IT Career the Strategy Game
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I think that whole, seniority doesn't have to work on days off, etc thing really depends on the position. For example, if you're the senior person on a platform, say O365 hosted Exchange - I'm willing to bet that guy gets called in on his vacation when there is a problem that reaches a certain point. Granted you hope that the people below you can handle 99.99% of things, but there is always that 0.01% that bites you.
I've been that guy, final level of support for a bank with tens of thousands of machines under me. Yes, I was on call 24x7, but I also got three hours days, able to drink on the job, could work from home any time I wanted, could work from any country in which we had an office, had a staff of people just to screen my calls and connect me only when needed, no normal workload except for the escalations. Once you get to that level, you get to pick how you take your benefits. Yeah, I was always on call, but the benefits more than made up for it.
I have to ask, what was your job in that position?
Work three hours a day? doing? when not in an escalation.
Yeah, in the office like three hours a day. I'd spread it out with time at the bar in the middle. Position was Linux Technology Chief. I didn't get assigned projects, but I had to always be available for escalation, 24x7x365. I was there for guidance, to authorize things that no one else could, to be a bypass for SVP approval (when the "staff" couldn't get their hands dirty) or to handle the technical issues that didn't get caught by the staff before me.
Nice - but really, how man of those types of jobs are there? a dozen? Even if we say there is one at every Fortune 1000, that's only 1000 of those jobs, so they are pretty impractical to aspire to.
Sure, everyone wants to be President some day (ok not really, but you get my point), it's just not a realistic goal for 99.9999%.Why does it matter how many there are of that kind? The point isn't that I had some special job, the point is that as you get more senior, the jobs generally get better and better. Think about it, who has the worst jobs, the entry level people. If they had better jobs than the people above them, they would refuse to take promotions. Each level of seniority has to bring enough benefits for people to want to do it. It's a gradual scale. Keep moving up, it keeps getting better (on average.)
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I think that whole, seniority doesn't have to work on days off, etc thing really depends on the position. For example, if you're the senior person on a platform, say O365 hosted Exchange - I'm willing to bet that guy gets called in on his vacation when there is a problem that reaches a certain point. Granted you hope that the people below you can handle 99.99% of things, but there is always that 0.01% that bites you.
I've been that guy, final level of support for a bank with tens of thousands of machines under me. Yes, I was on call 24x7, but I also got three hours days, able to drink on the job, could work from home any time I wanted, could work from any country in which we had an office, had a staff of people just to screen my calls and connect me only when needed, no normal workload except for the escalations. Once you get to that level, you get to pick how you take your benefits. Yeah, I was always on call, but the benefits more than made up for it.
I have to ask, what was your job in that position?
Work three hours a day? doing? when not in an escalation.
Yeah, in the office like three hours a day. I'd spread it out with time at the bar in the middle. Position was Linux Technology Chief. I didn't get assigned projects, but I had to always be available for escalation, 24x7x365. I was there for guidance, to authorize things that no one else could, to be a bypass for SVP approval (when the "staff" couldn't get their hands dirty) or to handle the technical issues that didn't get caught by the staff before me.
Nice - but really, how man of those types of jobs are there? a dozen? Even if we say there is one at every Fortune 1000, that's only 1000 of those jobs, so they are pretty impractical to aspire to.
Sure, everyone wants to be President some day (ok not really, but you get my point), it's just not a realistic goal for 99.9999%.Set the bar too high, and you'll always have something to strive for. Set it too low, and you'll surpass it, and lose your motivation.
At the same time, I wonder how many people actually strive for those positions like Scott mentioned and achieve them? I'd bet it's more likely they wind up in them through xyz situation, and not directed action on their part to get that position. Though I suppose I could be wrong. I'm sure Scott got it because either he made the company create it for him, or he sought it out.
All of them. Because there are always new people coming in to fill the lowest, most entry level positions. There is always an opportunity to move into something better.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Each level of seniority has to bring enough benefits for people to want to do it. It's a gradual scale. Keep moving up, it keeps getting better (on average.)
That would imply that richer people are happier than poorer people (because they have more senior jobs), but there is no evidence of this. If anything I believe the evidence suggest the opposite.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'm sure we all know people or are so-called "successful" in their careers, but miserable as sin, and people who are relatively unsuccessful but happy as a pig in ****.
I'd argue that if you're happy as a pig, then you probably are successful, maybe not as successful as you could be, but still successful. Otherwise, how are you really happy?
That's why I put successful in quotes. In Scott's game you wouldn't be successful, but in life you might be.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
That would imply that richer people are happier than poorer people (because they have more senior jobs), but there is no evidence of this. If anything I believe the evidence suggest the opposite.
Within the scope of people working within a single career field and making their money from that field, I don't believe that that is true. Maybe blue collar workers are in general happier than the wealthy landholders who inherit their money, but that wouldn't apply. We are talking about within a specific scope here. By that logic it would imply that promotions are a penalty that people eagerly request.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@Dashrender said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'm sure we all know people or are so-called "successful" in their careers, but miserable as sin, and people who are relatively unsuccessful but happy as a pig in ****.
I'd argue that if you're happy as a pig, then you probably are successful, maybe not as successful as you could be, but still successful. Otherwise, how are you really happy?
