Are They Starting to Get It?

the_Grinch

Can you keep your IT staff in 2012?

The article plays to what a lot of people here have said: move to get that increase in salary. I also have to agree that employers do need to show they appreciate you more. Obviously, raises are nice, but half the time actually hearing from management that they appreciate the work you do would be great. Especially in the MSP world, truly amazing to see how quickly they forget that their engineers are the "product" that they sell. Sure does get lost where I am at.....

Turgon

the_Grinch wrote: »

Can you keep your IT staff in 2012?

The article plays to what a lot of people here have said: move to get that increase in salary. I also have to agree that employers do need to show they appreciate you more. Obviously, raises are nice, but half the time actually hearing from management that they appreciate the work you do would be great. Especially in the MSP world, truly amazing to see how quickly they forget that their engineers are the "product" that they sell. Sure does get lost where I am at.....

I dont think they do get it actually, not since engineering and engineers have been commoditized. Companies want engineers on a coat hanger and are seen as replaceable and expendable by companies who turn to a mixture of contractors, outsourcing, virtualisation and automation.

blargoe

Not at my company. Unless you are working in SharePoint or BI or some other niche that looks sexy to the boys in the corner offices. That is why I am finally playing my hand and moving on.

Alif_Sadida_Ekin

Here's another article that continues on with the same CIO, showing what steps he's done to retain employees:

The CIO's lament: 20-something techies who quit after 1 year

One thing that got to me was how he wants employees to stay committed for 10 -15 years. Here's a quote from him "They (20-30 yr olds) don't have the same notion that you go to one place and you stay there for five, 10 or 15 years." My response to this is, I would love to stay with a company for that long. However, that's not expected anymore. With layoffs and outsourcing happening all the time with employers, why should this loyalty be a one way street?

Personally, I check job boards daily. Not because I'm actively seeking employment elsewhere, but because I'm always looking at the skills employers are asking for and making sure I'm learning them at my current job. Why? Because the moment I'm laid off, I want to be able to find another job as quickly and as easily as possible. I always have the notion that a layoff is imminent at some point in my life so I better be prepared for it. If that means jumping ship for a position to increase my skills or a better opportunity presents itself, then I'm going for it. Someone needs to ask this guy what he would do if he were put in that scenario. If he was a bottom rung employee and got offered something far better would he accept it? I also think he's answered his own question on why his employees are quitting on him. Sounds like his environment is longer work hours with less pay. Again, if he were put in that position and got offers from other employers with more money and a more flexible work environment, what do you think he would do?

it_consultant

Turgon wrote: »

I dont think they do get it actually, not since engineering and engineers have been commoditized. Companies want engineers on a coat hanger and are seen as replaceable and expendable by companies who turn to a mixture of contractors, outsourcing, virtualisation and automation.

I think people underestimate how sensitive we are to things "getting weird" at a company. Like Alif said, we are always looking for when we are about to get laid off because we look like an expensive line item. Often this starts when we see an "us and them" mentality at a company. This develops easily because NO ONE understands the work we do.

the_Grinch

My boss at my last job truly understood it. He always said that he knew I would only be there a year before something bigger and better came along. Also, one late night, we were talking about the IT world and he said that he knew with my generation longevity wasn't something he were going to do. He said he realized this because companies were slashing pensions and with the ability to transfer your 401k, why would any stay? But you guys are right, most do not get it.

Chivalry1

What most companies don't understand is the security risk they introduce with having a high turn-over rate in key IT engineering position. Many large corporations don't understand that having skilled engineers rotating in/out of critical positions every year can create a huge security risk to the company. Especially if that IT employee left disgruntled.

I know of a company that was brought to there knees after letting go a Senior Level Programmer who had been with the company 20 years. Someone in the Finance department got the bright ideal of outsourcing. Well they had to bring back the Senior Level Programmer as a consultant and pay him 20 times more than what he was being paid as an employee. He was making more money than some of the Chief officers. Costly mistake!!

afcyung

Why would employees have any sense of responsibility to a company when they don't show it in return?

Plantwiz

afcyung wrote: »

Why would employees have any sense of responsibility to a company when they don't show it in return?

And yet with this type of attitude, it is no wonder so many are without jobs in areas where jobs exist. If the point of the job is to earn money for a task so that we are free to buy or pay for things we need or are not capable of doing for our self (example would be vacationing or farming) how is it one can say the 'company' doesn't responsibility to its employees?

@afcyung,
I'm not picking on you. You happened to make a statement that irks me to the bone. If the people, who complain so much about how 'corporate America' stinks, took a second and considered how much energy and resources they themselves would have to put forth to pay 'x' amount a people, many who whine after-the-fact of the agreed dollar amount they accepted the job for. The 'company' is also responsible for paying taxes on the employees....and with very few exceptions they do this. During the work day, the 'company' is expected to provide a clean break area, allow break time, allow time for lunch and provide tools to perform the task (exception would be auto mechanics who provide their own tools and chef (who carry their own knifes and tools of the trade)).

There are a lot of hidden or under-appreciated costs that go into hiring people to do tasks for the company. Office equipment, space, etc..

