Mixing
Difference between Manager and Director [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a consistent, practical difference between a "Manager" and "Director" in the workplace, when applied to the same department?
For example: a Manager of Product Development versus a Director of Product Development.
If there is no consistent difference, are there any generalizations that can be made? Does an HR department make any generalizations about the difference in such titles?
Or, is the difference too arbitrary to make any good guesses about without knowing more about the company?
title position
edited Jul 9 '12 at 20:33
Nicole
6,69574151
asked Jul 9 '12 at 16:04
user1220
4,80622644
closed as too localized by JohnMcG, Oded, Justin Cave, jcmeloni Jul 9 '12 at 21:10
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a consistent, practical difference between a "Manager" and "Director" in the workplace, when applied to the same department?
For example: a Manager of Product Development versus a Director of Product Development.
If there is no consistent difference, are there any generalizations that can be made? Does an HR department make any generalizations about the difference in such titles?
Or, is the difference too arbitrary to make any good guesses about without knowing more about the company?
title position
edited Jul 9 '12 at 20:33
Nicole
6,69574151
asked Jul 9 '12 at 16:04
user1220
4,80622644
closed as too localized by JohnMcG, Oded, Justin Cave, jcmeloni Jul 9 '12 at 21:10
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
My suspicion is this is going to be highly dependent on the organization, and thus be too localized.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 16:09
5
It's too localized (depends on organizations) and "from your experience" is asking for a poll of possibilities, which is also a close-able reason for not fitting the SE format. Do you want to take a crack at editing it?
– jcmeloni
Jul 9 '12 at 16:30
1
chiefexecutiveblog.com/2009/03/… Director always seems to be a much higher ranked working at a higher level (there are no middle-directors like there are middle-management). Not sure it's a formal/agreed on definition though
– Rarity
Jul 9 '12 at 16:51
1
The edit doesn't help. In the UK, where I live, being a company Director has a very specific legal meaning (as an officer of the company), which Manager doesn't. I don't know if the same applies elsewhere in the world.
– Oded
Jul 9 '12 at 19:11
1
Started a discussion on meta: meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/314/…. I'm still inclined to think it's too localized, but maybe it's valuable to capture the common generalities.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 20:14
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a consistent, practical difference between a "Manager" and "Director" in the workplace, when applied to the same department?
For example: a Manager of Product Development versus a Director of Product Development.
If there is no consistent difference, are there any generalizations that can be made? Does an HR department make any generalizations about the difference in such titles?
Or, is the difference too arbitrary to make any good guesses about without knowing more about the company?
title position
edited Jul 9 '12 at 20:33
Nicole
6,69574151
asked Jul 9 '12 at 16:04
user1220
4,80622644
Is there a consistent, practical difference between a "Manager" and "Director" in the workplace, when applied to the same department?
For example: a Manager of Product Development versus a Director of Product Development.
If there is no consistent difference, are there any generalizations that can be made? Does an HR department make any generalizations about the difference in such titles?
Or, is the difference too arbitrary to make any good guesses about without knowing more about the company?
title position
edited Jul 9 '12 at 20:33
Nicole
6,69574151
asked Jul 9 '12 at 16:04
user1220
4,80622644
edited Jul 9 '12 at 20:33
Nicole
6,69574151
edited Jul 9 '12 at 20:33
Nicole
6,69574151
edited Jul 9 '12 at 20:33
Nicole
6,69574151
6,69574151
asked Jul 9 '12 at 16:04
user1220
4,80622644
asked Jul 9 '12 at 16:04
user1220
4,80622644
asked Jul 9 '12 at 16:04
user1220
4,80622644
4,80622644
closed as too localized by JohnMcG, Oded, Justin Cave, jcmeloni Jul 9 '12 at 21:10
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as too localized by JohnMcG, Oded, Justin Cave, jcmeloni Jul 9 '12 at 21:10
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
My suspicion is this is going to be highly dependent on the organization, and thus be too localized.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 16:09
5
It's too localized (depends on organizations) and "from your experience" is asking for a poll of possibilities, which is also a close-able reason for not fitting the SE format. Do you want to take a crack at editing it?
– jcmeloni
Jul 9 '12 at 16:30
1
chiefexecutiveblog.com/2009/03/… Director always seems to be a much higher ranked working at a higher level (there are no middle-directors like there are middle-management). Not sure it's a formal/agreed on definition though
– Rarity
Jul 9 '12 at 16:51
1
The edit doesn't help. In the UK, where I live, being a company Director has a very specific legal meaning (as an officer of the company), which Manager doesn't. I don't know if the same applies elsewhere in the world.
