My comments were in reply to the line in the parent that suggested that the copyright holder had no rights to a backup copy that was made. That is simply not true. The copyright holder still owns the rights (during the copyright term) to the copyrighted work (the creative work).
It is unfortunate that the industry is trying to limit traditional fair use rights (like making a usable backup copy, or sharing a work with a friend), but it does not change the fact that they still own copyright over the created work, regardless of the medium on which it is stored (e.g., hard disk, DVD, flash drive).
Pleae grow up and mod comments "Offtopic" only if they truly are off-topic. In the context, my comment was entirely on-topic.
I agree with you. The point of my post was in response to the line in the parent that suggested that the copyright owner doesn't have any rights to the content that has been copied. They shouldn't be able to infringe on fair use, but they still own the rights to the content (the creative work).
They copyright owner has certain rights to control the content, regardless of whether or not you've ripped it to disk or another medium. IMO, once you make the initial purchase ( a la the first sale doctrine), the rights of the copyright owner should diminish, but there should still be some prohibitions in place (e.g., making reproductions for profit, duplication and distribution with the intent of denying the copyright holder income). I write songs. If someone buys a disc or CD with my music, I don't care if they make copies or put it on every media player in the house--I made my dime. If they want to start duplicating CDs and giving them to some of their closest friends, I'm okay with that. If they want to burn dozens or hundreds of my CDs and distribute them broadly, or sell them at a local flea market or garage sale, then they are out of line. If another artisit wants to record one of my songs, they should pony up the dollars. If some kid wants to play my song at a talent contest, let him.
Stigmatized Anonymous Poster, you wrote (in part):
I'm wondering if others have experienced similar problems and if there are any good ways to get employers to realize that my experience from tech support is actually a good thing and not a sign of incompetence.
I've been in tech for almost 16 years now, and I got my start in field technical support (read "as a remote screwdriver"--okay, I knew a bit more than that, but it characterizes the nature of the work). Since then, I've moved through a variety of positions, parleying the very skills I picked up in technical support into other jobs with greater responsibility. I did not have a degree when I started in the field, but picked one up along the way. My experience was such that, when my instructor moved on from his position, he recommended that the school track me down to see if I would be willing to teach. Since then, I've both held down my day job as a technologist and have taught computer and network administration skills part time. Your quandry is one faced by many of my students--I teach adult learners, many of whom are often attempting to switch careers--and one I try to address head-on when talking to them about IT careers in general.
Help desk jobs are the gateway for entrance into the IT field for many, especially those without a programming background. I've seen many students successfully make the jump from technical support to other areas of expertise and responsibility, and I've also seen students successfully parley carreers in retail, financial services, and manufacturing into their first IT gigs, both once their degrees were completed and (for some) even while yet enrolled in the program. While some employers may have a bias against folks with a tech support background, I still believe it is possible to leverage your experiences in ways that will bolster your chances. Your initial communications with a company are key.
From reading your submission, it is clear that you can communicate well in written form, so I'll assume that you have no technical difficulties crafting a good cover letter or resume. You do have multiple resumes, do you not?
You see, one of the keys I try to impress on all of my students is that they need to match their submissions (cover letter and resume) to the needs of the company. Not only do they need to address (some or most of) the specific skills that the job posting includes, but they need to make it clear that their current knowledge and experience--from whatever background--will clearly help the company in fulfilling its need. Without knowing more about your situation (you may email me, if you like), I can't speak specifically to your situation, but I can provide you with some general ideas. What have you learned in tech support that either reinforced what you learned about computer engineering, or made you change your assumptions about computer engineering? These lessons may include lessons on functioning well in a team, knowing when it's time to deviate from company policy (to resolve pressing production issues), or how to work an informal network to get things done. Your real-world experience may have taught you that real-world best practices are often far different from textbook best practices (e.g., in the NT 3/4 days it was said that you could host something like 32k users on a single domain controller but no one in their right mind would ever do that in a production environment). Has your tech support experence taught you anything about the importance of gathering meaningful user requirements? Have you ever fielded calls from users who were trying to use systems that don't do what the users need them to do? Have you supported systems that do everything that the users may ever need (and more!), but the users can't seem to find their way through to those features? [Since you did not indicate if you are more on the electrical engineering or software design sides of computer engineering, I can't provide illustrations for your precise scenari
You just need a decent boss and a fair company. I have ten kids and a wife, and we make it work. Sure, sometimes I lose evenings or weekends, but my up-line has been fair and allowed me to comp the time. I'll never join a union. I saw what they did to my father, and how newcomers made wages it took him years to attain after multiple contract negotiations. And those young slackers didn't work anywhere near as hard or well as he did. [They put it to a test by putting a full union crew on a set of houses on one street while my father worked alone on the next. At the end of the week, the full crew had one house roughed out for HVAC, and was on or finished a second. My father had finished five houses that week, unassisted.]
