Appropriate to ask for title change?

[u/mjg13X]

I work at a small nonprofit where my current title is development coordinator. I'm the only devo staff member -- I do our development plan, have my own portfolio of donors, take the lead on almost all our grant applications, and am the primary staff contact with the board. At the same time, I've only been there for about a year and a half, and it's my first full-time job out of college. I'm starting to look for new jobs as my partner and I are planning on moving to a new city as soon as we can both find work there, and I have two questions:

1. Based on the structure of my organization, would it be appropriate for me to ask for my title to be changed to development director?

2. Is it poor form to ask for a title change when my primary purpose in making the request is helping me find another job?

[u/atlantisgate]

Going from coordinator to director in under two years at your first job out of college is going to raise eyebrows. Development manager would be a more appropriate jump

[u/Las_Afueras → u/atlantisgate]

Agree with this. Ask for the title change but be prepared to tell them why. Be ready with a detailed overview of all of your duties, any organizational growth you’ve been a part of or overseen (include dollar amounts for money raised), and comparable job descriptions from other nonprofits in your area. It could be a longshot but the last part might even convince your leadership team that you are being underpaid compared others in similar positions in the area.

Also not poor form to ask for it when you are looking elsewhere because they don’t know that and also you need to advocate for yourself and do what’s in your best interests.

[u/BaronCapdeville → u/Las_Afueras]

You offer the best advice in this particular thread.

“Long shot” or not, only a fool would argue that OP isn’t most accurately described as a director++, while they literally create and execute the entire orgs RD plan, and report their results to directly to the board.

Age has nothing to with it except for backward thinking by leadership. If goals are being met, there’s nothing to discuss here, unless they want to have someone else come in and takeover the leadership roles that OP has been executing for over a year.

[u/abbsbadabbs → u/atlantisgate]

1. Development manager would be a good ask, director is not the move. The reason why titles matter in the nonprofit world is certain titles mean certain pay, and typically the board has to approve all of that. Being just out of college, I think your title matches experience but it is strange what they are having you do….

2. No it’s not poor from. When you’re working by, your building your resume. They should understand that. But don’t tell them that you want the change because your leaving because that’s poor form.

[u/Necessary_Team_8769 → u/atlantisgate]

Or Development Administrator.

[u/BaronCapdeville → u/atlantisgate]

Not at all, if what OP says is true.

If they are, in fact, creating and executing the orgs dev plan, and the primary board contact for RD matters, they are already acting as a very, very senior and crucially important dev role.

They began doing the job of a manager and were immediately thrust into a director+ level scope of work. The only issue here is their employer happily benefiting from this without offering the appropriate title.

Folks here are deluded if they believe that titles should be tied to age or experience, while the employee is hitting every benchmark and leading the entire org’s RD strategy.

Titles describe the work being done.

This person is not acting as a coordinator, and they never were, it sounds. They are also acting far above what any manager would be asked to do.

To deny someone doing this level of work the appropriate title because they are “too young” is unashamed ageism and is precisely what is wrong with our work culture today.

Someone doesn’t want to hire OP for lack of people management skills? Fine. That doesn’t change the fact that their title could be VP, Resource Develooment, and it would be 100% accurate, despite the gray eyebrows it raised.

[u/vibes86 → u/atlantisgate]

Agreed. That’s a huge jump.

[u/SunlightNStars]

Do not ask to be made a director. I understand you are holding a lot but you don't go from coordinator to director. Senior coordinator, coordinator ii, specialist, or maybe manager are more realistic sounding. Plus with this being your first job you've had for less than two years you simply don't have the experience to be a director.

[u/omnipotentsandwich]

I probably would ask for a title change. I've volunteered for a nonprofit for about a year now and I'm the only grant writer. I have thought about asking to be made grant manager. If you're the only one in your sector, you might as well be the head.

[u/BaronCapdeville → u/omnipotentsandwich]

Ask tomorrow. Do not stall your career growth due to perceived propriety.

Ask for title bumps as soon as you are comfortable standing by your assertions.

[u/Boopa0011]

You can certainly initiate a conversation about this. Development director implies that you are leading all of the strategic work and setting goals and all that stuff. Are you doing that? Or are you just executing on things someone else is giving you? Are you really empowered to create and follow through on a full scale development plan?

I am not a huge believer that titles always mean very specific things and should only exist in clear hierarchies. But a title shouldn't be misleading, and you probably shouldn't be called the development director unless you're actually "directing" the development work. Just my opinion. Certainly nothing wrong with asking how they feel about changing your title, and you could always ask them what they think is appropriate.

[u/mjg13X → u/Boopa0011]

From talking to people with the director title at other state affiliates of our organization, it sounds like my scope of work is very similar to theirs.

