IT Generalist

You brought up an idea to save them the same amount of money and the thanks they show is eliminating your position.

My current position is a temporary "upgrade". What they did was change my original job description to make a brand new description to include all of the "extras" I was doing. I believe the reason they did that because the division I work in is going for this national accrediation and the visit is this November. Ironically my contract with the "new" position reverts back to my original position that I was hired under at the end of the year. I was orginally hired as tech support. Now, I do a little programming, database analysis and admin (I designed a database for the division), systems implementation and project management. Now, when the visit is over, I'll still have to do these same tasks, but it won;t be under the current position.

I can agree with your first assesment, that there is a divide between the programming and engineering sides, and even the second one about 'general' work areas. But from there on, I think it is up to the individual. For my own case, I consider myself to be a 'Systems & Infrastructure Specialist' as well as enough of a generalist to fix most problems, from printers to file servers.
I have been in IT since the late '70's and am highly qualified in several technologies - for example, Novell & Microsoft along with all of the 'sub-specialities' (EG. Security & Messaging)that are necessary for a top-notch resource person to know. I do not 'know it all' (only a fool thinks that), but what I do not know and need to know I can learn quickly.
That is what I love about this trade...it is constantly changing and also constantly a challenge. I average 6-8 exams each year, just to keep current and slowly expand my area of knowledge (my current project is to attain an in-depth knowledge of LINUX).
The key to all of this is to accept the fact that in this trade, you either constantly learn or quit! There is no third choice!
I just started a new (very-well paying) job as 'Senior Technical Architect' with a LARGE company after over 15 years of running my own consulting firm and what landed me this job was the combination of experience and certification in a wide-range of technologies. Being a 'specialist' would not have gotten me this job.
Face it, if you are going to hold a high-end position 'in the trenches', you have to know more than the people you supervise and be willing and capable of doing the job before you can simply assign others to do it.
After all, you know the saying - "A Leader Is One Who Knows The Way, Goes The Way & Shows The Way."
Only in this way will you earn the respect of your peers.

HTH

I enjoyed it. Probably will be me in 15 years.

I always think the situation in western countries are far better than the east already. At least there are companies that really treasures IT competence.
To become general is a good idea, just treat it as another kind of learning opportunity. Never miss the chance to deal with customers, for this is the very skill that makes an employee values.

==================
http://www.bizcoin.com
Commercial and financial institutions, mortgage corps, stock broker firms...
Domain name now for sale on Sedo

They probably wanted a clustered index, but I think there are now about 7 types of indexes. Try to maintain that!
My best question on an interview was what is a bubble event? I still have not been able to find out.
Enjoy, Mike

In my role as a PC Support Analyst, being an IT generalist is a necessity. My team supports 3000 users and over 300 different application. We MUST have a diverse skill and knowledge base just to get thru the day. We deal wiith everything from wireless networking issues to spyware. All issues from our Help desk come to us before the issue can be sent to anyone else. I am and have been a Jack of all Trades since 1987 and it works for me.

"But note--in both cases, understanding what others want is crucial. I recommend getting past job titles and looking at functional roles and work processes."

It's hard to do when one, they don't know what they want or even need. And two, when you come in and it's not even realized how experienced you are and then you get the ten car pileup.

True generalists are rare nowadays.

Most of the specialists I've know would be better described as one-trick-ponies. Seriously, if you get a few certs in a single area and that's all you're good for, the small and mid-sized business of today is running out of patience with your species. This is how I.T. departments balloon into company-strangling tumors. One true generalist can easily outperform 5 to 7 specialists in a single year, not by volume of work but by value of work. I know of one case where a 20 million dollar company with 20 I.T. personnel acquired a 3 million dollar company with 1 I.T. "jack of all trades." The 20 million dollar company asked the "jack" for help, going around its CIO, because the mom-and-pop had better tech solutions, greater customer satisfaction and much lower cost per service point due to the generalists multi-faceted expertise. In 2 years time, the big company had been overhauled in tech and while most of the I.T. specialists kept their jobs in the short term, it was fairly obvious they had been shamed by the no-certs, no-degree jack.

That being said, good luck finding a true generalist. Most people go for some certs and call themselves "tech."