– Oded
Jul 9 '12 at 19:11
1
Started a discussion on meta: meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/314/…. I'm still inclined to think it's too localized, but maybe it's valuable to capture the common generalities.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 20:14
 |Â
show 2 more comments
My suspicion is this is going to be highly dependent on the organization, and thus be too localized.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 16:09
5
It's too localized (depends on organizations) and "from your experience" is asking for a poll of possibilities, which is also a close-able reason for not fitting the SE format. Do you want to take a crack at editing it?
– jcmeloni
Jul 9 '12 at 16:30
1
chiefexecutiveblog.com/2009/03/… Director always seems to be a much higher ranked working at a higher level (there are no middle-directors like there are middle-management). Not sure it's a formal/agreed on definition though
– Rarity
Jul 9 '12 at 16:51
1
The edit doesn't help. In the UK, where I live, being a company Director has a very specific legal meaning (as an officer of the company), which Manager doesn't. I don't know if the same applies elsewhere in the world.
– Oded
Jul 9 '12 at 19:11
1
Started a discussion on meta: meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/314/…. I'm still inclined to think it's too localized, but maybe it's valuable to capture the common generalities.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 20:14
My suspicion is this is going to be highly dependent on the organization, and thus be too localized.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 16:09
My suspicion is this is going to be highly dependent on the organization, and thus be too localized.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 16:09
5
5
It's too localized (depends on organizations) and "from your experience" is asking for a poll of possibilities, which is also a close-able reason for not fitting the SE format. Do you want to take a crack at editing it?
– jcmeloni
Jul 9 '12 at 16:30
It's too localized (depends on organizations) and "from your experience" is asking for a poll of possibilities, which is also a close-able reason for not fitting the SE format. Do you want to take a crack at editing it?
– jcmeloni
Jul 9 '12 at 16:30
1
1
chiefexecutiveblog.com/2009/03/… Director always seems to be a much higher ranked working at a higher level (there are no middle-directors like there are middle-management). Not sure it's a formal/agreed on definition though
– Rarity
Jul 9 '12 at 16:51
chiefexecutiveblog.com/2009/03/… Director always seems to be a much higher ranked working at a higher level (there are no middle-directors like there are middle-management). Not sure it's a formal/agreed on definition though
– Rarity
Jul 9 '12 at 16:51
1
1
The edit doesn't help. In the UK, where I live, being a company Director has a very specific legal meaning (as an officer of the company), which Manager doesn't. I don't know if the same applies elsewhere in the world.
– Oded
Jul 9 '12 at 19:11
The edit doesn't help. In the UK, where I live, being a company Director has a very specific legal meaning (as an officer of the company), which Manager doesn't. I don't know if the same applies elsewhere in the world.
– Oded
Jul 9 '12 at 19:11
1
1
Started a discussion on meta: meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/314/…. I'm still inclined to think it's too localized, but maybe it's valuable to capture the common generalities.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 20:14
Started a discussion on meta: meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/314/…. I'm still inclined to think it's too localized, but maybe it's valuable to capture the common generalities.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 20:14
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
In the United States a lot of companies will call someone a 'director of Grommits' if several Grommit team managers report to him.
This really isn't the best practice unless the 'director' is in fact, a member of the Board of Directors.
In the US calling someone a 'director' who is not a BOD member will create an ambiguity with the legal concept of 'officers'. This could become an issue in the event of a liquidity event, termination of the 'director', reporting requirements, and a host of other things best avoided.
The best practice is to call senior managers who are not BOD members 'Vice President', or 'Chief Grommit Officer', or something that clearly indicates that this person reports to the CEO and is not a member of the Board of Directors.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 19:08
Jim In Texas
3,9851222
That's a very interesting point, I didn't think about the legal and maybe financial implications of the title.
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 19:12
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
It's always seemed to me that the difference between manager and director is approximately equivalent to the difference between the words "manage" and "direct".
A manager has a team and a goal, and leads the team to the goal. The manager manages the resources (human and otherwise) to achieve the desired outcome.
A director is usually higher-ranking than a manager, and generally directs a department or company (think Board of Directors). A director sets a goal, and steers the organization towards it. This may or may not involve managing other staff, who may or may not be managers themselves.
A manager deals more with staff, day-to-day issues, and internal matters, whereas a director is more big-picture, deals with the organization as a whole, and is more outward-facing.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 16:12
yoozer8
4,10442955
Makes a lot of sense, thanks!
