More non-profit-friendly version of "Chief Operating Officer" title
February 15, 2018 5:55 AM Subscribe
I am in the process of establishing a new non-profit organization/NGO, and am looking for a job title for my role. In many respects, it will be similar to a Chief Operating Officer role, but this title feels too "corporate". Though I know it is used in some nonprofits, in my particular field it's pretty rare, so I'm trying to find a better alternative.
We will be working in a broad field of advocacy/justice/rights/activism, with mainly international work. In my experience in this field internationally, I've rarely seen COO as a title, and where I have, it's usually been in very big international NGOs/foundations/funders/donor organizations, etc. On the one hand, I don't want the title to be misleading about the style, scope, and size of our organization, and on the other hand, I do need something that is commensurate with my level of experience, seniority, and with the role itself.
There are three founding members, one of whom will be the Executive Director, with mostly external-facing responsibilities. My job will be the main internal-facing role. Our third partner will have a mix of responsibilities in two main areas: one, fundraising/grantwriting, and the other, program development (as in the non-fundraising meaning of "development"). Also, both of my co-founders will have external responsibilities, but with very different and separate geographical focuses. We're still trying to settle on a name for this third role, too -- we want him to be seen as someone who can represent the organization fully and make preliminary commitments on our behalf as well, within his geographical area.
In my case I'm also mindful of my title in the context of my career history/future. I co-founded a very small educational program years ago which still exists and which I still run, so it remains high on my CV, as founder/co-director. And my last full-time job was in the top position at a very small NGO, with the title of Managing Director. So I'm concerned about taking what looks like a "step back", title-wise, on my CV.
We plan to roll in some of the separate projects we've each been working on and bring them under the umbrella of the new org (for example, the program I previously founded will become part of this new org) so we anticipate other roles and titles soon. But for now, the title decisions are tricky. While, independently, I could pretty easily come up with good titles for each of the individual positions that all have "director" in them, they don't really work together, as it would be odd to start an organization with just three "directors" - we don't want to sound pretentious or unserious.
Sorry for the long explanation, but the context is what's making this difficult for me to sort out. :)
We will be working in a broad field of advocacy/justice/rights/activism, with mainly international work. In my experience in this field internationally, I've rarely seen COO as a title, and where I have, it's usually been in very big international NGOs/foundations/funders/donor organizations, etc. On the one hand, I don't want the title to be misleading about the style, scope, and size of our organization, and on the other hand, I do need something that is commensurate with my level of experience, seniority, and with the role itself.
There are three founding members, one of whom will be the Executive Director, with mostly external-facing responsibilities. My job will be the main internal-facing role. Our third partner will have a mix of responsibilities in two main areas: one, fundraising/grantwriting, and the other, program development (as in the non-fundraising meaning of "development"). Also, both of my co-founders will have external responsibilities, but with very different and separate geographical focuses. We're still trying to settle on a name for this third role, too -- we want him to be seen as someone who can represent the organization fully and make preliminary commitments on our behalf as well, within his geographical area.
In my case I'm also mindful of my title in the context of my career history/future. I co-founded a very small educational program years ago which still exists and which I still run, so it remains high on my CV, as founder/co-director. And my last full-time job was in the top position at a very small NGO, with the title of Managing Director. So I'm concerned about taking what looks like a "step back", title-wise, on my CV.
We plan to roll in some of the separate projects we've each been working on and bring them under the umbrella of the new org (for example, the program I previously founded will become part of this new org) so we anticipate other roles and titles soon. But for now, the title decisions are tricky. While, independently, I could pretty easily come up with good titles for each of the individual positions that all have "director" in them, they don't really work together, as it would be odd to start an organization with just three "directors" - we don't want to sound pretentious or unserious.
Sorry for the long explanation, but the context is what's making this difficult for me to sort out. :)
Best answer: In my case I'm also mindful of my title in the context of my career history/future. I co-founded a very small educational program years ago which still exists and which I still run, so it remains high on my CV, as founder/co-director. And my last full-time job was in the top position at a very small NGO, with the title of Managing Director. So I'm concerned about taking what looks like a "step back", title-wise, on my CV.
To some degree I hear you, but in practice things don't work that way. I went from Executive Director of one org, to Managing Director of another larger org, to Coordinator in a third much larger org - but my management responsibilities, budgetary responsibilities, and overall authority requirements were much higher in the third. People look at the CFO of an organization of 3 people and $1m and the Director of Finance for an organization of 500 people and $1b and conclude the latter is the higher-profile title.
