Manager holding automation hostage

Posted by Accurate-Design3815@reddit | sysadmin | View on Reddit | 49 comments

Has anyone ever encountered this before? My manager refuses to allow scripting at all or automate any of our new hire process until its done perfectly manually first. I do have a script I made that handles bulk account creation and setup but I'm not allowed to use it even though I've proven it works, nor can I use it in secret because the logs might be checked.

We have almost 60 new hires this week and are getting info for most of them midway through, and absolutely none of the account setup process is automated. It feels like Im in bizarro world.

[-]

NoradIV@reddit

Document your suggestion and let it fail upward. When management fails to deliver onboarding on time, just point out that you brought up a solution and it was ignored.

[-]

Gesha24@reddit

Since we don't know the whole situation, we can only speculate about the reasons for this behavior. The reasons can range from total misunderstanding of what automation does to deliberate sabotage.

That said, there are 3 things that can be done.

1) And most important - resume should be updated and sent out. Even if there's no malice in this, do you really want to waste your time in this place?

2) OK, you can't do automatic creation. You can do verification though. So you can do a very fast and loose manual creation process and then run through the results and fix the things you inevitably broke when doing it super-fast.

3) A single powershell command is not a script, it's equivalent to clicking a button in the UI. A command that sets an environment variable is not a script. A powershell command that references the environment variable is not a script. So - write down a set of commands in a notepad and copy-paste them in the CLI. This is not a script, you are doing manual creation. Spend your freed up time on #1.

[-]

MentalRip1893@reddit

if the process can't be done correctly manually, then that is one process super-primed for automation. he's a dumbass.

[-]

fdeyso@reddit

I’m 100% confident it can be done manually without any problems. Don’t get me wrong: if someone can’t follow basic instructions to create an account just fine, i’m not going to trust their automation to do it either….

[-]

Accurate-Design3815@reddit (OP)

Following instructions isnt hard but the same task repeated 60 times over several days having to coordinate between several different sheets of documentation, something is always gonna be missed

[-]

fdeyso@reddit

So you sound like you can’t make it right manually just once at least but want to automate it.

[-]

EventPurple612@reddit

Automating a bad process just makes bad results faster. Did I read this wrong? His manager basically said if you can't do it by hand without errors first, you can't automate it becuase you don't know how a proper result looks like.

If he knows how to do it right why are the results bad?

[-]

RCG73@reddit

But if you can’t do it properly manually once (first?) then how can you properly automate it? Something seems off enough that I’m withholding judgement of the manager.

[-]

Remnence@reddit

Run the script as your user and add some time delays between tasks. Pretty sure AD logs don't how the user was created or modified, just by who and when.

[-]

ISeeDeadPackets@reddit

Doing this won't illustrate the fact that setting up that many users in a week without automation is implausible and will only validate his opinion that it isn't necessary. Sometimes people won't change something until the failures start stacking up.

[-]

scytob@reddit

100% this

[-]

ITFriendlyCo@reddit

Tru

[-]

anonymousITCoward@reddit

60 in a week isn't horrible... I would definitely make HR fill out forms to make assigning to security groups, and distros easier...

[-]

RunJumpJump@reddit

Yep, this might be a case for malicious compliance.

[-]

INSPECTOR99@reddit

Yessssss, Jussst howwwww Looooonnnnng dies it take you to MANUALLYYYYYYYYYYY proceeeeeesssssss each new added employeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee............:-) /S

[-]

Remnence@reddit

Chances are you'll be fired before they change the process with this kinda of leadership. Can't be their fault.

[-]

anonymousITCoward@reddit

Having to do it this way sucks... I hate it... but it's how I did it for years... I regularly told people that I just typed faster than everyone else.

[-]

GlacierSourCreamCorn@reddit

Make sure to add some random variance between the delays.

[-]

Made_UpWords@reddit

My manager refuses to allow scripting at all or automate any of our new hire process until its done perfectly manually first.

Are you referring to requiring the process itself being perfect first, or do you mean each user needs to be "created perfectly" first?

If the former, I mean - do you guys make mistakes there frequently during the onboarding process? It's not too crazy to demand the process be ironed out before you start talking about automating it.

If the latter, I don't know what purpose automation serves if you've already created the user account by hand. There is zero reason to run an onboarding script for a user that is already onboarded, so I don't know what the goal of your manager would be there.

[-]

Accurate-Design3815@reddit (OP)

I mean he wants us to create every user, perfectly, manually, following a lengthy process that requires cross checking some 3 different assignment charts

[-]

INSPECTOR99@reddit

So perfect the piss out of it and document to the Nth degree and then resubmit your request that would "scRipt" follow your perfected manual process to the "T". DONE :-).

[-]

aurora4000@reddit

Crazy

[-]

Made_UpWords@reddit

Oh. Well. I mean, why lol. Just use a script lol. That's what they're there for.

I try to be fair when users wage one-sided complaints against coworkers or management when they don't have a chance to respond but, no, I don't see any reason why someone wouod be averse to that. Did you guys have other automation ventures that went very poorly or failed, so he's gunshy about more wasted time?

