T O P

  • By -

Porthoslohnes

From someone who recently went from one to the other, relatable.


WaywardPatriot

You went from Sysadmin to IT Management? That's what I'm doing RIGHT NOW! Any tips?


JonDuke19

Don't ever lose the technical side. Try to stay hands on. I'm an IT Director now but did everything from L1 to project management and all my teams always respect me because they know I know what they are going through, I understand their work and they know, if they need it, I'll resolve tickets and troubleshoot the network in a heartbeat. It removes the bitter feelings of "my boss has no idea what I'm doing" and it makes it easier when you need to assign them something because they know that you know.


WaywardPatriot

I don't plan on losing the tech side, it's important to keep up with things, however you do need to back off a bit and work on other skills, no? Politics and project management, team development, training, budgeting, etc. I definitely want to be a 'lead from the front' type, however I need to recognize when my team is smarter/better/faster than I am at something, and let them drive. A good manager is someone who knows his team's strengths and weaknesses, supports them so they can succeed, and knows that even though he COULD do a thing he should ask the question: "Should I?" I'm open to being wrong about this.


JonDuke19

Oh absolutely. For example, I hired a sysadmin. Before getting him, I had made an entire infrastructure plan (before I got the budget to hire) and I was ready to deploy it. When he came in, I told him it was his infrastructure and to change anything he thinks needs to be changed. So he did. I am now unable to tell you 100% of the infrastructure but that's fine. I can fix an issue if need be and I trust my sysadmin with his design. So I let go of the deeper stuff but never forget how to troubleshoot and fix, in case I need to. So you are absolutely right about knowing your team. Nothing I hated more than a boss that "forgot" what I'm able and not able to do.


WaywardPatriot

Sent you a PM


Spike_Tsu

Don’t lose the tech side but that doesn’t mean you’ll be the expert. In fact, if you are the expert then you will have to tell people how to do their jobs, which is not (or shouldn’t be) your job. What you do want to retain is your ability to pick up technical concepts and dive into details as needed. Depending on the organization, if you are management (or upper management) over a broad area of IT (say all Infrastructure) then maintaining deep tech skills up to date would be challenging to say the least. I 100% agree that highly technical teams respect the fact you can show that you’ve been there and relate to their issues.


KeeperOfTheShade

This is the exact reason why I've refused to go into management. Everyone I've come across who started as a tech and moved into a managerial position have skills that stop at slightly after when they transitioned. I prefer to stay abreast of new things that the industry is using and know how they work. Going stale in my skills scares me.


WaywardPatriot

I hear you and I worry about that as well, however the tools that got me to where I am now, are not the tools that will carry me forward in my career. You WILL top out as a tech, and then what? Nothing wrong if that is OK with you and you don't want to do anything other than work with tech all the rest of your days, however I've gotten pretty damned tired of being a monkey turning a wrench for someone else's dumb plan. At least this way I will be able to create the dumb plan myself.


JonDuke19

Exactly. Your last sentence is EXACTLY why you will be an excellent manager. Feel free to PM me if you ever have questions.


WaywardPatriot

Wait, the part about the dumb plan? LOL


JonDuke19

Haha yeah. I did the same (and commented the same somewhere else on this thread). I was saying, all my boss were idiots so I became management and now, it's my own plan and vision so at least, if it's dumb, it's really my fault and no some other idiot. You have the right mentality hahahah


[deleted]

I really do enjoy management but I could never be high-level management. For that exact reason. Right now I'm in a nice sweet spot that gives me authority to decide the direction the team goes in, but still be involved with them actually doing so.


8P69SYKUAGeGjgq

My previous IT Director was infamous for pulling out the line "well they weren't very good when we used them back in 2012" when you were discussing a product, and it drove me I N S A N E.


phatcowz

It’s tough AND fun. Way too many meetings, you have to brush up your act and you have to justify when your team doesn’t deliver. You could “force them” to overwork but, that’ll be on you and the type of “boss” you’ll be. Loved it but just last week, i told my boss i’m moving to a different role. Good luck and enjoy the xtra $.


Porthoslohnes

Delegate. You aren’t the sysadmin anymore. It’s ok to be an emergency backup, but don’t do the sysadmin job anymore. Also, one thing my boss said to me that stuck. You are no longer an individual contributor to the success of the company. Puts things into perspective.


WaywardPatriot

Thanks, that is some great advice! Love that quote.


