridges and all that. But if your job is not making you happy, it's not the place to be.
-
Fourteen IT staff in a Fortune 100? That seems crazy. I tend to work in shops that go the extreme other direction, with IT being 1:4 to 1:3 of the company. I know that that is extreme. But 7:20000 is really something. Even in the Fortune 1,000 (not 100) I tend to see more than fourteen different IT departments, let alone fourteen people. No wonder the workload feels overwhelming, it is!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Am I making a bad decision?:
Fourteen IT staff in a Fortune 100? That seems crazy. I tend to work in shops that go the extreme other direction, with IT being 1:4 to 1:3 of the company. I know that that is extreme. But 7:20000 is really something. Even in the Fortune 1,000 (not 100) I tend to see more than fourteen different IT departments, let alone fourteen people. No wonder the workload feels overwhelming, it is!
Yep we used to have a lot more.. It's the new lean workforce they are doing. We don't even have desktop techicians anymore (well we have one) Sys admins are expected to fill in. They say we are trying to run say if you think you need five people to do a job, hire one and make them work harder. Something managment took up a few months ago for lean workforce. Espcially in IT cause under Lean they consider us "Non value-added labor" meaning the clients/customers don't see value added from internal IT staff directly.
-
@Jason said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@scottalanmiller said in Am I making a bad decision?:
Fourteen IT staff in a Fortune 100? That seems crazy. I tend to work in shops that go the extreme other direction, with IT being 1:4 to 1:3 of the company. I know that that is extreme. But 7:20000 is really something. Even in the Fortune 1,000 (not 100) I tend to see more than fourteen different IT departments, let alone fourteen people. No wonder the workload feels overwhelming, it is!
Yep we used to have a lot more.. It's the new lean workforce they are doing. We don't even have desktop techicians anymore (well we have one) Sys admins are expected to fill in. They say we are trying to run say if you think you need five people to do a job, hire one and make them work harder. Something managment took up a few months ago for lean workforce. Espcially in IT cause under Lean they consider us "Non value-added labor" meaning the clients/customers don't see value added from internal IT staff directly.
I've looked into lean before for a class and this seems like an extreme bastardization of the style.
-
@Jason said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@scottalanmiller said in Am I making a bad decision?:
Fourteen IT staff in a Fortune 100? That seems crazy. I tend to work in shops that go the extreme other direction, with IT being 1:4 to 1:3 of the company. I know that that is extreme. But 7:20000 is really something. Even in the Fortune 1,000 (not 100) I tend to see more than fourteen different IT departments, let alone fourteen people. No wonder the workload feels overwhelming, it is!
Yep we used to have a lot more.. It's the new lean workforce they are doing. We don't even have desktop techicians anymore (well we have one) Sys admins are expected to fill in. They say we are trying to run say if you think you need five people to do a job, hire one and make them work harder. Something managment took up a few months ago for lean workforce. Espcially in IT cause under Lean they consider us "Non value-added labor" meaning the clients/customers don't see value added from internal IT staff directly.
That alone is time to walk away.
-
@coliver said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@Jason said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@scottalanmiller said in Am I making a bad decision?:
Fourteen IT staff in a Fortune 100? That seems crazy. I tend to work in shops that go the extreme other direction, with IT being 1:4 to 1:3 of the company. I know that that is extreme. But 7:20000 is really something. Even in the Fortune 1,000 (not 100) I tend to see more than fourteen different IT departments, let alone fourteen people. No wonder the workload feels overwhelming, it is!
Yep we used to have a lot more.. It's the new lean workforce they are doing. We don't even have desktop techicians anymore (well we have one) Sys admins are expected to fill in. They say we are trying to run say if you think you need five people to do a job, hire one and make them work harder. Something managment took up a few months ago for lean workforce. Espcially in IT cause under Lean they consider us "Non value-added labor" meaning the clients/customers don't see value added from internal IT staff directly.
I've looked into lean before for a class and this seems like an extreme bastardization of the style.
Yeah, this is in no way what official Lean teaches.
-
This is just crazy. It sounds like they are mismanaging and misapplying management principles on purpose... Sounds like they are running heavily in the red and are cutting corners at "non essential" places. Get out while you can and hope you have good references.
-
-
@coliver said in Am I making a bad decision?:
This is just crazy. It sounds like they are mismanaging and misapplying management principles on purpose... Sounds like they are running heavily in the red and are cutting corners at "non essential" places. Get out while you can and hope you have good references.
Actually we aren't were very liquid and cash heavy. They are just wanting to do more and more acquisitions to get more market share, and more diverse portfolio. We bought another one (which we haven't taken over IT wise yet) a few weeks ago for $146 million (all cash)
-
@Jason said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@coliver said in Am I making a bad decision?:
This is just crazy. It sounds like they are mismanaging and misapplying management principles on purpose... Sounds like they are running heavily in the red and are cutting corners at "non essential" places. Get out while you can and hope you have good references.