Now, many of those expenses are simply the cost of business and business owners/managers understand this. However, when a large percentage of your staff is hired in good faith to perform a task and wages are negotiated (they always are negotiable or the job applicant can simply walk-away from the offer) the employer has a right to expect the candidate (and now new hire) to perform without a grudge.

Sure, I've worked for crap bosses. I've worked for excellent bosses. However, it is NEVER the companies problem that they are paying me what I agreed to work for. And it is NEVER the 'fat cats' who sit in the top positions problem that I AGREED to work for 'x' dollars and now I don't like it. It is MY RESPONSIBLITY to uphold MY end of the agreement. If the 'company' doesn't uphold their end, then I can find something different, file a grievance, or just be a human and go speak with someone (by boss or HR, etc..) and voice my concern.

I completely agree with the concern of High Turnover. In positions such as Accounting and IT, this is a very serious problem and one management SHOULD pro-actively look at resolving. Just because 'some' people say if you don't change a job every 2 years your too long in that job, there is also the mindset that there is crap everywhere, and sometimes it is best to stay with the crap you know.

****

In life, we have very few things we can control. Our integrity and having people trust what we say because we have shown we follow through with what we say is one of those things we have a slight bit of input in controlling.


FWIW

Hypntick

Plantwiz - I agree with you, but only if you go to work for a company for a set amount and do nothing to improve over the course of your employment.

However, if you learn new tech, gain new certifications, and continue your professional development beyond the scope of that position, then it falls to the employer. This is no longer the same person you hired with the smaller skill set, are you willing to adjust your compensation accordingly? That's where I think the disconnect is, you have a low skilled employee over the course of 1 to 1.5 years becoming a significantly more skilled employee, do you think they're going to not expect some sort of compensation for their effort?

Heck a pat on the back and a "nice work" goes a long way toward increasing loyalty. Knowing that you're being valued as an employee is a huge deal to a lot of people, and something that doesn't seem to happen very often. If I go to work for an organization and feel that i'm not valued by my employer, why would I feel any loyalty to them?

blargoe

Hypntick wrote: »

Plantwiz - I agree with you, but only if you go to work for a company for a set amount and do nothing to improve over the course of your employment.

However, if you learn new tech, gain new certifications, and continue your professional development beyond the scope of that position, then it falls to the employer. This is no longer the same person you hired with the smaller skill set, are you willing to adjust your compensation accordingly? That's where I think the disconnect is, you have a low skilled employee over the course of 1 to 1.5 years becoming a significantly more skilled employee, do you think they're going to not expect some sort of compensation for their effort?

Heck a pat on the back and a "nice work" goes a long way toward increasing loyalty. Knowing that you're being valued as an employee is a huge deal to a lot of people, and something that doesn't seem to happen very often. If I go to work for an organization and feel that i'm not valued by my employer, why would I feel any loyalty to them?

Well, yes and no...

If your increased skills is something that is making you more efficient at the job they hired you to do or enabled you to take on a higher level of work, the employer will have to recognize that and adjust position/compensation accordingly if they do not want to lose you to a company advertising for a position matching your newly acquired skill level. But if those skills, to this company, are not valued enough to worry about losing you because "they can just find someone else", then the ball is back in your court. Many companies still seem to lump us IT infrastructure guys together as a commodity item that is easily replaced, and don't see the risk in not keeping their top talent happy. Now, they don't really owe us a raise, or a pat on the back, or anything other than our agreed upon terms of employment. Because they don't owe us that, many companies don't feel obliged to provide it, and they have higher turnover as a result.

shaqazoolu

Hypntick wrote: »

Plantwiz - I agree with you, but only if you go to work for a company for a set amount and do nothing to improve over the course of your employment.

However, if you learn new tech, gain new certifications, and continue your professional development beyond the scope of that position, then it falls to the employer. This is no longer the same person you hired with the smaller skill set, are you willing to adjust your compensation accordingly? That's where I think the disconnect is, you have a low skilled employee over the course of 1 to 1.5 years becoming a significantly more skilled employee, do you think they're going to not expect some sort of compensation for their effort?

Heck a pat on the back and a "nice work" goes a long way toward increasing loyalty. Knowing that you're being valued as an employee is a huge deal to a lot of people, and something that doesn't seem to happen very often. If I go to work for an organization and feel that i'm not valued by my employer, why would I feel any loyalty to them?

This.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should have the right to complain about how much you are making right out of the gate at a new job. Like previously mentioned, you signed the offer letter. HOWEVER, I strongly disagree with the notion that the responsibility for developing loyalty falls squarely on the shoulders of the employee. I just came from a job where I accepted a position doing support at a decent salary for the position. The reason is because the guy that hired me had been my boss before and he knew that I did good work. I was in that position for 6 months before I was promoted. Granted, I was nowhere near qualified to be promoted yet, but I married that job and made it work. Within 3 years, I was the senior guy on my team. In those three years, my rate of progression and level of expertise annihilated anyone else in that company yet all they could muster were cost of living increases, despite respectfully (albeit incessantly) requesting that I be compensated fairly for my performance and credentials. I sold out for that job. I neglected things that should not be neglected and became a very bitter person to make myself excel in that position, I am essentially told I'm not good enough when asking for a raise and that if I don't like it I can leave and you think the problem with my lack of corporate loyalty is MY problem? You must be outside of your mind.