Some of you may not like unions (hey, I'm opposed to them), but that's no reason to flag as "Troll" a simple comment that suggests that IT workers unionize. Sheesh! And some of you are worried about thought police in the larger society. Examine yourselves!
You mean like the way the new Slashdot interface causes a lot of the comments to overlap, so you think you're clicking on that +3 Interesting one and you end up clicking a -1 Troll on the RNC veep candidate in a bikini...except much worse, I mean.
Sure, 25% of my official 40 hours per week on personal stuff? Easily, during the slow weeks. Not even close during the busy ones. While it may not be the case for every worker in every field, I know that I'm at work many evenings and weekends, performing system updates or making changes when there are no users on the network, while my fellow employees are at home with their families. While they go to lunch, I fix the problems on their PCs. While they sleep, I remain on call 24x7.
So, yeah, I surf at work, but the job gets done and the customer is happy. I'm doing the job I was hired to do (and more, whenever I can), and I'm keeping myself sane the rest of the time.
By keeping anything in BETA (even an open BETA), they can basically decrease user expectations. If things are better than expected, users feel really good. If they are worse than expected, hey, it's a BETA.
The other posts about being able to make changes on the fly also apply here. If it's a BETA, the users have no right to grouse. If it is an established release, the company has to deal with whiners who say "but I really liked it the other way" or "what happened to my screen".
Sure, people will grouse about BETAs too, but at least Google can quote the famous philosopher and say "tough crap".
No, if I were in a crap job and was asked to find my replacement before getting a better job, I'd wish my employer well and head for the door. I've been through enough crap in life that I would not wish it one someone else, no matter what incentive was waved in front of me.
The problem of judging them on their actions is that they already are in power by the time you have something on which to judge them. It's just like having an IDS--it doesn't prevent an intrusion, it just lets you know that one has already happened.
While some people have always said one thing and lived another, I believe we are in an age where that behavior (a lack of integral integrity) is more readily accepted as normal. We expect politicians to behave that way.
I can't wait to see the discussion here on Slashdot once the government tries to subpeona the IP logs for this thread's Anonymous Coward author. After all, "Vote with a bullet" could reasonably be construed as a veiled death threat against one of the major candidates.
Somebody's gonna have a strange knockin' at the door real soon...
The college where I teach hosted a newsgroup for its technology program. It was easier to use than most PHP discussion boards, since most of the students pulled the threads into their email clients. We didn't have any spam problems, largely because we didn't list our NNTP site in usenet.
We knew the writing was on the wall a few years ago when AOL started blocking NNTP traffic. It only affected one student, but it was enough to force us to move to a PHP forum. From the administration end of things, I liked the old newsgroup better, since I did not need to set up user and group permissions each time there was a new discussion or topic.
Well-deserved mod points. Very keen insight into the underlying motivators in IT vs. Business. That's the first time I've considered the way business might interpret the "why" of an issue. Thanks for posting!
There's a crack in your plumber analogy
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
I agree with your argument that most business line folks don't know how to make IT work, and I agree that IT staff are often taken for granted, but allow me to counter your point with my own take on the analogy.
I see the business line as the customer who needs the plumber. They need basic plumbing fixtures in place (e.g., toilets, tubs, sinks, showers), and bring on the plumbing (IT) staff to make it happen.
