I am sort of getting the impression your passion is not IT, at least not programming because most of the programmers I know do it not to climb some ladder but because they love to code. It's in their blood and it's what they want to do it regardless of which rung on the ladder it may be.
Your approach to a career appears to be unfocused, just going where the money is, taking this opportunity or that as you float along. You obviously have intelligence and aptitude to do IT work but seemingly no passion for it. Now that you've exhausted the tech positions you figure management is where you can go to keep climbing the corporate ladder. Are you perhaps painting yourself into a corner?
Are you going into management because you want to or because it's just another step on the treadmill?
To be a successful, effective manager you really need the following skills:
Desire to manage and lead others
Good communication skills, able to talk with everybody
Extroverted personality
Willing to work long, thankless hours
Able to develop a tough, crusty exoskeleton to fend off crass & tactless accusations concerning your competency & department
note: the person screaming the loudest pointing fingers at everyone else's procedures is usually the culprit
Enjoy debating and arguing with people
Not afraid to fire/reassign slackers
I'd make your company an offer: hire me as the IT manager and this is the (negotiable) salary I desire. If not, then move on.
counselor: Well chartered accountancy is rather exciting isn't it?
Mr. Anchovy: Exciting? No it's not. It's dull. Dull. Dull. My God it's dull, it's so desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring and des-per-ate-ly DULL.
The first problem I have with this article is that it attempts to discuss two completely different topics, that of security against physical harm or risk and that of security against harm to a computer system. They really are not related. If I see a rhino charging at me I will have fear and get out of the way (if I can). In the case of a computer system, I cannot detect harm such as someone attempting to gain administrator access through a remote connection except by special software or reading logs.
The average human being is not going to dig through log files or read technical documentation to shore up possible security risks. A (sober) human being will most certainly try to get out of the way of a rhino, and it is more common sense than it is evolution: either get out of the way or get trampled to death. When it comes to IT security, the average human computer user will trust the firewall, the anti-virus software, or "that computer guru" to keep things safe.
The second problem I have with the article are the unproven assertions made:
--we got good estimating risk 100,000 years ago in an East African village
--evolution is true, and how we feel emotionally about security is a result of it
--the brain is still in beta mode
--it is difficult to estimate risk in London in 2007
I think Londoners (as are most city-dwellers I know) are street smart and savvy enough to estimate risks quite well, but maybe because all but the criminals have been disarmed and Londoners don't have the means of self-defence anymore it is perhaps harder to defend against harm?
Slashdot Mirror
I am sort of getting the impression your passion is not IT, at least not programming because most of the programmers I know do it not to climb some ladder but because they love to code. It's in their blood and it's what they want to do it regardless of which rung on the ladder it may be.
Your approach to a career appears to be unfocused, just going where the money is, taking this opportunity or that as you float along. You obviously have intelligence and aptitude to do IT work but seemingly no passion for it. Now that you've exhausted the tech positions you figure management is where you can go to keep climbing the corporate ladder. Are you perhaps painting yourself into a corner?
Are you going into management because you want to or because it's just another step on the treadmill?
To be a successful, effective manager you really need the following skills:
I'd make your company an offer: hire me as the IT manager and this is the (negotiable) salary I desire. If not, then move on.
counselor: Well chartered accountancy is rather exciting isn't it?
Mr. Anchovy: Exciting? No it's not. It's dull. Dull. Dull. My God it's dull, it's so desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring and des-per-ate-ly DULL.The first problem I have with this article is that it attempts to discuss two completely different topics, that of security against physical harm or risk and that of security against harm to a computer system. They really are not related. If I see a rhino charging at me I will have fear and get out of the way (if I can). In the case of a computer system, I cannot detect harm such as someone attempting to gain administrator access through a remote connection except by special software or reading logs.
The average human being is not going to dig through log files or read technical documentation to shore up possible security risks. A (sober) human being will most certainly try to get out of the way of a rhino, and it is more common sense than it is evolution: either get out of the way or get trampled to death. When it comes to IT security, the average human computer user will trust the firewall, the anti-virus software, or "that computer guru" to keep things safe.
The second problem I have with the article are the unproven assertions made:
--we got good estimating risk 100,000 years ago in an East African village
--evolution is true, and how we feel emotionally about security is a result of it
--the brain is still in beta mode
--it is difficult to estimate risk in London in 2007
I think Londoners (as are most city-dwellers I know) are street smart and savvy enough to estimate risks quite well, but maybe because all but the criminals have been disarmed and Londoners don't have the means of self-defence anymore it is perhaps harder to defend against harm?