Slashdot Mirror
Cross Skilling Across Multi-OS Platforms?
drtheman asks: "I have been working in the IT industry for the last 10 years, 7 of those as a UNIX system administrator. I have been noticing over the last year or two that companies are becoming very pedantic about specific skills that a UNIX sysadmin should have. Most troubling for myself is the so called multi-skilled UNIX/NT administrator.
It's a given that any seasoned UNIX admin should have *some* Windows knowledge, and cross skilling is something that shouldn't be balked at. However, after coming from large enterprise environments, where the UNIX boys do the UNIX stuff and the NT guys do the Windows stuff, I just find it a little troubling that if I don't adapt with certifications in these platforms I may become unemployable. Do other enterprise admins think that this is too much for us to take on, and companies are just expecting more bang for their buck these days? I can understand that these multi-skilled people are needed in the smaller shops, but I would like to know how it would work effectively in larger ones."
I myself am coming from the opposite direction (Microsoft guru, *nix acolyte), and from what I've seen, a decently cross-skilled admin can pretty much write their own ticket. I wouldn't go so far as to say that if you aren't cross-skilled, you will eventually be unemployable...there will always be work for an admin that's competent enough, especilly a Unix admin like yourself. But a cros-skilled admin brings much more to the table...not just for the obvious reason of being able to work on either platform, but because they can work on both platforms. The point I'm trying to get across here is that Unix/Microsoft interoperability is a big matzah ball in today's tech world, and an admin that can understand how Windows and Unix play together (and why they occasionally don't) will be valued much more...in essence, the cross-skilled tech is worth more than the sum of his parts.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I can testify to that point. The HR folks are generally given a boiler plate job description in which they ask if you have the specified skills. They usually don't even know what the acronyms stand for.
Competent/confident individuals should just appease the HR folks with yes/yes/yes/..., and then talk to a technical person at the next stage to see what the company is looking for, and if you are a good fit.
And those ratings of 1 to 5 are very subjective, and think of some of the idiots you've worked with in the past, and what rating they would chose for themselves, and then chose your own accordingly.
Realistically I might consider myself a 3-4 level at a particular skill (because I know there is ALWAYS, much, much more to learn), but for an HR screening interview, i'm always a 5 for the critical skills.
>> I am (as an employer looking to hire) less interested in certs than I am in quantifiable skills
.sig file - but I digress.) Most businesses large enough to pay well for a skilled professional also have hiring processes that hinder selection of real talent.
You, Sir are in the minority.
Most large companies have HR staff that think Excel is a programming language and that MCSE means something. (I work with many MCSEs - you need to force an admission out of the competent ones, but the useless ones all put it in their
If I sound bitter, I am. Not cuz I'm looking for work, but because I have to work with the results of a broken hiring process...
http://request-header.info
However, after coming from large enterprise environments, where the UNIX boys do the UNIX stuff and the NT guys do the Windows stuff [snip]
After watching friends in the IT industry deal with difficult employment situations in Silicon Vally, I have to say that cross-functionality is a must. One friend in particular has been forced to accept positions at relatively small companies, and the people that run these places just don't understand, well, much of anything about computer infrastructure. One choice quote: "If the CEO isn't having any problems, he thinks that no one else is either." The same guy that thinks a four-hour per week IT consultant can keep their systems, network infrastructure and Windows boxen all running happily. Decisions are made more through egotistical and micromanagerial mechanisms rather than entrusting the computing environment to the ones knowledgeable enough to make those decisions.
So while the enterprise may have more vertical job functions, the smaller shops have a variety of needs dictated more by the (lack of) knowledge of the management than the real needs of the computing infrastructure. You should probably increase your employability by getting your MCSE, but at the same time be wary of those smaller shops. Without wanting to be a pessimist, I'd assume the worst if you're going to be the sole IT guy/gal, or even part of a team of three or less.
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.