Another "Give me a Title" thread
-
@quicky2g said:
Throw "Senior" somewhere in the title or a higher number like IT Specialist 2 to show some seniority. Always looks good on a resume.
I always feel like numbers make them look lower. I'm used to five level scales. So 2 is like junior, 1 is entry level or intern, 3 is mid, 4 is senior, etc. Number seem REALLY weird to have on a CV as they mean nothing specific.
Senior is good. Or lead. Or principal.
-
The problem with numbers is that usually only entry level positions have numbers. Like helpdesk going from "0" to "3" but once you hit a generalist job or admin or engineer I've never seen those numbers used, ever. So if I see a number, no matter how high it is, I always assume entry level. Sure a 3 might mean you are "nearly ready to graduate to a midlevel job, but the assumption is that you are just in a range within the entry level position.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@quicky2g said:
Throw "Senior" somewhere in the title or a higher number like IT Specialist 2 to show some seniority. Always looks good on a resume.
I always feel like numbers make them look lower. I'm used to five level scales. So 2 is like junior, 1 is entry level or intern, 3 is mid, 4 is senior, etc. Number seem REALLY weird to have on a CV as they mean nothing specific.
Senior is good. Or lead. Or principal.
I haven't heard of too many places with five level scales. We have engineer 1 & 2 then architect. I think Dice lists out 3 or 4 levels but never seen 5.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
@hobbit666 said:
We were looking at System/Network Admins, but yeah I do like the IT Specialist as it's says we are good at all of it
lmao I'm not sure how titles are viewed in the UK, but I would aim for something with Admin rather than Specialist/Technician/Generalist. You are doing the work of both, but having a SysAdmin title will look better on a CV than a Specialist in my opinion.
Better if your goal is to get a different job as a system admin AND they don't get upset that you had a false title for your last job or don't catch on. But if your goal is to stay on the generalist path, a specialist title doesn’t really help.
I'm not sure how that is a false title. Some of his tasks are Systems Administration level tasks.
-
@quicky2g said:
I haven't heard of too many places with five level scales. We have engineer 1 & 2 then architect. I think Dice lists out 3 or 4 levels but never seen 5.
Dice doesn't tend to hire higher end jobs, which would explain that
I was at CitiGroup. We used a five point scale. But no one called them numbers, we weren't entry level. It was Junior, Standard, Senior, Lead and Specialist and then Chief. They would match 1 - 5. We had 0 level interns too. So actually a six point scale. Only the 0 was sub six figures. Juniors started around $105K a decade ago. Only two Level 5s in any department and only the Admin department could get to five, engineering topped out at 4 since they never had the business critical needs of the admin department.
Only one 4 per department. 5s were shared globally so only two needed (one Solaris, one Linux.) 3s were common, 2s were everywhere, nearly every 3 had a 1 to support them.
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
@hobbit666 said:
We were looking at System/Network Admins, but yeah I do like the IT Specialist as it's says we are good at all of it
lmao I'm not sure how titles are viewed in the UK, but I would aim for something with Admin rather than Specialist/Technician/Generalist. You are doing the work of both, but having a SysAdmin title will look better on a CV than a Specialist in my opinion.
Better if your goal is to get a different job as a system admin AND they don't get upset that you had a false title for your last job or don't catch on. But if your goal is to stay on the generalist path, a specialist title doesn’t really help.
I'm not sure how that is a false title. Some of his tasks are Systems Administration level tasks.
Because ONLY some of his tasks are. A system admin is a full time title. Generalist titles are for mixed duties where nothing is 90%+ of your time.
-
Just like if you work in an auto shop and 50% of the time you are a gopher, 20% a secretary, 10% work the front cashier and 20% fix cars, you can't put your title as "Mechanic." But you can say that you have worked as a mechanic.
-
This is SMB. An IT department of 4. You never have a full time Sys/Net Admin in those kinds of places unless you're an MSP.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Just like if you work in an auto shop and 50% of the time you are a gopher, 20% a secretary, 10% work the front cashier and 20% fix cars, you can't put your title as "Mechanic." But you can say that you have worked as a mechanic.
This isn't a very good example. Those are four entirely unrelated professions, not a gradation of tasks within a single profession.
-
@Kelly said:
This is SMB. An IT department of 4. You never have a full time Sys/Net Admin in those kinds of places unless you're an MSP.
Right, so don't use the titles from the enterprise that are very specific to job duties when they don't apply. Use SMB titles instead. That's my whole point. You never get either of those titles in an SMB.
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Just like if you work in an auto shop and 50% of the time you are a gopher, 20% a secretary, 10% work the front cashier and 20% fix cars, you can't put your title as "Mechanic." But you can say that you have worked as a mechanic.
This isn't a very good example. Those are four entirely unrelated professions, not a gradation of tasks within a single profession.
It's a very good example because system, network, admin and engineer are NOT graduated levels within one profession either. They are very different tasks and/or task types.
-
A systems person: works on operating systems, specifically servers. Specialties within systems would be Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD, etc.
A network person: works on networking gear like routings and switches. Specialties within networking would be Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, etc.
An admin: runs operational systems. They manage the live running systems. They are focused on availability and need an operational mindset.
An engineer: designs and builds systems for operations. They don't manage running systems but provide them to admins. They are focused on productivity and need a design mindset.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
A systems person: works on operating systems, specifically servers. Specialties within systems would be Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD, etc.
