Training - A Company or a Worker's Responsibility?

r0wan asks: "I'm currently working as a Microsoft Systems Administrator. Through a series of bungled management decisions, have found myself responsible for a Windows Server 2003 Active Directory network, that I know nothing about (the person who was sent for training was: not the Microsoft point person, as I was; and left the company, soon after the domain upgrade). It doesn't look as though training will be forthcoming, and I've just been moved from the lab, where I was training myself while simultaneously handling the domain. I've got the MCSA/MCSE Training Kit, but recently I've found numerous errors, so many that I was sent a free Press Kit book, for submitting all of the errors I had found. Between management's reluctance to shell out for training, and being moved from the lab, I'm getting the distinct sense that training is something I'm expected to take care of, on my own time. Is this the de-facto standard within IT, and for all jobs within IT? If so, how do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life? Is it naive to try to leave my work at work?" "I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to). I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.

Thanks in advance for the input."

Comments

Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[DoraLives]

rely on seeing the rest the smelly thing in there with you sooner instead of later. Resist ALL attempts to cause you to spend your OWN time and money on things that benefit your bosses and/or the owners of the company instead of yourself.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[loteck]

And this goes double for IT. Especially if the location you are responsible for is open during hours that you aren't at work. However, the above poster's response isn't always possible.

Many IT professionals simply end up negotiating higher salaries based on the amount of personal time they are going to be giving up to be on call or to be in constant training. I realize this option isn't attractive to the submitter, but, especially if you're charged with mission-critical support for high availability networks, it seems to be the nature of the beast.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[WhyCause]

One thing I would suggest, keeping in line with this, would be to 'spin' it such that it is to the company's great benefit to ensure that you are properly trained. For example, you don't want to spend hours trying to solve a problem that a properly trained domain admin might spend 5 minutes fixing (think of the downtime!). This is the polite way of batting the camel on the nose (as it were) to make it back out of the tent.

If necessary, keep records of the time you spend on figuring out problems, and present this (in accumulated form) to your manager, insisting that training will reduce this. Present this in paper memo form, making sure to cc: to file (yours, paper, of course), and make certain that your manager's secretary stamps each memo you deliver to him or her with one of those "Received On" stamps (they still use those, right?). If your manager still refuses training, your ass is covered when the shit hits the fan (and it will).

I've never been in an IT position like this. It doesn't matter, though, because just about every manager with a lean training budget will act the same. Once you prove to your manager that this training is worth the investment, you'll generally get the support you need. On the other hand, you might see (currently) intangible benefits by training yourself. You're a go-getter with initiative. A straight-shooter with upper management written all over you.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[klparrot]

If necessary, keep records of the time you spend on figuring out problems, and present this (in accumulated form) to your manager, insisting that training will reduce this.

You might want to be careful, though, that your manager doesn't just decide that laying you off and hiring someone with the training is cheaper.

Some advice

[aliscool]

Hey,

Get your company to front for some M$ premier support. When something comes up you are not sure of or are having a hell of a time resolving, call in the experts at M$.

Except for one or two "M$ Alliance partners" I have always had good luck with M$ premier support. And we have had some major fiascos to unscrew over the years.

And best of all you can consider it free on the job training, don't let the M$ Engineer hang up until you completely understand what was wrong and how to fix it in the future.

Also, document everything you do! Two years from now you will be fighting the same or similar fires you are fighting today. Have a reference to fall back on and help remember what steps you took before that fixed something.

Sounds like you are a lone gun, but a 800 Premier support help number and some documentation may help greatly.

Best of luck with the new responsibilities.

CYA

[Black Parrot]

I suppose if the company's managers want its infrastructure maintained by amateurs, that's their business. (No pun intended!)

However, you'll probably get the blame if something goes wrong. You might consider looking for another job.

Training

[Alex P Keaton in da]

At my company, we each get budgeted a certain amount of money (generous) for training. (We also get an allowance for professional organizations.) We also get paid for the time we are off site at traing events.
We have to get approval before taking a class we want to take, but they are very open to our ideas.
No matter what anyone says, a great strength of a company is its employees. The more we know, and the better we are, the better the company will do. It also has other benefits, as it makes us all feel better about our employer

Small company vs. big company

[douglips]

In a big company, the company will train you on their time and their dime. In a small company, they may not train you, but they should allow you the time to train yourself and/or learn by doing. Do NOT front any money for technical training like this. Maybe for a Masters degree, but not for some Microsoft certificate.

