| Yup. I've been in ops last two years, and few things will kill us more than somebody not following up on a raised issue. Now, in responding to a raised issue, absolutely: look at priority, big picture, context; maybe point them to a more appropriate resource or person. But look at time stamps - unspoken part of this equation is: 1. Could you have helped this person resolve this issue by 12:17 by providing them a simple answer, instead of letting them struggle to find answer (likely through somebody else who bothered to respond) by 12:28? 2. What if EVERYbody took your approach - would they still have resolved the issue by 12:28? I think they have found an approach that works for THEMselves, and are completely ignoring what's best for the system/project/team. As the op said - this is what perpetuates stereotypes of IT. |
One type is the one that just never gets it. They really have no idea how to do their job but they know how to work other people to do their job for them. As long as _someone_ responds to them this will continue. If _everybody_ stopped responding to them, someone in charge might actually get a clue and just get rid of them, because their "output" would go near zero.
Some do this via being nice, sociable people, while others try it through intimidation. Like "I need to get X done. You need to help me, VP of XYZ needs this by EOD", basically implying that you're on the hook for their work and the VP of XYZ would see it as _your_ failure if you didn't do this guys work for him.