In Northern Minnesota the county I work for I am the most experienced worker in IT yet since I started last I am still in the entry level position (after 6 years). Yet when someone has a question or problem who do they call, ME.
BTW, No formal college degree, almost completely self taught with a bunch of tech classes I attended. Windows & Novell networks + Groupwise & Exchange + MS Access + normal PC support & almost 20 years computer experience. What a bargain this county is getting. But wouldn't trade the benefits for anythng.

BillMlod

Being fully utilized might have its problems also (depending on your definition of utilized).

Until this year, I've been the school district IT, webmaster, postmaster, repairman, network admin as well as support staff and classroom teacher (I'm losing the classroom teacher part this year). When you have 1200 users (150 of them faculty), 370 computers, 10 servers and a slew of printers spread out over 3 buildings, I feel more than utilized.

Am I being used as my job description states, probably not. I'm really meant to be a coordinator and educator for the faculty and staff, not a repairman. What do you do? The best you can, which is sadly never enough. There are many 14 or 16 hour days, unfortunately there is always someone upset the next day because you didn't get their work done.

I just keep plugging along doing everything possible. The JOAT label fits me well.

I do have to say that having both experience and advanced degrees sometimes isn't even enough. Being a wizard who can magically create more time to do the work, now that would be something!

TOM

Anyone out there still a specialist in DOS?

FORTRAN?

ETC?

Why would someone want to take years to become an expert (specialist) just to have the technology "yanked" away from them?

The technology simply changes too much and a lot of time must be invested in learning the technology.

I've been in data warehousing for quite a few years and have found that the most valuable people are those who have a wide breadth of experience and skills in a number of related areas. For example, an abInitio programmer who understands a business analyst's job, can contribute to business and technical requirement gathering and documenting, has some background with data modeling and also has a solid grounding in Perl, UNIX and scripting plus understands the system's architecture and the limitations and opportunities it presents is much more immediately valuable that just an abItitio programmer simply because they're more versitile. The skills are mutually-reinforcing. But skills and experience like help desk support (although good for communication skills) or java development wouldn't contribute a whole lot to their immediate value. I bring this up because when a company begins considering outsourcing it's the 'one-trick ponies' who get more nervous than the people with lots of skills.

I've been a middle school teacher, computer skills teacher, and now "Computer Specialist" for a large Real Estate company where I do everything for 120 computers, 2 servers, an AS400 and probably an Exchange server next year.... but I like your "IT Specialist" title better... maybe I can convince them to print me new business cards... whoohhoooo!!!

Some days this job drives me crazy... but usually it's the people, not the machines!!

As complex as the IT/IS environment has become it is impossible to be master at all of the diverse possibilities. Having a good grounding in all possible areas gives you the capability to think globally, as well as quickly pick up the specifics necessary to accomplish the job at hand.

I've been around for a few years and found that by specializing I limited my oportunities. I pickup a number of operating systems, applications, scripting languages, etc. Enough to get me through 3 years as a Microsoft Admin and another 4 years as a Unix/Linux SysAdmin. I'm in my 2nd year as I.T. Manager for a large distribution and logistics corporation. I find that my broad knowledge allows me to better understand and manage both hardware centric and software staff.

Albert Pujols has played every position in the major leagues.

I also have the broader side of net admin, pc support and repair in academia. This positions saving grace for me is I also have a small arpentry, plastics and machine shop to manage. The hardest thing for me right now is finding another JOAT within this skill range to hire. The qualified advanced degree for a JOAT has not been invented that I know of.

Splunge. Referring to the Monty Python sketch where "splunge" is given as an answer that is neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

When I'm hiring a programmer, I'm looking for specialization. If they happen to have some DBA experience, that's nice, but not crucial.

If, however, I'm hiring an application architect, I expect them to know more that just Java. They should know about databases, LDAP, security, tools, and so on.

Generally speaking, the higher you go in the organization, the more you must be aware of other knowledge areas. As a departmental manager whose previous job was project manager and who has not done programming since client/server was the thing to do, I've had to become aware of these other areas. I may never be able to practice in those areas, but I have a much broader general knowledge than I did when I was a programmer.

The other factor is the size of your company. Small companies have smaller IT groups, and more roles will be covered by fewer people. Generalism is critical. If you were the only IT person, you would do everything from configure computers to create database applications. Combine this with the fact that most companies are small to medium sized, and you see why generalists are important.