The flip side to that is, "well we can't just start everyone that walks in the door at $100k". I get that. That being said, if I walk in the door and after a year I am clearly a top performer in the organization, try to do a little better than 3%. I don't care if you cap raises at a certain percentage. Forget the stupid cap and pay me what I'm worth. Either that or you can start this year long process all over with someone else. I don't work for free and I need to know that I am doing a good (or bad) job. Show me. The bottom line is, right now you have to leave a company in an IT position to get a raise. If you (as a manager) aren't willing to cough up the coin to retain your top talent, you don't get the right to complain about turnover...especially when you openly recognize that it is a problem.

Top Ten Reasons Why Large Companies Fail To Keep Their Best Talent - Forbes

petedude

it_consultant wrote: »

I think people underestimate how sensitive we are to things "getting weird" at a company. Like Alif said, we are always looking for when we are about to get laid off because we look like an expensive line item. Often this starts when we see an "us and them" mentality at a company. This develops easily because NO ONE understands the work we do.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if someone else piped up on this one.

The "us vs them" mentality can take place outside of pending layoffs. Usually it's an embedded cultural issue within the organization; it often results from bureaucratic/autocratic IT and/or some disconnect from the rest of the business. It can spring up suddenly as a result of conflicts within the organization as well.

The fact that "NO ONE understands the work we do" exists whether or not IT is targeted for layoffs. The issue CAN be mitigated by effective communication between IT and the rest of the user community, so no amount of self-pity (collective or individual) is going to help anything.

erpadmin

shaqazoolu wrote: »

This.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should have the right to complain about how much you are making right out of the gate at a new job. Like previously mentioned, you signed the offer letter. HOWEVER, I strongly disagree with the notion that the responsibility for developing loyalty falls squarely on the shoulders of the employee. I just came from a job where I accepted a position doing support at a decent salary for the position. The reason is because the guy that hired me had been my boss before and he knew that I did good work. I was in that position for 6 months before I was promoted. Granted, I was nowhere near qualified to be promoted yet, but I married that job and made it work. Within 3 years, I was the senior guy on my team. In those three years, my rate of progression and level of expertise annihilated anyone else in that company yet all they could muster were cost of living increases, despite respectfully (albeit incessantly) requesting that I be compensated fairly for my performance and credentials. I sold out for that job. I neglected things that should not be neglected and became a very bitter person to make myself excel in that position, I am essentially told I'm not good enough when asking for a raise and that if I don't like it I can leave and you think the problem with my lack of corporate loyalty is MY problem? You must be outside of your mind.

The flip side to that is, "well we can't just start everyone that walks in the door at $100k". I get that. That being said, if I walk in the door and after a year I am clearly a top performer in the organization, try to do a little better than 3%. I don't care if you cap raises at a certain percentage. Forget the stupid cap and pay me what I'm worth. Either that or you can start this year long process all over with someone else. I don't work for free and I need to know that I am doing a good (or bad) job. Show me. The bottom line is, right now you have to leave a company in an IT position to get a raise. If you (as a manager) aren't willing to cough up the coin to retain your top talent, you don't get the right to complain about turnover...especially when you openly recognize that it is a problem.

Top Ten Reasons Why Large Companies Fail To Keep Their Best Talent - Forbes

+1 to this!

Loyalty is a two-way street; never one-sided. Otherwise, you're no better than a punching bag.

This joke of a CIO that was in both of those earlier articles does not get that; treating telecommuting like it's a luxury....these guys are programmers. Unless there is a compelling need to be in the office (like working on a major deadline for a project), these guys could have been given at a minimum a day off a week to work from home. But this genius was still stuck in the 70s-90s. I guarantee you all that if this guy would have learned to be a bit more accomodating, he would have garnered loyalty from his people and would have been singing a different tune.

If you're at a job where the pay is not so great, but you are being accomodated for everything else, then you should have no problem staying there for three years at a minimum. Then you can assess your own situation and see if you will stay on or move on. But bouncing around every year really doesn't look good on a resume, no matter how old you are. But that was another thing I didn't like about this guy....he was crapping on the younger folks in IT. He also acted like there weren't people in their 30s and 40s who couldn't program Java (really, guy?!) Terrible generalizations on his part to say the least.

it_consultant

petedude wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if someone else piped up on this one.

The "us vs them" mentality can take place outside of pending layoffs. Usually it's an embedded cultural issue within the organization; it often results from bureaucratic/autocratic IT and/or some disconnect from the rest of the business. It can spring up suddenly as a result of conflicts within the organization as well.

The fact that "NO ONE understands the work we do" exists whether or not IT is targeted for layoffs. The issue CAN be mitigated by effective communication between IT and the rest of the user community, so no amount of self-pity (collective or individual) is going to help anything.

Preventing the mentality I am talking about is where an effective CTO comes into play. I have always told my clients that my mission is the same as theirs, the profitability of the company. I get wide eyes and shocked expressions. We are not that different than the accountant, the accountant doesn't make the company any money per se but they are critical for the smooth operation of the company and ultimately their profitability. The difference between IT and accounting is that accounting has been around a lot longer and has much better professional practices standards.