That's why I put successful in quotes. In Scott's game you wouldn't be successful, but in life you might be.
Successful vs. "as successful as you could be." Just like you might be happy, but could you be happier? Could your job improve? Better hours? More fun work? Better pay?
-
I think we've derailed quite a bit. The purpose of the game is helping to show people how their decisions around job changes, job investing, timing and other basic decisions affect their career success. You can argue semantics, but essentially everyone shares a common understanding of the concept. No it is not always money, but it seems to be almost ubiquitous that money would serve as a proxy for success here - consider it "career power", the ability to get the things that you want from work. Someone with enough career success would get benefits plus money, one would assume.
The game isn't to be some complex life lesson, it's a simple means of showing someone the ramifications of their decisions.
-
I really like the idea, make new points for me to know my value and know I'm worth it and can do it. Good job!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I think that whole, seniority doesn't have to work on days off, etc thing really depends on the position. For example, if you're the senior person on a platform, say O365 hosted Exchange - I'm willing to bet that guy gets called in on his vacation when there is a problem that reaches a certain point. Granted you hope that the people below you can handle 99.99% of things, but there is always that 0.01% that bites you.
I've been that guy, final level of support for a bank with tens of thousands of machines under me. Yes, I was on call 24x7, but I also got three hours days, able to drink on the job, could work from home any time I wanted, could work from any country in which we had an office, had a staff of people just to screen my calls and connect me only when needed, no normal workload except for the escalations. Once you get to that level, you get to pick how you take your benefits. Yeah, I was always on call, but the benefits more than made up for it.
I have to ask, what was your job in that position?
Work three hours a day? doing? when not in an escalation.
Yeah, in the office like three hours a day. I'd spread it out with time at the bar in the middle. Position was Linux Technology Chief. I didn't get assigned projects, but I had to always be available for escalation, 24x7x365. I was there for guidance, to authorize things that no one else could, to be a bypass for SVP approval (when the "staff" couldn't get their hands dirty) or to handle the technical issues that didn't get caught by the staff before me.
Nice - but really, how man of those types of jobs are there? a dozen? Even if we say there is one at every Fortune 1000, that's only 1000 of those jobs, so they are pretty impractical to aspire to.
Sure, everyone wants to be President some day (ok not really, but you get my point), it's just not a realistic goal for 99.9999%.Why does it matter how many there are of that kind? The point isn't that I had some special job, the point is that as you get more senior, the jobs generally get better and better. Think about it, who has the worst jobs, the entry level people. If they had better jobs than the people above them, they would refuse to take promotions. Each level of seniority has to bring enough benefits for people to want to do it. It's a gradual scale. Keep moving up, it keeps getting better (on average.)
I haven't seen this be the case. I suppose if I take helpdesk out of the equation, then maybe I see it.
You start as an IT Admin in a medium + sized company and move up to Admin II, Admin III, from there you either change to engineering or management generally.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I think that whole, seniority doesn't have to work on days off, etc thing really depends on the position. For example, if you're the senior person on a platform, say O365 hosted Exchange - I'm willing to bet that guy gets called in on his vacation when there is a problem that reaches a certain point. Granted you hope that the people below you can handle 99.99% of things, but there is always that 0.01% that bites you.
I've been that guy, final level of support for a bank with tens of thousands of machines under me. Yes, I was on call 24x7, but I also got three hours days, able to drink on the job, could work from home any time I wanted, could work from any country in which we had an office, had a staff of people just to screen my calls and connect me only when needed, no normal workload except for the escalations. Once you get to that level, you get to pick how you take your benefits. Yeah, I was always on call, but the benefits more than made up for it.
I have to ask, what was your job in that position?
Work three hours a day? doing? when not in an escalation.
Yeah, in the office like three hours a day. I'd spread it out with time at the bar in the middle. Position was Linux Technology Chief. I didn't get assigned projects, but I had to always be available for escalation, 24x7x365. I was there for guidance, to authorize things that no one else could, to be a bypass for SVP approval (when the "staff" couldn't get their hands dirty) or to handle the technical issues that didn't get caught by the staff before me.
Nice - but really, how man of those types of jobs are there? a dozen? Even if we say there is one at every Fortune 1000, that's only 1000 of those jobs, so they are pretty impractical to aspire to.
Sure, everyone wants to be President some day (ok not really, but you get my point), it's just not a realistic goal for 99.9999%.Why does it matter how many there are of that kind? The point isn't that I had some special job, the point is that as you get more senior, the jobs generally get better and better. Think about it, who has the worst jobs, the entry level people. If they had better jobs than the people above them, they would refuse to take promotions. Each level of seniority has to bring enough benefits for people to want to do it. It's a gradual scale. Keep moving up, it keeps getting better (on average.)
I haven't seen this be the case. I suppose if I take helpdesk out of the equation, then maybe I see it.
You start as an IT Admin in a medium + sized company and move up to Admin II, Admin III, from there you either change to engineering or management generally.
I'm unclear how you are saying that this does not support what I said. You are saying it as if you feel it disputes what I said, but it sounds to me like it agrees. So there is some disconnect between us here.
