I can't even
-
@DustinB3403 said in I can't even:
@JaredBusch said in I can't even:
@bnrstnr said in I can't even:
So I just spun up Fedora 29 (which I wanted to use anyways) and it worked like a champ.
Your welcome
It's "you're" not "your"
<-- Lazy
-
So multiple companies nationwide (5+) are merging... 700 employees total.... currently 1 of 3 IT people (no plans to hire?) ... only a CFO making decisions... 1 year into merger ... I am only IT & Global admin on new O365 domain.... CFO hired 'long time colleague' and MSP vendor to 'run the show'..... his personal cc tied to domain ... tried from day one to do pre-plan IT due diligence ... was shot down... Logged into admin portal to set up new user and what do I see.... 12 non-user accounts ([email protected], [email protected], etc) ALL with E5+EMS3 subscriptions.... So send Vendor email and here is the convo....
Me: why are subscriptions being used here?
Vendor: They were initially listed as regular users on their sheet. They are going to be transitioned after their migration.
Me: Why are we paying for subscriptions instead of using Group or shared mailbox?vendor: Unfortunately it wasn’t until yesterday I learned they aren’t actual users using those accounts as primary accounts. As mentioned after the migration we will determine what is the best option for the need. But don’t want to make licensing changes during the migration. If these mailboxes are in need of being added to a mobile device they will need an exchange only license. There may be other determining factors besides that that will make the decision. We are still determining which type to switch to after the migration. But shared or groups may not be an option given the needs. But they are being considered.
Me: If you are not checking prior to migrating, that is a huge problem.
This should have all been determined prior to migration. (Was not included or made aware.)vendor: It was determined that they were regular users before the migration and that is why the licenses were assigned. As I told you yesterday(vendor was told yest.) I was told that in fact that not be the case. It is not a problem to adjust after the fact if that needs to happen. And as I told you there have been discussions around that already. It is not a problem at all and can be easily adjusted.
At this point CFO, and two others are copied.
CFO to me: How exactly is this a huge problem?
(okay this is where I WTF - you are a CFO?????
$525/month unnecessary expense for starters - huge ethics issue on vendor and CFO - who oh yeah - is the one who authorizes his expenses to be paid.)I did respond.... but please .... chime in and tell me your thoughts.... find a new job is taken LOL....
Personally, if I could I would fire both CFO and Vendor.... not up to me. But did feel good to vent! -
@JROK Respond exactly as here, IMO.
Or take it to the CEO. This is clearly bad.
-
@JaredBusch
No CEO .... only a CFO... -
@JROK
Yet.... -
@JROK said in I can't even:
So multiple companies nationwide (5+) are merging... 700 employees total.... currently 1 of 3 IT people (no plans to hire?) ... only a CFO making decisions...
This means that the CFO is the acting CIO. He may not have the title, but he has or has taken on the responsibility. Something I always do to enforce clarity is make sure everyone in the organization know that the CIO / IT Directory / IT Head / IT Manager etc. is the person making the top level judgement calls.
People who don't know what they are doing, and that no one would logically allow to run IT often do and get away with it by refusing any title associated with it and push that title to someone under them. This gives a socially accepted indemnification from their own actions and a natural scape goat. By making people realize and verbalize that the CFO is running IT and all problems from IT decisions and theirs, it helps to hold them accountable and allows the organization to visualize solutions.
-
@JROK said in I can't even:
@JaredBusch
No CEO .... only a CFO...Every company has a CEO. It's a law. They don't have to have the title, but they have to have the role. It's a legal requirement of filing to be a business.
-
The "exception" to the CEO law are things that have direct owners. But then, obviously, the owners are the CEO(s). Again, no organization has to use the official title of CEO, but all companies have to have an accountable head who is a CEO in function.
-
@scottalanmiller
Agree... all of which I have pointed out to Board members and CFO... CFO is taking on CIO, CEO, etc roles.And no authorization or clarification on IT role.... hence my 'protect my ass' emails.
-
@JROK said in I can't even:
I did respond.... but please .... chime in and tell me your thoughts.... find a new job is taken LOL....
When an organization is corrupt from the top, you have two logical choices.
One is obvious... move on to another job as you mentioned. This is what you should do. If you can't move on for some reason, find what that reason is and change it. Being trapped in a bad job is a life destroying thing. Putting up with it for a little bit is one thing, but your career is a massive part of your life and being unhappy at work makes it essentially impossible to be happy in life.
The second is less obvious and really surprisingly non-obvious to IT people... and that is... stop caring. Stuck it up, and just live within the system. I'll make a video about this in a minute to explain. But accepting that you don't run the company, nor IT, nor own the company (we assume) and accepting that you get paid to do what the CFO wants and nothing else can do a lot to make you a happier person. Right now, you are "owning" the problem mentally, but it isn't yours to own. That's not a healthy place to be. You are trying to be more ethical than the company wants you to be, and that's a good thing to society, but it is bad for you mentally because you are trying to be more ethical at a corporate level than you have permission to be.
If you stay, you have to either accept what kind of company it is, or you will be at risk of AJ Syndrome.
-
@JROK said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller
Agree... all of which I have pointed out to Board members and CFO... CFO is taking on CIO, CEO, etc roles.He can "take on" CIO role only if he is the CEO. He can't "take on" the CEO role, only the board can appoint that. So at this point, the board has to have anointed him as CEO, thereby authorizing whatever he is doing.
If you have an issue, it is with the board at this point.
-
@JROK said in I can't even:
And no authorization or clarification on IT role.... hence my 'protect my ass' emails.
CYA emails are always good ideas, no matter what. But I'd recommend staying very non-confrontational. There's no winning there. Proving mistakes are his, not yours, is fine. But to whom do you want to prove it? The only person over you is the CFO, there is no one to CYA to.
It seems pretty clear that he's a micromanager and running IT. Doesn't seem like much actually needs clarification. Your job is to do what he decides you do, and that's about it.
-
@scottalanmiller
Thanks for input. That has been the direction I am taking. ..and when CFO tells me to do something and I do, he then demands 'on whose authority are you doing' - so CYA email or recorded only.And the original company and other company employees are fantastic... just the CFO and vendor.
-
@JROK said in I can't even:
And the original company and other company employees are fantastic... just the CFO and vendor.
In this case, though, from your perspective it is very important to remember that for all intents and purposes the CFO is the company. You can't really separate the two. A CEO can be fired for being bad, and that happens (and I've been the "firer" of CEOs more than once), but until it actually happens, you have to view the two things... the company and the company's chain of command, as being essentially the same thing.
-
Video is uploading.
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller
Very helpful... Thank you.... -
-