If there is an "us and them" mentality and IT is treated, as it is commonly, as a financial drain, then you will have a hard time keeping competent professionals. The reality is that business professionals are going to have to step up and learn a little about IT - we can meet people part way by learning the industry we support and being better business people, but that can only go so far. When people learn a little about IT, their interactions with IT get better immediately.

Plantwiz

Hypntick wrote: »

Plantwiz - I agree with you, but only if you go to work for a company for a set amount and do nothing to improve over the course of your employment.

This is why at review time, you have a list of all the accomplishments. The ways you have save the company money. The way you project you will continue to be able to save the company money or keep efficient. And if they company doesn't pay for training, texts, etc.. a great time to point out that you HAVE invested in yourself for their benefit and since they don't provide an allowance, your value to stay with them have increased. Now you may negotiate for days off, more money, or an allowance.

However, if you learn new tech, gain new certifications, and continue your professional development beyond the scope of that position, then it falls to the employer. This is no longer the same person you hired with the smaller skill set, are you willing to adjust your compensation accordingly? That's where I think the disconnect is, you have a low skilled employee over the course of 1 to 1.5 years becoming a significantly more skilled employee, do you think they're going to not expect some sort of compensation for their effort?

It falls to the employer to a point, but not really. Who takes a job and strives to learn nothing? We are each only as affective as we apply ourselves and if the employee makes NO effort to seek out training to retain a job, the employer doesn't have to pay more for them.

It is a slippery slope, but the culpabilty falls to both parties. What we agreed to work for 3 years ago, and what the employer is willing to pay may have changed. In fact, they may be overpaying for the position because of technology advancements and now the employer is overstaffed. If you were hired to fix the tractor-fed print device and now the office has moved to all toner based print devices that are leased and do not require your 'expertise' than the employer is now paying for your a service you no longer provide. Goes both ways.

It is the employees responsibilty to keep themself useful and valuable. And it is the perogative of the employer to prune dead weight when things reach that point. It is not cold and disrespectful. It is the point of business. To keep a company viable, there may be times to shave off a few people (or few hundred) to keep the rest of the company employed.

NO ONE WANTs to be the one who is pruned, but each minute the clock ticks, and we want that huge salary, we have to consider the nature of the business, how much revenue they generate, and how much we contributed to them making that profit.

Heck a pat on the back and a "nice work" goes a long way toward increasing loyalty. Knowing that you're being valued as an employee is a huge deal to a lot of people, and something that doesn't seem to happen very often. If I go to work for an organization and feel that i'm not valued by my employer, why would I feel any loyalty to them?

I hear what you are saying, and I've heard it a ton. However, the fact that a paycheck is delivered (or electronically deposited) is the 'sign' of appreciate the employee has grown to disregard.

When employees were paid in cash and even in the early handwritten check days, the checks were personally delivered by the boss or upper management and a few words of appreciation would be expressed.

In our toxic, leave me alone, just e-mail me (oops, that's now 'text' me) society...the personalization and socialization of empathetic tones is lost.

YMMV

universalfrost

i am in the federal government so it is a little different, due to the stability, but the issues within IT are the same. The management does not understand how and why someone could move on for another job or more pay and why should they let the folks telecommute.

My last job and this job, the middle management can't relate/adapt to the modern ways of working from home or flexible scheduling and are not up to speed on the current technologies. The senior management in both situations was up to speed and encouraged flexible scheduling and telework, but the point was alwasy lost on middle management.

my current position, we have IT people in senior management and at the lower levels, but the middle managers are all non IT and wouldn't know an serial connector from a parrallel connector. I have been actively updating my certs and skills to make myself more marketable in both the gov't and civilian sectors and my CIO took notice, but when it came time for a promotion, but middle level manager tried to block my promotion because he thought I was wasting my time getting the extra certs and classes (they were all relevant to the current and future heading of our organization). as luck would have it the CIO and CTO became aware of this and they basically told him he was an idiot if I was not promoted and that they didn't want to lose a skilled and highly motivated employee.

needless to say I am now one of the mid level managers and I don't have to work for (I now work with) my old manager. I doubt he will ever change his percetion of IT folks, but I can at least help my organization by valuing the skilled and motivated employees, so that I can help them to help me and even if they do move on in a few years, at least they will have helped to make the organization better.

erpadmin

Plantwiz wrote: »

I hear what you are saying, and I've heard it a ton. However, the fact that a paycheck is delivered (or electronically deposited) is the 'sign' of appreciate the employee has grown to disregard.

So basically, instead of making the point you were trying to make on how it's on the onus of employees to prove their worth to a company, you pretty much made the point on why employees should leave when they feel un(der)appreciated? Because in a nutshell, that's what's going to happen if the only form of "appreciation" is the paycheck...which you can get anywhere your skills are sought after anyway.

The paycheck is not enough, my friend. Yes, you are paid to do a job and do it well, or else the paychecks stop coming. All the paycheck argument does is what I've seen throughout my career...just do ENOUGH to keep earning a paycheck and then bide your time until something better comes along. A paycheck, by itself, is not going to get an employee to go above and beyond the call of duty to get things done....it's just going to keep employees to just do what they're supposed to do.

