Tag Archives: people

Are GOV IT teams apathetic?

I have been stewing about this post on r/sysadminIs apathy a problem in most government IT teams?, for a while and felt like it was worth a quick write-up since most of my short IT career has been spent in the public sector.

First off, apathy and team dysfunction is a problem everywhere. There is nothing unique about government employees versus private employees in that respect. What I think the poster is really asking is, “Is there something about government IT that produces apathetic teams?” and if you read a little deeper it seems like apathy really means “permanent discouragement”; that is to say, the condition where change, “doing things right or better”, greater efficiency are or seemly are impossible. When you read something like, “…trying to make things more efficient is met with reactions like ‘oh you naive boy’ and finger pointing,” it is hard to think of just plain old vanilla apathy.

Government is not a business (despite what some people think). Programs operate at a loss, are subsidized in many cases entirely, by taxes because the public and/or their representatives deems those programs worthy. The failure mechanism of market competition doesn’t exist. Incredibly effective programs can be cancelled because they are no longer politically favorable and incredibly ineffective programs can continue or expand because they have political support. Furthermore, in all things public servants need to remain impartial, unbiased and above impropriety. This leads to vast and byzantine processes, the components of which singularly make imminent good sense (for example, the prohibition of no-bid contracts) but collectively all these well-intentioned barnacles slow the ship-of-state dramatically. Success is not rewarded with growth either. Implementing a more efficient process, a more cost effective infrastructure and saving money generally results in less money. This tendency of budget reduction (“Hey, if you saved it, you did not need it to begin with, right?”) turns highly functioning teams into disasters overtime as they lose resources. Paradoxically, the better you are at utilizing your existing resources, the less you get. Finally, your entire leadership changes with every administration change. You may still be shoveling coal down in the engine room, but the new skipper just sent down word to reduce steam and come about hard in order to head in the opposite direction. Generally private companies that do this kind of thing, with this frequency, do not last long.

How does all this apply to Information Technology? It means that your organization will move very, very slow and technology moves very, very fast. Not a good combo.


Those are the challenges that a team faces but what about the other half of the equation… the people facing them?

Job classes are just one small part of this picture but they are emblematic of some of the challenges that face team leads and managers when dealing with the ‘People’, piece of People, Process and Technology (ITIL buzzword detected! +5 points). The idea of job classes is that across the organization people doing similar work should be paid the same. The problem lies in that updating a job class is beyond onerous and the time to completion is measured in years. Do you know how quickly Information Technology reinvents itself? Really quick. This means that job classes and their associated salaries tend to drift away from the actual on-the-ground work being done and the appropriate compensation level over time, making recruitment of new staff and retention of your best staff very difficult (The Dead Sea Effect). If you combine this with a lack of training and professional development, staff has a tendency to get pigeon-holed into a particular role without a clear promotion path. Furthermore, many of the job class series are disjointed in such a way as working at the top of one job series will not meet the prerequisites for another job series, making advancement difficult, and at least on paper sometimes impossible. For example: you could work as a Lead Programmer for three years leading a team of five people and not qualify, at least on paper, for an entry level IT Manager position.

How does all this apply to Information Technology? People get stuck doing one job, for too long, with no professional training or mentorship. Their skillsets decline towards obsolescence and they become frustrated and discouraged.


I have never met anyone in the public sector that just straight up did not give a crap. I have met people that feel stuck, discouraged, marginalized and ignored. And rightly so. Getting stuff done is very hard. It is like everyone has one ingredient necessary to make a cake, and you all more, or less, agree on the recipe. You are all trained and experienced bakers. You can easily make a cake but you each have 100 pieces of paperwork you have to fill out and wait on, sometimes for months, before you can do your part of the cake-baking process. You have 10 different bosses, each telling you to make a different desert when you know that cakes are by far the best desert for your particular bakery. Then you get yelled at for not making a cake in a timely manner, and then you all fired and replaced by food service contractors whose parent company charges an exorbitant hourly rate. But hey, the public eventually got their cake right? Or at least a donut. Not exactly what they ordered but better than nothing … right?

If IT is a thankless job (and I am not sure I agree with that piece of Sysadmin mythology), then Public Sector IT is even more thankless. You will face a Kafkaesque bureaucracy. You will likely be very underpaid and have a difficult time seeking promotion. You will never be able to accept a vendor-provided gift or meal over the price of $25. You will laugh when people ask if you plan on attending VMworld. The public will stereotype you as lazy, ineffective and overpaid. But you will preserve. You have a duty to the body politic to do your best with what you have. You will keep the lights on, you will keep the ship afloat even as more and more water pours in. You have to. Because that’s what Systems Administrators do.

And all you wanted was to simply make a cake.



