Pay vs Title

AnotherCiscoGuy

So I've recently been offered a position which has a nice ring to it. It's a title/position I want, however the pay isn't where I expect it to be, in fact it's not much off from where I am at now.... In fact I can find other sr engineer positions that pay a few G's more but the title just has a nice ring to it and given my age would be an accomplishment (and a bit more work)

I'm just not sure whether or not I should swallow a little of my pride take the smaller pay increase and get the title or just stick with what I'm doing take a few extra bucks.

What's do you guys think when it's pay vs title?

Essendon

Which job lets you do better work, work that you actually like doing? A few grand more cannot beat the satisfaction that you get from doing something you like. Dont get hung up on titles, do what you WANT to do.

jmritenour

Go for the title, and use the position for what it is - a stepping stone to something bigger and better. For example, it's a lot easier to get an engineering position when you already have engineering level experience.

That said, don't take something that is far below your market value, because that's also a stigma that can be hard to shake

shodown

Just cause it has the title make sure its the responsibilities of that title. I can't tell you how many Sr Network Engineers who were really network administrators, and a telecom technician who should have been a Network Architect.

paul78

Pay vs Title vs Responsibilities is a tough one and I've gone through different ideas about it over many years. Minimally, the title has to fit the responsibilities. I have observed that a lot of employers are willing to throw titles around (especially smaller firms) as a compensating technique because they can't afford to pay market rates or simply as an ego boast for employees.

I personally am currently hung-up on my own title because my responsibilities exceed my title in some ways and I would prefer a different title. But the title is consistent with my employer's job title standards. So I suspect that for myself it's an ego deficiency. But I am compensated fairly.

So that said - given the choice - I rather be compensated commensurate with my responsibilities than to have a title.

nel

Essendon wrote: »

Which job lets you do better work, work that you actually like doing? A few grand more cannot beat the satisfaction that you get from doing something you like. Dont get hung up on titles, do what you WANT to do.

Awesome advice, i would def take note of that for any long term positions. I myself are stuck in that very situation right now.

jmritenour wrote:

Go for the title, and use the position for what it is - a stepping stone to something bigger and better. For example, it's a lot easier to get an engineering position when you already have engineering level experience.

That said, don't take something that is far below your market value, because that's also a stigma that can be hard to shake

Also very good advice!

If the job entails the responsibilities it should include then i would take it for the title/experience. The cash can come at a later stage. However, be prepared to move to another company for that cash injection!

If it is a role with the title, minus the responsibilities then i would take it as a short term interim step to the next big thing for you.

Can i ask what title it is and what title you have now? also, where do you want your career to head? A few more details would enable us to provide you with a better response perhaps.

AnotherCiscoGuy

Those are some great points.

id consider it an architect position within an MSP, I'd have to oversee an engineering team taking their escalations and approving designs. id have to fly around and do face to face meeting with customers discussing business objectives and solutions. They also seem interested in me obtaining my CCIE.

the pay is good but it's not the best I'd be missing out on maybe 10k at most...at least till I passed my CCIE.


sr network engineer currently vs network architect. Ideally I'd like to be an architect leading a group of engineers but more importantly I want my CCIE

paul78

It sounds like you are at a fairly senior level. Is 10K really that much of a percentage difference in your base compensation? In my own experience, I would not have considered 10K to be a big differentiator, especially if you are a newly minted position that you were recently promoted into.

ps. Welcome to the TE forums BTW.

nel

Sounds like a great opportunity!

From what you said i would take the jump. Then get your CCIE. Dont worry too much about the 10k for now.

It sounds like a good cross between technical, business and management to me which will look sweet on your cv. Some people find it hard to be able to switch between them so its a great skill to have imo

networker050184

Titles mean nothing in IT. Some companies call everyone from helpdesk up an engineer. The responsabilities are whats important.

DevilWAH

networker050184 wrote: »

Titles mean nothing in IT. Some companies call everyone from helpdesk up an engineer. The responsabilities are whats important.

Exactly I spent my first 4 years in IT as a help desk engineer. Ranged from phone support when I started to leading the designing and deploying of networks in £50million+ buildings projects.

Which is why I told a slight fib on my CV when I left and called my self a network engineer.

I say forget Title and Pay and look at what you will be doing all day.

PurpleIT

DevilWAH wrote: »

Exactly I spent my first 4 years in IT as a help desk engineer. Ranged from phone support when I started to leading the designing and deploying of networks in £50million+ buildings projects.

Which is why I told a slight fib on my CV when I left and called my self a network engineer.

This is the interesting thing; as much as we say the title doesn't matter, it does. It doesn't matter as much as the responsibilities, but there is something to it.

Since I work for the government I have a very generic job classification (currently a Program Coordinator) I had been referred to as Systems Administrator, but I was also frequently called the Systems Manager, IT Administrator, and several other things that were essentially just a random arrangement of the various words already listed.