If a company wants to retain an employee without break the bank...showing some token form of appreciation really goes a long way. That's actually covered in Management 101.

shaqazoolu

erpadmin wrote: »

+1 to this!

Loyalty is a two-way street; never one-sided. Otherwise, you're no better than a punching bag.

This joke of a CIO that was in both of those earlier articles does not get that; treating telecommuting like it's a luxury....these guys are programmers. Unless there is a compelling need to be in the office (like working on a major deadline for a project), these guys could have been given at a minimum a day off a week to work from home. But this genius was still stuck in the 70s-90s. I guarantee you all that if this guy would have learned to be a bit more accomodating, he would have garnered loyalty from his people and would have been singing a different tune.

If you're at a job where the pay is not so great, but you are being accomodated for everything else, then you should have no problem staying there for three years at a minimum. Then you can assess your own situation and see if you will stay on or move on. But bouncing around every year really doesn't look good on a resume, no matter how old you are. But that was another thing I didn't like about this guy....he was crapping on the younger folks in IT. He also acted like there weren't people in their 30s and 40s who couldn't program Java (really, guy?!) Terrible generalizations on his part to say the least.

Honestly, working from home one day a week was something that I requested in my old job in lieu of a pay increase and to compensate for the few times that I had to travel on weekends. In traffic, I spent about 1.5-2 hours on the road every day going to and from work and I was on a team with the most worthless and annoying drain on human society the world has ever seen. For me, yes, working from home from time to time would have been a luxury (not to mention a massive boost in my productivity). The problem was that management didn't trust the peons enough to actually work when they were at home so they did not allow that even though it would have been a HUGE perk for me.

I can understand not trusting someone you just hired but I had been there for 3 years, I was consistently the first person in the office and the last person to leave. I knew my bosses and their families well and even hung out with them after hours on occasion to watch football games or what have you...they KNEW me and what I was about. At that point, I felt like I earned it and to tell me you can't trust me to do something simple like work at my house despite that relationship put me off quite a bit. Maybe I have too much of a sense of entitlement, I don't know. I just know I'm not an idiot and when I left they tried for weeks to get me back. If they would have just done small things like let me work from home sometimes or an afternoon off or just saying "thank you" every once in a while, I probably would still be there. Show me that I'm valued and my effort is appreciated. If that isn't worth it to you, don't cry when you are perpetually training new people.

erpadmin

it_consultant wrote: »

If there is an "us and them" mentality and IT is treated, as it is commonly, as a financial drain, then you will have a hard time keeping competent professionals. The reality is that business professionals are going to have to step up and learn a little about IT - we can meet people part way by learning the industry we support and being better business people, but that can only go so far. When people learn a little about IT, their interactions with IT get better immediately.

As an IT professional...I agree with the reverse of this point. No doubt business folks need to understand how IT is to help with the profitiability of an organization, but just as that's important, it's IT that needs to understand the nature of the business of their organizations and align their goals with that. That helps minimize the US vs. Them arguments and makes all concerned just "us."

There is no IT without business...but there can always be business without IT (though no one wants to work under those conditions anymore....very rarely will I hear of an accountant use an actual "ledger" when they're so used to doing everything on computers now.

shaqazoolu

Plantwiz wrote: »

I hear what you are saying, and I've heard it a ton. However, the fact that a paycheck is delivered (or electronically deposited) is the 'sign' of appreciate the employee has grown to disregard.

"Part" of being a manager is managing. This includes managing your people by making sure they are happy and productive. A paycheck is not a token of appreciation. It is payment for services that an employee is providing. I don't give the cashier money at the grocery store as appreciation for putting them all in a bag for me. I give them money because those items aren't free.

In my opinion, if a manager has the attitude that the paycheck is the token of appreciation, then that manager is not doing their job effectively (if at all).

it_consultant

erpadmin wrote: »

As an IT professional...I agree with the reverse of this point. No doubt business folks need to understand how IT is to help with the profitiability of an organization, but just as that's important, it's IT that needs to understand the nature of the business of their organizations and align their goals with that. That helps minimize the US vs. Them arguments and makes all concerned just "us."

There is no IT without business...but there can always be business without IT (though no one wants to work under those conditions anymore....very rarely will I hear of an accountant use an actual "ledger" when they're so used to doing everything on computers now.

Oh no, IT people need to learn the business they support. We need to know economics and statistics. What I was referring to is this, we all know how to balance a checkbook. We know what an ACH transaction is and if you have every bought a house you know what an amortization schedule is. We know a little about it. The problem with IT is that people can barely operate their GUI based computers let alone understand how it works - even on a basic level. The minute they need to learn they throw their hands up and say "I don't get it and I don't want to learn". In order to have more "synergy" people in the company are going to have to pick up basic knowledge. Once they do relationships get better overnight because they get where we are coming from at least on a basic level.

Plantwiz

shaqazoolu wrote: »

"Part" of being a manager is managing. This includes managing your people by making sure they are happy and productive. A paycheck is not a token of appreciation. It is payment for services that an employee is providing. I don't give the cashier money at the grocery store as appreciation for putting them all in a bag for me. I give them money because those items aren't free.

In my opinion, if a manager has the attitude that the paycheck is the token of appreciation, then that manager is not doing their job effectively (if at all).

