the job title on my business card is "the better half" the job title on my husbands card is "the other half". Has nothing to do with ego (even though it sounds rather cocky) My husband just happened to be the one who designed the cards and totttttally wanted some brownie points.

Sometimes job titles get totally excessive.

I'm just glad the "funny" title trend, from the dot-com days, is over. There are still some companies who do it, but whatever. "Agent of Change" has always been my favorite.

I'm confused by the "Design Director" title. I'm guessing it is higher than Senior Designer, but where does it rank in comparison to "Creative Director"? And is it much different from an "Art Director"?

Titles are a funny thing for designers. As much as we like to dismiss them — because we are creatives and don't respond to the norm! — they do establish, even if only on paper, somebody's expertise, experience and ability. Not in that order necessarily. In bigger companies, they serve more as an internal measuring system for salaries, and size of cubes. I worked with a designer whose only interest was to advance his title and salary — he was the happiest when he became a Senior Designer but got pissed he didn't get the bigger-sized cube (seriously!) and even happier when he got offered an Art Director position at another firm. God bless him.

>I'm confused by the "Design Director" title. I'm guessing it is higher than Senior Designer, but where does it rank in comparison to "Creative Director"? And is it much different from an "Art Director"?

I find that the bigger the company, the more titles there are. I guess this allows for maximum opportunities for "upward mobility." On the account side, I find that there tends to be "title inflation"--bigger titles than might be deserved or appropriate, in an effort to give the client more security about a person's abilities. Interesting that a title can do that for some people.

To answer Armin's question about Senior Designer/Design Director/Creative Director: Design Director tends to be a level above Senior Designer, and CD is a level above DD.

And to give everyone a chuckle, here are (just some of) the titles at Sterling:

Designer (we don't have the Jr. Designer title), Senior Designer, Design Director, Associate CD, CD, Chief Creative Officer, Account Manager, Account Director, VP Account Director, SVP Account Director, EVP Account Director, Marketing Manager, VP Marketing Director, SVP Marketing Director, Production Artist, Production Director, VP Production. Then we have our whole Multi-media group and their titles, and the strategic analysts and all their titles. And, oh yeah, management: President, CFO, CEO.

But my favorite title at Sterling is for a woman who has been here 10 years and works in admin: Office Diva.

Yes, Debbie is correct -- in bigger corporations, titles serve as a roadmap for upward mobility. Each corp has its own unique structure for this too, so in a sense, it matters most to those in the company -- and matters less to outside observers.

Clients do pay some attention, especially if they are senior management themselves. They always want senior/exec staff -- eventhough the day to day work is done by more junior team members. It's the nature of doing business w/ clients.

When I had my own office, I couldn't really care less what my title was. I told people that I was the owner, which meant I was the designer as well as the janitor. We used a version of cards w/o titles for a while -- but got complaints from a few clients who didn't know who to call b/c they didn't understand the pecking order and roles in our office. So titles returned.

>I'm confused by the "Design Director" title. I'm guessing it is higher than Senior Designer, but where does it rank in comparison to "Creative Director"? And is it much different from an "Art Director"?

I'm a "senior design director" -- which means I'm one rung lower than (and must answer to) an "exec creative director" in the head office. But I basically serve in the creative director role for my office -- since I'm the senior creative manager. The pecking order down is "design director", "senior designer", and "designer". There doesn't seem to be a middle spot though -- for just plain "creative director". The pivotal spot for most firms is "senior designer" -- because above that, the positions acquire more management and business operations responsibilities as well.

One thing we should also mention is the difference between job titles for print versus interactive. In interactive agencies, an "art director" is essentially a senior designer, sometimes less. Then there's "producer" instead of "account exec" along w/ a plethora of more cryptic titles like "information architects", "senior html production designer", "senior interactive designer", and so on.

On the print side, "art director" is hardly ever used anymore around here. My guess is that it's because of the interactive dilution of that title. Bastards.

What interests me over these past few years is what you do you call someone who falls between traditional design yet does interactive work and is a programmer - this applies to me actually. I tend to stay away from titles because it's a tad confusing sometimes explaining this. I've officially held two titles within companies - webmaster and for another, Interactive Director. Both felt right. But now I'm not quite sure, since I dabble and work cross a variety of media. I'm prone to just designer.

I've had many a discussion (and argument) over what the newer breed of designers/programmers should be called. What do you consider them?

