Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Comparing the Value of Skilled Admins vs. Contributing Supervisors
HappyDude writes "I've been asked to manage a department in our IT group. It's comprised of UNIX, VMWare, Citrix, EMC and HP SAN Admins, Technicians and Help Desk personnel. The group covers the spectrum in years of experience. I am a 20-year Admin veteran of Engineering and Health Care IT systems including UNIX, Oracle DBA, Apache HTTP/Tomcat, WebSphere, software design plus other sundry jack-of-all-trades kinds of stuff. Although I consider myself a hack at most of those trades, I'm reasonably good at any one of them when I'm submerged. I also have 10 years of Project Management experience in Engineering and Health Care related IT organizations. I do have formal PM training, but haven't bothered to seek credentialing. I'm being told that I'll be worth less to the organization as a supervisor than what I'm making now, but the earning potential is greater if I accept the management position. Out of the kindness of their hearts, they're offering to start me in the new position at the same wage I'm currently making. Does this make any sense, Slashdot? "
Read on for further details.
HappyDude continues: "I think their rationale is crap; the primary reason behind their valuation is that I have no leadership experience. I would be a 'rookie' supervisor with no more value than a 4-year grad coming in off the street. It seems a couple things are missing from their calculations. One is that they don't give me credit for the 'global' projects I've led to complete success (completed on time, under budget, all goals met, blah, blah, blah). Apparently PM doesn't have anything to do with leadership in their eyes. My current employer doesn't actually understand what PM is and has no one with the skills I have who actually practices it other than me. How would you recommend I 'educate' our HR department about what real PM is all about and convince them that it surely does satisfy their leadership experience requirement?
The other thing missing (in my mind) is a fair valuation of my current skills, or of the worth of a supervisor skilled in almost all of the trades I'll be managing. They use 'market' analysis data from a third party when gauging salaries, probably like most employers do... but I know individuals in my field who wouldn't even talk to these folks for a starting wage less than 25% greater than what I'm currently making. HR suggested if I could provide adequate data that contradicts or adequately augments theirs, they would reconsider. How would I go about gathering that kind of data, from reputable sources, that would even stand a chance of these people's paradigms? As a final request, can anyone please provide me with first-hand knowledge of salary ranges for the two positions described? Maybe I'm all wet, but I think I'm a steal at the wage I'm being paid right now."
The other thing missing (in my mind) is a fair valuation of my current skills, or of the worth of a supervisor skilled in almost all of the trades I'll be managing. They use 'market' analysis data from a third party when gauging salaries, probably like most employers do... but I know individuals in my field who wouldn't even talk to these folks for a starting wage less than 25% greater than what I'm currently making. HR suggested if I could provide adequate data that contradicts or adequately augments theirs, they would reconsider. How would I go about gathering that kind of data, from reputable sources, that would even stand a chance of these people's paradigms? As a final request, can anyone please provide me with first-hand knowledge of salary ranges for the two positions described? Maybe I'm all wet, but I think I'm a steal at the wage I'm being paid right now."
Truth be told, most program managers, me included, are pretty shitty at leadership and management. If you take the job, remember that the only thing that matters is making yourself look good. To do that, make your boss look good. That means solving his boss' problems. Technical skills keep me from getting fired, but sucking up to my boss' boss and communication skills are the reason I have been promoted well beyond my management abilities. Good luck.
It sounds like the thing to do is get some solid offers for similar positions elsewhere, then show them to HR. Once HR understands what you -could- be making, they're more likely to offer you a better deal to retain you. On the other hand (though it sounds unlikely given the circumstances described) if you -can't- get any competing offers to refute HR with, that will give you material to re-evaluate with.
It's not dead. It just smells funny.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Well you didnt tell us what theyre offering, so its hard for me to say specifically on whether its a fair wage. I would, as you highlighted definitely come back at them with the PM experience where, Id point out, management in a matrix environment with no real authority is far more difficult than actual management. Id definitely through in the soft value of you being reasonably well equipped to fill in when people are out for training, sick, vacations, mass murdering sprees, etc.
Ultimately, its not costing you anything, and youre getting something in return. If you cant convince them, and they dont pony up in a year or so, then by all means exercise the beauty that is a free market economy, and take your skills elsewhere.
Good luck!
I am worth a ton to my organization as a working supervisor. Not only do I know the work that's being done quite well, but I'm also more well respected by my employees because I'm in the thick of it with them.
While I don't always have to put in the same amount of time into various projects that they do, I still have a part in the work and keep fresh on my skills, something I personally disliked in every single "solely personnel manager" I ever had--one of the reasons I left my last job in fact.
While you may be worth less, depending on your work/supervision balance, they're right, your potential is much higher. If you're seriously interested in management, take the job. As long as the team is cohesive and fairly drama free, you should be able to do very little extra.
If you're going to be doing the same amount of work you always were and now have an additional amount of supervisory work to do (1:1s, PTO forms, tracking comp time, developing documentation for new hires/exit process, etc, etc, etc, etc) then you would certainly be getting the short end of the stick.
However, you must realize that if you pass up this job (assuming you're currently employed there and it's a "promotion") that they will be unlikely to provide you the chance again in the future. You will be ignored as management material and others will grow up faster around you forcing you to exit for another organization.
Best of luck. I enjoy my current role as it gives me the flexibility to get away from the code and into something else but also keep my skills sharp and my interests high.
YMMV.