Last word: keep your objectivity. Is generalism a new thing, or is it just the lastest old concept to be dusted off and repackaged by media and pundits in order to have something to talk about?

I'm a self-proclaimed generalist who has risen to the level of Assistant Director (and its only a matter of time before I can move into the CTO position). I am indeed a jack-of-all-trades, but I'm also a master of many of them.

I hire people below me based largely on what value they can bring to the enterprise. What I've learned is that a specialist, such as a DBA, Network Admin, etc. won't bring me near as much value as a Generalist in IT. The fact is that our enterprise is a consumer of IT, not a producer. We do not design our own Databases, we purchase them and then use them. As such, the reality is that I don't need a DBA, I simply pay for tech support from the vendor (which I'd do even if I had a DBA). I let the vendor do the DBA work.

Another reality is the nature of our business. We are a 24 hour entertainment business. We don't have the luxury of regular downtime, so we have to be capable of supporting our enterprise 24 hours a day. If I hire a DBA for a certain shift, we wouldn't have 24/7 coverate or that DBA would have to be on call 24 hours/7 days. If I hire a team of DBAs to cover all shifts, I'm going to be spending a large amount of money. Even if I were willing to do so, I'd still need 24 hour techs, helpdesk, network/domain admins, systems admins, etc.). If, instead, I hire a team of generalists, they can cover the business 24 hours a day in a wide variety of areas (not just databases) and can call for support when necessary.

The nature of many businesses do indeed require specialists. For example, one vendor that we purchase some of our systems from employs several DBAs because their product is databases. It makes sense to have those specialists. They are producers of IT systems, not consumers. As it turns out, I'm aware of some of their internal workings. Their internal IT department doesn't employ any DBAs, but their development departments do.

My point is that it there is room for both specialists and generalists to make money and to advance (sometimes in the same enterprise), but specifically in consumer-based IT, generalists are going to have an edge because they can provide a greater value to the enterprise for less money.

-- Jeff

My title is also IT Specialist. I've only been in IT for five years, but working for a small company as a one man department has given me a breadth of skills: PC maintenance, network admin, phone system, Exchange Server, database design, application development, etc. Sometimes it's a little stressful, but I love the variety. I go to forums like this one to bounce ideas of others that have a lot more experience.

The best deal in the world in when you are waiting on a specialist and they drag their heels to show how important they are and you do their job as well .... and tell everbody.
There's nothing a specialist in IT knows that I can't and there's a lot that I know, they don't want to.
Beside the best way to make a success out of a an IT project is for everybody involved to know the big picture and where they fit in it.

I run my own IT business. Whilst I have had previous specialist knowledge (data comms)I am now days a generalist. I have worked with many generalists and many specialists and have seem good and bad in both.

The biggest issue I have seen is not so much what the person knows, or what the person is qualified to do, but can the person use his or her brain and commonsense to figure out difficult problems. Can they think outside the box.

Can they locate the correct information when required and will they put their reputation before the almightly dollar.

I have seen very experienced and qualified specilisted make simple mistakes and the same with the generalist, but the ones that shine and continue to prosper are the ones who acknowledge what do and do not know and know how to fill the gaps in their own knowledge and never assume they know everything.

mods, how about adding a delete button?

I'm a generalist and have a B.S. in Computer Information Systems. No certifications although I've been debating it for months. I'm torn between getting certs, getting a master degree, or starting a side business. What kind of credentials do you all have? Are certifications necessary? I don't see the value of getting an MCSE, and learning the various components of the kerberos protocol, when there is other stuff out there to learn that is far more valuable that I'll actually use on the job.

The average generalist has more job security than a specialist but less of a chance to make the big bucks.

I started my career as a production recording clerk.
Ring me up and I'd tell you exactly where the paperwork said the stock should be. Four years later , you could log on and see the paperwork said on the computer. The only change was the phone rang less.

That was extremely patronising.
An IT generalist is a specialist solutions developer.
It's very rare in business that one specific facet of a skillset will solve anything. If it does it will be when someone with an appreciation of the big picture has identified a problem they don't have the skill to solve. Get expert out of box, throw at problem, put back in box, common sense prevails.