I, Greg Scraper, being of sound mind and body, bestow upon myself the title of

Grand Magnanimous Design Potentate

and all the rights and privileges hitherto bestowed upon and granted by said position, including, but not limited to, my own office with it's own (and the only) internet connection that works all (read:some) of the time, a parking space near the building, the fastest two computers in the building (circa 1997), and the ability to bestow my own title because I'm the only designer here.

Witnesses: the entire Speak Up community.

At the company I work for the CEO and the Technical Director (one rung down) both do not hold 4 year degrees. Only half of the technical writers have degrees of any kind, yet ALL of the "Graphic Media Designers" have bachelors degrees. Does this create a problem by discounting the value of higher education? Is this the result of specialization? Does anyone see a direct correlation to job title and education where they work--good or bad?

>I've had many a discussion (and argument) over what the newer breed of designers/programmers should be called. What do you consider them?

Well, it depends Naz.

1. Are you doing more design, or mostly programming/development. If it's more UI, front-end, concept-development work -- than I'd say choose a more design-driven title. If it's more back-end, engineering-driven -- than stick w/ a technology title and be proud of it.

"Senior Technical Director" is on the same plane as "Senior Design Director" in most interactive agencies.

"Design" is still well defined, regardless of changes in medium and technology. The technology adapts to the need more than the other way around. Paradigms don't actually shift as often as Wired magazine would suggest. So the new "breed" as you've termed it, will most likely eventually adapt to existing business models -- albeit with new technology.

2. Furthermore, the term "director" denotes that you have management and directorship responsibility over staff. If that's true, keep the title. If not, then it has no real purpose.

I'm not a big fan of hybrid, new titles. Like Armin said earlier, they can easily become meaningless and contrived. Ahem...Greg?

And Bill -- man, let's not get into qualifications. Whole 'nother can of worms.

Job uitles are merely to peg you to a pay scale.

I'm a 'web analyst'.

Whatever that means.

I think titles like 'design director' or 'accout executive' etc don't mean much to clients. Those are just internal benchmarks on the corporate ladder.

I think clients do relate to any title indidcating ownership or upper management in a company.

I think they also relate to any title that is very specific...indidcating you are an expert in that particular niche field.

So, it's great to have multiple sets of business cards with different titles for yourself depending on the situation you are in.

"Design" is still well defined, regardless of changes in medium and technology.

I disagree. One of the big problems IMHO is that 'design' is incredibly vaugue and usually under-defined in the context of a web team. But that's probably another discussion...

So, it's great to have multiple sets of business cards with different titles for yourself depending on the situation you are in.

Do any of you do this? do your clients know about it? How do they feel with your multiple personality/tasking?

Office Diva.

Love it. It applies to more than one too.

We used a version of cards w/o titles for a while

I have always wondered how this is perceived by the client,. Being a small shop I think it can work, when your client knows there are only two or three people to do the job, but more than that I expect to find confusion all over the place. Who does what? and Who am I supposed to call?

>I think titles like 'design director' or 'accout executive' etc don't mean much to clients. Those are just internal benchmarks on the corporate ladder. I think clients do relate to any title indidcating ownership or upper management in a company.

That's not true, Darrel. Most marketing managers and execs at companies have to deal with a number of creative vendors. Many have worked on the agency side themselves. It's part of their job to understand the roles and structures of people they're working with -- it's a requirement for interaction and project management.

Having multiple cards tells people that you really don't understand what your value and business role is. Jack of all trade/master of none applies here.

>'design' is incredibly vague and usually under-defined in the context of a web team

It's not vague in successful agencies that know what they're doing.

...

Sorry, can't play anymore -- back to the salt mine. 'later.

1. Are you doing more design, or mostly programming/development. If it's more UI, front-end, concept-development work -- than I'd say choose a more design-driven title. If it's more back-end, engineering-driven -- than stick w/ a technology title and be proud of it.

Thing is, I'm doing it all. Design, front-end and back-end. I've never been quite content to sit and do just one thing so over the years I've been learning to dabble in everything. I like the knowledge and the power of being able to do what you need to without the need for someone else. At the very least I know what a programmer or designer is talking about and thus know how to speak the speak. I get told it's a little rare to find people who cover all the bases but I like my bases covered. Either way, I'm not pushing it, I'm curious what titles people have come across for folks who do a bit of everything.

Do any of you do this? do your clients know about it? How do they feel with your multiple personality/tasking?

