Looking for some industry insight or at least some opinions around a discussion I'm having at work. In our vernacular and my line of business, we typically have Analyst, Sr Analyst, Supervisor / Team Lead, Manager, Sr Manager, Director, VP, SVP, etc.

I'm in the process of negotiating a new role for my company. I was, in the past, a 'Program Manager - Service Improvement and Analytics' in 2013-2014. Due to success, I was made a 'Sr Manager - Service Operations' in late 2014 where I began managing other functions in the department as well. After about a year in the role, I asked for a title assessment as I was managing the centers budget, financials, all supporting functions (~30 highly paid individual contributors reporting to 2 operations managers who reported to me), etc. It was declined and I was told I'd stay at my current title as I was told they were not able to make the change. Within the company, I was offered a different 'Program Manager' role for a client account at $20k more in late 2015. I let my current role know I'd stay for no additional money but wanted the title changed. They declined and really meant that they couldn't do it. I take the other job.

Fast forward to now, there's new executive management and they are requesting I come back to the old center rather than the client account I'm on now. They say I'm the guy for the job - running a Service Improvement program over 30+ clients, 2 lines of business, and interfacing with operational Directors and offering VPs. In the meantime, about a month ago, my old role was made a Director gig about a year after I left and a guy who used to work for me got it. The role as described is quite important to the VP and it would be reporting directly to him. In his offer, he both reduced my comp (it's what he could afford, he claims) and suggested a 'Program Manager' role. On paper, I greatly prefer the job and think it sounds really exciting. I counter with I love the job but this is 10% less money and a title which I've cycled through for 3-4 years despite financial promotions.

Needless to say, given our terminology, I asked for a reclassification to a Director role which was declined as it doesn't manage the P&L or have direct reports (both true, but there are Directors in the firm who don't have either). He countered with a 'Principal Manager' title indicating Principal and Director, financially speaking, can be similar in the marketplace.

'Principal' as a term exists rarely exists in my company (only two have it....(1) 'Offering Manager' who develops standard materials around what we go to market with, interfaces with VPs and Sales, (2) 'Principal Advanced Architect' who owns a line of business for us in professional services / consulting specifically for Cisco solutions). Beyond that, my personal opinion is that he can get a 'Principal Manager' approved under the radar whereas a 'Director' will cause more noise in the organization

Looking at the market...thoughts on Principal, Principal Manager, Director, or other alternatives? I feel like I'm getting dogged her. Large chunk less money, a title that in my opinion is more akin to consulting and admittedly, a cool job. Thoughts everyone? How is this seen in the market? Tips on how to negotiate title with someone who believes he has the right vernacular in Principal?

9/12/2016 6:35:11 PM

I don't have much experience with this, but I'd demand a 10% salary increase and the title of "Colemaniac"

9/12/2016 10:27:19 PM

you can't spend a title and you can put whatever working title you want on your resume when you shop another company (which it sounds like you should already be doing). fuck if i'm taking a pay cut to do something different within the same company that offers no material upside.

9/13/2016 12:50:43 PM

Quote :

"you can't spend a title"

Agreed. This seems to be the 2nd time you're open to turning down more $ for a better title. Are you open to that tradeoff because you want that director title for when you leave?

9/13/2016 3:16:39 PM

Essentially, yes. I believe I've held the responsibility of a director and have a nice resume because of this. However, being shortly over 30 and not having the title, I've had sporadic interest from such roles outside the company when I apply blind (though have local interest from those who know me (but it hasn't produced a role I've wanted to leave for)).

9/13/2016 4:40:53 PM

a little bit less money at 30 becomes a lot less money at retirement

9/14/2016 3:10:33 PM

Never understood why people care so much about their work title.. call me whatever the fuck you want if you are gonna pay me more. The only reason to take a pay cut is if the job is significantly more inline with what you want to do and has more potential in the future to surpass where you could have been doing what you do now. Either that or if your current boss is a total dick and your new boss is cool that may be worth it just for the everyday enjoyment.

9/15/2016 8:18:52 AM

wat.

who in the fuck cares this much about a title. and why?

9/15/2016 2:50:01 PM

Unfortunately, the title itself can hold value if you plan to jump companies. Similarly, the title is important when you are trying to hire outside the company such that you attract the appropriate candidates; you are basically selling yourself in this case.

Using my experience as an example, I work in Test Engineering (manager). Being part of "Test" is often considered a step down even if you are paid the same amount as someone at the same level in Development. We used to have a "Test Engineer" position and the developer equivalent "Software Engineer". They both paid the same and had the same career path (Base->Senior->Lead->Specialist). But heaven help you if you put "Test" in front of "Engineer". That attracts a completely different group. When our Test department started focusing more on automation, we used the opportunity to change the "Test" titles to "Software Engineer in Test" nomenclature, and now we get better candidates.