You have to choose what kind of company to work for, essentially.

Having done both, I liked the small company when I was young and had no kids, and now I like the big company.

Re:The norm for the industry?

[Andr0s]

I cannot say if it's the norm for the industry... but I just saw the loose ends of my department's budget for last year wrapped up, (I'm Remote Site Admin in a sizeable corporation's IT) and I was shocked at how much money was in it for IT staff training, unused. After chatting with some other friends in the industry, I discovered that often companies don't refuse to pay for training... but do expect employees to go through training without dropping any of their tasks. And since so many of IT people work 60+ hour weeks, we can all see how frequently that kind of training is a feasible scenario.

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[Mr. Underbridge]

But does it benefit the company more, or does it benefit the employee more? If she gets training, she'll be better able to demand a higher salary from the company he's working for now, or a higher salary in his next job.

In this case, neither, but it benefits the employee the least. The company is being shortsighted by forcing an (admittedly) underqualified employee to manage something beyond training. They're also forcing said employee to "train" during free time from manuals and such instead of investing in real training.

It would be fair for the company to send the employee to real training, which would benefit both. If the company's not willing to invest in the employee, they shouldn't expect the employee to give up a ton of free time.

Re:The norm for the industry?

[lamasquerade]

I hope 20 or so of those hours are paid overtime. I can't stand seeing some of my friends (grad lawyers and engineers) doing unpaid overtime because it's 'standard' in the industry or necessary to 'get ahead'. I'm out of here the second the clock strikes five (actually, usually 5 to 5 to get the good bus:) unless there's a project that needs to be worked on to meet deadline and I've got some pre-approved paid overtime (or some agrreed time off in lieu). Happily this is the norm at my company and it is the first job I had out of Uni, and I know it's harder to quit such a job if the culture in your workplace is all about unpaid overtime, but once you start submitting to that bullshit you can wave bye to your life IMO. If I didn't have a good five hours after work to relax and do other things I think I'd go quite mad...

Okay, you asked for it...a female perspective!

[SlashChick]

Oh, sigh. I see the flame war erupting already, since Slashdot is primarily male. But this needs to be said anyway.

"My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc."

WHY are you doing all of this grunt work IN ADDITION TO being the primary breadwinner of your household?

What is your husband doing?

Now, if your husband is doing 50%+ of the household work (I say plus, since you're the primary income), that's one thing, and I would argue that a housekeeper/cleaning service would save a lot of your sanity. That's a given. I hire a cleaning service to clean my house. I need to keep myself focused on work that benefits my career instead of busywork.

However, if your husband is not doing at least 50% of the job, that's a whole other can of worms, but one that I'm willing to open because I think it's an important point of discussion.

I read a great article about this the other day. It's called My Radical Married Feminist Manifesto, and it's a must-read for most women who are primary breadwinners and who are or plan to be married. It's in response to America's Stay-At-Home Feminists, which is in itself an important article to read.

One of the most important points of the article is as follows:

"The home-economics trap involves superior female knowledge and superior female sanitation. The solutions are ignorance and dust. Never figure out where the butter is. "Where's the butter?" Nora Ephron's legendary riff on marriage begins. In it, a man asks the question when looking directly at the butter container in the refrigerator. "Where's the butter?" actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember when we're out of butter. Next thing you know you're quitting your job at the law firm because you're so busy managing the butter. If women never start playing the household-manager role, the house will be dirty, but the realities of the physical world will trump the pull of gender ideology. Either the other adult in the family will take a hand or the children will grow up with robust immune systems."

Sounds like a trap that you might have fallen into, and even if you haven't, it's important to be aware of "the butter question" in case you get into this situation in the future.

In case you plan on having kids, I also want to quote this stunning piece (from the same article):

"Bad deals come in two forms: economics and home economics. The economic temptation is to assign the cost of child care to the woman's income. If a woman making $50,000 per year whose husband makes $100,000 decides to have a baby, and the cost of a full-time nanny is $30,000, the couple reason that, after paying 40 percent in taxes, she makes $30,000, just enough to pay the nanny. So she might as well stay home. This totally ignores that both adults are in the enterprise together and the demonstrable future loss of income, power, and security for the woman who quits. Instead, calculate that all parents make a total of $150,000 and take home $90,000. After paying a full-time nanny, they have $60,000 left to live on."