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 16:13
2
This has been my experience as well; the only thing I would add is that the manager is "internal" facing to the department and the director is "external" facing to the rest of the organization.
– jdb1a1
Jul 9 '12 at 16:44
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
In the United States a lot of companies will call someone a 'director of Grommits' if several Grommit team managers report to him.
This really isn't the best practice unless the 'director' is in fact, a member of the Board of Directors.
In the US calling someone a 'director' who is not a BOD member will create an ambiguity with the legal concept of 'officers'. This could become an issue in the event of a liquidity event, termination of the 'director', reporting requirements, and a host of other things best avoided.
The best practice is to call senior managers who are not BOD members 'Vice President', or 'Chief Grommit Officer', or something that clearly indicates that this person reports to the CEO and is not a member of the Board of Directors.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 19:08
Jim In Texas
3,9851222
That's a very interesting point, I didn't think about the legal and maybe financial implications of the title.
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 19:12
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
In the United States a lot of companies will call someone a 'director of Grommits' if several Grommit team managers report to him.
This really isn't the best practice unless the 'director' is in fact, a member of the Board of Directors.
In the US calling someone a 'director' who is not a BOD member will create an ambiguity with the legal concept of 'officers'. This could become an issue in the event of a liquidity event, termination of the 'director', reporting requirements, and a host of other things best avoided.
The best practice is to call senior managers who are not BOD members 'Vice President', or 'Chief Grommit Officer', or something that clearly indicates that this person reports to the CEO and is not a member of the Board of Directors.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 19:08
Jim In Texas
3,9851222
That's a very interesting point, I didn't think about the legal and maybe financial implications of the title.
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 19:12
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
In the United States a lot of companies will call someone a 'director of Grommits' if several Grommit team managers report to him.
This really isn't the best practice unless the 'director' is in fact, a member of the Board of Directors.
In the US calling someone a 'director' who is not a BOD member will create an ambiguity with the legal concept of 'officers'. This could become an issue in the event of a liquidity event, termination of the 'director', reporting requirements, and a host of other things best avoided.
The best practice is to call senior managers who are not BOD members 'Vice President', or 'Chief Grommit Officer', or something that clearly indicates that this person reports to the CEO and is not a member of the Board of Directors.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 19:08
Jim In Texas
3,9851222
In the United States a lot of companies will call someone a 'director of Grommits' if several Grommit team managers report to him.
This really isn't the best practice unless the 'director' is in fact, a member of the Board of Directors.
In the US calling someone a 'director' who is not a BOD member will create an ambiguity with the legal concept of 'officers'. This could become an issue in the event of a liquidity event, termination of the 'director', reporting requirements, and a host of other things best avoided.
The best practice is to call senior managers who are not BOD members 'Vice President', or 'Chief Grommit Officer', or something that clearly indicates that this person reports to the CEO and is not a member of the Board of Directors.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 19:08
Jim In Texas
3,9851222
answered Jul 9 '12 at 19:08
Jim In Texas
3,9851222
answered Jul 9 '12 at 19:08
Jim In Texas
3,9851222
answered Jul 9 '12 at 19:08
Jim In Texas
3,9851222
3,9851222
That's a very interesting point, I didn't think about the legal and maybe financial implications of the title.
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 19:12
add a comment |Â
That's a very interesting point, I didn't think about the legal and maybe financial implications of the title.
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 19:12
That's a very interesting point, I didn't think about the legal and maybe financial implications of the title.
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 19:12
That's a very interesting point, I didn't think about the legal and maybe financial implications of the title.
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 19:12
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
It's always seemed to me that the difference between manager and director is approximately equivalent to the difference between the words "manage" and "direct".
A manager has a team and a goal, and leads the team to the goal. The manager manages the resources (human and otherwise) to achieve the desired outcome.
A director is usually higher-ranking than a manager, and generally directs a department or company (think Board of Directors). A director sets a goal, and steers the organization towards it. This may or may not involve managing other staff, who may or may not be managers themselves.
A manager deals more with staff, day-to-day issues, and internal matters, whereas a director is more big-picture, deals with the organization as a whole, and is more outward-facing.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 16:12
yoozer8
4,10442955
Makes a lot of sense, thanks!
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 16:13
2
This has been my experience as well; the only thing I would add is that the manager is "internal" facing to the department and the director is "external" facing to the rest of the organization.