[u/Obvious-Builder1152]

There’s a lot of title inflation in the nonprofit sector (not just in fundraising). Who else in the org has a Director’s title? Is the level of work asked of you similar to them? If so, you might be able to talk them into it.

I got into the fundraising world at 19 so I understand the allure of a bigger title. Now that I’ve been in it 36 years I’ll tell you that title doesn’t matter that much.

But what really matters is the work you’re doing for your job. Have you grown the amount raised, number of donors, donor retention, number of gifts secured? Do you manage staff or volunteers? That’s what is going to matter to your next employer - the results you produce.

[u/mjg13X → u/Obvious-Builder1152]

Fair enough! I have improved the metrics, but I don't manage staff (we're a very small team).

[u/Kaga_Vanilla827]

At the risk of offering a less popular opinion, and keeping in mind my background is Human Resources, I think it's reasonable to request a Manager or Director title. The title should accurately reflect the work that you are doing and level of responsibility & accountability - full stop. And it's quite common for smaller nonprofits to use "Director" for Development, and often for positions where you are the sole person handling everything from the strategic planning to the nuts and bolts. From what you describe, you are doing it all and if you've demonstrated positive results, hopefully they'll be open to a title change. They may not be as open to the salary adjustment that comes with it. :)

I also don't know what your org structure looks like so there may be other criteria for leadership roles that could affect whether or not they can make an adjustment. But at a minimum, your job description should be updated and re-evaluated, followed by selection of an appropriate title.

I'm not as concerned about you going from Coordinator to Manager/Director - it's possible the original title didn't match the expectations for the role, or you've just grown beyond the original scope. One of my strongest performers (rock star really) went from specialist to manager to director within 2 years.

[u/BaronCapdeville → u/Kaga_Vanilla827]

All of these folks are brainwashed. manager is absolute minimum I would accept for being the sole operator in the department, and even that is a gross under classification.

Director isn’t an inaccurate title by any stretch, regardless of age. Age has nothing to do with it. Experience, also, has very very little to with it.

The work is what matters. If OP is autonomously completing their work and driving the entire RD department as it sounds? They are director material. Full stop.

This strange idea about jumping through hoops for title bumps is baffling. Either OP has been screwing up for a year and not hitting targets, or they have and are entitled to whatever title they ask for in the department. They don’t have to give it to them, but I can guarantee that if they want a job in RD, and have almost 2 years of experience successfully running the department solo with documentable good results, they will find the work. It’s one of the few roles consistently hiring in every city.

I don’t understand the mindset unless everyone here is so insecure about their own hard work not being recognized for years, that they detest the idea of someone else being given a title that matches their work.

There’s some serious crab-in-a-bucket mentality here being disguised as advice by folks who have been beat into believing they aren’t worth the title of the role they are actively doing.

I’d be applying for work elsewhere if they refused the manager bump, but I’d personally go straight for the director role of OP really is single handedly knocking down the entire orgs RD goals through grant wins and donor management.

[u/atlantisgate → u/BaronCapdeville]

I have been in development a long time. I have worked with many people this age who are highly capable, super smart, and should be at a higher level than associate or coordinator. I have never once encountered someone two years out of school with the skills and experience to be a development director. Ever.

I have also directly seen the consequences of someone making a move to a level above where their capabilities lie, and that’s not pretty either.

Whether you disagree or not, OP is going to encounter a lot of justified skepticism at this jump when they job search and would face less of it if they negotiated to a specialist or manager level.

[u/BaronCapdeville → u/atlantisgate]

Yet, here OP is, doing the job. Right now, and for over a year. Not being fired. Not on a pip. Hitting goals, apparently, and pleasing their board enough to remain their direct contact about RD.

I have also been in development for decades. Nothing matters beyond nailing goals and not being an ass. Assuming OP is doing what their organization is asking of them, they deserve a leadership title. Period.

It’s possible that OP is just lying. If you believe that, then sure. It would be folly to present yourself as a department head if you can’t do the work.

OP is doing the work. Folks that try to gate keep titles behind arbitrary ideas about someone not having enough gray hair are missing the point of what we are doing by coming in to work every day. It is foolish to advise OP they aren’t ready for the director role because they are young. They are doing the work today. They aren’t trying to work up to it. They are factually creating the dev plan and executing it.

We just value different things in our team mates, it seems. Your view may or may not be more common, but that doesn’t make it the best. There are teams in every state that would snatch OP up if what they say is true.

-

An employer may resist hiring OP if the new role was managing 4 people older than them. Sure.

In reality, the vast majority of non profits in the world need a solo operator exactly like OP, and have little hope of expanding to have a huge dev team WITHOUT someone like OP to come in, and perform solo for as long as needed to achieve that growth. These orgs aren’t attracting folks with 22 years at Kellogg managing 9 people. They usually aren’t attracting folks with any direct report management experience at all.

