3 ms·
So there are two parts to this question: why do you end up with non-technical directors of IT and why do you end up with idiots who raise obviously dumb helpdes
by Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
So there are two parts to this question: why do you end up with non-technical directors of IT and why do you end up with idiots who raise obviously dumb helpdesk calls.
The later one is a fair question and I can't answer it in any useful way beyond the fact that organisations are often structured to allow and indeed reward things which might otherwise be seen as odd.
As to the former, a few reasons spring to mind:
1) Because it's hard remaining technical once you reach a certain level. Sure, you can be the best sysadmin or developer in the company, but when you move up the ladder you will spend more and more time doing non-technical things. As that happens you'll pretty rapidly find that others will surpass you technically - entirely reasonable as they're doing stuff five days a week, you're not. If you're managing a big department then the amount of time you're hands on will rapidly drop to zero and given the pace of technology within three years or so you're probably better assuming you know nothing as what you do know is as likely to be wrong as it is right.
2) Because they should have decent people they can trust to know and do that stuff. People complain that technical people aren't trusted but having a technical manager as often as not results in meddling and second guessing. A decent IT manager should understand high level principals, be able to ask the right questions and help structure thinking and other than that should let their staff do what he pays them to do. As to why they employ consultants to do things their existing staff can do - a lot of the time this seems to be the case but in 20 years I actually can't think of a single place I've worked where this has been true. Sometimes there's a lack of resource (that is people are busy elsewhere), sometimes specialist knowledge is needed or whatever. In my experience people are usually either neutral or positive about consultants coming in.
3) Consider that troubleshooting a VPN isn't the best use of their time. Possibly they could sort out their own VPN connection but if they're earning a six figure salary is it best that they spend half a day sorting it out themselves or that they call in someone who can sort it out in 30 minutes?
The short version: a director of IT isn't some sort of senior, senior sysadmin. It's a different job that needs different skills. Yep having technical understanding would be nice but given the choice between a director of IT who could configure a firewall and one who could manage budgets and keep political crap off my desk I know which one I'd take everytime.
- integraton 14y ago4) The CEO and any other execs involved in the hiring process don't know enough to hire for the position properly. Anecdotally, every single case I've seen of a non-technical Engineering / IT director (multiple, first and second hand), this has been the case.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y agoIndeed. There are a bunch of bad reasons but I thought I'd try and point out some reasons why it's not necessarily a sign of incompetence. Some of this comes down to organisation and department size too. You get directors of IT where a department of five or six people. In that instance they should absolutely have some recent technical exposure. Once you get up to a department of 20 or so though technical competence isn't top of the list of things a candidate has to have.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- bobdvb 14y agoAgreed, I have worked for technical and non-technical bosses. On one disastrous occasion we the department director was a promoted IT teacher whose main qualification was a certificate of competence from the British Computer Society. She stayed for a couple of years, I lasted a year under her confused leadership before I quit over the directors incompetence. The first time I have quit for more than just job progression.