I asked my boss if it was OK to call myself the IT Manager. I explained this wouldn't cost him anything and it fit my duties better than my official title (LAN Support Specialist), plus it would help explain what I did to my peers a little better and he went for it.

When it comes time to job-hunt I have to think the title will may someones eye just a little bit more and it may cause them to give my resume another 10 seconds of review time that a lesser title wouldn't have. It will still come down to my duties and abilities, but when I hear stories about 70-100 people applying for a position I want every little edge I can get.

eten

networker050184 wrote: »

Titles mean nothing in IT. Some companies call everyone from helpdesk up an engineer. The responsabilities are whats important.

+1 .. unless you are in management.

I've seen some of my colleagues change their job titles that appropriately matches their responsibility and had no issues with it. He was doing consulting and deployments and only had the title of Network Analyst. As long as they can back up their skills in an interview, no one will question it.

jibbajabba

Titles are bloody useless .. I was Architect - did normal sysadmin stuff - was sysadmin - did architect stuff ..

It seems that a lot of titles are made up because they ring nice and at the end you still do just admin work ...

Go with what you like .. In fact - some companies don't even care what you call yourself .. One company I worked for said to me "Feel free to change your title in your CV - just make sure I know about it when they call for references" ...

And some companies don't even know the different. Current example .. Contract says IT Senior Analyst - Active Directory says Senior Infrastructure Analyst - our HR system says Support Analyst and my payslip says Administrator ...

So bottom line - I can take a pick ....

QHalo

networker050184 wrote: »

Titles mean nothing in IT. Some companies call everyone from helpdesk up an engineer. The responsabilities are whats important.

Yep. At one of my last places of employment the titles were Production Support Analyst I-III. That ranged from Mainframe support to Helpdesk. Funny stuff.

tpatt100

networker050184 wrote: »

Titles mean nothing in IT. Some companies call everyone from helpdesk up an engineer. The responsabilities are whats important.

I was called a "Network Support Engineer" on a contract but worked the helpdesk during my first IT job lol.

Chitownjedi

I have had the opposite expierence when it comes to job titles and what kind of opportunites come from them

While yes "Job Titles" when it comes to day to day work and all that can matter less... when looking for work I've been personally told by recruiters and HR managers that titles have a descent weight to wether or not you even get called for certain positions.

Before I did project coordination I got 0 calls for project management, IT Management, and project coordination.... after my contract ended as a project coodinator.. at least 30% of my calls were for those roles. Hence, having expierence in that role and listing my previous title as Project Coodinator opened my visibility to a set of recruiters and hiring managers who more than likely would have never paid me any attention if there was nothing but Help Desk-Desktop Management titles on my resume. Sure someone might take a chance of giving me a chance... But when you have worked as that particular title before, obviously people feel better about you being able to do that roll again, but with even more expierence and insight.

I decided to take less money and stay in Chicago, because I got offered a job as a Network Engineer. I have records on LinkedIN of my views and search results after each job I've had over the last year... and within a week of me updating my page with the Network Engineering job I had recieved 200 views on my LinkedIn profile. The highest I had recieved any week before that was 18! Not only that... I immediately started getting recuriters contacting me through LinkedIN... about 12 all together in less than a month. I probably had 3 the entire year before I became a Network Engineer.

I was also told from a few recruiters after i told them that I had gotten hired as a Network Engineer that that was "Big time." So if they have a precieved notion that it means something......aye...

Not every place will think the same.. Some will care less about titles.. some will care a lot about them.... Its human nature. Some people are impressed with Degree's/Schools/G.P.A's/Cars/Clothes.... people will make judgements and choics based on a bevy of things... So I wouldn't discount titles having some meaning at all to all of the companies out here. Not every company cares... and a lot of them don't utilize titles to limit job roles and functions... but I know that ever since I've become a Network Engineer, I get different job offers at a much higher salary range... and often they do focus on what I am doing now... which is SCCM administration.. packaging, buying hardware, software, installing services on servers....blah blah blah....

I do hope to do more networking though, vs system administration... but yeah my 2 cents

JDMurray

Anybody else here a "Member of Technical Staff" too?

cisco_trooper

shodown wrote: »

Just cause it has the title make sure its the responsibilities of that title. I can't tell you how many Sr Network Engineers who were really network administrators, and a telecom technician who should have been a Network Architect.

^^ THIS ^^

A title is meaningless, especially in IT. In some companies HR administrators are creating positions. In others experienced enterprise CIOs and CTOs are creating them. The deviations among titles and responsibilities in the industry are so wide that they really truly are nearly meaningless. Look at the daily responsibilities of each position and the growth opportunity that it offers toward your long term goals. Can you use the position as a stepping stone once you look at the responsibilities IGNORING the title? $3-4K isn't even enough money to change jobs in this economy. If the position isn't offering something you can't get in your current position as far as responsibilities and learning opportunities then don't even consider it unless you think you are going to be laid off or fired or just plain don't get along with your current organization.

sratakhin

I'm called an IT Analyst but I do pretty much everything related to networking, servers, and troubleshooting. Luckily, no helpdesk duties or boring stuff like re-imaging computers.

paul78

I think this topic has the potential to be quite epic.