They are taking advantage of you. Speaking as someone who went from technical to management (operations and projects) then back to an engineering role, I can tell you that if you do the job well you should be making more as a manager. That isn't a popular opinion around here but it is true. Note that I said if you can do the job well. Too many people get thrust into management roles who do not have the talents or training to do them justice. Properly executing a management role will take more effort and more hours than most technical staff ever spend on their jobs.
You should be getting at least a 10% bump in pay. They are playing you.
Your services to this company are worth whatever value your negotiate with them. There is no way to assign an objective value based on evidence of salaries in the industry. What other employment opportunities do you have? What other options does the company have besides placing you in that position? Once you've taken stock of the answers to those questions, you'll have a better idea of what leverage you have here. The HR department is not a neutral decision maker that will rationally weigh whatever convincing evidence you present to them about market salaries and maybe decide in your favor. They are your negotiation adversary. Don't plead for them to pay you more and harp on other peoples' salaries for different jobs elsewhere - that's not relevant. Negotiate. Sometimes this doesn't even involve stating a basis for your demand. If they NEED you in that position and can't achieve the same business goals otherwise for anywhere near the same price, then all you need to say is, "Those are fine arguments, but you'll need to pay me 50% more to take the job." But if they can use a different management structure and avoid the position, or hire a new grad who doesn't do as well but costs half as much, then you'd better take their offer or find work elsewhere.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
You don't seem to know the difference between project management skills and people management skills. You have a poor relationship with your management and HR departments. You're not an expert on any of the skills of people you'll be managing. Your only self-stated skill is in project management; yet you have not been able to impart this knowledge to any of your coworkers. If I were you I would be happy to have the opportunity to prove myself. If you're going to negotiate anything, accept the current salary with the understanding that if you do well you'll receive a year-end bonus and a 10% raise next year.
Let me also point out that you might hate managing people. It's not the same as project management. Why do you want to take the job if you dislike the circumstances around it already?
But if you're really so sure that you should be making more money as a supervisor, go find one that pays 25% more. No one is forcing you to stay at the current job.
Are you in the 6 figure range now with your 20 years experience? The PMP certification and membership in PMI was what it took for me to get the salary I wanted. PMI had a fantastic annual salary survey that helped me make my case for the 6 figures plus 15-30% annual bonuses. I was also able to pull up comparable job postings that matched PMP and 'list of specific jobs managing others with techie skills' to fight for the $$$. I have about 15 years experience, a BA degree, and a few MCPs.
If you can close major projects by force of will, smarts and personality, because you have no authority or direct reports, but you understand project management, people management isn't hard because you have demonstrated critical leadership skills withttp://ask.slashdot.org/story/12/06/09/2153231/ask-slashdot-comparing-the-value-of-skilled-admins-vs-contributing-supervisors#hout having any authority. People have worked for you because they wanted to! I don't like the politics of it, so I won't switch from PM to a purely manager role myself again. I'm going to go get a PgMP next year and move on to managing more global programs. Good luck making the best choice for you.
Keep in mind that with the economy where it is, they probably have an excessive supply of applicants for any entry level positions. Based on your story, it sounds like they may not necessarily have an excessive supply of people who can replace you, but all of those applicants do make it easier to promote from within and fill the new vacancies below from external applicants.
On top of that, I've seen a lot of organizations that have been freezing pay increases for two years or more now. All in all, this isn't really a good time to be grousing for a pay increase.
I've seen several folks from engineering ranks get promoted into a managerial role. All of them were subsequently laid off during the downturn, except for one who grabbed a chance to go back to his original job. Another was re-hired later, after he lost his seniority.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Rule of thumb: if it pays the same or less, don't do it. That is, if you don't hate what you're currently doing. If they want you to do this, they'll pay more. If they don't, why the fuck are you going there in the fist place?
This is normal for anywhere that has fixed salary scales. The management stream starts lower, but finishes higher than the fact that. That they'd be willing to move you laterally pay wise is a pretty reasonable concession. What they're trying to avoid is the "peter principle" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle), where you would be promoted based on your extensive experience in one are into another where you will completely train wreck and waste everyones time and money.
In terms of how you prove the experience, or what your job is you get documentation. You have written reports about your duties from your supervisor and subordinates about what you were doing (and telling them to do) right? Good. If not you can still write a description of your duties that demonstrate leadership and give HR the option to submit it to the relevant employees themselves and get their opinion as to whether or not it is an honest reflection of what you did, give them references about a previous employer. Essentially you're applying or a new job, treat it as such. You're taking the chance that one of your boss or subordinates will not try and fuck you over, but if you're narrow enough in focus, that part of your responsibility was leadership, that doesn't mean other people didn't also, but you had to lead kind of thing. You can be diplomatic in highlighting what you did, without suggesting anyone else didn't do anything as well.
Imagine you were going from completely orthogonal fields. Your experience at being an assembly line worker doesn't count towards your experience as a medical doctor. Sure, you may have had to supervise people before, and done some half assed project management. But you're not a project manager. If you want to be a project manager you have to prove yourself as a project manager. And no, project management has nothing to do with leadership or strategic direction for a company. Or at least it might not where you are. Project management is about managing the implementation of a project created by leadership. At least some places.
If you think that a reasonable starting rate is 25% more than you're making that might be fine. Tell them that, (but remember, my friend who makes X is not statistically significant), and ask how quickly you can expect to see salary growth and based on what metrics. I know a lot of people who started at 45-50k this time last year and are now at 70k-80k. If they're willing to say you can get a 25% bump in say 3 months or 6 months well... then they're just trying to cover their own asses.