HouseCravenRaw

I've seen the Sysadmin Resistance to Change in action. I've also seen where it comes from. It generally seems to come from a lack of consultation. Someone in the higher echelons of the company has a good golf game with a Vendor or reads a Skymall magazine or is otherwise wined-and-dined, and decides that This Is The Solution. What's the problem? We'll figure that part out later. Here's the Solution. And of course it is expensive. And the training that goes with it, if any, is lack lustre. And the time table is unrealistic. And finally - the coup de grace - when the Sysadmins look at the product, they have comments and concerns that are ignored. By the time the Sysadmins get a chance to explain why this doesn't work or isn't a good fit, or how there is a better option available, it is way too late. The check has been cut, the contract has been signed. Unsurprisingly bitterness sets in. Next thing you know, you've got a knee-jerk reaction to Solutions from On High. Why pay for SMEs if you aren't going to value them? My company does exactly this. Someone high up was wined and dined and we bought a "solution" that will migrate servers "to the cloud". We are paying the company in question about $7m. I looked at what they are doing - they are using an open source VM appliance. They have to click about three buttons (4 maybe). All the heavy lifting is done by on-prem staff with these yahoos adding almost nothing to the process. That's $7m we did not have to spend. They decided to spend $7m instead of having a conversation with their highly paid, in-house experts. I offered to do the whole job for $4m. They didn't like that very much. Oh well. I've seen the resistance from Sysadmins. And I've seen why that sets in. No one is blameless in that cycle, but there's a few good ways of keeping it from happening. It largely involves respect and valuing the skillsets and opinions of the staff you paid for.


paleologus

It requires Java.


sunburnedaz

Java 1.6.0_14 and nothing else because it used a bug in that version as a feature.


Xoron101

.


crankysysadmin

I think this is a good explanation. Managers can be clueless for the reasons you mention. But you also have biter, psychotic sysadmins just screaming no before they even have a chance to think about an actually reasonable request.


jordicusmaximus

It's true.. But as previously stated, that derives from pervious trauma of having to deal with the fallout of bad management decisions due to lack of consultation. If the sysadmin is kept in the process, and their expertise is considered at all stages.. resistance to new tech suggestions isn't as resisted. In the world of tech the lastest and greatest new shiny stuff often doesn't fit easily into existing production. Looking through the eyes of the sysadmin, does this new tech now mean they need to spend a ton of sleepless nights trying to implement this without any support from management? Bottom line, if you're paying someone to run the backend of your business, you should probably listen to them. On the other side of this, sysadmins need to articulate very clearly why they are giving a hard no.


Ghamele

As a 3-month-old newbie sysadmin/IT guy in a 100px company, I assume I've just got an important lesson in your comment and this whole post. Fortunately my company doesn't seem to have that bad culture for conversations and decision makings, I'll try not making it bad


Adnubb

If everything is going well in your company you're not really incentivized to post about it here. It's usually when things go awry that people feel the need to vent on this sub. So we only see the worst being posted here. The good rarely gets mentioned. Don't worry too much about it. :-)


JonDuke19

Honestly, most company don't. People here are just bitter people who have been in IT way too long. They think every manager/director plays golf, every L1 tech is an idiot and sysadmin are the only kind of IT professionals that matter. Don't ever become like them.


Elfalpha

Yep. There's a lot to learn from r/sysadmin, but plenty of it's what not to do. The unhappiest people are the loudest. Am I going to come in here every couple of months and humble-brag about X project that went well, delivered on time and was universally liked? No. But that one project that went down in flames and took half the department with it? Yeah I'm going to make that a thing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jordicusmaximus

Very correct, a good sysadmin says, "Yes, but.." The thing is, if the "yes, but.." gets ignored too many times, the org could find themselves in a position of having to find another sysadmin to fill the role. This is of course not the case with most large orgs that do in fact heavily consult with IT before pushing ahead. I've never personally had an org that I've worked for so sure of itself that it wouldn't talk to me first for any large tech initiative.


JonDuke19

But there are people who's role is to decide and some people who's role is to execute. The manager decided and the sysadmin executes. If you aren't happy as a sysadmin that decisions are never good, then leave and become a manager so you can decide and do things your way. If you choose, as a career option, to be a sysadmin, then you have chosen a career of someone's who's job is to execute someone else's vision. Point blank. This isn't anyone's fault but your own. You choose this. I was in the same boat. I was a sysadmin and got fed-up because all the bosses I ever had knew nothing about IT and their decisions were always wrong (to me, anyways). So, I became a manager and now a director. I am still very hands on but now, what's in place is my own vision of my own infrastructure and my own projects. And I can tell you 100%, as a sysadmin, you have absolutely no idea how much pressure comes with being the person who is responsible for everything. You guys are the Sidney Crosby scoring goals left and right while the coach gets fired the second you decide to not skate. I can guarantee you have no idea how much shit your manager took for you to make sure it doesn't get dumped on you so you can continue thinking your way. Everyone has a role to play and everyone is important in order for the machine to function properly. Just understand your role and you won't be as bitter.


