New IT Director
-
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
How should you address this?
Take it to the CIO's office.
That's what I was wondering, is this a case when it's okay to go out of chain of command?
Is the CIO his boss? That doesn't sound like outside the chain of command if his title is Director. It sounds like the correct chain of command.
I don't know your chain, just guessing based on titles.
I mean My boss is the Director of IT, the CIO is his boss. and I'm the boss for Jr System Admins.
Right, so it sounds like the right chain to me to go to anyone's immediate boss if they are:
- Blatantly unqualified for the position.
- Creating a viable security concern.
It honestly feels really weird that going to the CIO would even be in question at that point. Would the CIO really want shielding like that in the organization? Hopefully not, hopefully he trusting everyone to report up when they see something.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Then you are only skipping the one level that is the problem point. I see no issues with that. Of course ocmpany culture and poilitics plays into that too.
I would call this "standard escalation." If your boss isn't giving you a satisfactory response, you escalate to his boss. Doesn't sound even remotely questionable to me as a practice.
I totally understand that some companies have horrible cultures and do weird things like allowing anyone to arbitrarily block anything, but in a healthy company the boss' boss is there for a reason.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It honestly feels really weird that going to the CIO would even be in question at that point. Would the CIO really want shielding like that in the organization? Hopefully not, hopefully he trusting everyone to report up when they see something.
I assume the CIO employed the IT Director? That can make it tricky, because it can sound like you're implying that he was an idiot for recruiting an idiot. You need to tread carefully here.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It honestly feels really weird that going to the CIO would even be in question at that point. Would the CIO really want shielding like that in the organization? Hopefully not, hopefully he trusting everyone to report up when they see something.
I assume the CIO employed the IT Director? That can make it tricky, because it can sound like you're implying that he was an idiot for recruiting an idiot. You need to tread carefully here.
Not really? You employ someone based on what their credentials etc are...the whole point of a probation period is to check if they are actually fit for the job? And in this case it sounds like this guy really isn't fit for the job...
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It honestly feels really weird that going to the CIO would even be in question at that point. Would the CIO really want shielding like that in the organization? Hopefully not, hopefully he trusting everyone to report up when they see something.
I assume the CIO employed the IT Director? That can make it tricky, because it can sound like you're implying that he was an idiot for recruiting an idiot. You need to tread carefully here.
Good point. I got the impression that the layer below the CIO picked him.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I assume the CIO employed the IT Director? That can make it tricky, because it can sound like you're implying that he was an idiot for recruiting an idiot. You need to tread carefully here.
I did make my boss say that once. We were on good terms, he knew he had screwed up. Worst hire at the bank in a decade. It was ridiculous. He was embarassed, we laughed about it a lot.
-
@NattNatt said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It honestly feels really weird that going to the CIO would even be in question at that point. Would the CIO really want shielding like that in the organization? Hopefully not, hopefully he trusting everyone to report up when they see something.
I assume the CIO employed the IT Director? That can make it tricky, because it can sound like you're implying that he was an idiot for recruiting an idiot. You need to tread carefully here.
Not really? You employ someone based on what their credentials etc are...the whole point of a probation period is to check if they are actually fit for the job? And in this case it sounds like this guy really isn't fit for the job...
They go of what he said. He told us he was very strict with security and giving rights. The CIO has the ultimate say but we are part of the process of hiring our boss was well.
-
-
@Jason said:
@NattNatt said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It honestly feels really weird that going to the CIO would even be in question at that point. Would the CIO really want shielding like that in the organization? Hopefully not, hopefully he trusting everyone to report up when they see something.
I assume the CIO employed the IT Director? That can make it tricky, because it can sound like you're implying that he was an idiot for recruiting an idiot. You need to tread carefully here.
Not really? You employ someone based on what their credentials etc are...the whole point of a probation period is to check if they are actually fit for the job? And in this case it sounds like this guy really isn't fit for the job...
They go of what he said. He told us he was very strict with security and giving rights. The CIO has the ultimate say but we are part of the process of hiring our boss was well.
Yeah that's what I was meaning - I included that in Credentials, sorry for not clarifying more
And yeah, Like SAM said, he lied to you in the interview, and has now undermined any existing security policies...surely this in itself is enough to say bye bye to him?
-
Sounds like at least a chat with the big boss is in order.