– jdb1a1
Jul 9 '12 at 16:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
It's always seemed to me that the difference between manager and director is approximately equivalent to the difference between the words "manage" and "direct".
A manager has a team and a goal, and leads the team to the goal. The manager manages the resources (human and otherwise) to achieve the desired outcome.
A director is usually higher-ranking than a manager, and generally directs a department or company (think Board of Directors). A director sets a goal, and steers the organization towards it. This may or may not involve managing other staff, who may or may not be managers themselves.
A manager deals more with staff, day-to-day issues, and internal matters, whereas a director is more big-picture, deals with the organization as a whole, and is more outward-facing.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 16:12
yoozer8
4,10442955
Makes a lot of sense, thanks!
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 16:13
2
This has been my experience as well; the only thing I would add is that the manager is "internal" facing to the department and the director is "external" facing to the rest of the organization.
– jdb1a1
Jul 9 '12 at 16:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
It's always seemed to me that the difference between manager and director is approximately equivalent to the difference between the words "manage" and "direct".
A manager has a team and a goal, and leads the team to the goal. The manager manages the resources (human and otherwise) to achieve the desired outcome.
A director is usually higher-ranking than a manager, and generally directs a department or company (think Board of Directors). A director sets a goal, and steers the organization towards it. This may or may not involve managing other staff, who may or may not be managers themselves.
A manager deals more with staff, day-to-day issues, and internal matters, whereas a director is more big-picture, deals with the organization as a whole, and is more outward-facing.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 16:12
yoozer8
4,10442955
It's always seemed to me that the difference between manager and director is approximately equivalent to the difference between the words "manage" and "direct".
A manager has a team and a goal, and leads the team to the goal. The manager manages the resources (human and otherwise) to achieve the desired outcome.
A director is usually higher-ranking than a manager, and generally directs a department or company (think Board of Directors). A director sets a goal, and steers the organization towards it. This may or may not involve managing other staff, who may or may not be managers themselves.
A manager deals more with staff, day-to-day issues, and internal matters, whereas a director is more big-picture, deals with the organization as a whole, and is more outward-facing.
answered Jul 9 '12 at 16:12
yoozer8
4,10442955
edited Jul 9 '12 at 16:48
answered Jul 9 '12 at 16:12
yoozer8
4,10442955
answered Jul 9 '12 at 16:12
yoozer8
4,10442955
answered Jul 9 '12 at 16:12
yoozer8
4,10442955
4,10442955
Makes a lot of sense, thanks!
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 16:13
2
This has been my experience as well; the only thing I would add is that the manager is "internal" facing to the department and the director is "external" facing to the rest of the organization.
– jdb1a1
Jul 9 '12 at 16:44
add a comment |Â
Makes a lot of sense, thanks!
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 16:13
2
This has been my experience as well; the only thing I would add is that the manager is "internal" facing to the department and the director is "external" facing to the rest of the organization.
– jdb1a1
Jul 9 '12 at 16:44
Makes a lot of sense, thanks!
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 16:13
Makes a lot of sense, thanks!
– user1220
Jul 9 '12 at 16:13
2
2
This has been my experience as well; the only thing I would add is that the manager is "internal" facing to the department and the director is "external" facing to the rest of the organization.
– jdb1a1
Jul 9 '12 at 16:44
This has been my experience as well; the only thing I would add is that the manager is "internal" facing to the department and the director is "external" facing to the rest of the organization.
– jdb1a1
Jul 9 '12 at 16:44
add a comment |Â
My suspicion is this is going to be highly dependent on the organization, and thus be too localized.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 16:09
5
It's too localized (depends on organizations) and "from your experience" is asking for a poll of possibilities, which is also a close-able reason for not fitting the SE format. Do you want to take a crack at editing it?
– jcmeloni
Jul 9 '12 at 16:30
1
chiefexecutiveblog.com/2009/03/… Director always seems to be a much higher ranked working at a higher level (there are no middle-directors like there are middle-management). Not sure it's a formal/agreed on definition though
– Rarity
Jul 9 '12 at 16:51
1
The edit doesn't help. In the UK, where I live, being a company Director has a very specific legal meaning (as an officer of the company), which Manager doesn't. I don't know if the same applies elsewhere in the world.
– Oded
Jul 9 '12 at 19:11
1
Started a discussion on meta: meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/314/…. I'm still inclined to think it's too localized, but maybe it's valuable to capture the common generalities.
– JohnMcG
Jul 9 '12 at 20:14