IT Support & Devlopment assistant was my first job title, eighteen years ago

anybody. Put the books down, go for a beer.
We all have to pull out all the stops every now and then, but only when asked nicely. Which means recognition in denominations of 10 as far as I'm concerned, the opportunity to work yourself to death is not sufficient reward.

Techno gopher !

The one thing large orgainsations offer you is a chance at moving about within them. It's much easier to become surplus to requirements, generally you valued much less and the narrow focus and truly anal amount of bureaurocracy makes the job much less satisfying.

Among other things, we have seen structural change in the hiring process since:
1. companies looked at their sourcing costs;
2. companies implemented applicant screening systems that were going to save the world;
3. recruiting firms set themselves on fire using the internet.

Well, you can certainly source people using internal recruiting; I was able to do it as a manager with the cooperation of an HR person who wanted to be part of the solution. But to do this, you need:

1. a hiring manager who knows how to write a job requirement;
2. an non-twinkie HR pro with a sense of urgency;
3. everyone on the interviewing team understanding the key success factors of the job and interviewing to those factors, without agendas of their own.

Without these, you get:
* HR checking the boxes, as has already been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion;
* interviewers screening for the candidate having memorized the manual to the finest level of detail, as has already been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion;
* ridiculous job criteria: there was an ad in the local paper in 2002 seeking a desktop support person with ten years of Windows 98 experience.

.. among other avenues of hiring prevention.

IT is a notoriously cyclical business, and this is just one example. In 2001, everyone wanted people who were "sharply pointed, not well rounded." Now, evidently, some people are getting fed up with specialists and forgetting why they got fed up with generalists not so long ago. So the pendulum will swing back until people get fed up with generalists and forget why they got fed up with specialists, and so on, and so forth, and scoobie doobie doobie...

Meanwhile, back at your life, what in your background paints you as a generalist? As a specialist? How can you position yourself as either one, as the latest itch dictates?

After 30 years in this business (Wards, Lockheed, and now a small retailer), I think your response to specialist or jack-of-all depends heavily on your perspective. If you tend to be an extrovert, happy contributing to whatever the company needs, salary is not your driving force kind of person, you tend to like being a jack-of-all. I hate to generalize, but my experience with many IT folks has been that the 'specialists mindset' folks tend not to have several of the above qualities. I'm not judging anyone here, just making an observation from my experience.
Personally, if you want to give yourself room for advancement, prepare for any eventuality in the world of technology, and be an all around happier person; try whatever is presented to you, make as much contribution as you can, value others (both IT and users), and don't make money your driving force. You definitely can't take it with you, and I'd rather be happy than rich any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

When I was still a tech I was faced with the same dilemma, should I go into networking, database support or SQL, Active Directory, exchange and list goes on. IT companies especially out source companies prefer specialists, simple reason a generalist tends to overlook certain areas where as a specialist does a job 103%, I can see myself getting very bored specializing in a specific area.

As a generalist and an IT manager I don?t get bored, and I know what is going on with all the aspects of the IT department and company and I can adjust to what ever challenges come my way, with all this said I still at times need advice and help from a specialist.

It's all about businesses getting the most bang for their IT bucks!

Some of them will eventually pay the piper.

And, ultimately it's true of any profession - if you can't get
outside your "comfort" zone and be a jack-of-all-trades
and MASTER-of many (NOT master of none!!) - in other
words _ EXPAND your comfort zone - you're going to hit a
serious plateau in your upward mobility and your paycheck.

All top organizational leaders and managers are more
generalist than specialist - they have to be - whether they
like it or not. You can expect that the answer to doing
more with the technology and less with people REQUIRES a
steadily increasing degree of broader knowledge and ability
to apply it, not more people with arcane specialties.

The ultimate bottom line in any business is about profit.
Like it or not, cutting costs is the fastest way to increase
profits (1:1 ratio). Your specialist jobs are now being done
by a very skilled, very educated, very motivated, and very
cheap workforce in eastern europe, russia, far east, and the
central asia areas. You can either compete with THAT or
increase your market value by being the guy who can put
all the pieces together. It's not a case of being "good at
your game" no longer having value - it's just that you have
to play ALL the different kinds of poker, not just 5 card
stud.

i personally enjoy the freedom of being a jack of all trades. if i configure a pix box and know it should work and it doesn't, by having additional skill sets, i can track down the problem without having to wait for the hardware guy or the software people etc. it helps me complete projects on time.