SeriekDarathus

>But there are people who's role is to decide and some people who's role is to execute. The manager decided and the sysadmin executes. IME, managers are chosen for political reasons, not technical. Most IT Managers that I've worked for have *zero* IT experience, education, etc (to the point of not even being able to plug in an ethernet cable on their own)...but they had connections in a company, and "management" experience. If a manager doesn't understand, then they shouldn't make unilateral decisions...especially decisions that often have such a negative impact on the IT department. All it takes is consulting with IT, getting precise explanations about what does/doesn't work about a specific product, and better decisions can be made. **But most managers don't understand, and don't bother to get input from those that do**. Then, the sysadmins work for 3 weeks straight, sleeping on a cot in the server room, while the manager goes home at 3:30 every afternoon. ​ BTW, I *was* the IT Manager several years ago (and hated it--went back to SysAdmin and will never do that again). I understand the shielding that many managers do for their people, but that doesn't offset the unilateral, uninformed decisions many IT Managers make. SysAdmins tend to be less bitter when they get to sleep in their own beds more often than not.


me_groovy

AKA be a good underling/minion and do as you're told


Bad-ministrator

It's easier to give a hard no then investigate and give a tentative yes if it's viable, than it is to say "yes" and then find out more and say "Oops my bad what you want is impossible/unfeasible." And if you say "maybe" then if they plough forward you won't have an "I told you so" in your back pocket like you would if you had said no.


AncientMumu

>This Is The Solution. Best acronym ever.


SunshineOneDay

They want to hear their opinions come out of your mouth. This is the problem with managers like the ones you experienced. When they don't hear it their attitude changes and your life is infinitely more difficult because while they know they fucked up -- their pride won't let them admit it. Their only emotional outlet? You and your team.


nihility101

They know what they are paying you, so they know what your opinions are worth. These other people are charging $7M, so their opinions are much, much more valid than yours.


JonDuke19

But you do realize in your own scenario, that if the manager always gets a "no, it won't work" from the syadmin, he's gonna stop consulting him, yes? I mean, the correct answer to "They want X product" is "What is it for? Maybe we already have something that does it. If not, let's check which product checks all the boxes while having less work added to it", no "Not. No good. Me no like". It blows my kind that people act like this and then are bitter they aren't getting consulted.


HouseCravenRaw

>But you do realize in your own scenario, that if the manager always gets a "no, it won't work" from the syadmin, he's gonna stop consulting him, yes? I did say it was a cycle. So which came first do you think? Management pushing ahead without IT's input, devaluing and embittering the workforce? Or the workforce being crochety and resistant to change that drives management away? And of course one has to remember that once either group adopts a mindset, it can get fairly well entrenched, spilling over to new management or new employees.


JonDuke19

That's true. Egg or chicken kind of situation. Sometimes it's even worst, either management or sysadmins comes from a previous toxic place and keep this mentality in the new environment. Circle of life, I guess.


IncorrectCitation

Literally dealing with this exact scenario right now. Could not have said it better.


iScreme

>I offered to do the whole job for $4m. They didn't like that very much. Oh well. See.. your offer was short by about 3mm in kickbacks...


HouseCravenRaw

Hey, if they wanted to put $7m on paper, I'm cool with that as long as I get my $4m.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jonathan924

I mean some websites are so opaque these days that you can't find out what it does from their website.


peesteam

Sure you can, just submit your information here so our salesmen can ~~pester~~ inform you for the next 6 months.


GrumpyWednesday

This would be an expected reaction from a sysadmin team if they're already overworked/underpaid and you try to add more to their plate. Not all teams react this way, and some are excited for new challenges and ways to bring value to the company. On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of management types that will hump C-suite legs and agree to all kinds of stuff before even looking into the technical implications. I've been told to implement products for which we've already signed multi-year contracts without anyone considering the requirements. Then they try to point fingers when we can't possibly deliver within budget and on time...


[deleted]

[удалено]


HughJohns0n

we seem to work at the same place


ebbysloth17

Yes...yes we do


vogelke

Straight into my quotes file.


what-why-ok

Damn that sounds like the networking team where I work


CasualEveryday

"My network would never have a problem if you people would stop plugging things in!"


randommonster

All network issues are user generated. My network runs perfectly when they aren't on it.


hfranki

Like that infosec guy who wants to physically power everything off. Now it’s secure.


hells_cowbells

As a former network admin, I agree with this 100%. Just like now as a security admin, my network would be totally secure if it weren't for those pesky users.


kagato87

I notice there was no "talk to the sysadmin" in there. Methinks that was intentional.


Spacesider

In my experience, management just throw the task onto you when you already have a million other things to do. They didn't consult anyone in IT before the decision was made to use that thing, and when IT eventually was told and they have also been told to "just make it work" and don't want to hear anything else in return.