...which is so incredibly true that I'm amazed it's even looked at any other way. Remember that if you stay home to take care of the kid, this calculation assumes that your salary would have remained the same indefinitely -- an invalid assumption for a career-oriented woman.

I sincerely hope you haven't fallen prey to the butter question. However, if you have, now is the time to reassess who does the work in your marriage. Do it like you would any other job -- figure out which parts you can outsource (grocery shopping? You can shop online and get groceries delivered. Cleaning the house? You can hire someone) for very lit

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[NitsujTPU]

It's not that I don't agree with the sentiment, but the company sent someone off to training who later returned the favor by jumping ship.

I've seen some training bungles in my time... like hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to train software engineers to use a proprietary software library... engineers who weren't even with the company that was doing the development.

However, if the company felt it important enough to send the one person off to... why not the other?

On one side, the company probably has a training budget. Did the original poster already have all the training budgeted to her that year? Well, no room to complain. Is the company trying to fleece the original poster? Well, that's a reason to complain.

Then there are a couple other points to that. If you're getting something out of your job that's more than a paycheck, it doesn't hurt to chip in a bit of personal expense to sharpen your skills. If the company treats you poorly otherwise, and you really don't get much out of your job, they probably at least owe you the training and equipment to do what they ask.

Raised some good points

[Pollux]

This isn't the norm. Any company who understands that downtime = $$$ down the crapper knows that investing money in human resource training pays for itself down the road.

You didn't give any detail about how large of a domain is in your hands, and I don't know exactly how much you so far understand or don't understand about Win2K3 administration, but I'll leave that for someone else to post on.

Following this thread, there are three things that you must do in order to succeed in a precarious position such as this:

1) Take a crash course in Win2K3 server, because that's what you're responsible for. Someone might want to start up a thread with recommendations about where to begin.

2) Open up lines of communication between you and the managers. The computer network has become the modern spinal cord of the business workforce, and communication leads to familiarity leads to confidence. In times of storm (i.e. network downtime), your company will have to put their trust in you that they'll make it through.

3) Explain the situation to your managers in a language they understand: the almighty dollar. Tell them the truth. They threw their money in a garbage bin when they trained the wrong person. Failure to invest in proper training for IT staff leads to increased downtime leads to loss of commerce leads to loss of money. Tell them that they will lose money because their investments (e-commerce) right now are not proected (properly trained personnel). It's all about money.

And if nobody listens, I would be very cautious. Find another job that will better support you as you become a better admin, rather than be put in one where, when something serious goes down, you get all the blame. Better to be led away from the fire than to lead someone into it.

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[slaker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Parent looks at dirty pictures at work all day.
I worked 88 hours last week and had to wait until I got home every night to look at teh boobies.

To the OP: seriously, read the stupid Microsoft books, or as much of them as you can stand without puking. Don't bother with the tests until some tells you that it's a requirement that you certify. At that point, you tell them with a straight face that you want compensation for your study time. I say this as a Microsoft Certified Trainer. The stuff on those exams can be pretty out there, and unless you really WANT to be on a "Microsoft Certified" career track there are better things to do with your life.

Does you husband do anything?!

[rolfwind]

"I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to). I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.

Thanks in advance for the input."

Primary bread winner with no kids? Holy crap, does your husband do anything or sit around in his underwear all day.

2nd Question: Where can I find a geeky girl like you? It be almost as good as getting married to money:D

He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute?

[crovira]

I just love the way the stars in their eyes fade to be replaced by the circles and bags under where the glow was.

Congratulations. You're beginning to wake the fuck up.

Rule 1: Companies need to generate profits. Cash flows from the customers pockets to the stock holders pockets. In order to maximize profits, there must be as little spent on things that are known in accounting circles as expenses.

There is no rule 2, only legal complience issues.

Training is an expense. Training is expendable.

Hell, you are an expense. If you weren't being paid so much, or at all, the stock holders would be delighted.

Hint: When ever you hear somebody say "Our employees are our greatest asset" they're lying, or they don't understand basic accounting, or they're slavers and illegal after-market organ transplanters.

If management doesn't seem interested, its because they aren't. All the arguments about it being counter-productive and costing more in the end don't matter.

See rule 1.

Re:He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute?

[garyboodhoo]

If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place.