As for salary range for what you're doing.... depends on where you are. A lot. And on one piece of information you haven't provided, which is how many employees would be under supervision.
They changed the name, but still do the salary surveys.
https://www.usenix.org/lisa
I noticed you said "contributing supervisor" by which I take to mean that you will also do a share of the "grunt" work.
I've had several roles managing / team leading from 2 to 25 people, but in all of them have felt compelled to design and code somewhat as well. Beware, doing both of these in the same job is incredibly stressful, because real tech work takes lots of time, and it is incredibly difficult to do a quality job of both roles at once, and other managers will not recognize the difference in your workload compared to theirs, so won't understand when you might skip/half-ass a few commitments.
I've tried to make the break. I have a yellow sticky on my monitor frame that says "DNC" (do not code).
But that's easy to say, hard to do unless you are surrounded by rockstar hero-coders/software engineers (or in your case IT wizards) who really excel up to the standards you'd like to see or think are needed. Not a situation you often find.
Still, my advice is choose one, not both.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Take the job and enjoy. Don't worry so much about the money... for now. That'll come or, if not, you'll have a couple years of managerial experience under your belt and some other company will enjoy having you. You can always go back to Admin work and who knows, you might enjoy the new responsibilities and leadership role.
Leadership - doing the right things. Infusing "vision" into the project and being able to "sell" that vision to stakeholders, picking the means and adjusting the priorities based on the team (capabilities, their state at any given time, etc.)
Note: I'm not saying the same person cannot do both in the same time. But based on the confusion I'm seeing in your post between the two and the emphasis on PM, I'm inclined to think you may have a deficit in regards with leadership. (I certainly may be wrong.)
BTW, one thing I noticed in regards with a "exclusively PM attitude persons": they speak about their team members in terms of "resources"; if anyone in the team gets named, it's for giving a name point to a "resource contention" or blame for the delays in the project.
They also use "project goals" most of the time and for them the "project vision" is a blah-blah paragraph of the "project plan" document; as such, they also hate to switch between approaches in the middle of the project, even if mandated by unforeseen circumstances (chosen technology doesn't actually support the vision) or opportunities to add something better to the outcome of the project.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
1) Try to get the person you will be reporting to involved. HR usually has no idea what you do or how you do it. Your direct manager will at least have an idea, if not a full understanding.
2) This can be tricky in a low-level management because your value is largely based on your ability to control/influence others. You need to draw connections between your past actions and the goals of the business.
4) Finally you don't add value to the business by being a tech who leads, so don't sell yourself that way. You add value to the business by being an interpreter, you can make your subordinates more productive by insulating them from the push and pull of the business. And you make the business more able to achieve its goals by being able to effectively communicate technical concepts to them without making their eyes glaze over. The most important thing in this capacity is the ability to mirror someone to build a report if you are unable to do that or don't know what that means then that should be item number 1 for you to learn.
I think their rationale is crap; the primary reason behind their valuation is that I have no leadership experience. I would be a 'rookie' supervisor with no more value than a 4-year grad coming in off the street.
This is a fair assesment on their part until you can prove otherwise.
they don't give me credit for the 'global' projects I've led to complete success (completed on time, under budget, all goals met, blah, blah, blah).
This doesn't have anything to do with leadership, your job was to keep the project on-track and you did that nothing more. Not to say that you didn't use leadership skills to keep it on track, but this statement doesn't address that. When you look at the project from a 50,000 feet view then you aren't demonstrating your skills you are collecting statistics, and unless you have a massive number of them then you have no real data. But if instead you look inside Project X at a specific point when the project was at risk, Then demonstrate the risks and the subsequent actions you took which turned the project around and thusly earned/saved the company Y dollars. This is how you can demonstrate leadership and business value.
I know individuals in my field who wouldn't even talk to these folks for a starting wage less than 25% greater than what I'm currently making.
You are either (1) not worth what these other individuals are (2) working for less than your value. It is quite simple. Simple but irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you are making what you are making because at some point you made a decision that either made perfect sense or not a lot of sense. The only way you change that is to present the business case and hope that you presented it well. These other individuals have different skillset different experience to draw on and different abilities.
How would I go about gathering that kind of data, from reputable sources, that would even stand a chance of these people's paradigms?
One final thought, you aren't going to win this one with salary surveys and similar data. This is not how compensation is determined. Factor 1 - Companies Budget, Factor 2 - Employee Requirements. If they have budget to pay 2.4M annually but you are willing to work for 50K, they are not going to split the difference with you, and they shouldn't, they will pay you the 50K you require and pocket the rest. Now considering you are an existing employee you need to demonstrate the value that you bring in order to be able to change your requirements. So don't
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
Yes, that makes sense. There's two paths in career - specialist and management. Many of the most senior positions are specialist and it sounds like your skills fit the specialist capability profile. Leadership is a different ball game. You need to be charismatic, foresighted, and articulate (if you're doing a good job). Think EQ not IQ. It's a different set of skills, a set that can be developed independently from technical skills. Consider this "we're not paying you anything" your first challenge. If you don't have the balls to negotiate, you're not fit for the position.
If your collective bosses don't know what project management is, *they* shouldn't be managing anyone. That's one of the main things managers *do*.
If they're asking you to take a different job, it's because they believe the value you'll add at the new position is greater than the value you'll add at your current location. Usually this is due to the new position being *more* important - the only time it should be less is if they consider you a *negative* asset and are trying to limit the damage you do.