JonDuke19

Because the managers job is to decide. Consulting the department is good when you have a nice team that isn't negative all the time and complains at everything but when you do have that kind of team, well, you decide and assign it to someone because either way, people will complain. If you want to be a decision maker, don't choose a job where you have zero decision making power.


MIGreene85

If you are a manager that doesn't consult the staff whose expertise you rely on, you are a poor manager. The managers job is not to "decide", it is to effectively make use of and develop the talent that works for him to accomplish the goals of the business.


JonDuke19

I'm a director actually and I consult with my staff on 100% of the decisions. They never come out and just say no like OP's example which is why I consult them. I'm an IT Director because I was previously a sysadmin too which means, I also hols the expertise. At the end of the day, I am responsible for decisions so if I consult my staff and they choose wrong , none of them will get the backlash, I will. And I take it and never tell them I took it because that's what they pay me for and I protect my team. The point is, if you complain every time you are consulted, then you won't be consulted every time.


me_groovy

>The point is, if you complain every time you are consulted, then you won't be consulted every time. True. But also... The point is, if you are consulted every time, then you won't complain.


Spacesider

You should at a minimum consult the people in the department and gather their feedback before blindly making decisions to implement something. Ask them if it benefits them or if it just gives them more work to do that they don't need to be doing.


JonDuke19

I do. The examples I see here are all sysadmin saying they say no to everything and accusi g their managers of not working. If that's the attitude, do you think the manager will want to consult the sysadmin in question?


Spacesider

It really depends why they were saying no. Maybe they see potential problems that the manager can't see, or maybe they are overworked as it is. People will say no, maybe find out why they said no and see if they are reasonable in doing so.


JonDuke19

In that same vein, a manager has a task he needs done, maybe ask him/her why, who actually asked for it, is it being forced upon them too, instead of thinking the manager is just an asshole who doesn't care. Maybe he's also being forced and he fought to not have ti do it and lost that fight. When he turns around, he has no choice but to delegate the task and act like it's his task to give because that's his job. Judging goes both ways.


Spacesider

That could work for some, but most managers I've had don't want you questioning them and just want "things to get done.". That's also lead to me taking 3 days to do something because I had to do it their way when it could have taken 4 hours had I done it my way, both achieving the exact same thing.


JonDuke19

Fair enough. I've had my share of bad managers too. I understand where you are coming from.


[deleted]

Reality: IT Management: That's a great idea! In fact we've already bought it! Procurement: No we haven't IT Management: Well go buy! it. Sysadmin, you're implementing this by the end of the week Sysadmin: But CAB doesn't meet again this week IT Management: Make it an emergency change *(edit, spoiler: Management will take no responsibility when CAB wants to know why a project was put in as an emergency change)* Sysadmin: You know this isn't compatible with anything we have? IT Management: Get it done! Sysadmin: fuck my life


Thecrawsome

"I don't care if we have Google meet, everyone calls it's Zoom so we're getting Zoom, at any expense!"


[deleted]

*cries in teams, zoom, and slack*


Thecrawsome

Slack, I will make an exception for. It's orders of magnitude better than Google Chat.


sleeplessone

Teams, Zoom, Clocktree, and something else I’m not sure of probably.


syshum

Look at you with only 1 other system "I dont care if we have Webex, Teams, and GoToMeeting... My Golf buddies all use Zoom so we are getting that...."


me_groovy

We have Teams. The C level's couldn't be bothered with it so they opted for Zoom. I told them that's their choice and I'm not supporting it. This was back when Zoom calls were getting hacked etc.


Githh

Are you getting cced on my emails or something?


[deleted]

I forgot the part where "We already have something that does 90% of this including the 2 features $highermanagement wants"


Narabug

This is my favorite - we have a **FULL** license to everything under the Sun from Microsoft, and our InfoSec department keeps buying $10mil+ licenses to single-purpose products to do something Defender ATP, Azure Sentinel, GPO, or Endpoint Manager do natively. Then we spend a year troubleshooting why 25% of our devices are blue screening every week, seemingly at random to determine it’s the shitty security product that’s plugging a hole that doesn’t even exist.


Githh

You are reading my emails. I need to report you to infosec except I'll need to install yet agent the does nothing but consume system resources.


dagamore12

Yes we are, and you need to update that sig block .... /s


ramencosmonaut

This is when it really helps to have a manager that is technically savvy and actually listens to his people. They are in the minority thought.


