any difference between 'acting' and 'interim' in job title?
August 6, 2007 1:58 PM
When filling in for a superior that has resigned, before a permanent replacement for the position is identified, is there any difference between a job title of "acting $POSITION" and one of "interim $POSITION"? Specifically, does one indicate that the temporary replacement is or is not in consideration to be the permanent replacement? (This is a position in a university office, if that matters.)
In my univ. experience, 'interim' means the person is not a candidate for the permanent position (though occasionally such a person ends up there anyway). 'Acting' is a bit less clear, but leaves the possibility open that the individual would end up keeping the position on a regular basis.
A bit off topic, didn't Dick Cheney start as the one advising G. W. Bush about suitable running mates before somehow he became the VP himself? Strange things happen ...
posted by Rain Man at 2:09 PM on August 6, 2007
A bit off topic, didn't Dick Cheney start as the one advising G. W. Bush about suitable running mates before somehow he became the VP himself? Strange things happen ...
posted by Rain Man at 2:09 PM on August 6, 2007
In my experience, "acting" is when they expect the role to be filled rather quickly and are just having someone there temporarily. There is also generally a prescribed amount of time that the role will be vacant before defaulting to the "acting" holder. Basically, if the role is not officially filled within that time period (say one year from person XYZ assuming "Acting $Position"), the holder of "acting" assumes the permanent role. Despite there being a prescribed time period, I've seen many cases where the person holds the role for much longer than the time period (i.e. indefinitely).
In "interim" the person is appointed and there is usually not a set time period, it's "until the role is filled." In my experience, interim-holders are also candidates for the actual position (and in some cases, receive it). However, it does not usually default to the holder after a certain amount of time like an acting role might.
I see interim for higher-level positions that take much longer to fill and acting for lower-level positions, but that's just my experience.
There's also this that I found on Google (pdf). I think the time limits for acting vary by institution.
I hope this makes sense, I'd be happy to explain anything further. I'd also be interested to see if other people's experiences differ.
posted by ml98tu at 3:33 PM on August 6, 2007
In "interim" the person is appointed and there is usually not a set time period, it's "until the role is filled." In my experience, interim-holders are also candidates for the actual position (and in some cases, receive it). However, it does not usually default to the holder after a certain amount of time like an acting role might.
I see interim for higher-level positions that take much longer to fill and acting for lower-level positions, but that's just my experience.
There's also this that I found on Google (pdf). I think the time limits for acting vary by institution.
I hope this makes sense, I'd be happy to explain anything further. I'd also be interested to see if other people's experiences differ.
posted by ml98tu at 3:33 PM on August 6, 2007
It just doesn't matter that much! The vast majority of people wouldn't even notice such a distinction.
posted by Doohickie at 4:40 PM on August 6, 2007
posted by Doohickie at 4:40 PM on August 6, 2007
In my experience, the interim person was taken from outside the organization and the acting person was selected from within.
posted by HotPatatta at 5:57 PM on August 6, 2007
posted by HotPatatta at 5:57 PM on August 6, 2007
"Interim" is used for a vacant post filled temporarily, pending a permanent replacement. It is often a requirement that the person holding an interim post is not a candidate for the permanent position, but not always, and this certainly has nothing to do with the definition of the word "interim."
I have heard "acting" used in place of "interim" but it is more often used for a temporary replacement for someone who is returning to the position, more like a stand-in than a replacement. e.g. Here in Canada, when the Prime Minister is not in the House of Commons, then the Deputy Prime Minister is the Acting Prime Minister (for the purposes of the procedures in the House that day).
posted by winston at 7:26 PM on August 6, 2007
I have heard "acting" used in place of "interim" but it is more often used for a temporary replacement for someone who is returning to the position, more like a stand-in than a replacement. e.g. Here in Canada, when the Prime Minister is not in the House of Commons, then the Deputy Prime Minister is the Acting Prime Minister (for the purposes of the procedures in the House that day).
posted by winston at 7:26 PM on August 6, 2007
dcjd's definition is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
posted by Womanscientist at 9:17 PM on August 8, 2007
posted by Womanscientist at 9:17 PM on August 8, 2007
« Older The AstroGuy broadcast network is NOT on the air..... | What can I do with my extra computer? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
the modifier "acting" applies when the executive post is filled on a permanent basis, yet the permanent appointee is unavailable, e.g. because of extended travel, sabbatical leave, or illness. The modifier "interim" is used when the executive post is vacant. In other words, an acting officer serves in the absence of a permanent appointee, but an interim officer serves through a period between permanent appointees.
posted by dcjd at 2:07 PM on August 6, 2007