So either they're a bunch of cheapskates who don't want to pay you what you're worth, or they think you suck and everything you touch turns to shit. Either way, you should be offended.
>I'm being told that I'll be worth less to the organization as a supervisor than what I'm making now, but the earning potential is greater if I accept the management position.
"You're too valuable where you are"
Where have I heard that before. It's a fucking lie. Because if they really felt that way, they'd pay you more to keep you where you are. It doesn't matter how much experience or knowledge you have. To them you are replaceable and just a number.
Take the money and move up the chain.
--
BMO
4-year grad / clueless HR.Get out of there be for you take the blame of any of the upper management containing IT over all there.
no more value than a 4-year grad well if they took people who went to tech schools over CS and put people into jobs with real skills.
Also they don't give you credit for real work there??
There are tons of sites (heck even the government has a site but now I forget it for the life of me) that lists the min to max pay via a bell curve chart (well most times it ends up being a bell curve) for a certain job title in the city or area you're located in. Then you can also see how that city compares to other cities in the state, etc to see what the average pay is and all that.
I believe it also tells you other info about typical reauirements, average educations, etc... But it's been so long since I took the business management classes that I n to only forget the address and name for the site, but also all the information you could extract from it...
Maybe someone else knows of the gov site that lists all this and can post it up
What you do is take the position so you have the title. Then you take your resume, beef it up and THEN look for solid offers for positions elsewhere.
Agreed. Lots of good comments on this page but I think this is one of the most insightful.
I'd take it a step further, however. I saw another comment that said you should be getting at least a 10% increase, with which I agree. You also commented you are being told the earning potential is greater if you go for a supervisor position. Run with that. Sit down with the powers that be and say, okay, earning potential is greater, let's put some metrics around that. Give me some measurable KPIs which I have to meet. If I meet those figures within six months, I get a 10% pay increase. Don't get too hung up on the exact figure; if they agree with this idea but make it eight percent, you're still good. Point is, are they willing to play ball with some good measurable performance definitions? If they do go for this, make sure you understand the criteria you have to meet to get your pay increase, and have at least one mid-point review with your direct manager to assess how well you're doing at accomplishing those specific goals or metrics that will get you your pay increase.
The bit about "you're worth more to us in your current position" sounds pretty suspect. If they won't go with the suggestion in my previous paragraph about putting some hard metrics around "if I achieve A, B, and C, you give me more money", then do what silentbozo says and get prepared to look for another position. But take the supervisor position anyway; it's going to improve your resume, regardless.
By the way, I've also seen some comments about "project management" does not equate to "good leader of people". Very true. Which leads to my final point.
You might want to consider some kind of safety net. I've known people who have moved to a very different position within the same company and nobody's been too sure how they'll do. So they have a mutual agreement - revisit in six months, and if either you or your new manager is unhappy, you get to go back to your old position. If you're really that valuable to them, they should at least be willing to contemplate the idea.
I have had this kind of conversation with HR and management people that I report to, and there are two major issues. 1. You rarely, if ever, screw up your current assignments. That means in their eyes that your job must be easy. Therefore, they could replace you if they need to, because the work is easy. The corrolary is that, if you do make a few mistakes, then you are incompetent and they could replace you with someone earning less money if they feel the desire to change a known (and apparently sub-standard) performer for an unknown, with the attendant training and ramp-up time. Both of those translate in PHB-speak into "you are overpaid, and lucky to have a job". 2. Management and HR need to be educated about the complexity of your role and the value that you add. However the kicker here is that they do not want to be educated - education is for people who are ignorant and need a perception-adjustment. Management and HR feel they know everything they need to know, and more, and they know more and better than you. Can HR do your job? Of course not, but they feel they can identify and hire someone who will do your job - that process gives them something to do, a reason to justify their existence, and they will take that opportunity if offered. Trying to educate HR/Management will probably come across as agitating and rocking the boat, which will often see them shuffling you toward the door - in their eyes you may be good at the job or you may not, but the workplace is about the team, and you are showing a lack of team spirit so we should get rid of you and find a "team player"... In this case, the "show us some evidence of another pay scale we should be using" request is an invitation to show them that they are not doing their job right. If you fail, they were right and you were wrong. If you succeed, you were right and they have bruised egos. Do you really want to bruise the ego of the people you report to and who handle the HR at your employer? The best way to educate HR/Management is to take the role, then once you have a few months'/a year's experience, or the successful delivery of a couple of major projects and you find a similar situation which offers a higher salary, take that discretely to Management and point out that competitor X has offered you x% more money for the same work. It also puts you in a potentially stronger position, with a stronger job market in 6-12 months time. Or, if you suspect that the job market is going to stagnate or contract over the next year, then being an established actor at a company is usually a better prospect than being the new guy trying to get up to speed and learning both a new company and new aspects of your role.
If your pay is at least the 20% percentile of your new job title, you really don't have any bargaining power. As a manager you can decide how hands-on to remain, and you'll qualify for the 50% percentile in a few years, at which point you can get competing offers. The interesting thing about a management role is that it frees you from having to remain so current, and then your career gets managed by management rather than technical recruiters. It's really not a scary transition as proven leadership is much more elusive than proven technical skills.
Hello HappyDude
As a manager / supervisor of operations or projects - what do you think leadership means for any company CEO ? Who would the CEO value more ? WHY ?