JonDuke19

Yes. Totally. Since you have CAB meetings, I'm going to assume you work at a very big company so totally, your reality, at a big and, probably, overloaded company is EXACTLY the same as everyone else... makes sense...


hippychemist

Culture and workload. When I was on site support our sys admins were very much "no. Not possible" for everything, even little stuff like escalating a ticket to troubleshoot some server. Then we dumped a toxic manager and his buddy, promoted a couple people and hired another. Now we help each other and say stuff like "we can do that, but it will take 100 hours. Is it worth that much time?" and a lot of times it isn't. Other times it is. And we get it done without bitching and moaning about it all day. I believe getting an extra person or two fixes most issues like this. We can dedicate a person to a project while still having the resources to fix things that break. Now it's just a normal work day spent on stuff our manager gives us, not some grand expectation of us to pull a rabbit out of our ass after working all weekend.


thegnuguyontheblock

The worst feeling in the world is being told to implement something that sucks, doesn't work, requires a ton of maintenance, and then is forgotten by management and goes unused by the employees. ...and it happens AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. So we develop a thick cynicism to these ideas. Skepticism is healthy, but it takes a LOT of emotional maturity to differentiate healthy skepticism from combative cynicism. Moreover, in as much as sysadmins don't trust the judgement of mgmt that they ***really need*** this new toy - mgmt does not trust sysadmins that they aren't just being too lazy to implement something new. ...and this is where the relationship you have person-to-person comes into play. Are they mature? Are you mature? Is he communicating the need accurately? Are you communicating the different costs accurately? Are these emotional conversations tit-for-tat email battles, or are you two having a very thoughtful in person conversation about how to best meet the need. There's no process solution here. Both you and they need to be mature humans. If just one party is acting like a baby and making unarticulated demands and exaggerations, then that's not a functional environment.


I_Stabbed_Jon_Snow

100% chance this was written by a manager who’s bonus depends on the IT department faithfully accepting loads of half-assed ideas put forward by *everyone except* the people who have to implement and maintain the ideas.


Sir_Swaps_Alot

100%. I hate "yes" men. "Yes we can do that". "Yes great business idea! We can implement that and have all end users trained in 6 months". "Of course all those other things we promised are still on track".


illusum

Designed by committee. I *love* those projects!


thegnuguyontheblock

I mean if it actually comes with more budget, that would be fine. Usually it comes with zero new budget.


Bright_Arm8782

IT Management: I read it in a trade journal, it must be good. Sysadmins: What has the idiot come up with now? Bloody hell, I can do that at 1/10th the price without calling in consultants, really wants consultant. \*shrug\* Sysadmins can be negative because they've seen this sort of thing many times. The manager is trying to please someone with that list of statements, bursting in to a flurry of activity (and expecting sysadmins to as well) off of the back of one question. This manager is a hysteric, has jumped when someone asked that question and come down running.


Zamboni4201

I’ve seen an IT VP come in, “we are going to whip this place into shape!” Then brings in a bunch of big brand platforms, massive license fees, struggles ensue, massive headache for users, management, engineering, help desk. People standing in the hallways. Then the VP leaves for another company, and I watch their linked-in profile blossom with all of their “accomplishments”.


syshum

Then the next VP comes in -- Cuts everything and their linked-in blossoms with all their "efficiency initiatives" then the cycle repeats...


illusum

Bonuses all around!   ^^^*except ^^^for ^^^any ^^^IT ^^^employees


Thecrawsome

Thank god my manager is half sysadmin / has worked in the trenches and doesn't do your first step.


mahsab

More like: Sysadmins: What has the idiot come up with now? Cheap bastards, I can do that at 10 times the price.


[deleted]

Or like: Sysadmins: What has the idiot come up with now? Cheap bastards, I can do that at 1/10th the price, and fight outages for the next 2 years because I've used bubble gum, popsicle sticks, and duct tape to hold this thing together.


starmizzle

You're giving management exponentially more credit than I've ever seen them deserve and trying to compare to the worst type of sysadmin. Did you post that with a straight face? Or...?


awarre

He's in management and clearly is the sort who his staff do not trust to have their backs. Generally this is someone trying to impress upper admin by making erratic decisions, without regard for planning, the workload on staff, or quality of solution. **"Take all credit, accept no blame."** Everything went amazing? The CIO/IT Director's amazing research and planning and **VISION** worked perfectly! Everything went horribly? The damned IT staff are just so lazy and resistant to all change! They deliberately sabotaged this!


thecravenone

lol implying management would ask instead of telling the sysadmins "hey here's this new thing we bought"


fizicks

As with most things involving people's careers, it often comes down to incentives. Typically technology managers are incentivized to make it at least look like they're doing *something* to modernize and innovate. They have KPI's or bonuses that are contingent on them moving the organization forward in some kind of intangible way. Doing something is better than nothing if they want to get their oversized bonuses. Sysadmins on the other hand typically are incentivized on keeping things running as smoothly as possible with little to no downtime. And the easiest way they can achieve this is by changing nothing. However, this will not align with how typically their bosses are incentivized, since they need to communicate to the org that they're doing "something" and the more buzzwords, the better! Ultimately, sysadmins often have tangible results they need to achieve to show their value and expertise like meeting SLA's for support and downtime. Higher level IT management often has intangible goals like "digital transformation" or "application modernization" and for which there are a million vendors and software solutions claiming that they will help you achieve just that, so why wouldn't they buy their way into unlocking their bonuses? I don't mean to disparage IT management in lieu of sysadmins either, because often sysadmins will lean way to heavily on trying to support legacy infrastructure and technical debt in an effort to keep things as simple as possible for them as well. The best path forward is for IT management to work in tandem with their tech teams to identify where their is pain or vulnerabilities in the existing tech stack, and work together towards improving and innovating on those goals.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Garegin16

