Know your place

I've been in the IT game for awhile but unlike most of my peers I haven't spent any great amount of time in any one place.  It's not that I don't believe in long-term relationships, on the contrary my average client has been with me at least 5 years.  I'd just rather be as productive as I can be instead of treading water with busywork.

To be successful in consulting you have to learn to be attentive to your client's needs.  That means doing what they need you to do in a timely fashion and then get out of their way.  Often times that means getting out your comfort zone when they throw something at you from left field. 

You have to be adaptable and keep up with current technology but that can be difficult if you're not working in large organizations with big IT budgets. 

Still, you have to realize that whether you're dealing with 15 or 5000 users, at its core IT is always the same.  Everything scales.  The only real difference is the people providing the IT services. 

At some point most IT organizations grow beyond the capabilities of one person.  Maybe it's a specialized application that needs a dedicated person or just plain old growth.  It doesn't matter so long as everyone understands the fundamentals.

I'm not talking about acing your IT exams or memorizing all the Active Directory FSMO roles either.  No, the fundamentals I'm talking about have very little to do with technical buzzwords and everything to do with IT's role in any organization.

In short, know your place. 

That's actually a brick wall I've been running into lately especially in a profession with declining wages and a bad job market.  It seems that IT managers are more concerned about the skill of the day or how many letters follow your name than whether or not you understand IT's role.

Hot skills come and go and to be an expert in anything in IT ultimately has about as much importance as winning first place in a snowman building contest.  Nobody's going to care after tomorrow. 

It's not about the skills, it's about your ability to use them to serve your users.   So long as you have the capabilities to adapt and a point of reference it's not a big deal if you don't match up to someone's skill punch list. 

That's what I attribute whatever success I've enjoyed in my own career to.  My role has been one of service; no more, no less.  Anyone who thinks that IT is anything more than that is quite simply an egomaniac.    

Yes, IT provides the medium that powers a connected world but in the grand scheme of things it's not important for its own sake.  

We in IT simply provide the means for other people to accomplish their goals.  

I'm perfectly ok with that but many in IT aren't and they refuse to hear anything that doesn't glorify the profession.  They inflate their technical accomplishments, create needless workflows (busywork) and body block anything that threatens their fragile egos. 

I've been in the field for quite some time now and while the phrase is tired I literally have forgotten more than most IT managers know at this point.  Familiarity with a specific IT platform is only valuable so long as it remains viable to the organization.  Once it's outlived its usefulness you need to move on but the lessons learned continue to have value.  They are the true definition of skill.  

Whether you're an admin or a CIO you have to realize the value of IT has nothing to do with buzzwords or brands.  It's got everything to do with ability and attitude, however, and they aren't defined by fads.

I actually find it amusing that anyone in IT attributes the word "skill" to anything that has a brand name attached to it.  It's probably the only profession that discriminates based on marketing jargon.  When you consider that the non-IT equivalent to a tech job is an auto mechanic you start to realize how ridiculous it is to be passed over because of familiarity with one brand name over another. 

I mean, does anyone actually believe that a Chevy mechanic is incapable of working on Fords?  

Generally we don't label auto mechanics by their brand affiliation, they're just mechanics.  The skill is in being able to understand automotive systems no matter who made them.  That's because at their core they're designed the same way regardless of whose label is on that grill.

Yet as an IT worker you're led to believe that managing Cisco branded switches has taught you nothing about managing one from HP or Dell.

It's a poor interviewer that doesn't realize that I've spent my career going the extra mile and continually learning new skills to fit my client's needs.  I tend to be more practical and don't spend my nights pouring over the latest database or scripting languages. I'm too practical for that.  I'm only interested in what makes my users happy because I know my value to them depends on it.

I had an opportunity to speak with just such a misinformed IT manager recently concerning an IT support position.  When he asked  the, "Tell me about yourself" question I obliged by giving him a short synopsis of my career and my commitment to serving my users.  In fact I actually told him my view of the value of IT in an organization. 

His response? " Where do you see yourself in five years" 

In other words, he wasn't listening in fact I knew he hadn't even looked at the resume that was forwarded to him from the pleasant HR guy I'd talked to a week before.  

I could excuse the fact that he was 20 minutes late in calling me ( a time he chose by the way) or that he was interviewing me while obviously doing something else. 

What I couldn't excuse was the attitude.

 I knew I'd encountered yet another IT egomaniac who felt threatened by the truth.  At the end he asked if I had any questions and of course I asked him what his ideal candidate looked like. 

By the way hiring managers, it's a great question and people like me only ask it to see if you've been listening to us.  If I don't ask it, I don't care.

He responded with a parade of meaningless buzzwords and brand names (most of which I was familiar with by the way) and nothing about serving the customer.  That told me he was just looking for a mindless automaton and in retrospect I should have ended the call right there.  Unlike him, however, I try not to make snap judgments.