Unfortunately, here's where things often break down. I've never met a plumber who has been obsessed with the newest technologies in faucets, or one who always wants to install the biggest possible pipes in the walls. The "plumbers" that the business line gets are often like that. Instead of delivering what the customer requested (e.g., toilets, tubs, sinks, showers), they insist on installing (and telling the business line why they need) pressure-assist toilets, bidets, hot tubs, saunas, and even a sprinkler system for the lakefront greenery. The business line pushes back, but the plumbers insist that the business line just doesn't get it--that their trade is too complex to be understood by mere mortals.
The business line walks away from the situation frustrated and feeling that their plumbers are out of control. After all, they didn't want AM/FM radios and 8-track players installed on every toilet bowl--they just wanted basic plumbing. So, as a result, they complain to the big bosses and lobby to have the plumbing department's budget cut, or to have serious restriction placed upon them.
Most of these issues could be avoided in the real world if technical staff, teams, or departments would spend more time learning about the work performed by the business line. Then, as they learn what work is performed, they may see opportunities where technology may help improve the process. Instead of running off and establishing a project team to address this perceived need, the wise tech speaks up and educates the user that a technological solution may be available to help get the job done. Then IT needs to sit back and let the business line make the final decision. Sure, it may make sense to us to sweep in and eliminate triple-data-entry by developing a new system for storing ABC-data, but unless you work through the user base you will likely have little acceptance or buy-in. When you, instead, state, "Gosh, I noticed that you are entering the same data into three sysmtes...would you like me to help your group develop a tool that will let you enter it only once?", you allow the business unit make the decisions about the types of plumbing they want in the building. Then, if you deliver what they requested, you'll have laid a building block of trust. Lay enough of those blocks, and you'll find that the business line may actually give you a longer leash and might let you investigate and experiment with new technologies and systems without fearing that you're trying to cram something down their throats.
Okay, I see the guys in the white coats. I'm stepping down from the soap box.
An old proverb says "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The business is probably large enough to absorb some of the decreases in efficiency that arise from the conflict, so it's not as if the business will collapse, BUT, I think you'll find it will cause your company a significant limp in the long run.
Let me encourage you, as much as it is in your power, to try to keep the focus on business driving technology decisions. Having been in a place where that was not always the case, I know how hard that is to do. Ultimately, after nine years of trying, I decided to jump ship rather than wait around another 20 years to see if the company might slowly alter the way it handled the business-IT relationship.
[I'm thankful for my current opportunity. I'm establishing an IT department in a mid-sized manufacturing firm. I'm doing everything in my power to ensure that we are making technology choices in support of business decisions, and not the other way around.]
Typically, in such cases, they are looking for someone with related/comparable experience, including experience on the named platform.
To get past the machine readers, I tell all of my students to list keywords and named technologies from employment ads in their cover letters and resumes. Crafting honest cover letters in that fashion is a challenge. I once got through the initial machine-reader gauntlet for a job desiring "10 years of MS Exchange administration" by starting a paragraph honestaly, "While I don't have 10 years of MS Exchange experience,..."
Well, lawyers are already tested when they pass the BAR. You could argue that it is similar to a technical certification, but they have been tested.
You need to decide if you want to take tests or not. Perhaps a good question to push back at the interviewers is "If you have a systems problem at 3 AM, do you want someone responding who can pass a test or someone who can track down and address the root problem?"
The premise may be correct if the IT Manager is only managing the IT people like a manager over the mail room would manage his/her staff.
I've been in the IT field for 15 years, and have only recently moved into management. In addition to my day job, I also teach technology to business students in a hybrid degree program (B.S. in management with a technology emphasis). My students have to put up with me for nine months, and during that time there is one message I try to drill into their skulls time and time again: a successful IT manager will bring to the table skills necessary to bridge that gap that often exists between IT departments/teams/vendors and the business' needs. To me, that's even more important than knowing how to code if managing a group of coders. That said, there's a second goal I have for all my students, especially those who don't have particularly technical backgrounds: you need to know enough so that you don't get completely snowed by your technical staff. While it is helpful to have first-hand knowledge for that reason, among others, it is possible to have a peer network that can help keep you from falling prey to a snow job on the average day (not that any/. readers would ever try to get a pet project into the house, or come forward with a product recommendation without any legitimate analysis;).
Re:I think that that is the problem we had.
