Slashdot Mirror
Who are CIOs Planning to Hire Next?
Ed Baker writes "Do you have the skills CIOs are looking for? Cioinsight.com just posted their latest research, in which they asked more than 400 top IT executives about the hiring outlook for 18 different IT positions, and finds that the demand for new systems and infrastructure is leading to more hiring for IT professionals who can build them. The result: Project managers and programmers/systems developers top the list of IT professionals CIOs are looking to hire."
How much do you have to pay to get advertising like this?
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
I read as far as 'Hiring Outlook' then stopped. Fuck outlook, bring back lotus notes!
So what they're saying is, there's no change from they way it's been for the last 10 years?
I've harped on this for almost two decades. Technical skills keep you employed. Business skills get you promoted.
[OK, nit pickers, I'm waiting for you to point out the corner cases where this isn't true]
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I know it's basically advertising, but the piece doesn't take the Age Factor into account. When they say they're looking for programmers/developers, they mean they're looking for "programmers/developers under the age of 32 (or thereabouts)". I know lots of guys nearing the 40 threshold. As they do so, if they're not already in management, they're layoff fodder. This is for guys with solid, up-to-date technical skills. They just get paid more than the entry level worker bees (especially from offshore firms), and have more of that vaunted business knowledge to boot.
"Technical skills keep you employed. Business skills get you promoted."
I say:
Technical skills get you the job, social skills keep you employed. Business skills get you promoted."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Translation: Big dumb companies value propaganda more than function and don't value their employees. Notice that training is close to the bottom of the list. Technical competence and familiarity with fundamentals of the field should be the thing they look for in new hires. Business school is something a company should pay for it's own employees if it wants to promote them to upper management. For a new employee it's a place where they can forget what they need to know. Looking for detailed business knowledge outside of the company is an admission that you are not willing to train and have not trained your own people adequately in a long time. Prediction: Big dumb companies are going to get dumber and people working there will continue to be forced to waste their overworked lives on mind numbing nonsense instead of getting things done right. You will be worn out and discarded like a rubber gasket.
True familiarity with the way a company works can only come from working in the company and keeping up with your competitor's actions. Business school case studies, while interesting, generally don't apply outside the specific case except for obvious general principles. Sure, some business schools are very good at understanding industry but I'm not convinced that's going to be useful to some guy who's there to make a better network or information sharing tool for the company. Someone who's been at the company long enough is going to know who needs what information from who an how best to get it there. If they have had the time to keep up with the field, they are a company's best resource.
Yes, I've worked for a fortune 100 company. It got nothing but worse and this survey shows that the trend continues. Notice how the smaller companies valued skill more than propaganda?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Can I make a Beowulf Cluster of those CIOs ?
Now, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 low, 10 high) how far down can your tech skills go to bring up your business skills?
(5 being average for that sector, not for the public)
If you stay employed because your tech skills are an "8", but you want to be promoted and your business skills are only a "4"
Is it acceptable to drop 4 points in tech to gain 4 points in business?
It's interesting that they project that, but at the very same time, starting with an article on the front page of today's print edition of the Wall Street Journal, I see that they're projecting increased outsourcing to India.
Not that it's not possible to have "increased hiring by CIOs" and outsourcing, as they'll be "hiring" the outsourced jobs, which a handy graph in the same edition shows is where certain major firms have been "expanding".
Results matter, not spin.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Like I said, everyone would love to hire the guy who is great at everything.
The reality is, those people don't exist. Which is why Dilbert cartoons are so popular.
what is not fine is the fact that I don't have an uncle who is a CIO!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
but I think this is useful information. I wouldn't have thought that business skills/knowlege would be more attractive than technical prowess for an IT guy. It's especially useful to know that the higher the budget/larger the fish, the more so this is true.
Blanket stereotyping from someone who appears to be mad that they are stuck at the bottom of the corporate ladder. Nice. It's natural tendency to say $MYGROUP works hard while $OTHERGROUP doesn't do anything and reaps better rewards, but try and take a step back for a second and look at the flip side. Quit being jealous and realize that upper management is just like any other group in society: some are geniuses, some are fucktards, and the majority lie somewhere along the grey scale in the middle. You just hear about the extremes because average makes for boring news.
Did you see this in a movie somewhere or can you name a real company where the CIO is hiring the brother of the chick he is banging? Name the company right now or we'll know your full of it.