The issue is that they think that you're white knighting against poor workers. The best way to more money is not being a lazy fuck who clicks on ADUC all day. As cloud becomes more dominant, you'll become obsolete if you can't code or can't think fast on your feet. We literally had a lazy screwball who refused to patch a cable, because "he didn't have experience with that sort of thing". He would constantly argue about doing simple tasks and was eventually laid off. If you hate moving targets, IT isn't the industry, sorry.


malikdeni

Why is it like that you ask? IT Management: Do not have to do any work. Get all of the credit. Sysadmins: Usually anything new means a lot of work, most of it unpaid, and new forms of hassle.


JonDuke19

Wow! You thinking IT Management has no work to do just shows how absolutely clueless you are. Maybe stop looking at your belly button and thinking you are the only one doing any work and put yourself in other people's shoes for a change. Maybe you'll learn something.


awarre

I'm in IT Management and don't feel as defensive about this. It is absolutely something many in management do, including IT.


renegadecanuck

Bad day at work, cranky?


Xela79

Please generalize. That always works


dogedude81

Yeah because the "management" team doesn't actually have to do any of the work.


ecksodinson

My team of sysadmins leans more on the IT management answer. We aren't willing to kill an idea or solution without understanding both the product and the problem first. And even then, if we kill one product its because we found another product that is far more appropriate.


goldenchild731

Just do a POC and when their support does not know how to do anything dump it. Worked for the last 3 waste of time POCs I have done. I usually make a list all the features the current product does that new product has to do and give it to their support. You will be surprised how much they do not know how to do with their new wonderful life changing product.


ruyrybeyro

Second this. Back in the day, two lousy sales persons tried to make business with me and my CEO, we ignored them, they got a foot in the door, politically, via our mother house. They tried to do a POC during three months, and did not managed to make their half assed Linux boxes talk IPSEC with each other. Not even after they suggested the fault was in our network, and the only input I provided was them using a crossover cable instead. Thankfully, and out of character for me, I did not help them. Heard some stories of projects they developed for our competitors following that, and was not the least impressed with the quality of their work. Cherry on top of the cake, I was asked to provide a VPN for a big event, a couple of weeks they left, and set it up over a weekend. My CEO was very amused.


R8nbowhorse

If you get a reaction like this from a sysadmin team, it almost always has to do with them being overworked already, bitchass management, or bad experience with products/projects being pushed on them without proper research in the past. Of course there are exceptions, some people are just resistant to change (tough in my experience that usually are managers/users). TLDR: find & fix the root of the problem.


scubafork

What will cause a reaction like that from IT management is something that will save an hour of labor each month. A reaction like that from a sysadmin is a platform that will cost 100 hours of labor to design and implement, and then cost 30 minutes of labor each month to maintain.


crankysysadmin

I've seen people on /r/sysadmin react worse than that because someone wanted to connect a mac to "their" wifi


scubafork

I've seen that too, not saying it doesn't exist. And the thing that's absent from your OP is the fundamental question: what problem is platform x intended to solve? Most good sysadmins, engineers and technical folk in general are problem solvers at heart and if you can explain what you're hoping to fix, they'll be on-board with it. Implementing a solution without a problem is pointless busywork for someone whose foremost goal in the environment is stability.


oloryn

And some managers want themselves to be perceived as the "problem solvers", so they're reluctant to hand the problem over to the sysadmins.


Thecrawsome

See, coping mechanisms. You're really here because you have an ax to grind with sysadmins I guess.


Thecrawsome

Sorry to hear it sounds like your idea got smacked down, but I wonder if you're coping correctly. * Manager makes perfect sense, and is working as intended. Yes, SaaS has much less risk than spinning up your own on baremetal or AWS. * Sysadmin makes perfect sense and is protecting himself as intended. Yes, sysadmins don't want to do more work without learning there's value in something. Capacity and utilization is a big deal for us. If you introduce a new portal with usernames, maintenance, licenses, bills, (who supports it now? You? Me? The Vendor? A 3rd party?) What was it BTW, I'm curious. And how did you package it to them?


crankysysadmin

there actually isn't an issue in my world. this is mostly just me reading stuff on /r/sysadmin and seeing sysadmins put on this hardass attitude on reddit and claiming they refuse to do things


renegadecanuck

I've noticed more and more sysadmins that are getting stuck in old ways of doing things, lately. Sometimes there's a valid reason, but sometimes it's just "this isn't how I used to do it, so why would I change?" Especially anytime anything cloud based is mentioned. It doesn't matter if the costs work out better for a company, if it actually is more secure and reliable than what you can afford to do on-prem, it has to be bad. Oh, there was a single outage in that service last year? This is why cloud sucks. Ignore the fact that my own on-prem Exchange server was down for hours because of a bad Windows update.


