Ask Slashdot: Comparing the Value of Skilled Admins vs. Contributing Supervisors

HappyDude writes "I've been asked to manage a department in our IT group. It's comprised of UNIX, VMWare, Citrix, EMC and HP SAN Admins, Technicians and Help Desk personnel. The group covers the spectrum in years of experience. I am a 20-year Admin veteran of Engineering and Health Care IT systems including UNIX, Oracle DBA, Apache HTTP/Tomcat, WebSphere, software design plus other sundry jack-of-all-trades kinds of stuff. Although I consider myself a hack at most of those trades, I'm reasonably good at any one of them when I'm submerged. I also have 10 years of Project Management experience in Engineering and Health Care related IT organizations. I do have formal PM training, but haven't bothered to seek credentialing. I'm being told that I'll be worth less to the organization as a supervisor than what I'm making now, but the earning potential is greater if I accept the management position. Out of the kindness of their hearts, they're offering to start me in the new position at the same wage I'm currently making. Does this make any sense, Slashdot? " Read on for further details.

HappyDude continues: "I think their rationale is crap; the primary reason behind their valuation is that I have no leadership experience. I would be a 'rookie' supervisor with no more value than a 4-year grad coming in off the street. It seems a couple things are missing from their calculations. One is that they don't give me credit for the 'global' projects I've led to complete success (completed on time, under budget, all goals met, blah, blah, blah). Apparently PM doesn't have anything to do with leadership in their eyes. My current employer doesn't actually understand what PM is and has no one with the skills I have who actually practices it other than me. How would you recommend I 'educate' our HR department about what real PM is all about and convince them that it surely does satisfy their leadership experience requirement?

The other thing missing (in my mind) is a fair valuation of my current skills, or of the worth of a supervisor skilled in almost all of the trades I'll be managing. They use 'market' analysis data from a third party when gauging salaries, probably like most employers do... but I know individuals in my field who wouldn't even talk to these folks for a starting wage less than 25% greater than what I'm currently making. HR suggested if I could provide adequate data that contradicts or adequately augments theirs, they would reconsider. How would I go about gathering that kind of data, from reputable sources, that would even stand a chance of these people's paradigms? As a final request, can anyone please provide me with first-hand knowledge of salary ranges for the two positions described? Maybe I'm all wet, but I think I'm a steal at the wage I'm being paid right now."

Get some offers

[chadenright]

It sounds like the thing to do is get some solid offers for similar positions elsewhere, then show them to HR. Once HR understands what you -could- be making, they're more likely to offer you a better deal to retain you. On the other hand (though it sounds unlikely given the circumstances described) if you -can't- get any competing offers to refute HR with, that will give you material to re-evaluate with.

Re:Get some offers

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're an idiot. That trick never works.

I've seen this situation from both sides, over 27 years in IT in every position from coder through C-level office.

All this tactic would do is piss off HR and management, and tell them the guy is looking to leave.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Join Usenix/Lisa

[Anonymous Coward]

They changed the name, but still do the salary surveys.

https://www.usenix.org/lisa

Re:Get some offers

[autocannon]

It sounds like the thing to do is get some solid offers for similar positions elsewhere

I disagree with this. He's already been offered the position and had discussions with HR and his bosses about it. Interviewing and getting competing offers will definitely piss management off. Look at it this way, they have gone out on a limb (from their perspective) to offer this guy an opportunity to become something more than a technical person. They're not offering more money because he doesn't have some specific skill/experience they want or are using to justify not offering a raise. It's total bullshit from his perspective, but that's what corporations do to all employees. Profit and shareholder value trump all.

The way I see it, he has 2 choices.

1. Accept the position without a raise, knowing he will gain a significant new title and experience. His resume becomes something more than technical ace. It requires swallowing his pride a bit, at least in the short term. It sucks, but has different and potentially greater long term goals.

2. Turn down the position and remain as a technical guy. Pride remains intact, and career path remains strictly technical. Another management position at this company will NEVER happen.

It's one of those 2 options. I really don't see anything else that isn't antagonistic towards the company which jeopardizes future happiness or even employment. Of course there's always other jobs, but since he claims 20 years in the field finding a new job may not be highly desirable depending on his longevity at this place. His seniority and reputation there, as well as whatever vacation and retirement perks he may have accrued have value that do not transfer to a new job.