That's unnecessarily harsh and also unrealistic. While I've chosen to live on my own terms, I've also gained priceless experience/knowledge working for certain companies. The scale of certain (non-niche) projects often requires greater resources and better distribution than any individual or group of individuals will be able to muster. Not forming your own ventures has nothing to do with native intelligence or initiative. Some people either don't want to or simply aren't suited for it.

Certainly, not all companies are created equal, and there are those who do in fact choose to hide inside companies, trapped by self doubt or cluelessness. However, your argument doesn't account for other possibilities. According to you, a talented animator or software engineer (for example) working on a contractual basis would be a fool to accept a position at a company like Apple, Google, ILM, Blizzard, EA, etc... where she'd gain excellent benefits, stock options and regular exposure to new methods & ideas.

Asking slashdot won't help

[NullProg]

This is not a flamebait response, but most moderators will treat it so.

"I'm currently working as a Microsoft Systems Administrator. Through a series of bungled management decisions, have found myself responsible for a Windows Server 2003 Active Directory network, that I know nothing about (the person who was sent for training was: not the Microsoft point person, as I was; and left the company, soon after the domain upgrade).

Your a Microsoft Adminstrator but you know nothing of AD services. Your on Par with most MCSE/MSVP/PMS/MS whatever certificate holding persons. Your fine, it's just that most of what you need to know is buried in Microsofts SDK documentation.


It doesn't look as though training will be forthcoming, and I've just been moved from the lab, where I was training myself while simultaneously handling the domain. I've got the MCSA/MCSE Training Kit, but recently I've found numerous errors, so many that I was sent a free Press Kit book, for submitting all of the errors I had found. Between management's reluctance to shell out for training, and being moved from the lab, I'm getting the distinct sense that training is something I'm expected to take care of, on my own time. Is this the de-facto standard within IT, and for all jobs within IT?

Is it your career or mangements career? Who trained Bill Gates or Wozniak? Its up to you to figure stuff out. If your into computers why should you care about the platform? Your next job could be Windows/AIX/AS400/Linux whatever. Always be ready for the next career jump.


If so, how do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life? Is it naive to try to leave my work at work?"
"I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to).

I'm male. I have a wife and three kids, one dog and one cat and a habitat they all call home. Yes I work overtime most/sometimes. We do family things on the weekends. I'm currently learning OCAML in my private time (I get up early on weekends, have coffee and learn something new). Whats your problem?


I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.

You may need a new significant other if he/she is not willing to share (along with his/hers) in the responsibilties of your lifes vision quest. I have time to play network games with my kids, satisfy my wife, work (+- 50 hours), play with my dog, and clean house when my wife is too busy.

Without trying to sound mean, whats your problem? Is everything supposed to be given to you?

I like computers, its a life choice for me. Maybe you don't. My advice? Use common sense and choose your own path.

Enjoy,

Re:Normal for my employer

[AKAImBatman]

I'm lucky if they tell me what day it is.

That's right. Because you're expected to do your job. If you need information, go find it. It doesn't matter how many people you have to push your way past. Find what you need, and act on it. You may annoy several folks along the way (do try to be somewhat cordial about it), but you'll become invaluable simply because you're the one who gets the job done.

Here's my advice for the submitter:

1. Make a plan. It doesn't have to be anything fancy. Just identify the problem and find the solution that you think will best solve it. If it's training, then make that your plan. If it's simply some reference materials, then make that your plan.

2. Sit down with your boss when you get a chance and say, "Hey, we've got this hole in our operations. It's a big problem for the company as a whole as we're not able to respond as well as we should be. Here's the plan I'd like to execute."

3. If you've got a good boss, your plan will actually be increased seven fold just to ensure that it gets done right. If you've got a mediocre boss, you'll get what you asked for. If you've got a REALLY bad boss, you won't get anything other than a "make due". Since you're already "making due", you're not going to lose anything. Plus you have some ammo in case your boss's boss ever happens to question the operations of your department.

4. ???

5. Profit!!! (Just to be complete.) ;-)

I know that coporate life seems like a bottomless pit sometimes. But no one else is going to change it, so you might as well make your own best effort. As long as you make something of an effort not to tick off every higher-up you meet, you should gain at least some leverage. Good luck! :-)

Re:From the across the desk

[kaiser423]

I agree with every sentiment of your post except for this one:

Its not about taking your work home with you; its about getting paid to do work that you enjoy. This work I do was my hobby before it became my career. I enjoy it immensely and I want people around me who feel the same way. If you're just here for the paycheck then I hired the wrong guy. You won't deliver the standard of quality I want because when push comes to shove you just don't care.