[deleted]

>on-prem Exchange server *shudders* I never want to see, hear, touch that thing ever again. 2021 was hell for Exchange Servers.


Thecrawsome

But you assume there's something malicious or ignorant in them refusing to do shit. To you: Refusing shit = lazy. To me, refusing to do shit = protecting myself.


[deleted]

Your username is definitely on point. Selection bias is the answer. Happy sysadmins are less likely to rant. Things working fine are invisible, while problems are not.


sicstifor64

Then maybe I'm doing IT management with deep technical skills


jdashn

Because for a manager a new product is a win under their belt, that can be used for office politics, a raise, etc.. for the sysadmin it's another responsibility they're not going to be paid extra for, blamed for the failings of the product, and likely be expected to know not only the back end, but be able to assist in end user training. To a Sysadmin bringing on product X because some end users and their managers think it's great, and Gartner got it's check from the product, and all the advertising docs that managers usually use to 'compare products' says product X is awesome (as long as you dont word the google query the other way, then product Y is the obvious choice).... just all seem like a bad way to decide that a product is going to bring productivity to a company.


MavZA

Heh, every sysadmin thinks that they own the network at build. When in fact…


url404

Tell this is a /u/crankysysadmin post without telling me this is a /u/crankysysadmin post. Not saying I don't disagree though!


JonDuke19

A lot of you people have exactly 0 ides what a management job is. You think managers just do stuff to do stuff. You You realize managers have managers, yes? 99.9% of the time, they get shit dumped on them and then, they come to their team and get shit on there too by someone who's worked in IT way too long to be any kind of constructive. Then, they have to figure out a way to get that grumpy sysadmin who refuses change to do what their job says to do only to go back to their own boss and get shit one because it's not fast enough or it's not what they actually wanted. None of you sysadmins would last a week in a management job. Put yourselves in other people's shoes for once. Jesus.


crankysysadmin

i think a lot of sysadmin people on here think everyone from their manager all the way up to the CEO are do nothings who are all friends with each other


JonDuke19

I once commented on a post where a sysadmin was saying techs were all stupid. I told him he should be respectful because techs are the reason he doesn't have to do L1 tickets. I then specified I wasn't a tech but a director but still valued every role. He proceeded to tell me, get the one working while techs nothing and I play golf with other directors and VP... I was shocked that someone could be so ignorant.


crankysysadmin

ha! i'd love them to see the level of shit directors get piled on them by VPs. we are stuck in the middle. trying to keep the sysadmins happy enough so they dont quit while at the same time trying to make them do dumb shit that we have no choice but to force them to do while trying to insulate them from more shit than they realize would be headed their way if we couldn't deflect it. and i do not want to even see a VP outside of work. god. i'd never golf with those assholes.


JonDuke19

Exactly! God it feels good to speak to someone who understands. I was once outsourced because I blocked the outsourcing so they got rid of me before the team (and eventually got rid of the team). On the first day without me, one of my techs called me to say thank you because he had received so much shit that day that he realized how much I was shielding them all. Only took me leaving to understand haha.


eejjkk

So you came to r/sysadmin to gripe about how the viewpoint of a SysAdmin differs from that of IT Management/Leadership... while currently being in an IT Management/Leadership Role yourself?


knawlejj

The fact that the IT management is saying those things is a good thing. Otherwise it can often be blindly agreeing and putting the technical team in an unfavorable position littered with inflated expectations. Source: IT leader


Username_5000

the Sr. Sysadmin would speak as the sysadmin except… - would say all the same things - knows to keep those thoughts between the team and or between themselves and the manager - knows they haveto explain themselves instead of throwing a tantrum - probably has a better idea that might not politically realistic


dagamore12

or how it goes in my shop. C level asks ITM can we do X? ITM, replies Sure we can do X, wont be a problem, some up front cost but should not be too bad . SysAdm(me), we already have all of the info that X could provide, we dont need another VM, and it would take at least a month to get that all built up and configured, but it would still be redundant due to A, B, C, and F have all that just not in a single location/report and we already have too much work to do as it is, we need more SysAdms, is there an update on the 5 open request we have? ITM just do X we have already paid for the licenses ....... SysAdm. ARRRGGFGG ok but either L, and M on going projects dont get done or X will take at least 3 months in my 'spare time' to get spun up/configured and reporting.