CIOs (in Fortune 500 companies, at least) are so far removed from the proles at the bottom of the corporate pyramid -- the admins/engineers, developers, etc. -- that they frankly don't have a damn clue as to what they need. It is not their job to know *specifically* what they need that far down the corporate ladder; that is the job of one or more layers of middle-management they have separating the CIO from the people with actual technical skills (unlike the CIO), i.e. the rest of us unwashed masses (and in IT, this is sometimes a literal phrase...).
The CIO's job is to manage management en-masse (to "throw IQ points" at problems, as Bill Gates' approach tends to be), and to have "Big Ideas", or at least read the same business-tech magazines their lowly technical people do (eWeek, InformationWeek, etc.) which present big ideas -- and then tell the techies what to do, even if it's technically the wrong thing to do. Your typical CIO does not have a technical background...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Quit being jealous and realize that upper management is just like any other group in society: some are geniuses, some are fucktards, and the majority lie somewhere along the grey scale in the middle.
Upper management isn't supposed to be a microcosm of society: they're supposed to be the creme de la creme. If they were all geniuses, I don't think many people would be too jealous, because they would obviously be earning their money. But if some are fucktards, as you put it, and most of them are just mediocre, then what the hell are they doing in upper management making tons of money (and also having a large impact on the careers of all the employees under them)?
I'd be happy(er) if I lived in a society where only the smartest and best people got to positions at the top, whether it be in business or government. Things would work out a lot better that way, and I wouldn't have so much of a problem with them making millions of dollars per year. But don't tell me to not be jealous or angry when morons and incompetents are promoted to very high positions while much better people get passed over.
Holy Crap! It would take me a solid month to list all the companies and startups where that's been the case. Suffice it to say, nepotism soundly rules today at all corps I've seen lately (all the top banks in North America, all the Fortune 50 to 100 firms, all the telecoms, .....)
Oh please. It's a hypothetical example for illustrative purposes, not a description of a real situation.
Tell me that *sort* of thing doesn't happen. Maybe not that thing specifically, but that *sort* of thing. Which is why I ended that sentence with "$randomOldBoyNetworkFactor".
My point is, it's still not what you know, it's who you know, and a moron with an influential frat brother is still more employable than someone qualified for the position who has no connection like that.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
I was going to reply to that message with something very similar, but you beat me to the punch.
The only thing I would add to that is that it isn't really that someone's not as smart or someone isn't "better" than someone else, it's that the people who work hard get passed over while the people who take credit for other people's hard work get promoted. It encourages people to not work hard, because 1) nobody cares if you work hard, you certainly aren't going to be recognized or rewarded for it, 2) all hard work gets you is more hard work, and 3) someone else is just going to take the credit for your hard work anyway. It's the "Office Space" cliche: you only work hard enough not to get fired, because there's no reward in going above and beyond that.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Mainframe Operations at the bottom of the list? Am I a young person in trouble?
You've heard the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none?" Granted, there are people out there who are able to work across disciplines as you suggest, but they don't get hired. Why? A few reasons:
:)
1) You're less likely to have Engineering Skills 1, 2, and 3 if you have skills in other disciplines. Granted, there are exceptions, but in general, that's the case. And since everyone does hiring by search engine these days, your resume will never see the light of day if it doesn't have all the right keywords.
2) In the case that you DO have all the skills, it's presumed (correctly or not) that you're going to want a salary commensurate with your skill set and your geographic location. Here you run into the "if we pay our people as little as we can possibly get away with, we'll be more competitive" mentality and you're out of the picture even before the second interview. The fact that you're exactly what they're looking for is irrelevant; if the choice is between someone good and someone cheap...
3) You've found a company where they actually DO value your skills and contributions and you're not in the market
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Social skills and [false] confidence get you the job, not completely sucking* keeps you employed, and kissing above and kicking below (aka business skills) gets you promoted. Techical skills get stuff done.
* Nobody wants to fess up to hiring sub-par people, so they pretend they're okay and keep them around.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Remember how annoying other n-page articles have been, with their loads of ads and the never-disappearing "Next Page" links? Kudos to this magazine for boiling their article down to one summary page, and for pushing all clutter to the edges. Hopefully other sites are watching and will take notice!
It's the "Office Space" cliche: you only work hard enough not to get fired, because there's no reward in going above and beyond that.
Yep. It seems the best way to conduct your career in companies today is to not work very hard, only enough to avoid getting fired, and enough to make your resume look good. Then quit your job after 2-3 years and go to another company at a higher salary. Rinse and repeat until you retire.
The problem with this is that changing jobs every few years is a real pain, and when you're married with a family, who wants to pack everything up every few years and move to another city?
Are you going to spend the time keeping your tech skills up to date or are you going to let them atrophy while you build business skills?
