Favourites

Any IT technician who tells you they don’t succumb to favouritism is lying.

We all have our favourites; people who we are happier to help than the next person. Note that this is subtly different from people who get the most help from us. Some people get better service because it would be stupid for us not to do so: when The Head raises a support ticket, we snap to it, because he’s the man in charge and if we piss him off by keeping him waiting it affects our job prospects.

Some people we help more because they are bona fide friends, rather than professional acquaintances (and that’s probably true of anyone).

Our favourites, however, are the people we want to help regardless of their seniority or whether we will actually get anything out of it.

You probably all know someone who seems to get the things they ask for from IT more quickly than you. Chances are, they are a Favourite. “Oh Angry Technician, how do I become your Favourite?” I hear you cry. Well, I’m glad you asked, because over the coming weeks I’ll be detailing some tried-and-tested methods for ensuring that you too can win the favour of your IT technician, and enjoy stress-free service from them in future.

Stay tuned for the secrets of better living with your IT team…

About The Angry Technician

The Angry Technician is an experienced IT professional in the UK education sector. Normally found in various states of annoyance on his blog. All views are those of his imaginary pet dog, Howard.

2 responses to “Favourites”

  1. mr-oldskool says :

    Ah yes, the hierarchy of favourites. It can be boiled down to the following simple priority list:

    1. Really Efficient People can afford to be not that friendly, but their competence garners a certain respect. Their work is important, because they obviously don’t waste time.

    2. Good Friends, regardless of competence, are classed as favourites, and get priority treatment. They probably don’t need priority treatment, but it’s the prerogative of the technician, and it may just act as an example to others to ‘be nice’. (Then again, maybe not…)

    3. Mediocre-Efficient but Super Nice People also get priority service. For example, Super Nice means bringing fresh coffee or good beer. A one-off will do, as long as this is accompanied with regular polite, friendly chat.

    4. Mediocre-Efficient but friendly types form a large part of the user base in decent state secondary schools. They are treated fairly and problems are usually dealt with promptly.

    5. Mediocre-Efficient People who are neither particularly friendly nor responsive to suggestions for going out for a drink: generally disliked. In most organisations, this applies to the majority of middle management. Exception for really cute female (or whatever the ‘attractive’ sex is for the reader), in which case the subject becomes a challenge.

    6. Completely Inefficient People are generally less of a threat, and can sometimes provide amusement, although this mostly doesn’t make for priority service. Those playing the ‘I’m useless but cute and you are a man and I fully trust you to take control’ card almost always get priority service, contrary even to any feminist-progressive views of the technician in question. This is because this sort of Completely Inefficient Person can also turn into A Prospect. (Language assistants, students teachers etc. may often fall under this bracket.) However, the majority of people in this category elicit mere eye-rolling responses.

    7. Self Important Types. Most often of the view they are highly efficient, sadly highlighting their own self-deception. This type ranges from the inert to the downright nasty. Inertly Self Important Types are generally ignored. Nasty Self Important Types are the bottom of the pile, the lowest of the low. At first, one generally resolves to not help at all, and then mild pangs of professionalism *may* kick-in, at which point one makes an effort to respond in the slowest, most ‘measured’ manner possible.

  2. Angry Technician says :

    It’s true that everyone has their own hierarchy, but I also think it differs slightly from person to person. In later posts I’ll certainly be talking about some of the things you’ve mentioned, but more as general attributes one might have that would move one up the hierarchy, rather than specific positions within it..

    Also, apologies for the late comment appearance – clearly the spam training is not very well focused yet as I had to dig this one out of the spam queue.