In Colemania's case, does not seem to care as much about title because they already have already attracted the desired candidate.

9/15/2016 3:54:01 PM

Titles are important. It does mean something, especially if you are interfacing significantly outside your organization. With that said, I think you are focusing too much on title. You are really young. You have obviously been successful, but you are likely needing more experience (age) to get to a director position/title. Most companies aren't going to want a young 30 year old with a director title. I suspect that is what is coming into play. You're way ahead of the curve, and I would advise you to settle into a role for a bit longer before demanding much more.

In short, regardless how smart you are, at 30 years old you don't have enough experience yet. That only comes with time. You can be a rock star and still not have enough experience.

My background. I am a manager that is hoping to be director inside of 3 years (I am currently 38). We don't have the ridiculous level of titles that you have. I think most people would say I am a senior manager with the budget and staff I oversee, and comparing myself to other IT Managers.

[Edited on September 15, 2016 at 8:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2016 8:27:58 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, the title itself can hold value if you plan to jump companies."

True, but your salary can carry value at the next job as well.

Test vs Dev is hugely important of course, because they describe different skillsets. But I'm not convinced Manager, Director, Principal, etc. is going to make a difference. Don't a lot of companies hand out titles like candy? Isn't that stuff looked at skeptically?

9/15/2016 9:13:51 PM

I mostly see Principal as the highest level of a certain specific skillset (developer, engineer, etc). I've never seen it applied to management, which is always more of the ladder rung approach to titles.

When I hear "Principal Manager", I would think this means VP or C-level "skills" at managing a company... but then I would wonder why they wouldn't just say VP.

9/16/2016 12:07:21 PM

^^^ that's really ass backwards thinking. relevant experience in tech is a sliding window at most levels and ESPECIALLY in IT. having 15 years experience means fuck all when the relevant tech has only existed for 5.

if the place you're at thinks this way, start shopping yourself

9/17/2016 10:36:11 AM

Yeah where i work i'm called a senior engineer... but i'm more of a deputy director as there is one of me... and then my director

9/18/2016 4:13:37 PM

Quote :

"that's really ass backwards thinking. relevant experience in tech"

Did he say he was working in tech? I didn't see that.

It isn't backwards thinking for someone that is going to be in MANAGEMENT to have many years of experience, in general. Regardless of the technical nature of the job or not. You may think you know everything at 30, but you don't. The current relevant job knowledge is just a piece. You are supposed to be guiding the ship more as you progress through management, and have less to do with the actual day to day processes.

9/19/2016 4:32:52 PM

I was always under the impression that:

managers either managed people, a piece of a department/branch, and/or a program(s).

senior managers do ^ to a higher degree, make more, and have probably been there longer.

directors managed managers (or at least some sort of team lead that has at least a person or two under them) or multiple/high level programs with their own budgets

and then you have your managing directors / partners / etc. that manage directors and may hold an executive position at least within the local/regional branch if it's a big company.

I think "Principal Manager" sounds good, although I agree I don't hear it as often as Director. I'd wonder if it meant there were multiple managers on a program and you were the lead, or if you were like the most senior manager there.

Another title you could ask about would be "Portfolio Manager". I tend to see project < program < portfolio and so does the Project Management Institute so there's that I guess.

[Edited on September 19, 2016 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2016 5:13:41 PM

Mildew and ncsuallday are correct.

Principal means to have hit the highest level in a skillet, often being the highest level "individual contributor" role in a company.

Director is always solely a management designation that you manage other managers, or at least predominantly so.

At almost every tech firm I'm aware of, Junior/Analyst, NA/Analyst II, Senior, Principal, Partner/Fellow is the progression of skills while Lead, Manager, General Manager, Director, VP, President is the progression of scope for management.

The two are independent and often combined. Principal PM will carry quite a bit of title weight, and if you're only managing 30 people, Director will look like an inflated title.

9/19/2016 10:36:22 PM

Where I work, principal is rarely used, but normally as a SME level with distinguished accomplishment. Pay wise, its between a Sr. Mgr and a Director. So, while I disagree with it being used in a management role, it sounds like they are trying to give you SOME recognition by offering it to you. Don't bite the hand that feeds you - they seem to have clearly communicated that they will not be making you a director right now, and maybe there are more reasons for not doing so than they are willing to admit.

Take it as a hint that you need to round out your experience/exposure in some way, and the best way to find out is to open some dialogue with other directors (who you do not report to) or VPs in your network via a mentoring relationship. You may learn through subtle suggestions why you are not being promoted to a Director level.

9/21/2016 2:18:26 PM