[-]

anonymousITCoward@reddit

I had to read that a few times too... I require my guys to know what to do first, and to do it at an acceptable level... (a cheat sheet is allowed) before using the scripts.

The reason: we just changed RMM, and the guy who swapped everything over knows fuck-all about scripting and couldn't translate it from one scripting language to another so the support staff couldn't use the easy way... it took me about 2 weeks to get most of the script moved over, but if they didn't know they would have been dead in the water...

[-]

bishely@reddit

On the other hand: if they’re making data entry mistakes or assigning wrong groups or whatever because the workload is unmanageable and/or the manual work is boring-but-detailed enough that zombie-brained mistakes become inevitable, then an even partially automated process could and should be sold as a practical way to reduce the frequency those mistakes.

OP - I’d be pitching it that way: “this script minimises the surface area for typos and forgotten steps, and provides a clear output for people to quickly check their inputs and then get on with the rest of their work - it’ll save us both the upfront work AND the extra time spent correcting mistakes” and if your manager is still blocking it (and there’s no easy resolution path, like another manager who can shine some light on it) you probably want to start looking for a new job.

[-]

iceph03nix@reddit

yeah, that bit confused me as well.

If they're saying they want the process to be fully sorted out first, I can kinda understand that.

If they're saying they want 0 user error in making accounts... that's part of the whole benefit of automation is you can take a lot of user error opportunities out of the equation

[-]

Remnence@reddit

On the flipside of my previous comment: Is there pressure from above to speed up? This may be an SLA or process created by the client. They may have sensitive data that could create a legal nightmare if someone was given the wrong the permissions.

[-]

KnownUniverse@reddit

Run, don't walk, to the exit.

[-]

junon@reddit

Automation isn't just for speed and ease of use, it's also for consistency and to avoid mistakes. If your script is accurate, every user will be created correctly. If I had to create 60 in a row by hand, there's a lot higher chance of a fat finger or a typo in there.

[-]

hkusp45css@reddit

Your boss is an idiot. Half the point of automation is the recognition that humans are horrible at consistent repeatability.

If the only argument for automation is the perfect completion of the task, manually, why bother looking at automation at all?

[-]

Happy_Kale888@reddit

At a very small level i can understand some of this managers thinking. With all the so called PowerShell experts using AI to create scripts I can see this level of thinking stopping that. I would want something similar (and have had to get every line of code approved before).

[-]

orev@reddit

So convert your script into the manual process, with enough comments for it to be useful as a document.

Your manager is sort of correct in a round about way. Every single process that’s just a simple list of steps should be documented in a process document. However, if that document is a Word doc or a script is something that can be debated.

Does your manager have an IT background, or are they a business person? If a business person, they likely have no idea what IT people do, and that you’re both actually talking about the same thing.

[-]

opinionsOnPears@reddit

What exactly is it doing? Can you break it up into multiple components and stages initially? Like, make it slightly more automated to enter certain pieces of information to make certain stages semi-automated and then move to automating the whole workflow?

Sometimes trying to deploy a full automation that handles EVERYTHING can be daunting and is prone to have an error pop up somewhere.

Is there any testing setup?

[-]

National_Ad_6103@reddit

I was once told I was not allowed to use powershell.. he even complained about ping

[-]

recent-convert@reddit

To be fair, I complain about ping too, but only at people who use it as their one and only troubleshooting tool.

[-]

scytob@reddit

its either because he doesn't want a process he doesn't understand

or he doesn't want to accelerate tasks intentionally - and there could be many reasons for that - and yes iu have see this a lot over 30 years, especially at sourced contractor shops, once had Fujitsu Services in the UK not want to create golden images and install scripts as that would reduce the billable hours. i.e. they are in the business of having monkeys bang on typewriters....

[-]

Colink98@reddit

The manager has had a bad experience in their past and they are struggling to move on

That’s what you are fighting and unlikely to win

[-]

Demented_CEO@reddit

Sounds honestly sensible. This is where you prove your tenacity and understanding of what you're doing. Specifically whether you'd just turn you back and do things in secret, it seems.

[-]

Accurate-Design3815@reddit (OP)

Me and other staff have had to do newhires manually for months at this point, this is just the worst week I've ever seen, and I had recently asked about automating the process after a long while and was flatly told no, not until its done perfect manually

[-]

The82Ghost@reddit

Sounds like they do not understand that it will never be perfect when done manually, automation reduces mistakes and makes it so it's done perfectly...

[-]

ephemeraltrident@reddit

Is this a test or just hazing?

[-]

SpareAmbition@reddit

Sounds like it could be misguided training so everyone understands what is done rather than just setting up an automation and people having no idea, maybe he himself has no idea whatsoever and doesn't want to out himself, maybe it's billing, maybe he's afraid if this gets automated other things will follow and then there'll be layoffs or less people in general.

Whatever the reason it's stupid for any decently sized company, especially one having 60 new hires in a week

[-]