While, independently, I could pretty easily come up with good titles for each of the individual positions that all have "director" in them, they don't really work together, as it would be odd to start an organization with just three "directors" - we don't want to sound pretentious or unserious.
There's nothing unserious about having three founders/directors - you're all directing different areas of work. To be honest, Director of Operations is a title I've run into a lot in the NGO community that describes someone overseeing the internal operations of the organization.
posted by notorious medium at 6:25 AM on February 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
To some degree I hear you, but in practice things don't work that way. I went from Executive Director of one org, to Managing Director of another larger org, to Coordinator in a third much larger org - but my management responsibilities, budgetary responsibilities, and overall authority requirements were much higher in the third. People look at the CFO of an organization of 3 people and $1m and the Director of Finance for an organization of 500 people and $1b and conclude the latter is the higher-profile title.
While, independently, I could pretty easily come up with good titles for each of the individual positions that all have "director" in them, they don't really work together, as it would be odd to start an organization with just three "directors" - we don't want to sound pretentious or unserious.
There's nothing unserious about having three founders/directors - you're all directing different areas of work. To be honest, Director of Operations is a title I've run into a lot in the NGO community that describes someone overseeing the internal operations of the organization.
posted by notorious medium at 6:25 AM on February 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Respectfully, I disagree with Notorious Medium. As much as it sucks, the "less corporate-sounding titles" that minimize your role or responsibilities and end up hamstringing your career is a real thing that happens, and that hammer lands hardest on women and minorities. I don't say that casually, and - in my tech-sector field, at least - I have a lot of solid data supporting that position.
My advice is to stick with the too-corporate titles on documents and business cards. You can have informal, even humorous titles in-house, but don't shortchange present-you or future-you for the sake of organizational modesty.
posted by mhoye at 6:43 AM on February 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
My advice is to stick with the too-corporate titles on documents and business cards. You can have informal, even humorous titles in-house, but don't shortchange present-you or future-you for the sake of organizational modesty.
posted by mhoye at 6:43 AM on February 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
In a previous nonprofit I worked at, the person directing operations had the title Chief Strategy Officer.
posted by torridly at 6:56 AM on February 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by torridly at 6:56 AM on February 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Managing Director would be fine for your role, if you think COO doesn't come across right.
The other person could be External Affairs Director, perhaps, if they've got some overarching communications responsibilities. Or just a Program Director. Just calling them a Development Director is going to be problematic if you want them to do program development and administration, as potential partners will assume that their primary responsibility is to ask for funding.
While, independently, I could pretty easily come up with good titles for each of the individual positions that all have "director" in them, they don't really work together, as it would be odd to start an organization with just three "directors" - we don't want to sound pretentious or unserious.
Huh? No. Your jobs are all director-level positions. There's nothing pretentious about this.
posted by desuetude at 7:04 AM on February 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
The other person could be External Affairs Director, perhaps, if they've got some overarching communications responsibilities. Or just a Program Director. Just calling them a Development Director is going to be problematic if you want them to do program development and administration, as potential partners will assume that their primary responsibility is to ask for funding.
While, independently, I could pretty easily come up with good titles for each of the individual positions that all have "director" in them, they don't really work together, as it would be odd to start an organization with just three "directors" - we don't want to sound pretentious or unserious.
Huh? No. Your jobs are all director-level positions. There's nothing pretentious about this.
posted by desuetude at 7:04 AM on February 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks for the helpful answers so far - happy to hear more. One follow up/related question that will help me sort this out: My first impulse had been to go with executive director for the ED, then managing director for me. To me these sound like ED is higher up than MD. But after a little research totally unscientific google searching, I backed away from that because it seemed to me that in the US, MD was a higher position than ED -- which is how I wound up in the direction of COO. But now reading some of the replies, maybe I was wrong about this ED/MD thing? I've mainly worked outside the US, but this org will have significant work in the US, so that's a consideration. Thoughts?
posted by leticia at 7:55 AM on February 15, 2018
posted by leticia at 7:55 AM on February 15, 2018
Best answer: OP, to your last reply - I am a COO in a FP company and have worked indirectly with a number of NPs, chambers of commerce, etc. My experience is all in the US.