As I was reading each post, one of the things that I was trying to discern was the experience and seniority of each poster.

Ultimately, I do think that titles do matter as you progress through your career. Not so much the actual role qualifier of the title like "network" or "system" or "security". But the adjective that describes relative rank such as "junior", "senior", "lead", and "chief" and the noun that describes the role like "analyst", "engineer", "operator", "manager", "director", "vice-president", "architect".

These words in the title really do have meaning when you need to progress in your career. If you were a manager and your title didn't include the word "manager" but "engineer" instead. A prospective employer may view your resume as someone looking for a upwards promotion but in reality it was a lateral move.

Having a title where the responsibilities may be lesser may not be a problem, but I would say that the contrary is not true.

There are quite a few former military folks in IT and on this forum, I would think that they would have indicated that rank really does matter.

N2IT

Ess hit the nail on the head. Make sure you like the position first and foremost. Titles will fade and money will only go so far. At the end of the day sustainability is the key and without enjoyment from the position you won't be able to maintain that with happiness.

Titles imo are big for people just cracking the industry but veterans know this means very little. Pay of course is a big deal so this should play a factor.

If I had to rank them

Type of work
Pay








Title

JDMurray

paul78 wrote: »

There are quite a few former military folks in IT and on this forum, I would think that they would have indicated that rank really does matter.

Ah, that is also quite true in the corporate world where generic titles often reflect pay grade, such as "Specialist 1," "Engineer 3," and "Technical Staff 6."

N2IT

Are rank and title the same thing? You could be a rank of E-7 but have a title or position of something else correct? The rank would effect your pay, not your title or rate eg Seebee in the Navy. Maybe I am off here, but I don't see the correlation.

As far as title goes it can effect the pay, but not always. I've known managers who make less than developers. I've also known senior analyst make the same pay rate as an analyst. I agree a specialist 1 would most likely make more than a specialist 2, but not always. Negotiations plays a huge role in the pay rate of a employee, sometimes more so than the title itself.

I'm not saying title doesn't or can't have an impact, but nowhere near sustainability, happiness, and pay rate. (Again title doesn't automatically assume you will make more money).

paul78

I was never in the military so I'll leave that one up to someone else. I would agree that title alone doesn't assume compensation but I contend that title does matter. The example that I was trying to make is that title convey rank in a company. And at senior levels, they matter more, especially in a large organization or with individuals that are expected to represent the organization.

I respectfully also disagree with your example about managers that earn less than developers. That would be expected based on the rank/grade of the title. For example, I would not expect the compensation of a line manager or supervisor to ever be more than a senior architect. That a separate and fun discussion about career path-ing, job classification, and pay scales of management and individual contributors tracks. .

instant000

In the military (Army) We had rank and pay grade mostly.

Your rank and pay grade were well known, because they were equivalent. What's on your collar = what you get paid.

PVT (Private) = E-1
PV2 (Private Second Class)= E-2
PFC (Private First Class) = E-3
etc.

As far as title, you'd have duty-based titles.

For example,
an NCO could be the Master Gunner (often called Mike Golf for short), and he could be an E-6
A staff duty officer could be a first lieutenant (O-2) or a major (O-4) or whatever.

Now, there were some titles that were (usually) limited to certain ranks/pay grades.
First Sergeants were usually E-8, but you could occasionally have E-7 in that role, for example.

Heck, one time I was the Payment Card Officer, and that was as an E-5. (Which basically meant I had to do line-by-line monitoring on expenditures of the credit cards issued to certain unit personnel, and report to the commander whether or not there was any deviance from the standard ... I had a couple issues with a former Reservist, who thought it was OK to go willy-nilly and buy whatever she felt like .. I did my best to enforce, but then again, I could only go as far as the commander allowed, so it was kind of political at times.)

Oh well, no need to rehash the past.

Pay vs Title (since that's what the thread is about)

When does pay matter? Everyday
When does title matter? When you're getting screened by recruiters/HR

But guess what? If you know enough people, you'll be contacted about jobs, and not the other way around, so the title won't matter as much.

Hope this helps.

AnotherCiscoGuy

This is all great stuff!

Yea I've been on the network side for a few years now, I know you gotta take titles with a grain of salt but this is a title I've never considered mainly because I've looked at engineer positions and they are same pay, if not a hair more. However Architect just seems like a title that matters.

I guess though it's going to come down to the fact if I want start stepping away from the keyboard and spend more time traveling doing more design/customer face-to-face meetings.