Forums

 Hi all,

Over the last 12 months, I have had two performance conversations and both have had the same outcome - my employer is satisfied with my performance. My current title is Senior Analyst and our team recently hired a Manager. Part of my scorecard is to assist in the development of the Manager.

In addition, my responsibilities have expanded markedly and now include P&L responsibility (40% of my scorecard). I've discussed my title with my employer and stated that I believe I'm also worthy of a Manager title. My employer agrees and both my boss and his one up have told me that I can change my title to Manager.

The problem is that they can't change my title on our official HR records as "there is no generic job description". I work for a very large financial firm in Australia with well established and formal HR procedures that was the apparent response given from the HR department. I am at a loss as to what I should do.

Should I change my title knowing that this will not align with official HR records? I am concerned that this may have longer term ramifications with future employment checks e.g. my CV says I am a manager yet the official employment check says otherwise.

Should I get an email from my boss confirming that I can officially change my title? 

Should I wait and see how things go?

I am concerned that I am losing valuable "management" experience on my CV considering that I have had managerial responsibilities for 12 months yet it doesn't appear that my title will change in the next 6 months

Cheers 

 

uwavegeek's picture

BLUF:  If it isn't in HR, it isn't official, especially in a big company.   The bonus structures and possibly the annual review criteria will be significantly different for an manager.  

I was an engineer doing good work and had been given supervisory responsibility.  I had put 'manager' in my title and by boss and boss's boss were OK with this.  This was until the division general manager saw my signature on an email trail and demanded that I remove it.  Not the way that you want to be noticed by upper management.

My recommendation is to leave off the title (and put the responsibilities and accomplishments on your resume or career management document), continue delivering results as if you were a manager, and push during review time for the official promotion based on the work you've done.  

 

All the best,

Neil

 

 

 

 

 

 

windexoutdoor's picture

 Yes, it's all crap and I know that. The real question is - how long do you hang around without the right reward? Even though the responsibility I'm getting is fantastic.

I really do appreciate your feedback. It's good to hear from someone who has had a similar experience. That's rough that your GM asked you to remove the title despite having your manager's approval. Was your manager's approval in writing? 

 

 

flexiblefine's picture

If "there is no generic job description" is the roadblock to your title change, it's time to find out what the process is for creating that description.

flexiblefine
Houston, Texas, USA
DiSC: 1476

windexoutdoor's picture

 Hi,

 

That's the process I am about to commence. I will update my thread with more information once I have a better understanding. Appreciate the feedback

 

 

 

 

jrb3's picture

Seems strange to me to have profit-and-loss responsibility without people reporting to one to generate the revenue, provide the service, and bring in the customers.  A sole practitioner, yes, but someplace large enough to have a formal HR setup?

If you have direct reports, you are a manager in the generic sense.  Perhaps you can use whatever the organization's title for the equivalent of what you do, prepending "acting" (all lower-case).  Do whatever you need to do to get the substantive title in place.  Create the job description for HR;  work with your manager to handle whatever needs to be done during the lead time HR might need to handle the actual promotion.  (Some companies promote only once a year, for instance, aside from major recognized restructurings.)

What goes on your resume/CV for all jobs should be either the official title or the industry equivalent.  I nearly interviewed for a CTO position, but stepped aside when it became clearly an inflated title:  one direct report, coaching for five overseas workers, position was three levels down from the CEO (those being CxO's and a VP as my immediate boss) in a 20-person company, and no actual responsibility for the technical direction of the company or any of its products.

Joseph

leanne's picture

If HR doesn't have a good idea of a process, or doesn't want to do 'all the work' of creating a job description, listen to the recent casts on creating a job description, and send it to HR. It's reasonably easy.

I'm an individual contributor and I've still considered doing it. For me, it's because we have levels - II, III, IV, V, that sort of thing - for a particular title, and I really want to know what the difference is between one title and the other. And...when I ask, my manager says 'well, I'm not really sure what the difference is'. In my case, I want to know what I should be doing to get the next title up. So I'm thinking, if I ask again 'what *is* the difference?' and I get the same answer (I might not; the last time I asked was a year or two ago), I might just write up *my* job's description, ask her if it's valid, and then ask 'what would you say is different for the next level?'