To add my totally unscientific opinion and anecdata: I think to the public/those who aren't thinking deeply about it, Executive Director is intended, and in fact is, considered the "number 1." Typically s/he is the first report to the volunteer board, who nominally "runs" the NP, but which in fact generally follows the lead of a competent ED as long as s/he has their confidence. The typical pattern is that the ED guides the board to ratify/vote on the decisions they make to keep the organization ticking over. EDs are also usually the prime public face of the organization and mainly engaged with the external stakeholders.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a managing director or director of operations (and yes, for whatever reason, it's generally styled as a director role in NPs) does the job I do as a COO - answer to the ED and work with him/her to take their vision and actually make it work. This is typically the "number 2" role. Accounting, finance, HR are 3 big things that are typically in their wheelhouse, but it can also include "core" subject matter knowledge and/or any other miscellaneous work that needs to be done to remain effective, solvent, and compliant.
You indicate that you're a founder, but you also sound like you're accepting that secondary role. Depending on the organizational dynamics, it does sometimes happen that it can make sense to make someone else look like the "number 1," because they're famous, connected, or just really a more natural figurehead.
Internally, the "secondary" person can and should be considered to be the "go-to." In a well-run organization, the ED/CEO understands that they should be deferring to the MD/COO as to methods, or at least working out conflicts so they are not visible to the ranks internally.
(on edit: I think you should keep googling about the definition of Managing Director. I'm a little unclear as to whether or not that title usually appears subordinate to an ED).
My suggestion for the remote director would be "Director of %region" or "%region Director," ex "Director of West Coast District" or "California District Director" - something along those lines.
posted by randomkeystrike at 8:35 AM on February 15, 2018
To add my totally unscientific opinion and anecdata: I think to the public/those who aren't thinking deeply about it, Executive Director is intended, and in fact is, considered the "number 1." Typically s/he is the first report to the volunteer board, who nominally "runs" the NP, but which in fact generally follows the lead of a competent ED as long as s/he has their confidence. The typical pattern is that the ED guides the board to ratify/vote on the decisions they make to keep the organization ticking over. EDs are also usually the prime public face of the organization and mainly engaged with the external stakeholders.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a managing director or director of operations (and yes, for whatever reason, it's generally styled as a director role in NPs) does the job I do as a COO - answer to the ED and work with him/her to take their vision and actually make it work. This is typically the "number 2" role. Accounting, finance, HR are 3 big things that are typically in their wheelhouse, but it can also include "core" subject matter knowledge and/or any other miscellaneous work that needs to be done to remain effective, solvent, and compliant.
You indicate that you're a founder, but you also sound like you're accepting that secondary role. Depending on the organizational dynamics, it does sometimes happen that it can make sense to make someone else look like the "number 1," because they're famous, connected, or just really a more natural figurehead.
Internally, the "secondary" person can and should be considered to be the "go-to." In a well-run organization, the ED/CEO understands that they should be deferring to the MD/COO as to methods, or at least working out conflicts so they are not visible to the ranks internally.
(on edit: I think you should keep googling about the definition of Managing Director. I'm a little unclear as to whether or not that title usually appears subordinate to an ED).
My suggestion for the remote director would be "Director of %region" or "%region Director," ex "Director of West Coast District" or "California District Director" - something along those lines.
posted by randomkeystrike at 8:35 AM on February 15, 2018
Best answer: OK, you sent me down the rabbit hole on MD...
having done some more googling (and reflecting on the fact that in my entirely US-centric career I've run into no MDs that I can think of), I believe that Managing Director is a UK-centric title that would equate to CEO in the US more than anything [citation]
I would therefore steer away from that entirely if your intent is to convey responsibilities more akin to that of a COO, but in the non-profit realm.
This article was pretty helpful and could probably just be a better replacement to my previous answer. TL;DR:
- you could in fact just style yourself as a COO.
- if you didn't want to do that, I might suggest Director of Operations, which is also used both in NP and FP sectors.
posted by randomkeystrike at 8:46 AM on February 15, 2018
having done some more googling (and reflecting on the fact that in my entirely US-centric career I've run into no MDs that I can think of), I believe that Managing Director is a UK-centric title that would equate to CEO in the US more than anything [citation]
I would therefore steer away from that entirely if your intent is to convey responsibilities more akin to that of a COO, but in the non-profit realm.
This article was pretty helpful and could probably just be a better replacement to my previous answer. TL;DR:
- you could in fact just style yourself as a COO.