A network person: works on networking gear like routings and switches. Specialties within networking would be Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, etc.
An admin: runs operational systems. They manage the live running systems. They are focused on availability and need an operational mindset.
An engineer: designs and builds systems for operations. They don't manage running systems but provide them to admins. They are focused on productivity and need a design mindset.
Unless you work for a consulting company like I do and they give you a big title and make you do a bunch of everything lol.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
This is SMB. An IT department of 4. You never have a full time Sys/Net Admin in those kinds of places unless you're an MSP.
Right, so don't use the titles from the enterprise that are very specific to job duties when they don't apply. Use SMB titles instead. That's my whole point. You never get either of those titles in an SMB.
You have very narrow and specific definitions of words that don't always reflect a working reality. You are technically correct, but functionally wrong. I'm not sure we can work through this on a forum.
-
In the SMB.... you never have systems OR networking foci. It's impractical. You don't have any networking tasks that would be considered even entry level for a networking job and only mid level systems ones at most. You also don't have discrete engineering and administration departments. You have one or a few people who mix these rules 5% engineering and 95% admin or more - there is essentially no engineering done in the SMB with rare exception.
A Generalist Admin title could be applicable to many SMB people. but a specific one would not.
-
@quicky2g said:
@scottalanmiller said:
A systems person: works on operating systems, specifically servers. Specialties within systems would be Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD, etc.
A network person: works on networking gear like routings and switches. Specialties within networking would be Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, etc.
An admin: runs operational systems. They manage the live running systems. They are focused on availability and need an operational mindset.
An engineer: designs and builds systems for operations. They don't manage running systems but provide them to admins. They are focused on productivity and need a design mindset.
Unless you work for a consulting company like I do and they give you a big title and make you do a bunch of everything lol.
Or the ENTIRE non-SMB market. Only in the SMB are titles not generally extremely specific.
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
This is SMB. An IT department of 4. You never have a full time Sys/Net Admin in those kinds of places unless you're an MSP.
Right, so don't use the titles from the enterprise that are very specific to job duties when they don't apply. Use SMB titles instead. That's my whole point. You never get either of those titles in an SMB.
You have very narrow and specific definitions of words that don't always reflect a working reality. You are technically correct, but functionally wrong. I'm not sure we can work through this on a forum.
Other than places blatantly falsifying titles to inflate egos and reduce pay, where is this functionally not correct? And from a functional aspect, the fact that they are used for ego boosts and to reduce pay gets reflected in how they are treated by hiring managers - more inflated titles and more depressed wages.
-
Here is a great example of how this works functionally...
An SMB that tries to hire a "system admin" for their needs or advertises a role as such but actually wants someone who does something that is not systems administration will do a number of things...
- Flag themselves as not taking IT serious and just throwing terms around either because they are clueless or they are trying to be self inflating.
- Filter out generalists who don't realize that they meant to look for a generalist but used a made up term in their own way.
- Invite people who are making up terms for what they themselves do.
- Have no simple terminology for discussing roles, requirements, expectations, etc.
- Openly initiate a process of mutually misleading each other - basically forcing the parties to go through the hiring process lying.
- Set themselves up to be led by made up titles given in lieu of pay so they would lean towards the less capable pool of talent.
So as an IT Pro, we don't want fake titles because it hurts us individually and we want to lean away from companies that use them because they will tend to have worse staff and take IT less seriously or just not be good at it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
This is SMB. An IT department of 4. You never have a full time Sys/Net Admin in those kinds of places unless you're an MSP.
Right, so don't use the titles from the enterprise that are very specific to job duties when they don't apply. Use SMB titles instead. That's my whole point. You never get either of those titles in an SMB.
You have very narrow and specific definitions of words that don't always reflect a working reality. You are technically correct, but functionally wrong. I'm not sure we can work through this on a forum.
Other than places blatantly falsifying titles to inflate egos and reduce pay, where is this functionally not correct? And from a functional aspect, the fact that they are used for ego boosts and to reduce pay gets reflected in how they are treated by hiring managers - more inflated titles and more depressed wages.
First, I apologize for the tone I may have communicated in my last post. I reread it, and it is very abrupt. What I was trying to say is that if we were hanging out having a beer I think we could come to a level of agreement on terms and functional definitions in SMB, but I don't know if we can be successful on a forum.
The titles may have that consequence, but you're fighting a Sisyphean battle here. SMB expects their generalists to have Sys/Net Admin skills (and more) so they advertise Sys/Net Admin jobs. If you apply for a job with only a generalist title you may not even be considered. The definition for those titles is not someone whose only responsibilities fall within that realm, but one whose majority, or most critical responsibilities fall within that. If you do not broaden the scope, there will never be any opportunity for movement of individuals from SMB to Enterprise.
-
In the primary IT space, anything larger than the SMB where the full IT stack exists, all of these titles are standard, ancient and very solidified. It is an attempt by the SMB to copy these titles without knowing what their jobs even entail that has led to these problems. It has gone so far that people working in the SMB often want a network engineering title and get Cisco CCNP certifications and then find out that none of that knowledge applies in any way to the SMB. Then they find out that all the titles that they have been hearing were made up and all of their skills are worthless there. How many routing protocols can you use in an environment with one router that is set and forget.
