Another "Give me a Title" thread
-
@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.
-
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.