A manager - needs to think about improvement of services, optimization, do more with less, innovate, basically better Return on Investment. ( From the CEO's / CFO's perspective )
You are in an excellent position to manage those services technically. However, as an operations manager - you need to think like a "service provider" - a profit center manager. Example: What if I made you the Head of Operations and Customer Support at Apple - to keep the whole itunes, appstore front etc running and customers happy. And you are told - to manage it profitably. How would you think ?
This is how I would respond to HR...
Example: All those services that you mentioned - would cost the company atleast a 20 million in Hardware and services costs annually. The business relies on these systems and the business revenue from these systems may be atleast 10 - 100 times the 20 million. i.e 200 mil - 2 Bil.
As a manager of these services, I would lead a team ( either internal or contractors or service providers) with a total salary of about 2-4 million. I would manage contracts, hardware/software/services/outsourcing/insourcing etc of atleast 20million per year.
If I provide new benefits of 10% either improved productivity or cost savings or new opportunity - that would be 2 million per year.
If I take away 10% of that as my salary - that would be 200,000 $ per year as a manager.
Now, I can definitely make arguments about the size of contracts that I make decisions on - the 20 million - and say how I can benefit more - by understanding product lifecycles, selecting better partners - so in the long term, I may benefit the company more - selecting better technologies etc. Thus providing 1 - 10 % productivity gain on the business revenue impacted - i.e. 1 - 10% of 200 Million or 1 - 10% of 2 Billion.
That would mean - I can benefit the company by atleast 2 Million - to a max of 200 Million.
How much should I ask for such benefits to the company ????
200,000 to 2 million $ per year.
NOW:
Can you make such commitments and take accountability for the said department ? Then you are the leader HR is looking for.
cheers
venu
PS: Most often - a manager / any person falls into the trap of self pity - and blows his chances of success. Focus on the results and the conversation is of a higher quality and helps all. ( I learnt this the hard way - I got fired before I generated results more predictably )....
REFERENCE: Read - "Leadership and Self Deception" by Arbinger.
I mean, it's the same pay. So, you're left with the question of what you would enjoy doing more.
You should look for either more money(to support your family), less hours(to spend more time with your family) or a job you love(which I think is rare)..... but hopefully all three.
A possibility of higher future earnings is not an incentive to move.... at least to me. A higher quality of life, and now.
Went back to my technical job. The most management I'm willing to accept is 70/30 technical/mgmt to help my coworkers work better, not to follow any career in management. It sucked big time to have no technical work to do and be a Excel spreadsheet pusher.
The company I worked for couldn't figure out what to do with me once I decided I didn't want to follow the management path that most senior technical folks had taken. I had to leave. I don't blame them though, it's the culture of thinking that go to up you have to move into management. That might be true if you are looking at your earnings alone but there's more to life than that. Really, there is.
Do not get into management if you've been a technical guy forever and likes to solve puzzles and deep dive on difficult problems. Difficult problems in management always involves politics and stupid people. Disgusting.
You're getting royally screwed. Use those salary sites and point out the discrepancy + your skills + experience and tell them for the additional headache of dealing with other people's shit, you need 20% more. Out of the goodness of your heart, you'll settle for X, otherwise, no thanks, not worth the headache.
By saying "no", you might have made a career ending move, however, so, start looking for another job.
I understand that he insulted you personally. Still, take a moment to recognize that you're arguing with an AC on Slashdot. The fact that he got you to respond means that he won.
If you're to manage people, know that some of them will be jerks and play petty games. Generally, you should not fire back. Take the high road. Let them look like fools. Private straightening-outs are worth an order of magnitude more than public outbursts. They might not seem public, but people know that they're taking place. If you ever say "I'll talk to him about that", do, even if it's only to give them a heads up.
Plan ahead of time. What is worth appearing upset over? Human safety? Certainly. Company policy? Sometimes, but which ones. Theft or destruction? Usually, but to what dollar amount?
I'm sure this doesn't come as news. Just a friendly reminder.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
If you know the territory, you have an excellent ability to judge what to do and who to do it and whether they are doing it right.
Those types of administrator skills are very valuable in keeping things "on track".
Get yourself a head hunter and confirm your value.
That's a figure of speech. The real advice is update your Linkedin profile.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I am a health care CIO and a seasoned PMP and there are several aspects of your post that concern me. The first a general attitude that you know better than everyone else. I'm not saying I'm the best leader or even a good one, but I expect my managers to have some humility with their employees and I do my best to maintain that as well. IMHO, humility is the beginning of respect and the beginning of great leadership. Many of the best decisions I have ever made have come from ideas generated by my management team. How will you ever even know about those ideas if you already know more than they do? A leader's job is not to know everything, but to know all of the options and to choose the best one. Your employees will never feel comfortable bringing forth ideas with the kind of attitude that permeates your post.
The other thing that concerns me is that you seem to think management/leadership is the same thing as PM. As a PMP, I definitely recognize how PM can develop and sharpen leadership skills but they are no where near the same thing. When managing a project, you are aligning resources to accomplish specific tasks to complete a specific project. A good project manager will inspire the team to work cohesively and productively. I have seen very few good project managers. Managing a team that is juggling many tasks every single day is very different. You are responsible for their success, for their morale and engagement. It is no longer checking off tasks on a to do list like what you have experienced in PM. The few paragraphs I see above give me doubt that you have the attitude and interpersonal skills to develop the necessary relationships with employees to motivate them to perform at their best.
Lastly, your current skills, while still valuable, diminish in value when you switch over to management. That is because you should be spending much less time performing the actual work, and more time managing your team and collaborating with other management. I started out as a software developer spending 90% or more of my time writing code. The day I moved over into management, that dropped to almost zero. My software development skills went from being my strongest asset to one of my weakest overnight. Low performing managers have a difficult time with this and try to hang onto work they have no business doing.