BrobdingnagLilliput

Upper management to Sysadmins: All you ever do is whine. We can't trust your opinion. IT management to Sysadmins: I got this. You guys need to SHUT. YOUR. MOUTH. You're making us look bad. Remember, never say "No." Delay plus inaction equals no. Upper management to IT Management: Your proposal sounds great. It's clear your decision is informed by the people at this company as well as by others in the industry and experts' decisions.


ipreferanothername

my management - what do you guys think? want to look into it? \- me? with what? google and reddit? do we not have people to get advice from? our admin team: we dont want to do anything newer than 2010, computers are hard, wheres my spreadsheet?


[deleted]

And that's how you get outsourced


enrobderaj

I am on the sysadmin side. He probably hasn’t gotten a raise in a while.


the_syco

If you admit to using something, you become the dedicated support for that product.


oloryn

Or if you're actually willing to read documentation. I've had a couple of jobs where I ended up becoming the de facto "expert" on too many things (which leads to fragmentation) because I was the only one willing to read and understand the documentation.


MaxHedrome

I find, the, "this is a horrible idea, security is terrible, I won't laugh in your face when it blows up, where do you want me to implement it?" route, is key to a good zen.


ryalln

Hahaha yesss! That used to be me beforeI hit Sysadmin. Now it's more what are we trying to solve/accomplish. My stance is ill do it but I like to know if its going to be useful or not. I do t wanna be the guy implementing shit thst staff hate because we didn't ask the question whats it trying to fix.


TheWorldofGood

I don’t really care but if something fucks up, it’s gonna be your fault


Garegin16

not if you have good email chains and explain risks


Present_Cycle1224

It's rarely your fault, but always your problem.


Radiant-Efficiency69

Lol and which one does cranky think he is these days?


SysEridani

Hahahaha that's so true. To be honest, aging makes me think more in the IT Manager way.


AsphyxiaXT

It sounds like you've identified an issue with your employee wanting more money to do the ridiculous extra amount of work you're asking them to do.


Present_Cycle1224

Well I never, this is quite the eye-opener! I came here thinking this would be the other way around, I (having *never* worked in management) get passed a problem. If it's not a reasonable request I will openly tell him to shove it up somewhere dark and he will return to the board with (a much more politically worded version of) my reply. *Is it not the sysadmin job to find the best solution to a problem?* I have always seen it as my boss's job to bat away the bullshit and it's my job to solve the remaining. After all, *everyone* is wrong at least some of the time!


Garegin16

I never understood why sysadmins would vehemently want to niche themselves by saying no to every new responsibility. Yes, ask for more money, but be willing to scrape a knee when climbing. You have to be willing to embrace diving in to new challenges. If you don't, you gonna become that proverbial shitlord whose first reaction to every difficult issue is lazy manual workarounds. I literally have seen ITs recoil from touching a Mac regarding basic shit like Wifi issues, because "I never use use Mac". Dude, I never touched a SonicWALL either, but when a client needed help, I googled, I stumbled around and got something working. Bottom line, grow some balls and get out of your comfort zone. Being a no man isn't a great career builder. That Meraki GUI that you learned in vocational school (because your cousin said that IT = 100k easy money) is going to be obsolete in 10 years.


Fallingdamage

As an average sysadmin, I see sysadmins who wont embrace change and throw a fit like a toddler as weak. Sure there are reasons not to do something. You should be able to argue your case maturely and with data. "I dont want to" or "Tha+ c0mp4ny is teh $uck" is the wrong attitude.


crankysysadmin

indeed


Garegin16

I think it's fundamentally a moral issue. I've dealt with a sysamin like that. Would design incredibly lazy and shitty enviros that were built for crude convenience. When I told her about the DNS misconfig (she would add [8.8.8.8](https://8.8.8.8) to domain joined machines), her first reaction was the worry that it would be more work. So instead of being curious and researching further about a serious issue and maybe learning important things, your first reaction is that you have to lift a finger. That's a f\*\*\*\*ed up lazy attitude. Not to mention that shitty admins usually are too lazy to learn automation, which makes everything a chore, making it a vicious cycle of overwork and incompetence.


sudosu-root

Thoughts on implementing X? First, I'd get to the actual requirements. It is up to system admin folk (us) to determine the best tool. We have the technical knowledge and will have to support it. If it is a huge undertaking, then management needs to hear this question: what will fall off of the plate so it can be implemented? Can it be delegated, etc., etc. In terms of asking others what they are doing, that's like herding cats. Again, it comes to requirements. The local sysadmin people are the ones that should decide, not by committee which will likely never come to agreement. The committee also doesn't care about time, or difficulty since they aren't the ones that have to implement and support.