Considering this position was customer facing the number one priority should have been my attitude toward service.  That goes double when you consider how heavily customer facing my career has been to date.  Instead, he chose to focus on buzzwords.  When asked if I had any other questions I gave him the opportunity to come clean. 

I asked, "So what how do you feel about me as a candidate so far?"  His response, " Not too good"

I ended the phone call. 

I've dealt with hundreds just like him and knew we were never going to be on the same page.  Being in the field as long as I have been I've had the opportunity to be on the other side of the desk.  That means I have my own criteria in mind whenever I'm in the interview process.

 For example; If I'd feel comfortable hiring my potential boss in my own organization then I know it's going to be a good fit.  If, however, I know I'd be kicking them out the door faster than they came in...

Look IT Managers, If you're passing over dedicated, motivated and experienced candidates because their qualifications don't stroke your ego you really need to get out of the field.  Somehow, somewhere along the line you've forgotten your place and now...

You're just in the way.

The IT Job Posting Code...(updated)

When times get a little rough in consulting I look for "regular" work to tide me over for a while.

You know my penchant for project and consulting work so when that fails me I end up resorting to the 9 to 5 grind.

The popular 80's phrase of "work smarter not harder" is important to keep in mind when reviewing job posts.

Now I know in this economy one should be willing to take any job just to get by but I'm a long-term thinker. It does no good for my reputation or my resume to land a job that ultimately makes me miserable, doesn't improve my skills and in general just wastes everyone's time. It runs contrary to my own little personal crusade of ridding IT of the "Frauds" who make life miserable for the rest of us striving to be more "Fundamentalist" in the field. If you're not engaged you're not really contributing anything so when looking at job postings keep these tips in mind:

1. If a posting doesn't fit at least 80% of your skills or experience don't bother with it. (Or Know Thyself...)

Recruiters (company or agency) have little punch lists given to them by the hiring manager. Hey, they're HR people not tech geeks and they won't understand any of your technobabble explanations about equivalent skills. If most of the posting looks like greek to you don't bother with it. Even if you landed the job I can guarantee you'll end up miserable and likely be out the door in less than 6 months. Of course that would let you list those new buzz-words on your updated resume but then you'd just be heading down the road of a "Fraud" which is ultimately unfullfilling.

2. Buzz Words ( Or fitting what you DO know into their little punch lists)

This may seem contrary to the previous guideline but it's not. Since these little punch-down lists are so important to HR recruiters it's important to give them what they want if you're actually qualified for the job they're advertising. Remember they're not tech people they can only go off what's in front of them on their list. So, if the posting says something like "Day to day administration of Windows Server 2003 and 2008 servers" Don't put "Windows Servers" on your resume. You're going to have to match their little punch-lists if you want a shot. If you have Server 2003 and 2008, list that skill.  

Otherwise you could be sending the impression that you're not confident in the platform they use. Often resumes are scanned for content and those without matching buzz-words are eliminated. Don't end up in the round file because you got lazy with your listed skills. Conversely, don't overload your resume with skills either. Nobody has the time to read all of that crap. Think newspaper articles. Get the important stuff they're interested in right up in their face and don't waste space on skills they don't care about unless they have some relevance. For Example, if you're a system admin with real experience in VMWare make sure to put it down if the posting happens to mention virtualization of any type.

3. Scan the posting carefully. (Or watch for the ambiguous)

I hate these types of posts. They remind me of classified ads for used cars (you know "Clean, runs good".) but nothing substantial about the job itself. It usually starts off with something like, "We need a Windows System Administrator with SQL Server and some Web development skills for our busy office in North Wonderfulville." Which is usually followed by 2 paragraphs about what a wonderful company they are and how great the benefits package is. You get a commercial for the company and almost nothing about the job. In this economy why are they selling themselves so hard? It's an immediate red flag that the hiring manager doesn't have a clue about the job or what they're looking for. I've responded to ads like this only to find out the job wasn't a System Admin but a web developer. I've actually had to explain that to the interviewer too. At the end I felt like I should have billed them for my time. Approach this type of posting at your own risk.

4. Dealing with employment agency and head hunter posts

You're more likely to deal with an employment agency or head hunter when getting a job these days. The previous guidelines apply with a few caveats. First, know that you're dealing with a middleman. It's not unlike the car salesman on a dealer's lot. Promises will be made that won't always be kept and when you discover the truth expect to be left holding the bag. It's not that I hate agencies, I just have a low tolerance for BS. It's actually worse to deal with an agency that it is to deal directly with an employer's HR department. Agencies get the same punch list and try to match it to their own skills database which may or may not be relevant to the employer's needs.

Turnover tends to be high in employment agencies and I've actually had my recruiter leave in the middle of an assignment and been dumped on another recruiter who has no clue about the employer you're assigned to. In that case they fall back on the basics of whatever the agreement is and you have virtually no representation from them if a problem develops. If something goes amiss they'll drop you like a hot potato and you'll never hear from them again. You've become a "difficult placement" which makes you a pariah even if you've done nothing wrong. Agencies are in it to make as much money on your labor as they can. Anything that gives the impression of threatening that throws the kill switch. Unless you love the job and expect to stay there after the contract is done, don't expect any long-term love from an agency.