I know this post is harsh. However, if you are serious about moving over to management, then you need to hear these harsh realities. I hope you can incorporate this feedback into your strategy. I wish you the best.
Management jobs get paid more to motivate them to do what the higher bosses want, which is often different than the right thing. If you do that for a while you will gain pay grade. When a situation comes up that seem worth it to you, do the right thing. If it is really the right thing, you're unlikely to get fired. You are likely to find your self back in a technical job with more pay.
I have spent years alternating between tech and mgmt roles ratcheting my salary up. Reorganizations and ownership changes make for great opportunities.
I was "promoted" to IT Manager when I was a happy, senior sysadmin. I eventually got a little more money than I would have but had to deal with the vilest shit from upper management. Walked out after sixteen years and could not be happier. YMMV
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
First of all, create a portfolio of your achievements in chronological order. Under each category specify what PM part you had achieved, methods used etc., and on the second category of Management skills- soft skills, encouraging other members, mentoring done, how you had been a cheer leader to the team etc., and how did you reward your team members through various kinds of recognitions. Cost Benefit analysis of each PManaged etc. Then make a summary sheet highlighting how good a manager you will be. You may need help from seasoned managers to polish your presentation. Once you have nicely created portfolio, take it to the HR and give them and ask their response. If they don't give any good response, you have only two choices: (a) stay put and do what you do best or (b) find a better place which will be very difficult at this time of economic down turn. A new place will also expect you have budgeting experiecne, new product development and forecasting and so on, which will create more stress to you than the money you will get there. Also you had to control your ego and suck to the bosses who will take all the best credit and blame you for all their failures.Slash dot is not the right place to ask these questions. Ask management gurus.
By asking you to accept a promotion with vastly increased responsibilities without the commensurate remuneration. Essentially, they're saying "Here's a promotion but no raise."
If you feel that the role will have benefits other than monetary ones, then weigh those. If the monetary upside *potential* is good enough and you trust these folks, that's something to consider as well.
But in the end, they're just asking you to do more work and take on more responsibility for the same money. There could be many reasons for this (including their perceptions of your skills/capabilities), but they could also just be cheap bastards. But you'd know better than we do -- you work for these people.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
As humbling and troubling a thought as it is, you need to face it: If you had the above-average social skills that are relevant for this new job, you'd have held firm while negotiating, and obtained your raise.
You are in the exact position I was in 5 years ago. There is a ceiling to technical talent and what they can earn in most organizations including my own. Although I will always feel like I was born to program, now I do that as a hobby when I go home but now make $50K *more* per year as a manager. What most people don't tell you, and what your management seems to understand, is that going from an engineer to a manager role is a complete career reboot. Forgot all but 10% of what you know. Oh you'll use the know-how, problem solving, tenacity, logic and creativity that it takes to be an engineer, but now you will use those ninja skills to solve people problems. At least, that's how I reframe it to make it interesting to me. Now instead of learning how systems work and how to build/admin them, you are being paid to manage, let's all be honest, the very high maintenance engineers. And that takes skill that will earn you more and brings a higher value to the organization as a whole.
I'd highly recommend reading "Managing Humans". It gives a very accurate depiction of what it's like to go from a technical role working with computers, to a people manager role.
PM and leadership are different. If you don't know how, then no, you're not worth the money.
Because he's been an engineer for 20 years w/o promotion (appending senior to the beginning/ numbers to the end don't count). Dude is probably desperate.
About 15 yrs ago, I switched from being the lead developer on a team to being 100% management. My role made it so I didn't have time to code anyway, so it was just the VPs way of telling me it was expected that I wouldn't code anymore. He took my cube name-plate and duct-taped it outside my new office and told me to remove the compiler from my PC - loudly, so all my guys could hear it. No raise and I didn't want that job.
I took that as a hint. Got my resume in order and started interviewing outside. Found out that I was worth double my current salary, if I accepted a shitty commute of 45 minutes. I set my start date at the new job to be 6 weeks out and gave the company 4 weeks notice. I hoped they would escort me from the building immediately. They did not. They offered $20K more and a company paid lease car. I declined - never stay in a position once they know you've interviewed with outside companies. NEVER.
* if you stay without any change in compensation or role, they know you'll never leave
* if you stay with a small bump in pay, you are money driven and HR hates those people - you will be moved to unimportant projects and fired.
* if you stay with a title change, you are a rube.
You need to leave.
Whenever a boss says they are doing you a favor related to pay or position, you need to leave. You've earned whatever they are offering. It is a competitive world and they think you are cheap.
You need to leave this team, and maybe this company.
You need to leave this team, and maybe this company.
You need to leave this team, and maybe this company.
You need to leave this team, and maybe this company.
For me, leaving was the best thing I've done. 10 yrs more and I retired. I've been retired 5 yrs now, travel, lots of free time, AND I have a few pet coding projects that get all they time I can stand. I didn't hate that job, but the new job was 100x better, which lead to another job less than a year later designing very large scale systems. The budgets were $50M-$500M. Working on larger projects isn't aways fun, but when was the last time you signed off on buying (5) $4M servers and (30) costing $200K ea or $200K for a UPS? Don't get me started on all the network gear, DS-3 lines and $20M in software. At this job I designed projects for wireless, wifi, laptops, speech systems, GPS, mapping, routing, broadband, large scale VoIP, HA, redundancy, disaster recovery and had huge teams working together on all sorts of projects spread across thousands of locations and 20 different countries. It was a pretty damn cool job.