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
But the premise of your illustration is wrong. You assume that the need to deal with carbuetors starts at the top. In reality, most businesses start at the bottom, with the people who actually do the work. In time, as the business grows, managers are initially brought on to help in areas where the hands-on people may be weak (e.g., team scheduling, bookkeeping, contract negotiation). In time, as the organization becomes larger, you end up with multiple managers for multiple functions. If things are progressing as they logically should, the additional managers are needed because there is more managerial work than can be handled by the initial manager(s). Further down the line, the emphasis of those managers changes to include coordination between the various functional units, and upward coordination with the other managers and executives who are ultimately brought on to manage the managers.
As to why CEOs and other top executives are paid a lot of money, it's like being in an auction. Some business, somewhere, starting paying its executives more because they wanted to lure away some exec from another company, or because they wanted to attract a specific candidate. Not to be outdone, other businesses have followed suit. There is a knowledgee (or, I would argue, an experience) factor, but that has little to do with CEO pay today. Companies are in a bidding war and our general economic prosperity (worldwide over the past five decades--look at the trends--and I'm not suggesting that everyone has benefitted equally) has funded it. Until companies truly can no longer afford to pay executives 50+ times more than the average worker, nothing will change. Even when companies seem to bleed money these days, executive pay continues to grow (most often) because the companies know they will eventually see a change in their cash flow (scandals like Enron excluded), or they always have the option of a bankruptcy reoorganization.
It's comparable to professional sports, too. Pay increases because the teams are trying to one-up each other. I'd love to see someone start a pro team with people who make $100k (or less) per year plus all travel costs and health/standard benefits. I'm confident they could find just as much talent as the big boys, and could probably put some of them in their places, too.
Remember, most average consumers don't give a crap about Microsoft vs. Linux, Microsoft's business practices, or anything else that might raise the hackels of an average Slashdot reader. The Bill Gates known to the public is "some rich guy" who has an organization (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) that seems to do a lot of good things for schools, libraries, and the world (e.g., AIDS research and vaccination programs). They might be intrigued by the very human image of a seemingly superhuman persona. And, YES, having such a favorable image of Mr. Gates will translate into good feelings for his first-born child, Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
My comments were in reply to the line in the parent that suggested that the copyright holder had no rights to a backup copy that was made. That is simply not true. The copyright holder still owns the rights (during the copyright term) to the copyrighted work (the creative work).
It is unfortunate that the industry is trying to limit traditional fair use rights (like making a usable backup copy, or sharing a work with a friend), but it does not change the fact that they still own copyright over the created work, regardless of the medium on which it is stored (e.g., hard disk, DVD, flash drive).
Pleae grow up and mod comments "Offtopic" only if they truly are off-topic. In the context, my comment was entirely on-topic.
I agree with you. The point of my post was in response to the line in the parent that suggested that the copyright owner doesn't have any rights to the content that has been copied. They shouldn't be able to infringe on fair use, but they still own the rights to the content (the creative work).
They copyright owner has certain rights to control the content, regardless of whether or not you've ripped it to disk or another medium. IMO, once you make the initial purchase ( a la the first sale doctrine), the rights of the copyright owner should diminish, but there should still be some prohibitions in place (e.g., making reproductions for profit, duplication and distribution with the intent of denying the copyright holder income). I write songs. If someone buys a disc or CD with my music, I don't care if they make copies or put it on every media player in the house--I made my dime. If they want to start duplicating CDs and giving them to some of their closest friends, I'm okay with that. If they want to burn dozens or hundreds of my CDs and distribute them broadly, or sell them at a local flea market or garage sale, then they are out of line. If another artisit wants to record one of my songs, they should pony up the dollars. If some kid wants to play my song at a talent contest, let him.
I've been in tech for almost 16 years now, and I got my start in field technical support (read "as a remote screwdriver"--okay, I knew a bit more than that, but it characterizes the nature of the work). Since then, I've moved through a variety of positions, parleying the very skills I picked up in technical support into other jobs with greater responsibility. I did not have a degree when I started in the field, but picked one up along the way. My experience was such that, when my instructor moved on from his position, he recommended that the school track me down to see if I would be willing to teach. Since then, I've both held down my day job as a technologist and have taught computer and network administration skills part time. Your quandry is one faced by many of my students--I teach adult learners, many of whom are often attempting to switch careers--and one I try to address head-on when talking to them about IT careers in general.