One Year of Solitude: My Learning Experience as a Lead

It has been a little over a year since I stepped into a role as a technical lead and I thought this might be a good time to reflect on some of the lessons I have learned as I transition from being focused entirely on technical problems to trying to under how those technical pieces fit into a larger picture.


Tech is easy. People are hard. And I have no idea how to deal with them.

It is hard to understate this. People are really, really difficult to deal with compared to technology and I have so much to learn about this piece of sysadmin craft. I do not necessarily mean people are difficult in the sense that they are oppositional or hard to work with (although often they are) just that team dynamics are very complicated and the people composing your team have a huge spread in terms of experience, skills, motivations, personalities and goals. These underlying “attributes” are not static either, they change based on the day, the mood and the project making identifying, understanding them and planning around them even harder. The awareness of this underlying milieu composing your team members and thus your team is paramount to your project’s success.

All I can say is that I have just begun to develop an awareness of these “attributes” and am just getting the basics of recognizing different communication styles (person and instance dependent). I can just begin to tell whose motivations align with mine and whose do not. In hunting we call this the difference between “looking and seeing”. It takes a lot of practice to truly “see”, especially if like me, you are not that socially adept.

My homework in this category is to build an RPG-like “character sheet” for each team member, myself included,  and think about what their “attributes” are and where those attributes are strengths and where they can be weaknesses.


Everyone will hate you. Not really. But kinda yes.

One the hardest parts of being a team lead, is you are now “in-charge” of technical projects with a project team made up of many different members who are not within your direct “chain-of-command” (at least this is how it works in my world). This means you own the responsibility for the project but any authority you have is granted to you by a manager somewhere higher up the byzantine ladder of bureaucracy. Nominally, this authority allows you to assign and direct work directly related to the project but in practice this authority is entirely discretionary. You can ask team member A to work on item Z but it is really up to her and her direct supervisor if that is what she is going to do. In the hierarchical, authority-based culture and process driven business world that most of us of work in this means you need to be exceedingly careful about whose toes you step on. Authority on paper is one thing, authority in practice is entirely another.


Mo’ People, Mo’ Problems

My handful of project have thus far been composed of team members that kind of fall into these rough archetypes.

A portion of the team will be hesitant to take up the project and the work you are asking them to do since you are not strictly speaking their supervisor. They will passively help the project along and frequently you will be required to directly meet with them and/or their supervisor to make sure they are “cleared” for the work you assigned them and to make sure they feel OK about doing it. These guys want to be helpful but they don’t want to work beyond what their supervisor has designated. Get them “cleared” and make sure they feel safe doing the work and you have made a lot of progress.

Another portion of the team will be outright hostile. Either their goals or motivations do not align with the project or even worse their supervisor’s goals or motivations do not align with the project but someone higher up leaned on them and so they are playing along. This is tough. The best you can hope for here is to move these folks from actively resisting to passively resisting. They might be “dead weight” but at least they aren’t actively trying to slow things down any more. I don’t have much a working strategy here – an appeal to authority is rarely effective. Authority does not wanted to bothered by your little squabbles and arguably it has already failed because chain-of-command can make someone play along, but it cannot make they play nice. I try to tailor my communication style to whatever I am picking up from these team members (see the poorly named, Dealing with People You Can’t Stand), do my best to include them (trying to end-run them makes things ten times worse) and inoculate the team against their toxicity. I am fan of saying I deal with problems and not complaints because problems can actually be solved but a lot of times these folks just want to complain. Give them a soap box so they can get it out of their system so you can move on get work done but don’t let them stand on it for too long.

Another group will be unengaged. These poor souls were probably assigned to the project because their supervisor had to put someone on it. A lot of times the project will be outside their normal technical area of operations, the project will only marginally effect them, or both. They will passively assist where they can. The best strategy I have found here is to be concise, do your best not to waste their time, and use their experience and knowledge of the surrounding business processes and people as much as you can. These guys can generate some great ideas or see problems that you would never otherwise see. You just have to find a way to engage them.

The last group will be actively engaged and strongly motivated to see the project succeed. These folks will be doing the heavy lifting and 90% of the actual technical work required to actually accomplish the project. You have to be careful to not let these guys lean to hard on the other team members out of frustration and you have to not overly rely on them or burn them out otherwise you will be really screwed since they are actually the only people truly putting in the nuts-and-bolts work required for the project’s success.

A quick aside, if you do not have enough people in this last group the project is doomed to failure. There is no way a project composed mostly of people actively resisting its stated goals will succeed, at least not under my junior leadership.

Dysfunctional? Yes. But all teams are dysfunctional in certain ways and at certain times. Understanding and adapting to the nature of your team’s dysfunction lets you mitigate it and maybe, just maybe, help move it towards a healthier place.

Until next time, good luck!