Job description: who should serve...[punish] users?

[USerID]

I think most people know how many different "species", "subspecies", and varieties of administrators exist. Darwinism is quite developed here.
I am interested in a very specific question: "Who should serve and punish living people (users), if they are stupid, lazy, do not fulfill your requirements, violate the regulations? What types of punishments should they expect from you?
I mean "serve" not user accounts, mail accounts, user quotas, access levels, but namely human "wants", "demands", conduct socio-psychological work (listen to their fantastic nonsense, endure their outbursts of rage, anger, etc.).
Don't you think that any type of administrator (database admin, network admin and dozens of other types of admins) are not obliged to do this?
What does your job description say about this issue?

The "wiki" says:
Duties
Training users
Answering technical queries and assisting users.

Okay, what does it mean to "teach" and "help"? Is an admin obliged to teach? I don't know which one shade and turn of phrase in English, but to teach it, most likely, to show where to poke the mouse on the Windows "Desktop" to launch a shortcut to create a VPN (connection to a remote office). THAT'S IT! No more than that.
But not to teach how to create headers and footers in a word processor, make pivot tables in a spreadsheet, edit a PDF document, archive in WinRAR, etc.
"Help" ... how? How "deeply"?
If, nevertheless, the accountant stubbornly "forgets" to double-click the shortcut (see above), then the admin "must" explain for 20 minutes over the phone or send such a user to ..., especially since the accountant was already "trained", but "forgot" ...
Or is the admin obliged to do this?
After all, there was such a thing as an "anykey", remember? That's what the "anykey" did.
And one more thing: Do you always do what your boss or management wants?

You can tell management: "This is NOT part of my job responsibilities."
Thank you. I'd be glad to hear any opinions!

 

[Deleted member 81054]

"Who should serve and punish living people

That depends largely on the context.

A parent should provide this "service" for their children. It is the traditional role of parents, is in their best interests (financially, morally, practically) and there is no other agency that could (realistically) perform those services.

But, that doesn't mean they do or will! Witness the number of "broken families", youth delinquency, ineptitude, etc. The reasons can be multitude. But, the evidence/results indicate there is obviously a failing, here (speaking from the US but I suspect the same is true elsewhere).

Take that and extrapolate it to the business world. Should your employer take on those responsibilities? What tangible value to him? Isn't it easier (more efficient) to just "teach them what buttons to push"? What procedure to follow? What value in teaching them the WHY behind each of these things? Why invest more in an employee than absolutely necessary -- esp given that said employee can leave for another employer at any time?

Now, extrapolate THAT, further. What value for universities to teach anything beyond the "how to"? How much more "marketable" (the only true way to evaluate the quality of their graduates) will their students be if the business world is really just looking for "skillset (i.e., how-to) X, Y or Z"?

By some counts, there are between 1000 and 9000 different programming languages. Which one(s) should be taught? Should the student be taught about the technologies behind particular language features (to better help him evaluate the values of different languages in specific application domains)? Or, should he just have exercises foisted on him to build a basic skill set in one (or a few) languages du jour in which his likely employers will be expecting proficiency? Given that the employee may "move on" (or be dismissed) in a few years, won't the employer have a NEW opportunity to recruit somene with a NEWER skillset as the previous employee's becomes "dated"?

When (financial) "investments" are viewed in the timeframe of a single year, how can one justify making a "personnel investment" in a longer timeframe?

 

[USerID]

Witness the number of "broken families", youth delinquency, ineptitude, etc. The reasons can be multitude. But, the evidence/results indicate there is obviously a failing, here (speaking from the US but I suspect the same is true elsewhere).

Are children served (punished) and “raised” by parents for themselves (“they will bring a glass of water in old age”) or for society (so that they “successfully and successfully integrate” into society)?
The main reasons in our modern society have long been recorded in philosophical and religious writings:

1. Vanity.
2. Pride.
3. Rivalry (not to be confused with competition).
4. Ignorance.
5. Lack of common sense.

I also seem to understand the extrapolation to the business world.
I don’t understand why a specialist should teach the user, and only “go into the minus” from this?

That’s right, it is beneficial for the employer to have a broad-based specialist or a flexible transformer for production tasks.

And what about the specialist? Considering that technologies change very quickly today, I myself need help from my employer: refresher courses paid for by the organization or business owner (at least once a year) + certificate after training + subscription to materials (lectures, articles, etc.) + and so on.
And if the business owner says “no”?
Then, excuse me, I myself, at my own expense, but every year you raise my salary. I grow as a specialist, you get the best quality of work from me for your organization.
Is that logical? Does it work for you?

Yes, users need to be helped, but I think that you can’t allow snot.
Analogy: here we also help other users as best we can, we learn a lot from each other, but this is a different platform and community.
At work, everything is somehow unstructured.
At work, there are no strict rules, like on a forum, in a community.
That’s why I’m interested in what a typical admin in the USA has written in his job description.

The topic is not serious for some, but let's turn to an authoritative printed publication and to the guru of administration.
https://github.com/arpitn30/EBooks/...Handbook by Evi Nemeth et al. (z-lib.org).pdf

Here's what they write in the "Fire fighting" section
Although helping other people with their various problems is rarely included in a system administrator's job description, these tasks claim a measurable portion of most administrators' workdays. System administrators are bombarded with problems ranging from "It worked yesterday and now it doesn't! What did you change?"
to "I spilled coffee on my keyboard! Should I pour water on it to wash it out?"
In most cases, your response to these issues affects your perceived value as an administrator far more than does any actual technical skill you might possess. You can either howl at the injustice of it all, or you can delight in the fact that a single well-handled trouble ticket scores more brownie points than five hours of midnight
debugging. Your choice!

There is irony here. It was appropriate in the 90s.
But when you link a user on his personal Android phone to an internal IP-PBX (give him an internal number “250”) for calls within the enterprise, and the user bothers you because the Android was unsuccessfully updated or the children were playing with the phone and Linphone is no longer on the phone - I am to blame. And I have another 250 users ahead of me...

Today, there are a lot of informal “protocols”, phones, Telegrams, Zooms, etc. to service. Without bonuses and financial support from the employer.
All of this should be taken into account in the job description.
In the book, this is presented in the form of humor and irony.