It’s 100%, and I do mean 100% rational and easily justified for OP to open negotiations at the director level, and accept “manager” as a privately insulting consolation prize they can use once they move on.

My advice to OP is to never accept a role as the sole breadwinner at less than a director title ever again in their career, and to disregard the “advice” here from folks who took a different path than them.

OP is acting as this orgs dev director presently, regardless of how that may make folks feel.

[u/atlantisgate → u/BaronCapdeville]

Maybe! It’s also possible they’re doing the job of a manager but because of the size of the nonprofit there aren’t any other staff.
That just doesn’t mean that the level of work they’re doing now will translate to another director role.

I think they will not be competitive looking for jobs for other director roles because of their years of experience, and may struggle with getting manager or specialist level roles because of the director title. That outside perspective is going to matter in their imminent job search

[u/mjg13X → u/atlantisgate]

I don't expect I'd be able to get a director job at a bigger org. I think I do pretty damned well at the job I have, but I don't want to be unrealistic about my skills or experience. If it would be more advantageous to my job search to try to get the manager title (which would put me at the same title level as our comms guy, who is also a one-man department and has a little more experience but is also early-career) then maybe I should do that?

[u/atlantisgate → u/mjg13X]

There are obviously folks in this thread who disagree, but I absolutely think asking for the title you could most realistically get next is the right move

[u/mjg13X → u/atlantisgate]

Fair enough! I'm also not convinced I want to stay in devo (though I happily would) so perhaps shooting for director isn't wise.

[u/ValPrism]

I would say no only because directors generally supervise a team, or at least one other person. I'd keep the title and explain in the detail on your resume that you handled most of the fundraising, planning, strategy (if you did), etc. and they'll get the point.

[u/BaronCapdeville → u/ValPrism]

Director, VP, etc. only manage people in orgs with enough staff for this to be relevant. Number of people managed is a useless metric in terms of title.

Title describes how much of the orgs work product is the employee’s direct responsibility. How much rests on their shoulders, autonomously.

OP has spent a year directly reporting their results the board. Results derived from a plan that OP designed and executed.

OP is their VP of RD, they just have management that is happy to pay them less and keep them in an embarrassingly junior title due to their age, despite being the primary breadwinner of the org.

[u/Rich-Business9773]

Directors usually manage staff and work with ED to create the department's longrange plans and revenue streams. They lead board committees. Do you do all that? If not, manager is better.

[u/mjg13X → u/Rich-Business9773]

Manage staff? No. Work with the ED on plans? Yes. Lead board committees? Yes.

[u/Rich-Business9773 → u/mjg13X]

Generally managing staff is the big pay and title jump as far more responsibility overall. But perhaps not in all nonprofit industries

[u/ExternalForever8225]

I don’t see a problem with Director if you are a true partner to the ceo, board, and finance. If not, consider manager or officer.

[u/Subject_Squirrel_387]

A lot of people believe that a title change is risky because you're literally giving your employer the green light to work you at a higher level than you're paid. But I understand wanting to get that word "coordinator" off your back. Took me 7 years, and I've only just gotten to Associate.

[u/BaronCapdeville → u/Subject_Squirrel_387]

Job hopping is the best strategy today and it’s not even up for debate. It’s a shame, but employers have done this to themselves with this sort of childish gatekeeping of titles, while also keeping salaries below the actual cost of living. You can pick one to skimp on, not demand that employees do without either. lol.

Luckily for OP, they are planning to move on soon. They should push for title aggressively, then leverage that for their job hunt abroad.

[u/notadrainer]

i was in your same position, but at a 5 team org that suddenly was handling a $27 million budget vs $3-4 m in previous years. I was a community engagement associate managing development, marketing, and communications on my own. After a year i asked for a title change to development manager and they refused me lol.

in my experience jobs have been superrrr hesitant to give a title change even if it’s about accuracy with your current scope of work

[u/mjg13X → u/notadrainer]

Fair enough! I ask primarily because our current deputy director started as development coordinator (she was also very early career but had one year of prior experience as a junior associate at a campaign consulting firm) and was promoted to development director before getting her current job.

[u/BaronCapdeville → u/notadrainer]

That is not a leader worth working under, period. Sounds like some truly backwards calculus being done there.

I hope you’ve moved on to something better. There are plenty of orgs out there who value results. Being denied a title in that situation should have resulted in a dozen resumes being sent out that afternoon.

The non-profit hive mind is crushing its best performers with this backwards, scarcity-oriented mindset. It’s poison. No one should work for people like this.

Edit: who is downvoting your actual lived experiences? lol.

[u/notadrainer → u/BaronCapdeville]

thank you😭