Another "Give me a Title" thread
-
@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.
-
@Kelly said:
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.
that's where I don't agree. I only feel that incompetent ones do that. And they are easy to spot. One of the important skills in working in the SMB is recognizing bad shops as they are the majority. I've worked with the SMB for decades and only find these titles happening in shops I don't work with - the same ones posting ridiculous problems on SW that result in answers like "you should quit now and get a good job". It's the same places that have made so many people believe that the industry pay cap is $60K.
-
@Kelly said:
If you do not broaden the scope, there will never be any opportunity for movement of individuals from SMB to Enterprise.
I went from a "LAN Admin", a pure SMB Generalist title, to the L5 Chief of Linux Technology for the world's largest bank in a single step. You can totally make that jump. The enterprise does not have the title barriers that the SMB assumes. They have skill barriers that SMB people rarely put in the effort to overcome is the real issue.
Often enterprises want SMB Generalists to get skills and thinking that enterprise shops often lack. There are good ways of going from the SMB to the Enterprise, but they are very different environments and no amount of title manipulation will solve the issue. I thnk it makes it worse, which is what I was pointing out above.
Working in the SMB with an Enterprise title and then interviewing an enterprise shop makes it nearly impossible not to expose the falsification of the titles. That's a barrier to enterprise hiring itself because to the enterprise, this is just lying and the interview process ends right there. Often just in reading the title on a resume and the person never getting a call back.
-
That was a 12 person startup to a 400,000 person bank, just for scale.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
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.
I'm so tired of seeing job postings that "require" CCNP level but really just want you to configure a single site router and switch. Why would any CCNP level want that job? Too many MBA's as managers that don't understand IT. One of the first questions I ask when I interview is what my bosses background is, and what their bosses background is. If there's too much businessy fluff and not enough technical understanding, it's not the place for me.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Senior is good. Or lead. Or principal.
I like this especially if we get a junior in to off load the level 1 stuff too
Also this made me chuckle
Read some of the reply's only 1 or two constructive ones lol. -
@quicky2g said:
@scottalanmiller said:
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.
I'm so tired of seeing job postings that "require" CCNP level but really just want you to configure a single site router and switch. Why would any CCNP level want that job? Too many MBA's as managers that don't understand IT. One of the first questions I ask when I interview is what my bosses background is, and what their bosses background is. If there's too much businessy fluff and not enough technical understanding, it's not the place for me.
Oh yeah, if your manager is worthless, why would you work there. Unless you are the head of IT, of course, then the question is "the manager a good business person."
-
@hobbit666 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Senior is good. Or lead. Or principal.
I like this especially if we get a junior in to off load the level 1 stuff too
Also this made me chuckle
Read some of the reply's only 1 or two constructive ones lol.What's the "you don't think we are pros" comment about and to?
-
OH nevermind, I found it. LOL
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@quicky2g said:
@scottalanmiller said:
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.
I'm so tired of seeing job postings that "require" CCNP level but really just want you to configure a single site router and switch. Why would any CCNP level want that job? Too many MBA's as managers that don't understand IT. One of the first questions I ask when I interview is what my bosses background is, and what their bosses background is. If there's too much businessy fluff and not enough technical understanding, it's not the place for me.
Oh yeah, if your manager is worthless, why would you work there. Unless you are the head of IT, of course, then the question is "the manager a good business person."
I got really lucky at my current job. My boss was an engineer and got promoted to VP. Turns out he has a pretty kick ass business and leadership mindset. Best boss I've ever had. We need more of those people in the industry and less of these MBA's with the wrong title and wrong job.
-
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.
-
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.