Actually we aren't were very liquid and cash heavy. They are just wanting to do more and more acquisitions to get more market share, and more diverse portfolio. We bought another one (which we haven't taken over IT wise yet) a few weeks ago for $146 million (all cash)
Pushing to the point of failure, though, is very bad. You are one of 14 people in a Fortune 100 on which that company totally depend. One of six in the SA group, on which the company totally depends. That means that a Fortune 100 has 15% of its critical support preparing to exit. And for all you know, several of the others are ready to go, too. If you go, will you take some with you? Commonly, people do. I've seen dozens of IT people quit together on the same day to take the same jobs somewhere else. Your IT department is so small that even a tiny startup could hire the entire staff all at once.
That means that the company has pushed itself to the brink of critical failure. If you are thinking of leaving because they've pushed beyond their willingness to compensate, we are just guessing that you have the lowest pain threshold, but for all we know you have the highest or are average.
What will the company do if the entire team exits, that's easy to happen with so few people. And once one goes, the others get that "oh no, I'll be left doing their work too" feeling and want to get out before things get even worse. And from your description, you are doing unique work meaning they might have no ability to hand over to someone else!
If I was an investor, I'd be pretty upset to find that management was putting that much of a company at that degree of risk to save an amount of money that shouldn't even register to a Fortune 1000, let alone a Fortune 100.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@Jason said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@coliver said in Am I making a bad decision?:
This is just crazy. It sounds like they are mismanaging and misapplying management principles on purpose... Sounds like they are running heavily in the red and are cutting corners at "non essential" places. Get out while you can and hope you have good references.
Actually we aren't were very liquid and cash heavy. They are just wanting to do more and more acquisitions to get more market share, and more diverse portfolio. We bought another one (which we haven't taken over IT wise yet) a few weeks ago for $146 million (all cash)
Pushing to the point of failure, though, is very bad. You are one of 14 people in a Fortune 100 on which that company totally depend. One of six in the SA group, on which the company totally depends. That means that a Fortune 100 has 15% of its critical support preparing to exit. And for all you know, several of the others are ready to go, too. If you go, will you take some with you? Commonly, people do. I've seen dozens of IT people quit together on the same day to take the same jobs somewhere else. Your IT department is so small that even a tiny startup could hire the entire staff all at once.
That means that the company has pushed itself to the brink of critical failure. If you are thinking of leaving because they've pushed beyond their willingness to compensate, we are just guessing that you have the lowest pain threshold, but for all we know you have the highest or are average.
What will the company do if the entire team exits, that's easy to happen with so few people. And once one goes, the others get that "oh no, I'll be left doing their work too" feeling and want to get out before things get even worse. And from your description, you are doing unique work meaning they might have no ability to hand over to someone else!
If I was an investor, I'd be pretty upset to find that management was putting that much of a company at that degree of risk to save an amount of money that shouldn't even register to a Fortune 1000, let alone a Fortune 100.
Not to mention the brain drain that will accompany this. How quickly will the company be able to recover if just 2 or 3 people leave? I'm sure you have some knowledge sharing but, at that size, there are bound to be project that people have taken up by themselves that are now critical to the business. As you mentioned they are liquid enough to recover from this but the amount of time, both duration and man hours, that will take to recover from it seems insane and will probably drive others to leave, as @scottalanmiller mentioned.
I stand by my original statement, get out now.... You shouldn't have any loyalty and certainly don't have any obligation to this company.
-
@Jason If you are unhappy in your current job and you find a job with a reliable company (not something that just started up) making the same or more money then just go. Of course you are taking a chance, but if you research the company well and pay attention when you go for your interview you should be able to tell what kind of an environment it is. Remember you are interviewing them too. Nothing is stopping you from getting another job after that one until you eventually find the right place.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@Jason If you are unhappy in your current job and you find a job with a reliable company (not something that just started up) making the same or more money then just go. Of course you are taking a chance, but if you research the company well and pay attention when you go for your interview you should be able to tell what kind of an environment it is. Remember you are interviewing them too. Nothing is stopping you from getting another job after that one until you eventually find the right place.
Nothing wrong with new companies. There are some benefits to each, and neither is guaranteed. The idea that you need to look at corporate stability as a life benefit doesn't work, you often hurt yourself using an arbitrary guide as to corporate stability.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@Jason If you are unhappy in your current job and you find a job with a reliable company (not something that just started up) making the same or more money then just go.
I've seen older companies than mine collapse and blow up in a spectacular way.
Plus there are benefits as well as drawbacks to a company of any age so don't write off a category, test the company on the merits. The company might only be 3 months old, but if it was started up by someone with a portfolio of 20 successful companies, that's a big lure.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@wirestyle22 said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@Jason If you are unhappy in your current job and you find a job with a reliable company (not something that just started up) making the same or more money then just go.
I've seen older companies than mine collapse and blow up in a spectacular way.
Plus there are benefits as well as drawbacks to a company of any age so don't write off a category, test the company on the merits. The company might only be 3 months old, but if it was started up by someone with a portfolio of 20 successful companies, that's a big lure.
Kodak was one of the best companies ever... and went down in flames, quickly.
-
@scottalanmiller said
Kodak was one of the best companies ever... and went down in flames, quickly.
Jessops for us in the UK. Mega profits, hugely popular...oh, what is this printing fad? We don't need to compete with that.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in Am I making a bad decision?:
@scottalanmiller said
Kodak was one of the best companies ever... and went down in flames, quickly.
Jessops for us in the UK. Mega profits, hugely popular...oh, what is this printing fad? We don't need to compete with that.
Hostess