I disagree...It is my very versatility that keeps me with a nice job and plenty of options. The issue I think most people have is that they don't know how to tailor their resume to a particular opening/market.
Having a wide skillset means you can get a job many places as opposed to just a few. Think of it as insurance.
Then again, only a small set of my skills are strictly IT, it is nice to have enough skill to be a freelance artist as well, have medical training, and teaching experience....
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
1. Nod your head continuously any time your boss is addressing your team. This conveys that you agree with everything he says and that you only wish you could have articulated it as brilliantly as he is doing. If his ego is insatiable, his eyes will constantly gravitate in your direction for affirmation. In other words, embrace your inner bobblehead.
2. Disagree with everything the boss says. Go out of your way to contradict her every statement. This shows that you're an independent thinker and way smarter than the rest of the peons you've been thrown in with.
3. Use the same buzzwords as the boss. Make sure what you say is an actionable, user-centric, directionally correct turnkey solution with touchpoints. As you can see, it doesn't even have to make sense if you say it fast enough. For extra points, speak entirely in acronyms.
4. Ask questions during company meetings that have no purpose other than to showcase your tremendous intellect. If the CIO is talking about reorganizing the help desk, don't be afraid to raise your hand and ask what effect the current business strategy will have on the next quarter's profit margin. For an added bonus, ask this question at the end of a meeting. (See next point.)
5. Don't make any major presentations during the course of a regular meeting. Wait until the meeting organizer is wrapping up and makes the perfunctory "does anyone have anything else?" request. Then you launch into your spiel, assuring that everyone has to pay attention to what you say. Sure, they may hate you for making the meeting run long, but you'll have made an impression.
6. Laugh hard at your boss's jokes. The higher placed the boss, the greater your laughter should be. If it's the CIO, feign uncontrollable mirth by intermittently wiping tears from your eyes.
7. Be at work 23 hours per day. Be there when your boss gets in and when she leaves. Even if your workload only constitutes about 3 1/2 hours, stretch it out with coffee breaks, four-hour lunches, non-work-related web browsing, and general co-worker chit chat. After all, productivity is measured by your physical presence not actual turnaround.
8. Pay close attention to whatever phone/PDA/gadget the boss uses. Do a great deal of research on it, then casually let the boss know that you're looking for a new phone/PDA/gadget with particular features--namely the exact ones that his model is known for. The boss will instantly recommend his own gadget, so that when you buy it yourself, he thinks you took his advice, rather than merely copied his purchase.
Shamelessly ripped from "The Trivia Geek" at TechRepublic
And when CIOs to hire non-management professionals, they very often make bad choices, from my experience. Its rare for a 'CIO' to have the kind of background needed to evaluate real IT professionals. Smart CIOs let people to the evaluating who have the experience to do it well. Other CIOs, well, if one tried to impress me with their cluefullness when 'interviewing' me, I'd might take the job if I really needed it, but I'd keep my resume up to date. And not take stock options.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
... but shouldn't it be whom?
Nit-pickerry...
They are related, but not the same thing
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
From my end of the planet, a business diploma will get you in charge of the IT shop. Techie skills are for the low-lifes the business people yell at. Technical skills get you nowhere. I don't know where you people are from (apparently not where I'm from). A business degree is a great start to be in charge of anything I.T. Comp. Sci. degree? We might hire you as a temp. (entry level wage but only if you have 10+ years experience).
Maybe in small companies. In larger companies, the CIO is often not even in touch with major corporate IT strategy, much less day-to-day subjects like hiring criteria. Heck, director-level people are rarely involved -- that's the type of thing that Managers and team leads do, and they're in the trenches.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
So you don't have any routers or switches or VoIP systems or servers or printers or workstations or backup storage or --
Yeah, the project managers and developers can take care of all that stuff in their free time.
For the nth time, IT is more than programming/development. There's a whole lot of infrastructure that needs installing, repairing, maintaining, and securing, and your development staff and management is either unwilling or unable to deal with it. Which is fine, because there's a whole bunch of people out there (yes, like me) who are both willing and able, for the right price.
Oh and one last thing: if you plan on hiring and promoting people who have stronger business skills and knowledge (stronger than technical skills and knowledge, presumably), you're going to end up with a head that doesn't know what to tell the body to do. Again. Or still. Whatever, "business leaders" - you're just there to soak money until the place goes under or you get canned with severance.
God I get so pissed about this.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
This is all very good advice, and I thank you for posting it. I was laid off a few weeks ago from [insert big company name here], and I am currently going through the resume editing process.