I do take my work home because I love it; but I can't say that I'm able to get more than an hour or two of half-assed work done at home before I realize that I'm gonna be burnt out on it the next day.

The most motivated, intelligent and best employees I've worked with have often been those who punch out exactly on time. They love their work, and they'll work obscene hours if needed. But they know what they like to do, and they know how to do it. Pure business for a 9 hour workday, and then a straight line to the door -- they have other activities in their life that are different, interesting, and keep them from being burnt out! In my book, knowing that is a quality judgement. Knowing where your point of diminishing returns is is crucial to being good at your job.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. People who do their job as a hobby also are usually great employees, I'm just saying that the people who have the motivation and will-power to stand up to a boss like you and demand a fine line between work and the rest of their lives also usually have great qualities that you want in an employee. They think that the job is "worth working for its own sake," they just have other things that also are -- and let's be honest here, they're working not only to enrich you, but themselves also. You're not selling yourself short here, so why disrespect other people who demand their fair compensation also?

A company might get built on a one-trick workhorse, but they rarely survive for long on one.

If the company respects its employees

[drgroove]

it will train them to fulfill their job functions.

If not, it won't.

It is up to you to decide if it is worth staying with a company that shows this kind of disdain and disrespect for you and its employees.

There are plenty of companies that respect their workers and will train them. I strongly recommend finding one.

Re:Oddly enough...

[Descalzo]

"How anyone can presume a business has your best interests at heart, and freely gives a business the keys to effect your life at a massive scale (i.e. Healthcare) without better regulation is an incredible insult to human intelligence."

Well, what do you suggest? Let the government do it? Do you trust the US gov't with that kind of control over your family?

I am getting less and less happy with my employer all the time. Increased commands, less professional treatment, lowering my benefits, pay not keeping up with increased cost-of-living. That's why my wife and I are thinking of moving. Moving is MUCH easier than emigrating.

I don't want to trade in my responsibility for my family's health for a little dubious security, but don't worry, though, you'll have your socialist government soon enough.

It blows my mind that people believe increased dependence on the government is a good thing.

Hehe, keep your words in mind kid :)

[DaedalusHKX]

This will be revisited when YOU are on the other end of the blade :)

Remember your words when you've spent 40k and 5 years of college learning a subject which recently became the target of massive outsourcing and layoffs.

I look forward to seeing if you make it past that, I have :) but that doesn't mean I don't look out for my fellow man, which, I believe, is what makes me a better citizen than you. I don't help others only when it gives me a tax break.

~D

Re:Oddly enough...

[jdavidb]

Pretty cool insight. Personally, I grew up aware that many companies would try to take more time than they were entitled to, so I entered the workforce prepared to make my stand and say "No." I work for a large corporation (with all the heartlessness, bureaucracy, and inefficiency that entails) where I started as a co-op student. When I became a full time "exempt" (salaried: they don't pay me for overtime) employee, I quickly realized there were no benefits for me, only potential benefits for my employer. So I strengthened the backbone I had already grown. Now I'm married, and still trying to finish my master's degree. I have a life and responsibilities outside of work. But even if I did not, it is still My Time.

When work needs me for emergencies or a big push, I've got no problem with it. But in general, I simply do not work more than forty hours a week. I change managers frequently, and when I get into a new organization there's often a lot of highly-stressed people expecting that we're all going to have to put in a ton of overtime. I never let that faze me. I figure out what tasks need to be completed by when and move heaven and earth to complete them before that date during my normal work weeks if at all possible. When people ask me to show up for extra work (non-emergency), I explain that I have something previously scheduled. And I always do. I am a very busy man. As I said, I have a life.

This has worked just fine for the last decade. All I needed was a backbone.

Re:Of course. Capitalism no longer has competition

[jdavidb]

That's actually a really cool thought. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and it is still very interesting.

Under the system I envision, groups would be free to form communist, socialist, or whatever systems for themselves within the larger system. They just wouldn't have the right to force participation from everybody. That would provide a lot more competition, and I've always seen that as one of the benefits. Indeed, I'd argue that without that kind of freedom, we are not truly Free.