Help desk jobs are the gateway for entrance into the IT field for many, especially those without a programming background. I've seen many students successfully make the jump from technical support to other areas of expertise and responsibility, and I've also seen students successfully parley carreers in retail, financial services, and manufacturing into their first IT gigs, both once their degrees were completed and (for some) even while yet enrolled in the program. While some employers may have a bias against folks with a tech support background, I still believe it is possible to leverage your experiences in ways that will bolster your chances. Your initial communications with a company are key.
From reading your submission, it is clear that you can communicate well in written form, so I'll assume that you have no technical difficulties crafting a good cover letter or resume. You do have multiple resumes, do you not?
You see, one of the keys I try to impress on all of my students is that they need to match their submissions (cover letter and resume) to the needs of the company. Not only do they need to address (some or most of) the specific skills that the job posting includes, but they need to make it clear that their current knowledge and experience--from whatever background--will clearly help the company in fulfilling its need. Without knowing more about your situation (you may email me, if you like), I can't speak specifically to your situation, but I can provide you with some general ideas. What have you learned in tech support that either reinforced what you learned about computer engineering, or made you change your assumptions about computer engineering? These lessons may include lessons on functioning well in a team, knowing when it's time to deviate from company policy (to resolve pressing production issues), or how to work an informal network to get things done. Your real-world experience may have taught you that real-world best practices are often far different from textbook best practices (e.g., in the NT 3/4 days it was said that you could host something like 32k users on a single domain controller but no one in their right mind would ever do that in a production environment). Has your tech support experence taught you anything about the importance of gathering meaningful user requirements? Have you ever fielded calls from users who were trying to use systems that don't do what the users need them to do? Have you supported systems that do everything that the users may ever need (and more!), but the users can't seem to find their way through to those features? [Since you did not indicate if you are more on the electrical engineering or software design sides of computer engineering, I can't provide illustrations for your precise scenari
You just need a decent boss and a fair company. I have ten kids and a wife, and we make it work. Sure, sometimes I lose evenings or weekends, but my up-line has been fair and allowed me to comp the time. I'll never join a union. I saw what they did to my father, and how newcomers made wages it took him years to attain after multiple contract negotiations. And those young slackers didn't work anywhere near as hard or well as he did. [They put it to a test by putting a full union crew on a set of houses on one street while my father worked alone on the next. At the end of the week, the full crew had one house roughed out for HVAC, and was on or finished a second. My father had finished five houses that week, unassisted.]
Some of you may not like unions (hey, I'm opposed to them), but that's no reason to flag as "Troll" a simple comment that suggests that IT workers unionize. Sheesh! And some of you are worried about thought police in the larger society. Examine yourselves!
You mean like the way the new Slashdot interface causes a lot of the comments to overlap, so you think you're clicking on that +3 Interesting one and you end up clicking a -1 Troll on the RNC veep candidate in a bikini...except much worse, I mean.
Sure, 25% of my official 40 hours per week on personal stuff? Easily, during the slow weeks. Not even close during the busy ones. While it may not be the case for every worker in every field, I know that I'm at work many evenings and weekends, performing system updates or making changes when there are no users on the network, while my fellow employees are at home with their families. While they go to lunch, I fix the problems on their PCs. While they sleep, I remain on call 24x7.
So, yeah, I surf at work, but the job gets done and the customer is happy. I'm doing the job I was hired to do (and more, whenever I can), and I'm keeping myself sane the rest of the time.
By keeping anything in BETA (even an open BETA), they can basically decrease user expectations. If things are better than expected, users feel really good. If they are worse than expected, hey, it's a BETA.
The other posts about being able to make changes on the fly also apply here. If it's a BETA, the users have no right to grouse. If it is an established release, the company has to deal with whiners who say "but I really liked it the other way" or "what happened to my screen".
Sure, people will grouse about BETAs too, but at least Google can quote the famous philosopher and say "tough crap".
No, if I were in a crap job and was asked to find my replacement before getting a better job, I'd wish my employer well and head for the door. I've been through enough crap in life that I would not wish it one someone else, no matter what incentive was waved in front of me.