This is simply the function of business squeezing more and more out of their existing employees while paying them less. Hire you as a "Network admin" and before you know it, you are fixing the phones, the copier, the fax, the printers, and anything else that plugs into a wall. It is less being an "IT Generalist" and more being an "IT Slave"

A little of everything?Hmmm....,well,since I "specialize" as an A+ eng/tech,it was always assummed I'd do a little of everything,by "default".That is,yes,office manager,hr manager,hex/app/web development,then,I can get to my benches,even had to take out the trash at night and lock the building!
I like to give good value for the expense my employer incurs w/my salary.

G BIG, as one of the young-ish (early 30's)IT people you may be referring to, I'd like to point out that in my experience, it's the management and not the incoming techies who are making these decisions. I've just lost my closest co-worker to retirement (her choice). As much as I love my job, I consider it a personal and professional loss and would love to have her back - at any age. I have no desire to dominate alone, nor do I want to be considered a turd.

I work ina small govt shop, and have to do pretty much everything from time to time. being a generalist and having broad knowledge and skills may not be very romantic or exciting, but it keeps me employed. I've known many people over the years who focussed narowly and deeply thinking this was the way to wealth and security, ironically it often leads to a dead end. I used to work for IBM, when they laid off 1/2 the workforce here and the old big iron was retired the few elite guys who supported them found themselves unemployable, I don't know what they are doing now, but it's unlikely they went to heldesks and 1/2 the pay. They weren't even qualified for that. At the end of the day you HAVE to be a genralist these days. Like a journey man mechanic you can work on everything from lawn mowers to diesel trains, and if they are paying good money to fix the lawn mower why not?

Specialists are great if an organization is large enough to have work for them.

But in many instances you have situations where you don't need a full array of specialized skills all of the time. Rather than paying through the nose for a consultant, you rely upon generalists to handle the small stuff. A good generalist will tell you when the consultant is truly needed.

In some instances, having a generalist who knows about a wide array of topics can be invaluable. Specialists are often VERY focused and can't think outside the box when it comes to problem solving. Having a generalist available can help the problem solving process by providing a different and much broader point of view.

I believe that this is the term that the spin meisters of IT are trying to promote. You have enough skills in several core IT areas to serve as a specialist, so that a single hire can fill multiple part-time positions.

It works well when dealing with small companies who don't need full time specialists in areas that are nonetheless critical.

IT generalists would work better in really small companies where they may be the entire IT department as well as the person who does product photography, web page design, copier fixing and other tech activities that are not quite IT.

A generalist generalist in a really small company may do the IT stuff, the tech stuff AND answer phones, do art work, build product, work conventions and everything else.

At the top of this page, click "My Profile".

When your profile appears, click "Edit my profile".

From there, click "Edit your name, job function or location here".

See the "Primary Role" pull-down? Notice anything missing?

Generalist? GENERALIST? WE DON' NEED NO STINKEEN' GENERALIST!!!

The general feeling around my shop ist that if it has electricity in it, call IT. Fax machines, copiers, telephones, you name it. If they ask nicely, I don't care much if it's in my job description or not; I'll do my best to get it done. I even wound up doing our inventory because we had a new barcode scanner, and the software was pretty flaky, so it took an IT type to keep it running.

On my off time, I'm a blacksmith, so every once in a while I get some REALLY strange IT requests. Ever try to repair a PC with a 15-pound sledge and a 275-pound anvil?

Well I guess I've wasted over a year getting everything from the telphone system to the 3 networks, 5 different educational programs software working properly, 60 computers working, the network security in place only to be told the day before my 48th birthday that I didn't have the "paperwork" that the great state of Alabama requires for me to keep doing what I have been doing for the past 20 months.
Further more they are replacing you with a person that is not in the least bit computer literate and to add insult to injury they want me to work 10 hours a week keeping the network up and handling the backups.So what do you do when you are a jack of all trades and the powers that be decide that you are useless now? By the way I don't have any degrees in anything except a GED which I obtained 2 years ago. I taught myself what I needed to know.