I can personally attest to that point. I have been called a "jack of all trades, master of none", my skillset includes things like import engine rebuilding + repair, graphic and broadcast artist, network administrator, PHP/AEL/C developer, live and studio production engineer, etc.., and to top it all off, those are skills I have learned professionally or through self-education with professional experience later backing it up.
Unfortunately, most employers want that slip of paper that says you were not only dedicated to learning something, but that you had the money to pay someone else to tell you what to read and help you understand things you had difficulty with. There's definitely more people who can learn quickly via higher education, but there's that select few that learn much better outside of the "normal" environment.
Additionally, I'd like to add an extra note of agreement to the third item in BVis' list. It seems like I work crap jobs for months while trying to find a company that realizes I'm qualified for their open position AND a good investment, but the moment I have a solid position with a good company, my inbox is flooded with interview requests, etc.... Luckily, I learned my lesson about the grass not REALLY being greener back in '99 when I left a FOX affiliate for a startup graphic & web design company that changed their mind about the position the day AFTER my 30 day notice was up at the television station...
ok...enough ranting...shutup Rushowr....
During recessions the need for "delta workers" greatly drops. Delta workers build new things or make significant changes to things. Infrastructure maintenence-related positions are safer from recessions because they keep the business running day-to-day. Thus, new systems work is more volitile and will go up during good times and drop more during bad times.
Table-ized A.I.
Yeah, the peice of paper thing bit me in the ass a few times. The key is to find a way, ANY way, to get a silly slip of paper that says you know what you are doing. The obvious way is a degree...but if you can get a job (even freelance) that involves the necessary skill, and thus a reference, then BOOM, your RESUME! is that bit of paper. Even better, it doesn't have to be anything particularly big or impressive. It just has to be something that impressed your client so that they talk you up.
Thats how it went for me... Small bit of art, larger bit of art, real art stuff (and this time I got it on paper, having learned my lesson)....job at game company as artist.......
you get the idea.
Are all these companies still writing software in-house? Seems to me it's cheaper to buy a catch-all product and have 1 or 2 coders customize it to suit that particular company's need. Most of the crap I see at my place is Access or SQL with a clumsy front end. Why aren't there modular/scalable software solutions all over the place? And yet we're hiring more and more coders everyday, meanwhile our help desk is overwhelmed trying to support all the crap our software shop is puking out. Hire more desktop support.
the mods may say you posted flamebait, but to me it's a flame that warms my heart. rock on, brother! --chebucto
http://reddit.com/info/dokh/comments/
Slashdot = Sarcasm
I've noticed that old (pre-internet era) companies use "IT" as the umbrella term for anything technical where newer, more tech-savvy companies separate product development (software engineering, web dev, qa, etc) from "IT," reserving the latter term for systems, support, operations, and networking.
To generalize, I really wonder if the trends of these old companies with their archaic processes really have any meaning to the rest of us. Maybe the companies in this article emphasize greater business-savvy because their business models are disappearing and they don't stand a chance on the technical side anyway.
It helps if you don't think about them as morons. More "their skills are more appropriate for the job they've got".
OK, it is a bitter pill when those skills appear to be "play golf, make worse decisions than a crack-smoking chimpanzee and stab people in the back left and right". If that's the case at your company, you probably need to either find a new employer or take up hard drugs and golf.
Hehehehe. Immediately after I read the slashdot Fake News article, I read this article... Coincidence?
- Sufficient social skills to be likable - and to give praise to both others and yourself.
- Know your Machiavelli and know when to use it and when not to use it.
- Be professional in how you communicate and deal with people and organizations.
And - you keep an eye on the budget when prioritizing.
Stop the brainwash
"I want to hire a project manager" is usually a translation for "The last guy in here who tried to implement a project screwed it up, some magical project manager person will of course do it perfectly next time because all my existing staff are muppets"
I've worked in IT over 25 years.
From what I have seen, over and over, hiring, retention, and promotions, are almost arbitrary. Such decions are almost never based on sound logic. Many times I've seen people promoted to management who have neither business, or technical, skills.
If so called "social skills" means playing politics, then I suppose that is important.
The simple reason is: why rock the boat.
For example: let's say you are hired to work for slave wages at the helpdesk. After two months, you have proven your worth by doing a great job.
Hey, they have a great helpdesk tech who works for slave wages. Why should they ever promote the tech? If they promote the tech, then they'll have to get a new tech, and train him/her. Of course the tech will just quite, but companies are seldomly that far sighted. After the tech quits, the company will bitch about how techs are job hoppers.