You should leave. Even if you discover that the new job sucks, coming back 8-15 months later to the old job will get you a bump, you'll appear as an outsider with "new ideas" and still know the insides - I've seen that lots of places.
You should leave.
I'm not picking up a passion for management and leadership from you. If you enjoy combining all your skills (technical/soft/management) to help a bunch of people be their very best and make a difference to the organisation then management can be the most exciting job on earth. On the other hand, if you're a great engineer and like what you do then being moved into a management role in a complex organisation (and without more money) could make you really miserable.
If you're expecting misery rather than encouragement, development and support from upper levels of management then it sounds like you are in an organisation that that doesn't develop great managers and will probably not invest much in developing you.
Never take a job you hate just because it seems like a step towards something better. If you hate it this will show and the better job may never happen.
1 - Don't consider the salary discussion closed. You are taking on a higher responsibility, and part of that is to distribute your talent over more people. Do some research, and argue your case. There is, however, a barrier here: if the gap between what you are paid and the industry is too big, you will never get that corrected. Once you have the gap, your only option is to move to another company. It is thus in your interest to keep it small - and try not to fall for the trick where a new company asks you what you earn at the moment. However, be prepared to just accept a status quo or max 5% up in salary - see point 2 why.
2 - Accept, but start looking elsewhere as well. Not immediately, give it half a year months so you're comfortable in the position and know what it entails. The reason for this is simple: you are paid what you are prepared to accept. If you start looking for work BEFORE the promotion you will have to break that promotion barrier again elsewhere. Instead, take the promotion which gives you the rank, then move to another company which will give you the money.
It is sad, but the only way to ensure your salary remains matched with industry values is moving frequently. HR departments know that people don't like to move, and thus try to keep your salary static - they work for the company, not for you, so keeping staff expenditure down is one of their goals. That they thus chase off the talent and keep the dross seems to be sadly immaterial, regardless of the damage that causes to the long term viability of the company..
Insert
"I think their rationale is crap; the primary reason behind their valuation is that I have no leadership experience. I would be a 'rookie' supervisor with no more value than a 4-year grad coming in off the street. It seems a couple things are missing from their calculations. One is that they don't give me credit for the 'global' projects I've led to complete success (completed on time, under budget, all goals met, blah, blah, blah). Apparently PM doesn't have anything to do with leadership in their eyes. My current employer doesn't actually understand what PM is and has no one with the skills I have who actually practices it other than me.
PM skills don't equate to leadership - while some PM's are good leaders it's because they bring another set of skills to the table beyond project management. I've seen plenty of really good PM's who are poor leaders and managers; and while their PM skills are valuable they really have no value as a manager.
Leadership is a learned skill - take advantage of the opportunity. Negotiate to get training in leadership and ask for a mentor. Build up skills to match your PM skills and you'll become much more valuable - either to them or someone else. When you go to meetings, look and see what drives decisions - why do the senior leaders decide a certain way and what arguments did they find compelling? Learn to frame your arguments that way. I work with a lot of technical folks and spend a good bit of time helping them understand how to make an argument so they right solution is selected - because an in-depth technical analysis isn't going to be compelling (or even read all the way through) so frame it in a way that drives a positive decision.
Some people have made snarky comments about "now you need to learn to make your boss look good instead of doing work." Well, yeah. Making your boss look good is part of leadership, and you can do that by continuing to deliver results; and learn to be a good leader at the same time.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
When the question is "Why" the first answer to consider is "Money". ... " the general answer is ".. more money".
When asking "Why should I
Yes, they are trying to sucker you. I have the same problem right now. I have been told by 3 hiring committees that I 'lack experience' because my background appears to be 'all technical'. In reality, I have done many activities which they expect managers and leaders to do including lead projects, manage people, manage resources, train people, mould the teams together, link people and ideas, support strategic initiatives (without holding a meeting and shoving pie charts down their throats) and basically have a grip on the management jobs I am applying for.. I just don't have The Title.
General rule of thumb: Sacrifice whatever it takes to get that next level of pay knowing that the job may be crap for one or two years then get the job you want at that pay or role level.
In your case it sounds like you have plenty of experience, perhaps more than the average manager. Time to highlight your leadership and organisational and people skills. Know your roles. Do some research on role requirements. Does your company have a capability model or similar? If so, get a copy and rate yourself.
Don't go for a management role unless:
1) You really need to step sideways, either to get into management stream or to get out of the hell you are in
2) More money
Sometimes, it is the time when you transition to bargain.
Worst case scenario is that you keep your current job or go elsewhere. Ask for more money. Know your skills and experience. Management is usually hard work. Expect to be compensated for it.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
It comes down to how replaceable are you. If your skill set is differentiated in the market place and you're exactly what they need in this management role, they will pay you more money. If there's a line of people with your skill set, you have no leverage.
And of course they're low-balling you. It's called anchoring, a basic tenet of negotiation.
If you think you are differentiated, tell them that you're not happy with this offer and to bring a new one to the table. By offering nothing, they've already set the baseline. Get them to come back with a new offer.
If you're not differentiated, take the offer.
If you actually have leadership experience, then it should be no problem getting a few of those you have lead to write a letter of recommendation for you as a their leader. Then submit those for review when you go to discuss the issue.
