I completely agree with the stigma and the ability for [some] hiring managers *not* to see beyond the title/organization of "tech support". Its been a long marketed (and television/movie) stigma that tech-support isn't more than just a bunch of script-reading and non-technical individuals who probalby wouldn't be able to cross organizational boundaries. I would discount, not the interviewee in this case, rather, I'd would definitely discount the hiring manager that would place this stigma on individuals.
If we take tech support into perspective, there is a far range of salary and respect level a company can provide. Cisco has been known to produce some of the best CCIE's out there, only because they're forced to learn swtiching/routing protocols and have mastered the art of debugging a platform. Although, some may say its esoteric (limited to cisco) but netowrks are networks and routing protocols are routing protocols. I'm implying to to the tech-support person to carefully select this role with a company who's technology is portable. Another Cisco note is their tech support guys can range easily into the six figure range - people in this industry know people coming from cisco TAC w/ a certain salary or grade knows their "stuff" because Cisco is one of those companies who recognize talent/intellect.
On the flip-side, there are jobs at Microsoft whom the first 3 levels of tech support really doesn't get you anywhere. Answers are either vague or a link is provided, leaving the customer reading a knowledge base they may or may not really understand. I know the MS pay scale isn't as aggressive as Ciscos but seeing the quality of their first line support leads me to believe that it isn't very high.
Most of the posters did mention your own ability to interview, lesser an eloquent resume. This is key, at least for me, when I interview. I, myself, did everything - started in development, then went into Systems Integration then into Sales. In all these roles, I took away the best and worst aspect and realized that (perhaps) support was a good idea - you still talk to customers while still learning technology, without the traveling and sales pressure and unlike development, you're not under the gun from sales and your own development organization to get "stuff done". In the end, for myself, support isn't where I see myself. I think its every easy to get pideon-holed into the role and (depending on the company) may have a strict policy (or politics) about moving internally - leaving you one option - to leave.
I take this job with a grain of salt, meaning, it just pays my bills and knowing I'll never become a VP/Director in this position - its mainly because of the support stigma and the fact that upper-level management probably doesn't visualize a person in support to have the necessary depth to grow beyond just being a technical person.
Well, here's my 2 cents of it all.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree with the stigma and the ability for [some] hiring managers *not* to see beyond the title/organization of "tech support". Its been a long marketed (and television/movie) stigma that tech-support isn't more than just a bunch of script-reading and non-technical individuals who probalby wouldn't be able to cross organizational boundaries. I would discount, not the interviewee in this case, rather, I'd would definitely discount the hiring manager that would place this stigma on individuals. If we take tech support into perspective, there is a far range of salary and respect level a company can provide. Cisco has been known to produce some of the best CCIE's out there, only because they're forced to learn swtiching/routing protocols and have mastered the art of debugging a platform. Although, some may say its esoteric (limited to cisco) but netowrks are networks and routing protocols are routing protocols. I'm implying to to the tech-support person to carefully select this role with a company who's technology is portable. Another Cisco note is their tech support guys can range easily into the six figure range - people in this industry know people coming from cisco TAC w/ a certain salary or grade knows their "stuff" because Cisco is one of those companies who recognize talent/intellect. On the flip-side, there are jobs at Microsoft whom the first 3 levels of tech support really doesn't get you anywhere. Answers are either vague or a link is provided, leaving the customer reading a knowledge base they may or may not really understand. I know the MS pay scale isn't as aggressive as Ciscos but seeing the quality of their first line support leads me to believe that it isn't very high. Most of the posters did mention your own ability to interview, lesser an eloquent resume. This is key, at least for me, when I interview. I, myself, did everything - started in development, then went into Systems Integration then into Sales. In all these roles, I took away the best and worst aspect and realized that (perhaps) support was a good idea - you still talk to customers while still learning technology, without the traveling and sales pressure and unlike development, you're not under the gun from sales and your own development organization to get "stuff done". In the end, for myself, support isn't where I see myself. I think its every easy to get pideon-holed into the role and (depending on the company) may have a strict policy (or politics) about moving internally - leaving you one option - to leave. I take this job with a grain of salt, meaning, it just pays my bills and knowing I'll never become a VP/Director in this position - its mainly because of the support stigma and the fact that upper-level management probably doesn't visualize a person in support to have the necessary depth to grow beyond just being a technical person. Well, here's my 2 cents of it all.