It's been my experience - after more than 25 years in high-tech - that overspecialization can be a decided trap. I mean, how many companies are out there looking for Xerox XNS system administrators these days? That's what I started as, lo these many moons ago. But because I was willing to branch out and experiment with those early, piece-of-crap PCs, I became an MS-NET and then a Lan Manager admin. Those became, in the course of time ("like sands through an hourglass"), Windows.

Had I decided, all those years ago, that I would only be an XNS administrator, I'd have been working as a barista for some time now. Ditto for those who decided they were Clipper DBA's and only Clipper DBA's - not much call for that d/b these days. If you want to remain a Lotus Notes admin until retirement, better find some company that's going to keep their Lotus Notes system for 30 years.

Now, I do think a lot of employers are getting a bit ridiculous in their demands these days - "must be SQL DBA, have extensive C# knowledge, 10 years of Java programming, know XML and Active Directory, and make really great coffee - salary $10/hr." But I think they figure right now it's an employer's market, so they can ask for what they really want, which is a really talented serf for life. But it doesn't hurt to learn a bit of the guy in the next cubicle's job as well as your own - you never know when yours might go the way of XNS.

get all the certs you can. Pimps & HR love 'em.
If you're paying try and stay away from vendor specific certs until you've learnt enough to know where the vendor specific tech fits in the big picture.
As I said I have n't got a single one, there again if I was starting out I'd have more chance of becoming CFO than a helpdesk tech with such a lack of credentials.
The other thing to be wary of is generalising to the point where you know very little about everything.
If you want to be an admin, learn admin then apply that knowledge to different architectures, platforms etc. That way with the cert as backup and some experience you'll be confident of administering anything.
User maintenance is user maintenance, the location/syntax of the dohickeys to change a user will vary, what you want to do and much more imporantly why will not.
Th real problem with certs is they tend to reach by task for a vendor tech, lot's of what very little why.
Knowing why it's a lot easier to ask what, than vice versa.

I came from the library world, who also do a bad job of selling themselves. I'm a crossover special librarian/portal design.
You said:
>You're right, companies do NOT see technology as a true business partner. Why? Not because we're a necessary evil, and not because (as some in these threads would love to believe) all management is incompetent by definition. How good are we at justifying our existence? (Lousy.) <
Anyway, from my experience in both worlds; selling ourselves is vital to obtain recognition!
If you feel you are not noticed -- you probably aren't. But, what are you doing about this? Our projects utilize training sessions, newsletter articles and portions of monthly director's meetings to let the org. know what we are doing.
There are still problems here; some managers "get" the value of IT easier than others.

You said:
>How many times do we propose projects with credible ROI analyses, or any at all? (Infrequently.) <
The other issue is learning how to communicate qualitive values to the execs. Many times IT systems and improvements do not provide a direct income -- but enable other endeavors to perform better, increasing the org's bottom line. This is the part of the equation that can be difficult to communicate to management. I don't want to disparage, but in my experience -- those managers that worked their way up from within w/o pursuing degrees are the ones that seem to have the hardest time adjusting perspectives. Education provides a broadening of perspectives that may not occur in the workplace--especially if the person has been with one org for many years. Our org really seems to pride itself in "home grown" leaders. The problem is that their lack of education shows in some of their analysis and logical thinking. Education may not be the solution but it would help! At any rate, it is tricky to express qualitative value. It is a trick we need to learn to do, and do well.
You said:
>How often do we make our deadlines, stick to our budgets, produce to spec and expectations? (Rarely.)<
An issue I have often observed is an inability to set clear and realistic expectations. Management may nod their heads and say they understand what they are getting with a project; but when the project is finished you discover you have not met some expectations. It is important to draw business managers into an open conversation about what will be accomplished with *this* project. In my org, we are big on "NO project scope." Business partners sometimes need to be assured that you hear them and that the request they have is something that would make an excellent *follow-on* project . It is all too easy to fall into the trap of hyping up a project in order to pump up project excitement and employee buy-in, but I've learned the hard way it can be a dangerous tact if employees percieve this as an invite to unrealistic expectations.