Agreed. To a point.

The paycheck is the honor of the agreement between the employer and employee. Which is why it doesn't make sense that people think there needs to be 'more'. If they need a shrink, then hire one and the shrink can listen to the whine and be told what a good member of society the person is...

And this doesn't mean business has to be callus, somethings in life are just that simple. You say what you'll do, and you do it. accolades necessary to continue doing what is agreed upon? Telling people that appreciated, is fine, but it has become so demanded that perhaps people are tired of telling everyone everything that they do is 'awesome' and 'good job buddy', not everyone is awesome.

As far as the manager doing their job, indeed, if they see a team member is burnt out, it would be wise for the benefit of the colletive to change things up (either by rotating people) or finding a task that is specific to that person's interest to help them refocus. In the end, the employee is responsibile to remain valuable. I'm not arguing with you, it is my opinion from what I have seen and my collegues that there are far too many lazy, ungrateful folks on some teams...and I have had my share of complainers around me, they only bring the rest of the team down and should be pruned.

There is still the freedom (at least in the US) to go reinvent oneself some place else when the work environement is too poor to continue.

shaqazoolu

I think you and I are on the same page, but are using two different types of employees as examples to make our points.

I agree with you that if there is someone on the team that is obnoxious, disruptive, counterproductive and an overall drain on the team as a whole, that person should be shown the door. Trust me, I was on a team with a guy like that for 2 years. I'm right there with you. I'm not expecting someone to tell me "thank you" just for showing up today. That's my job and it's going to happen whether it's appreciated or not.

However, when I stay in the office from 6am until 10pm or later for 5 days straight picking up the slack for a manager's poor project management skills, or when I burn an entire weekend in and out of airports for similar project management mistakes while they are sitting at home enjoying time with their family, I'd like some indication that my effort and inconvenience has not gone unnoticed...especially when I take what was sure to be a giant flaming disaster and turn it into a contract renewal.

I want to know that what I am doing is right. If you tell me that I am doing a good job or thank me for my efforts, not only does it make me feel appreciated, but it also let's me know where I stand and encourages me to keep doing those things. Likewise, if I do something wrong, I want to know about it so I can fix it. If you have a manager that just sits in their office and doesn't actually manage anything, employees will never be happy and they will never stay longer than they have to. Whether you feel like showing a little gratitude is babysitting or not, people want to that what they are doing is worth their time. Personally, I hate pretty much everyone, but despite how unnatural it was for me to do it, when I was a manager I made sure to let my employees know that they weren't wasting their time working for me.

swild

I believe that most IT people have a righteous sense of entitlement. To do well in this field (or any field really), and stay abreast of new trends and technologies, it needs to be all-consuming. After I clock out, I'm still learning for my job.

The IT field attracts people that like to be continually learning. There is no status quo. If you don't keep up, the technology will pass you by. That will turn any good IT worker into a bad one. I started here with 5 years of experience and expect to make (and be worth) $100k a year by the time I hit 10 years. That flat out will not happen in my position. To be promoted, I would have to relocate to one of two places that I have no interest in being. The cap for my position is $65k, and I have been told that I will not be getting anywhere near that until I have been with the company for at least 10 years. I cannot be true to myself by staying at this job for more than 3 years. Even that is pushing it.

I have a strong work ethic and everywhere I have worked, I have been told that the company is "lucky to have me." I have come to hate that phrase. I don't want you to be lucky; I want you to deserve me.

The employees that are loved by the company are those that have been doing the same job for 25 years, making the same pay. We have more than a few that are like that. You can call that "company loyalty" if you like, and perhaps it is. To me, it's intellectual anorexia.

I have company loyalty for as long as the company is loyal to me. Pay me what I am worth and I will never leave. Try to get the best bang for your buck, and you will be retraining someone new every couple of years. In my professional career, I have never worked anywhere for more than 2 years. I have always left at the same pay that I started with. After the second year of them telling me that there will not be any raises given, I have to leave.

UnixGuy

I do work for the money (i.e. pay check). However, over the years I found that money is not enough; I also needed a sense of satisfaction that comes from challenges. No pat on the head would make a difference to me. Unless I do something interesting or solve a challenging problem, I don't feel fully happy. I don't really think boss pat on the head is important for everybody, at least not for me. It's nice, but it doesn't make a real difference. For me, the real difference is the paycheck - period.


Working on skills is really necessary because we work in a very competitive field (compared to other stagnant fields). I keep checking the market value for *MY* skills, and if I see that I'm underpaid, I try to negotiate with my boss by showing him what I can offer to the company. You need to look for opportunities to provide more value to your employer. Nobody is going to pay you more because you got smarter or because you acquired new skills unless YOU can demonstrate that those skills can be valuable AND actually use those skills to provide value for the business. If management can't understand this or if there's no room for your acquired skills in that particular company, then look for a better company, and remember that no company is problems-free.

petedude

swild wrote: »

I believe that most IT people have a righteous sense of entitlement. To do well in this field (or any field really), and stay abreast of new trends and technologies, it needs to be all-consuming. After I clock out, I'm still learning for my job.