The problem of judging them on their actions is that they already are in power by the time you have something on which to judge them. It's just like having an IDS--it doesn't prevent an intrusion, it just lets you know that one has already happened.
While some people have always said one thing and lived another, I believe we are in an age where that behavior (a lack of integral integrity) is more readily accepted as normal. We expect politicians to behave that way.
Since you mentioned John Adams, allow me to present his words on the topic of lawyering:
I can't wait to see the discussion here on Slashdot once the government tries to subpeona the IP logs for this thread's Anonymous Coward author. After all, "Vote with a bullet" could reasonably be construed as a veiled death threat against one of the major candidates.
Somebody's gonna have a strange knockin' at the door real soon...
The college where I teach hosted a newsgroup for its technology program. It was easier to use than most PHP discussion boards, since most of the students pulled the threads into their email clients. We didn't have any spam problems, largely because we didn't list our NNTP site in usenet.
We knew the writing was on the wall a few years ago when AOL started blocking NNTP traffic. It only affected one student, but it was enough to force us to move to a PHP forum. From the administration end of things, I liked the old newsgroup better, since I did not need to set up user and group permissions each time there was a new discussion or topic.
But think of the Japanese game shows!!!
Well-deserved mod points. Very keen insight into the underlying motivators in IT vs. Business. That's the first time I've considered the way business might interpret the "why" of an issue. Thanks for posting!
I agree with your argument that most business line folks don't know how to make IT work, and I agree that IT staff are often taken for granted, but allow me to counter your point with my own take on the analogy.
I see the business line as the customer who needs the plumber. They need basic plumbing fixtures in place (e.g., toilets, tubs, sinks, showers), and bring on the plumbing (IT) staff to make it happen.
Unfortunately, here's where things often break down. I've never met a plumber who has been obsessed with the newest technologies in faucets, or one who always wants to install the biggest possible pipes in the walls. The "plumbers" that the business line gets are often like that. Instead of delivering what the customer requested (e.g., toilets, tubs, sinks, showers), they insist on installing (and telling the business line why they need) pressure-assist toilets, bidets, hot tubs, saunas, and even a sprinkler system for the lakefront greenery. The business line pushes back, but the plumbers insist that the business line just doesn't get it--that their trade is too complex to be understood by mere mortals.
The business line walks away from the situation frustrated and feeling that their plumbers are out of control. After all, they didn't want AM/FM radios and 8-track players installed on every toilet bowl--they just wanted basic plumbing. So, as a result, they complain to the big bosses and lobby to have the plumbing department's budget cut, or to have serious restriction placed upon them.
Most of these issues could be avoided in the real world if technical staff, teams, or departments would spend more time learning about the work performed by the business line. Then, as they learn what work is performed, they may see opportunities where technology may help improve the process. Instead of running off and establishing a project team to address this perceived need, the wise tech speaks up and educates the user that a technological solution may be available to help get the job done. Then IT needs to sit back and let the business line make the final decision. Sure, it may make sense to us to sweep in and eliminate triple-data-entry by developing a new system for storing ABC-data, but unless you work through the user base you will likely have little acceptance or buy-in. When you, instead, state, "Gosh, I noticed that you are entering the same data into three sysmtes...would you like me to help your group develop a tool that will let you enter it only once?", you allow the business unit make the decisions about the types of plumbing they want in the building. Then, if you deliver what they requested, you'll have laid a building block of trust. Lay enough of those blocks, and you'll find that the business line may actually give you a longer leash and might let you investigate and experiment with new technologies and systems without fearing that you're trying to cram something down their throats.
Okay, I see the guys in the white coats. I'm stepping down from the soap box.
An old proverb says "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The business is probably large enough to absorb some of the decreases in efficiency that arise from the conflict, so it's not as if the business will collapse, BUT, I think you'll find it will cause your company a significant limp in the long run.
Let me encourage you, as much as it is in your power, to try to keep the focus on business driving technology decisions. Having been in a place where that was not always the case, I know how hard that is to do. Ultimately, after nine years of trying, I decided to jump ship rather than wait around another 20 years to see if the company might slowly alter the way it handled the business-IT relationship.