Also watch out for long-term temp to hire contracts. If you're involved in a contract for more than a year know that you probably won't get paid vacation, medical benefits or any of the normal trappings. After a year it can be kind of rough to not have any benefits but all the responsibilities. On the upside you usually get a better hourly rate. Of course you have to question an employer that takes more than 6 months to commit to hiring someone. That's why I like contracts with a definitive end. I like to do my thing and get out before I go postal :)

5. The liars

Wow, that's a strong statement here's what I mean by it.

Caveat Emptor applies here. If you go through all the stuff I've already mentioned above you still have to be wary especially with an agency posting. Into this group I firmly place the resume stackers who operate on the shoot first, ask later principle.  If you've put a resume on monster.com in the past decade you've likely already heard from these types.  You know them, they're the ones who demanded your life history, mother's maiden name and social security number for a mid-level job that promised a CEO's salary.  Perhaps not that bad but it's a lie all the same.

Examples are usually more descriptive than paragraphs of babble so here's a good one....

I apparently applied for a position recently and the agency recruiter decided to get back to me on it. It took so long that I didn't even remember applying for the job so I was already at a disadvantage and the recruiter didn't help. There was no indication of when I applied, how I applied or who the job was for just a bunch of ambiguities..

Here's a piece of the posting and the email from the recruiter..

"I just left you a message regarding this opportunity. You had applied to my dice posting.
I'm going to include the job description for ease of communication.
I can be reached at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

Job Description
This position is not a laid back network/server monitoring position. This person must be able to handle the workload, corporate environment and interaction with executive level employees and global vendors. Candidate will be expected to be a leader guiding the network/server environment throughout the America's once they champion the PHX office. Previous corporate/enterprise experience on a team environment is important.

Any skills listed as required must be from hands-on work experience and not solely based on certifications or testing/home experience. This person will be a leader guiding the network/server environment throughout the America's once they champion the XXX office."

I looked over the job description and saw a couple of red flags right at the outset...
"This position is not a laid back network/server environment" Ok, That tells me one of two things. 

Either the management team is a bunch of insufferable jerks or they've been burned in the past. Either way

I can expect to be monitored like bacteria in a pitre dish. Great way to start a new job!

"Any skills listed ...must be from hands on work experience and not solely based on certifications or testing/home experience."


Ok, now I know they've been burned and have an attitude problem to boot. At this point I'm definitely NOT interested but wait there's more..

"The scope of the position also requires managing implementation projects falling under the scope of the Region for Liner and Logistics. Limited after normal business hours support responsibilities. Travel will be minimum."

Read that as "We own you" We all know there's no such thing as "limited after hours" when it comes to a global logistics company or any other company for that matter.  No thanks, that flies in the face of my "It's a job not a lifestyle" credo. The promise from the agency recruiter didn't even match up to her own job description as evidenced below...

The posting says "travel will be minimum" When I asked the recruiter about that she responded, "There isn't any travel------The company is global---it's a logistics company"

What?!

OK, Now I know I'm being lied to. How is travel NOT a requirement when it says it in the posting and requires you to be,"a leader guiding the network/server environment throughout the America's once they champion the PHX office. "?! 

That much use of the adjective, "limited" is always suspect.

This is a CYA move so the agency and the employer have an out when they start flying you all over the place and you start asking what "minimum" means. Sorry but that's a lie in my book.

The lie and the attitude turned me off. I wouldn't last a month in that kind of environment. I'd love to do some contract work for them but when offered, the agency turned me down. I guess I wasn't "humble enough".

Know thyself and you'll stay out of a lot of trouble. For me this wasn't an opportunity it was a noose...

6. You've landed the job, congratulations!  Don't get too comfortable...

Here's a little bit of advice that will make you life a whole lot easier.  Warning, this goes contrary to what most recruiters will tell you which is how you know it's true.  Remember, they're experts at placing candidates not doing the jobs they're trying to fill.

Here we go...

Treat every job like its a contract position even if its a regular full time gig.  It's rare to have one job for the rest of your life anyway unless you're self employed.  Most people move on to other positions every 3 to 5 years which doesn't exactly allow a lot of time to grow roots.  Be task oriented, take advantage of any new skills you can pick up and be ready to move on when the time is right.  Remember that loyalty comes from dogs not employers, don't be a dog.

Many people make the mistake of thinking their job is somehow a reflection of themselves. That's completely wrong, a "job" is one specific task to be completed and dismissed.  A career is compromised of a series of "jobs."  So don't be afraid to mix it up a bit.

There's an old adage that goes something like expecting to get a different result from doing the same thing repeatedly is madness and it is.

Life's too short to deal with other people's hangups for too long so keep your options open and save your loyalty for your own well being.