For some IT folks, I might call that a "self-righteous" sense of entitlement. Unfortunately, many IT people are of the opinion that the company cannot do without them, and therefore should pay whatever the IT folks want. That "we are the secret brotherhood of entitled wizards" approach is part of the reason many IT folks have a hard time getting a good paying wage now. Why? IT folks jacked up their salaries ridiculously high during the dot-com boom, and now karma is getting them back-- business has found ways to get IT done with fewer in-house people, and with the current economy there are all too many bodies available. Additionally business views these IT overly-paid practitioners as part of the reason for their economic woes on top of the already poor treatment they often get/got from IT departments, so they're naturally inclined to treat IT people poorly (wages included) every chance they get.

Plantwiz

shaqazoolu wrote: »

I think you and I are on the same page, but are using two different types of employees as examples to make our points.

I agree with you that if there is someone on the team that is obnoxious, disruptive, counterproductive and an overall drain on the team as a whole, that person should be shown the door. Trust me, I was on a team with a guy like that for 2 years. I'm right there with you. I'm not expecting someone to tell me "thank you" just for showing up today. That's my job and it's going to happen whether it's appreciated or not.

However, when I stay in the office from 6am until 10pm or later for 5 days straight picking up the slack for a manager's poor project management skills, or when I burn an entire weekend in and out of airports for similar project management mistakes while they are sitting at home enjoying time with their family, I'd like some indication that my effort and inconvenience has not gone unnoticed...especially when I take what was sure to be a giant flaming disaster and turn it into a contract renewal.

I want to know that what I am doing is right. If you tell me that I am doing a good job or thank me for my efforts, not only does it make me feel appreciated, but it also let's me know where I stand and encourages me to keep doing those things. Likewise, if I do something wrong, I want to know about it so I can fix it. If you have a manager that just sits in their office and doesn't actually manage anything, employees will never be happy and they will never stay longer than they have to. Whether you feel like showing a little gratitude is babysitting or not, people want to that what they are doing is worth their time. Personally, I hate pretty much everyone, but despite how unnatural it was for me to do it, when I was a manager I made sure to let my employees know that they weren't wasting their time working for me.

I think we are close to a similar mindset, which is why I am not arguing.

I'm seeing more and more a lack of skill from many people in many different capacities. In the 80s there was the push (we'll some in the 70s, but mostly 80s) where companies could afford to get 'fat'. Secretaries had secretaries. Then a bit of a recession and some layoffs (i.e. dead weight let go and folks expected to do the duties they were once assigned before companies got 'fat'). Than in the 90s we saw this again alongside of this growth, was the Tech 'bubble' (and I hate that term, but it is generally a known event). Staff had staff. We didn't have mesh topologies, we had a lot of bus topologies. They were slightly more labor intensive (not much if one knew what they were doing, but a lot more physical work (or so it seemed). Than we move into the beautiful world of switches and patch panels and star and mesh topologies that were AFFORDABLE to companies. Less man hours to maintain and fix.

Where is this going? To be in any industry, one must (individually) decided what they need to do to retain a job or earn a paycheck.

For many on this board, I suspect you never saw an Accounting department that had 10-20 people inside because one person ONLY wrote checks, one team handled accounts payable, one team handled accounts receivable, one Controller to oversee everything, one person to total time cards, one person to calculate payroll, etc... By the 80s many of these tasks were 'starting' to become automated and we started to see a huge downturn in accounting support staff. In some companies, payroll shifted to HR and AP just cut the checks.

It really doesn't matter what these people did or how much better they could be at their current job, the job they knew simply was not there and they were pruned. In IT, same. The company didn't need to train the Accounting people for another job, the company no longer needed as large of a team to complete the same task (and some accounting people merged over into the new developing IT).

IT is similar. Sure a person could study for all the Cisco exams, but if that is not the direction the company wishes to head...what's the point? The employee would need to move on because they agreed to do the job as described and the job didn't evolve even though their skill did. They can choice to stay with the current company and ride things out, or move along. By that same token, if the employee only wishes to do the job as hired for, but the company WANTS to move toward using Cisco products (assuming they were not previously) the employee now has the opportunity to grow with the company or risk being left out. Is it up the company to train the employee? Maybe. But they might find an experience person for about the same as they are paying the current one without waiting for the learning curve.

Again, it is not that business has to be cruel, but employees are the largest asset of a company and they are the largest expense. If more could understand that each minute they are on the clock doing work that doesn't directly bring in dollars (uptime and keeping the working employees able to bring in money is critical, but IT is an expense to all the staff members) it is a bit easier to understand how to figure departmental payroll budgets and realize how much each of us costs the company we work for.

$60K per year = $28.85 per hour (40 hour week, which most of us know is really 60 min...though Horticulture is no different, but we know this going in or should)
$100K per year = $48.08 per hour (40 hour week, etc...)

Now, how many IT people are on the team? 3? 5? 10?
What type of business is this?
What is the budget of the department to upgrade software and hardware?
How important is it for the company to remain at 95% uptime? 98% uptime or 99% uptime?

Certainly, an IT person's role is important to keeping the business operating...but to what end? How did money get saved this year? Was the IT department performing as expected (meaning where they meeting the company goals of uptime and staying on budget?) Is the IT team helpful to the other department or do they operate with a 'mailroom' attitude? How profitable is the company as a whole? If a company generates under $5 million but has 30 Full Time employees, depending on the business, their NET profits at the end of the year are likely slim (again it depends on the business).