Companies don't want to train because they are afraid of training people for the next job. Besides, it doesn't fit into the budget.
They're going to hire people with good grammar.
----------
I am an expert in electricity. My father held the chair of applied electricity at the state prision.
It seems to me, that most of the jobs listed (that anybody would want)are only available to people who already have those jobs.
After I was laid off at general dynamics, I was offered some free training from unemployment. They rejected all of my training ideas, and kept pushing project management, so I took that.
I inverviewed at raytheon for a job that I seemed to fit perfectly, especially since my top secret clearance was still active. The interviewer was very concerned about my project managemnet training. He kept saying: "this is just an admin job, it involves no project management." No matter what I said, his concern was very apparent.
I also interviewed at Sun, for a job that required a TS clearance. Same thing. The interviewer abrubtly said: "most of the people we hire for this position don't have that sort of education." and that was it.
My training in PM is useless for getting a PM job. Those jobs require years of experience in PM, and also years of experience in the specific technology being managed.
What makes you think that smarter people are better at handling those situations? Being "smart" doesn't remove your other vices (jealousy, laziness, etc).
Heaven help us from more Project Managers.
I have yet to meet one that I consider competent. Though I have heard fairy tales of such mythical beasties actually existing.
The push towards ever more (incompetent) PM's stems from a lack of leadership in the executive suite and the common misconception (or desire) that people are fungible resources, that can be plugged and played at will. Exec Management in many companies (especially the large ones) have no concept of leadership, and thus they promote a mechanistic approach to management, which manifests in their hiring ever more PMs and delegating responsibility down to them.
Ever seen a project manager that could be labelled a "project leader"? I haven't. Yet. And I'm not holding my breath.
PM's, at least the accredited ones, worship the PMBOK (Which would be better acronymized as the PMFOC, IMO). Seen any mention of a PMBOL (Book of Leadership)? That'll be the day.
Unfortunately, I see no end to this approach. It's only going to get worse, till everything crumbles. Offshoring is just another symptom of higher management's abdication of leadership and the treatment of people as commodity components.
My 2 cents worth.
Chaeron Corporation
am i the only one on here who could give a flying fvck about trends and hiring statistics? i am a software engineer / oracle dba for a $100 million company who is happy with my job. i never want to become management or the boss or any of that crap. i will program til i die, and i will die a happy man. if this company pisses me off i will walk out the door and get another job in seconds because software doesnt write itself and databases dont manage themselves. you cant fake skill. my code speaks for itself. i dont want a promotion i want a raise and bonus. i can work anywhere for anyone who meets those requirements. in the end i will make plenty of money by doing what i do best. so who cares that project managers and programmers are a hot hiring trend. not me, and if you have the skills you wont either. almost anyone can manage but not everyone can code!
Is it just me or do these two statements not make sense together? Once they hire all the project managers and programmers, they're still not going to have people that can build infrastructure. You'll need more systems administrators to get the actual hardware infrastructure in there.
Perhaps this magazine meant the news was that CIO actions don't align with their stated goals. :-)
IANACIO, so take this tidbit for what it's worth, because its only based on my experience.
CIOs and other executives appreciate one thing more than anything else from their technical people: know the business.
That's it really - if they can be confident that you understand the nature of the business they are in, it's quirks and gotchas, in addition to the ability to harness the techy stuff, you will succeed.
Be careful not to fall into the typical IT trap of assuming everyone above you is an idiot. Sometimes they are, but in many cases you simply aren't understanding the business aspect of their actions - and that's the part that keeps you paid.
Instead of spending tonight playing WOW, reading Slashdot, or reading up on the latest wifi encryption, learn something about what the company you work for does. You'll be better off for it.
Smart people should know that jealousy, laziness etc. don't help them at all, and shouldn't be that way. I'd say it's part of being smart, my definition at least.
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
I didn't ask you to name all of example companies. Just name one. Can you do that? Name one where the CIO hired the brother of the girl he is banging. Dude, just name one.
Yes, have more than one resume, for different things. One can be more generalized with wordy explanations of some bigger projects and another can have lots of raw info like skill x y z etc. grouped by categories, with very brief explanations of some past projects. Then you can specialize further focusing on certain skills and using your other skills as extras.
:) using my hardcore raw data resume version. At one point I had been told I was overqualified a few times and most other times got nothing back at all. It was crazy. I couldn't get a job and yet I had been "overqualified" for some.
I just got a new job
Another big thing is "networking". I hate that hiring based on knowing people instead of just whether they would be a good employee or not. It helps if someone at the company knows you.
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/