Performing to budget and schedule is a project management weakness that I have observed. However it is also a problem for many because of project scope. When business partners are permitted to include "just one more thing" that tends to snowball. Project expansions mean more money. Poor communcation between business and IT also leads to wasted time and time = money.

The key to a lot of these problems is improvement in the business -- IT *communications*. This is where business analysts are finding themselves a hot commodity. Sometimes they seem to be a good solution; other times...more is needed.

People have suggested classes, while that may help if you have no clue how to communicate it doesn't help if you know but can't translate it into action. I have a difficult time asserting myself well in meeting situations. However, I also have a fabulous admin. that knows this, pushes me into these situations and gives me feedback. Practice -- feedback -- understanding -- practice etc seems the only way to learn to translate knowledge into practice.

As usual, folks that do not know what they want, know how to state what they want, or do not want to state what they want, will shift to using words that do not mean anything in context.

'IT Generalist'
'Light at the end of the tunnel'
'The obvious solution is value-add application of amanagement paradigm that...'

What they are doing is bloviating (Yup, it's a real word [bloviate] & sounds real good too!).

Or they may be trying to get a freebie open-ended interview question: 'How are you a Generalist?'

;->

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, "Labels...is there anything they can't do?" I've been a "generalist" for years...doing things the "specialists" couldn't - or wouldn't - because it was either beyond their capabilities or beneath them.

Perhaps businesses are waking up to the fact that having people around who can do more than one IT task (besides picking their noses) is a good and overall cost-saving idea.

I wouldn't hold my breath, though. I'm still waiting for all these jobs that are supposed to be appearing with our hot economy. ;-)

I wish I had found my IT niche before my 30s. But, I do it because I love it. I'd work in the IT field for free (and do now), because I enjoy the work.

But, Mr. G Big, may I respectfully suggest that although it is true that many older IT workers are subject to age discrimination, in your case, might it be "attitude" discrimination?

I've know of a lot of downsizing in my career, the first people that were dumped were people who had bad attitudes no matter what their age.

Most young people bring to the job everything a manager wants, education, some experience, but most of all a willingness to get into the job and learn.

I've found most older IT people just want jobs handed to them based on past performance and are often unwilling to learn something new.

Be a new generation of older IT worker, and show the youngin's that you have the education/certification, experience, wisdom, and a willingness to risk it by learning new things.

I concur. I've made a living out of being able to branch out into several areas of IT. And you know what? Its the only way I keep my brain stimulated enough.

First of all most small IT departments seek employees (because of tight budgets) who have general IT knowledge not an individual who only has just one area of expertise. I agree this type of hiring practice gives companies more bang for the buck, one employee who can handle the role of three. I work at a job that forces me to wear many hats and having 'general technical knowledge? has helped me make many of the decisions that are thrown at me on a daily bases. No one knows everything and being a generalist if I do not know I seek out someone who does. I think of a ?IT Generalist? as a general practitioner in the medical field and just like the ?GP? you see many different problems on a daily bases and I agree an employee with general knowledge is usually a well rounded employee but just like a ?GP? if the problem is over your head you have to seek out a specialist in that area who can help you make the correct decision. I see nothing wrong with admitting that you have a general knowledge of technology but you are not an expert in any area. When a technician thinks they know everything about a particular subject is when I think they are in trouble!

In developing an international intranet portal for our companies, I came up with a solution that effectively saved the company 125k annually for the life of the portal...the thanks I was due was given to the contracts coordinator (who failed miserably) in the form of a new title and salary increase and my annual little stipened increase was "canceled" because of a "Pay Freeze".

Funny how the almighty dollar is supposedly what drives the "business" end of things, but when an IT generalist like myself makes a business decision, it's seldomly revered as it would be were it not made on the IT side.

Without generalists, specialists would be isolated from one another, unable to understand either other specialists or the whole of which they are but parts.

During the dot.com frenzy, generalists, who are for the most part those who have acquired a rather large knowledge base by virtue of their age & experiences, came to be viewed as being not merely unessential but antithetical to the "new paradigms" that were then all the rage.

The result? The dot.com bubble burst, and the generalists are once again in demand.

Specialists are analagous to the elementary particles that comprise the atom, the proton, neutron & electron. Generalists are the particles that carry the forces that bind said elemental particles together.

We JOATS are in fact masters of many trades.