I would simply caution against the 'it's owed to me' stance. We can always renegotiate terms. Either make an appointment and do so, or sit down prepared at the review (which is the ideal time). Yes, what IT provides is a valuable service, but there are a lot of IT people looking for work too.

I don't see it as an 'us' vs. 'them', but more as a 'how did I make you more profitable today'.

And while having a superior say 'nice job' once in a while is nice. Personally, that never makes me work harder because I do give 100% when I am being paid (and more when I volunteer). It's just how I think. I trust that I'll receive proper compensation and in several decades...this opinion has yet to fail for me.

Good topic though! Makes me think

Plantwiz

UnixGuy wrote: »

I do work for the money (i.e. pay check). However, over the years I found that money is not enough; I also needed a sense of satisfaction that comes from challenges. No pat on the head would make a difference to me. Unless I do something interesting or solve a challenging problem, I don't feel fully happy. I don't really think boss pat on the head is important for everybody, at least not for me. It's nice, but it doesn't make a real difference. For me, the real difference is the paycheck - period.

THERE IT IS!

The challenge of 'fixing' or 'solving' the problem...this is the most rewarding part (for me) as well!


(oh, I could bore you all with a Taxus cuttings sticking story, but won't (sticking cuttings of Taxus in beds of perlite to root out) but my partner and I had the HR morons down trying to figure out what motivated us to 'work' so quickly...we simply like the challenge)

Plantwiz

Originally Posted by Plantwiz

I hear what you are saying, and I've heard it a ton. However, the fact that a paycheck is delivered (or electronically deposited) is the 'sign' of appreciate the employee has grown to disregard.

erpadmin wrote: »

So basically, instead of making the point you were trying to make on how it's on the onus of employees to prove their worth to a company, you pretty much made the point on why employees should leave when they feel un(der)appreciated? Because in a nutshell, that's what's going to happen if the only form of "appreciation" is the paycheck...which you can get anywhere your skills are sought after anyway.

Perhaps, I didn't make the point I wanted to clearly.

The employee needs to do the work they agreed to do.
When the work is done (or for the sake full employement rather than contract work) the check is cut by the employer at the weeks' end. It is the employers end of the agreement to cut the check, but they only need to cut the check if the work is done (funny how there are laws sort of blurring this process today). Nevertheless, if the employee was stiffed, there would be no appreciation for the work the employee did perform from the employer (let's skip the lawyer part of this because that's where this conversation would head).

In most of our lives, we've never really known to NOT be paid for showing up for work and only marginally performing. The burden is on the employer to prove the employee did NOT perform the task and therefore should no longer be compensated. However, there was a time, when a lord would not pay the help for no reason other than being a jerk. We don't see that in our time (at least not in the US in corporate business). It may happen in cash deals or such where folks pick up a job here and there and since there is no paperwork, the 'boss' simply says the job didn't happen, though I think we can agree this is not the situation we are discribing.

The paycheck is not enough, my friend. Yes, you are paid to do a job and do it well, or else the paychecks stop coming. All the paycheck argument does is what I've seen throughout my career...just do ENOUGH to keep earning a paycheck and then bide your time until something better comes along. A paycheck, by itself, is not going to get an employee to go above and beyond the call of duty to get things done....it's just going to keep employees to just do what they're supposed to do.

If a company wants to retain an employee without break the bank...showing some token form of appreciation really goes a long way. That's actually covered in Management 101.

I am not disagreeing with the benefits of being a compasionate boss/employer. I'm simply commenting that some place in the last few decades it seems that the employee is demanding appreciation rather than acknowledging that they are staying employed and receiving a paycheck. It is busines, it doesn't have to be lovey-dovey. Two parties agree to a deal. The deal is honored by both parties for the duration, what more is necessary?

Crossing over into being more of a family is nice and it can be fun when the whole team gets along. Though, I've been in more situations that I care to count of the times it doesn't go well and it no longer is fun. Friendships develop and the work heirarchy can suffer, pretty soon, one team member decides he's not working weekend calls any longer becaue he and his new friend (the supervisor) are going fishing/golfing/hunting/families getting together, etc.. and to keept his on the up-and-up, a new position is creating making your former team member a 'captain' or such who only schedules the weekend help, but no longer works it.

I've been around a long time. I've seen sh1t. I have been through the BS team building and all the kum-bi-ya sessions that have flooded the land. The best companies I have seen (either working for, or workin at (via they are my client) are the ones who keep their business model clean. Keep an open channel with staff. And don't try to hard to make something happen when there is little chance of it happening.

You are correct, a job should be more than a paycheck we spend most of lives working away from our family (and frankly I find that good, it makes the time together special). However, at the core, it comes down to a mere agreement. Employer agrees to pay. Employee agrees to work. Negotiation can happen as things change.

blargoe

shaqazoolu wrote: »

If you (as a manager) aren't willing to cough up the coin to retain your top talent, you don't get the right to complain about turnover...especially when you openly recognize that it is a problem.[/url]

winner winner chicken dinner