To some degree, as others have mentioned, they have a point. I think it would be completely appropriate to request a review at the end of six months using whatever standard review process you have and if you're doing well, then you should get a pay increase.
It seems like management positions these days are all about negotiation. Employers think it's fair to offer the absolute crappiest benefits and pay to the most qualified people. They then expect those people to negotiate up from there. If they don't negotiate then the employers look down on them for being poor managers.
Lastly, if the idea of a management position intrigues you (personally, I love it), then you should pursue it. I'm sure you're beginning to realize that learning things and even retaining some knowledge is getting a bit harder. You probably have to concentrate a little more to get the same things done. Or, you can't have a few cocktails, stay up till 2am and still be productive the next day. Well, that only gets worse as you get older. Managing people and projects becomes easier than figuring out why WAN link is broken.
Finally, if you take this job, until you've got some street cred you absolutely should kiss ass and say yes to everything your management wants. Nothing pisses off upper management more than someone who's not falling in line. It's shitty, but I've learned that the hard way. Once you're respected, it's different.
----- obSig
"I'm being told that I'll be worth less to the organization as a supervisor than what I'm making now, but the earning potential is greater if I accept the management position. Out of the kindness of their hearts, they're offering to start me in the new position at the same wage I'm currently making. Does this make any sense, Slashdot?"
It makes perfect sence, they don't want to pay the market rate and figure they can get you to do the same job on the cheep, the only costs being vague promises of future earnings and denigrating your currrent contributions. Right now, start looking for employment at a different company. In the meanwhile, don't tell your current company, but make sure you get some kind of printed reference out of them.
AccountKiller
Look old boy ... you have been handed a shit-bucket of a career option.
1) These Shits deserve to die.
2) These Shits never should have been born.
3) Your 'retirement portfolio' shall we say is, very 'achievement denied'.
On the other hand, and YOU have options in this, you can choose your ending.
Kill Them All.
That is the best option.
The US Federal District Court System will fight for your rights as a citizan of the U.S.A. that the 'Company' would never do.
And in addition, killing all of these low-lifeer would be doing a wonderful service to the U.S.A.
Therefore, plan, plan and then some more plan, before the 'Kill'm All moment'.
Old boy do you know that 90% of all killings in the jolly old U.S.A. are ... never solved ... by the local 'soft shoes'.
A good plan and a good attorney can do a world of good and rid the U.S.A. of Low-Lifers that it does not need ... just surplus baggage I'd say.
Give it a go. :)
Best of luck.
Aim for the heart (first shot) ... then 'clip' a leg (second shot). A good 'put down' plan that is more than 200 years old. Works like a charm every time.
LoL :D
PS
The 'Unelected Government of the U.S.A.' is the greatest threat to the survival of all the citizens of planet Earth.
Aim for the mid-section first ... followed by a leg shot.
Even old Obama-boy's staff can be 'deers in the cross-hairs' and dead in less than 30-seconds.
Remember to count your clips as you fire.
Have a bayont ready for ... 'doors' ... shall we say. :D
The problem with this story is that range of a sysadmin/Network Admin is around $55k to 90K/yr. IT Managers start at 90k up to around 120K. If he was a sysadmin, he would have to get a raise to be the manager. No legitimate company would give you a promotion requiring more responsibility and not give you more money. If they try, quit right away.
If that's the case, then dude is a fucking idiot. 20 years without any real promotion/raise is about 18 years too long.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
First off, I highly recommend you read the book "Becoming a Manager" by Linda Hill. It follows the first year experiences of a group of star individual contributors that are promoted to managers and discusses the transformation process they undergo to become managers. Becoming a good manager requires that you change as a person in ways that are hard. Those who do not change end up being bad managers.
What you do not understand, and no one really understands until they do it, is that being a good manager is very hard. Management is like multi-dimensional chess. As a spectator you almost never understand what is going on. You can see the results, and recognize that one person did a decent job while another person did a poor job, but you have no idea what it took to make it happen (even if you had a front-row seat as an employee). As an engineer I was generally critical of management when it was bad and indifferent to it when it was good. Now I look at my company's senior and executive leadership and am in awe of how they manage to do what they do. The difference is that I now know a little of what it takes to achieve results and recognize how much skill it takes.
Management is also like running a machine with a million switches and levers where none of them give the same result twice. The fact that you have so little awareness of this is a bad omen for your chances of becoming a good manager. Project management experience is good, but is really only about 10% of what is needed to be good at management.
Oh, and the reason that people who have been managers are worth more is pretty simple once you realize how hard it is: People that have a track record of doing a half-way decent job at management have already learned far more then you can imagine even needing to know.
--- There are two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it
Don't do it.
Having assumed just such responsibilities in the past, I can guess what's in store for you and how to come out a winner.
Projects stretch out to infinity and budgets shrink to negative numbers. There are several internecine wars over the allocation of responsibilities and technical domains. There does not seem to be much correlation between technical skill and pay. Good people leave and the resumes HR sends you are hilarious. The ass-kissers have already found a new ass and it isn't yours. Management has handed you a list of non-negotiated goals that include making water into wine and feeding the masses with one loaf of bread.
If you can form and spread a reasonable vision that can be sold to your people and management alike, and then organize that chaos into a something no worse than a John Cage recital, you will have your pay and your promotion. What you should be bargaining for right now is the freedom to act and the recognition of what really needs to be done.
The fix for that is changing employers, not jobs within the same employer.
Take the job, then use the title to leave and get the same job at another company for the pay you deserve.
Bow before me, for I am root.