[I'm thankful for my current opportunity. I'm establishing an IT department in a mid-sized manufacturing firm. I'm doing everything in my power to ensure that we are making technology choices in support of business decisions, and not the other way around.]
The more we learn, the less we know.
Typically, in such cases, they are looking for someone with related/comparable experience, including experience on the named platform.
To get past the machine readers, I tell all of my students to list keywords and named technologies from employment ads in their cover letters and resumes. Crafting honest cover letters in that fashion is a challenge. I once got through the initial machine-reader gauntlet for a job desiring "10 years of MS Exchange administration" by starting a paragraph honestaly, "While I don't have 10 years of MS Exchange experience,..."
Well, lawyers are already tested when they pass the BAR. You could argue that it is similar to a technical certification, but they have been tested.
You need to decide if you want to take tests or not. Perhaps a good question to push back at the interviewers is "If you have a systems problem at 3 AM, do you want someone responding who can pass a test or someone who can track down and address the root problem?"
I know them both!
:)
But I'm a good boy now.
The premise may be correct if the IT Manager is only managing the IT people like a manager over the mail room would manage his/her staff.
/. readers would ever try to get a pet project into the house, or come forward with a product recommendation without any legitimate analysis ;).
I've been in the IT field for 15 years, and have only recently moved into management. In addition to my day job, I also teach technology to business students in a hybrid degree program (B.S. in management with a technology emphasis). My students have to put up with me for nine months, and during that time there is one message I try to drill into their skulls time and time again: a successful IT manager will bring to the table skills necessary to bridge that gap that often exists between IT departments/teams/vendors and the business' needs. To me, that's even more important than knowing how to code if managing a group of coders. That said, there's a second goal I have for all my students, especially those who don't have particularly technical backgrounds: you need to know enough so that you don't get completely snowed by your technical staff. While it is helpful to have first-hand knowledge for that reason, among others, it is possible to have a peer network that can help keep you from falling prey to a snow job on the average day (not that any
But the premise of your illustration is wrong. You assume that the need to deal with carbuetors starts at the top. In reality, most businesses start at the bottom, with the people who actually do the work. In time, as the business grows, managers are initially brought on to help in areas where the hands-on people may be weak (e.g., team scheduling, bookkeeping, contract negotiation). In time, as the organization becomes larger, you end up with multiple managers for multiple functions. If things are progressing as they logically should, the additional managers are needed because there is more managerial work than can be handled by the initial manager(s). Further down the line, the emphasis of those managers changes to include coordination between the various functional units, and upward coordination with the other managers and executives who are ultimately brought on to manage the managers.
As to why CEOs and other top executives are paid a lot of money, it's like being in an auction. Some business, somewhere, starting paying its executives more because they wanted to lure away some exec from another company, or because they wanted to attract a specific candidate. Not to be outdone, other businesses have followed suit. There is a knowledgee (or, I would argue, an experience) factor, but that has little to do with CEO pay today. Companies are in a bidding war and our general economic prosperity (worldwide over the past five decades--look at the trends--and I'm not suggesting that everyone has benefitted equally) has funded it. Until companies truly can no longer afford to pay executives 50+ times more than the average worker, nothing will change. Even when companies seem to bleed money these days, executive pay continues to grow (most often) because the companies know they will eventually see a change in their cash flow (scandals like Enron excluded), or they always have the option of a bankruptcy reoorganization.
It's comparable to professional sports, too. Pay increases because the teams are trying to one-up each other. I'd love to see someone start a pro team with people who make $100k (or less) per year plus all travel costs and health/standard benefits. I'm confident they could find just as much talent as the big boys, and could probably put some of them in their places, too.
Remember, most average consumers don't give a crap about Microsoft vs. Linux, Microsoft's business practices, or anything else that might raise the hackels of an average Slashdot reader. The Bill Gates known to the public is "some rich guy" who has an organization (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) that seems to do a lot of good things for schools, libraries, and the world (e.g., AIDS research and vaccination programs). They might be intrigued by the very human image of a seemingly superhuman persona. And, YES, having such a favorable image of Mr. Gates will translate into good feelings for his first-born child, Windows.