- if you didn't want to do that, I might suggest Director of Operations, which is also used both in NP and FP sectors.
posted by randomkeystrike at 8:46 AM on February 15, 2018
I was going to say Director of Operations before reading any of the comments, so another independent vote for that. You will come across as the number 2. If that's not what you want, then be Co-Directors, but I've only seen that twice in over ten years in the field.
posted by salvia at 9:14 AM on February 15, 2018
posted by salvia at 9:14 AM on February 15, 2018
I thought Director before I saw all the Director suggestions.
posted by SemiSalt at 9:52 AM on February 15, 2018
posted by SemiSalt at 9:52 AM on February 15, 2018
because it seemed to me that in the US, MD was a higher position than ED
FWIW, as someone who works in international development, the only two org's I'm sure I've come across people with the title of Managing Director are OPIC and MCC, both U.S.-government owned corporations. In the case of OPIC, I'm not sure precisely where MD falls but it's definitely VP or lower (there's only one listed among their "executive staff" but they have more than just the one for sure). In the case of MCC, I know for a fact it's a level below Deputy Vice President.
Neither org has "Executive Directors", but to my eye that translates as a direct equivalent to CEO, whereas MD reads to me as definitely lower in the structure, and possibly by quite a bit. Obviously your own previous experience is a counterexample to that, so that's just one person's opinion.
posted by solotoro at 9:57 AM on February 15, 2018
FWIW, as someone who works in international development, the only two org's I'm sure I've come across people with the title of Managing Director are OPIC and MCC, both U.S.-government owned corporations. In the case of OPIC, I'm not sure precisely where MD falls but it's definitely VP or lower (there's only one listed among their "executive staff" but they have more than just the one for sure). In the case of MCC, I know for a fact it's a level below Deputy Vice President.
Neither org has "Executive Directors", but to my eye that translates as a direct equivalent to CEO, whereas MD reads to me as definitely lower in the structure, and possibly by quite a bit. Obviously your own previous experience is a counterexample to that, so that's just one person's opinion.
posted by solotoro at 9:57 AM on February 15, 2018
> I believe that Managing Director is a UK-centric title that would equate to CEO in the US more than anything
Nah, in the US, it's the Executive Director that equates to a CEO. Managing Director definitely does not equate to CEO in the United States, it's a #2 senior leadership position and often subordinate to the Executive Director.
posted by desuetude at 10:54 AM on February 15, 2018
Nah, in the US, it's the Executive Director that equates to a CEO. Managing Director definitely does not equate to CEO in the United States, it's a #2 senior leadership position and often subordinate to the Executive Director.
posted by desuetude at 10:54 AM on February 15, 2018
Response by poster: Randomkeystike, thank you for that article - very helpful! Also, yes, the ED is going to be in that role for something very much like those reasons you mentioned: he is the most senior/experienced of us and has the most effective public profile for our area of work. We're quite comfortable with the division of labor. Of the three of us, i am best suited and have the most experience in the day to day management of an organization and implementation of strategy/mission; the third partner excels in conceptualizing projects and creatively finding funding sources for them; and I already mentioned the ED. As we get off the ground, our website will include our titles and a brief bio and blurb on our current work, so it also helps a lot to hear from multiple people that the 3 directors thing doesn't feel problematic.
posted by leticia at 5:46 PM on February 15, 2018
posted by leticia at 5:46 PM on February 15, 2018
Response by poster: Final update as an FYI and thank you for all who made suggestions above. In the end we went with:
Executive Director
Managing Director
and
Director of Strategy and Programs
We agreed that they were all director-levels of responsibility, as suggested here, and after surveying more people in the specific area we will be working in, Managing Director is used enough that it works as a choice. Overall, we're satisfied that all of the titles suit us personally and what we will actually be doing, as described in my last comment.
Thanks!
posted by leticia at 10:30 AM on February 20, 2018
Executive Director
Managing Director
and
Director of Strategy and Programs
We agreed that they were all director-levels of responsibility, as suggested here, and after surveying more people in the specific area we will be working in, Managing Director is used enough that it works as a choice. Overall, we're satisfied that all of the titles suit us personally and what we will actually be doing, as described in my last comment.
Thanks!
posted by leticia at 10:30 AM on February 20, 2018
« Older Future work opportunities - availability versus... | Tenant Rights, water bill edition Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by adamrice at 6:00 AM on February 15, 2018 [2 favorites]