I carry three cards at the moment (yeesh). One is the serious card for potential and new clients. One is a funny personal silkscreened card that's more about my personality than anything else. And the other is for a site I co-run (Gapers Block).

I like the no-title cards. As you mentioned, when it's a small shop (as me, myself and I are) it's perfect.

I've never been much of one for titles. I don't think our cards ever carried any from digitopolis. Sue used to use "Partner" somewhere (letters? sig files? I forget) but not on the cards, and just to be equal I would sometimes, too.

Just one more piece of info on the damned cards.

(Our cards did assign numbers though. I was 000001-M, Sue was 000001-S, Brian was something like 000005, and Kirsten was about 000011 ... but it related to the order in which one was hired, not one's status).

We never had anyone complain or express confusion about who we were or what we did. I guess we just weren't big enough. Although with the plethora of titles and the relative impossibility of figuring out the hierarchy, I find it difficult to believe that a client would find many of those titles helpful.

Sorry, one last thing. According to management experts -- most employees in companies find it reassuring and positive to have well-defined job descriptions and career paths, ie. a title structure. It gives definition to individual roles, and outlines responsibilities and expectations to gauge work performance against. Increased team mentality and productivity is also a result.

Most new firm owners assume the opposite -- that hierarchy is a bad thing, and team building means keeping things vague, allowing employees to grow and assume responsibilities at their own speed. In my experience, that doesn't work. A lack of hierarchy and defined roles most often leads to frustration, and works against employee motivation. There's no benchmark for an employee to ascertain how much value they bring to the firm.

I've known many firms that have made this mistake, with the same results.

Go figure.

>On the print side, "art director" is hardly ever used anymore around here. My guess is that it's because of the interactive dilution of that title. Bastards.

That may be the situation in your corporate identity world; but in publishing, the music business and other disciplines which have greater interaction with photographers and illustrators it remains a valid and descriptive title.

The favorite title bestowed upon me over the course of my career was "Chief Design Officer" or "CDO".

Blame the dot-com insanity on that one.

tan-"A lack of hierarchy and defined roles most often leads to frustration, and works against employee motivation."

it's worked fine for us.

here's a little trick;

Most firm owners assume the opposite -- that hierarchy is a good thing, and that team building means keeping things concrete, keeping employees to a programme and only giving responsibilities when management deems. In my experience, that doesn't work. A stack of hierarchy and defined roles most often leads to frustration, and works against employee motivation. There's no benchmark for an employee to ascertain just how valuable they are to the firm.

see, works both ways. generalisations often do.

don't designers make things, change things, reinvent, think, uncover assumptions, define and redefine, make marks, make mistakes, say what they feel, get it all wrong, start again, make decisions, enrage, enjoy, show, throw it away, push, instigate, take responsibility, demand, deny, accept again and again and then just get on with it?

where are all the monsters? eating all the management experts.

what was the point again?

On my first day at my First Real Job out of college, I was shocked and disappointed to see that my new business cards didn't have a job title on them. After all, I'd just spent the last five years of my life trying to define myself in this profession. I wanted them to scream GRAPHIC DESIGNER in all-caps, 16pt bold type. (And I wanted my name to be spelled correctly, which it wasn't on my first set of cards). I thought that I needed that title to validate my education.

Now I've come to realize that the lack of title is extremely liberating. There is an implied equality, and freedom to move beyond the stereotypical definition of your job title.

To Tan's comment: A lack of hierarchy and defined roles most often leads to frustration, and works against employee motivation. There's no benchmark for an employee to ascertain how much value they bring to the firm.

I've found that to be the opposite, but maybe that's only because my job title would define me most accurately as a "production artist" when my ambitions and abilities are more in line with the term "designer." In the same vein, I'd probably be labeled as "entry-level" or "junior." Not having that type of label encourages me to be more and do more, to take chances and not let someone else decide for me what I'm capable of.

I've also worked in-house in the corporate world at a very large insurance company. The amount of hierarchy and hoopla associated with who's working for who is insane. I realize in a company with thousands of employees it's important to be structured, but when you have Specialists, Managers, Directors, Vice-This and Assistant-That, Executive in Charge of Paper Clips and Helper-Monkey-to-the-Vice-Assistant-Chief-Something it gets hard to distinguish who is really on what level anyway.

why do we care about titles? scott bedford quotes one of his old co-workers at one of his first jobs as an account rep: "creative people don't work for money, like we do. they work for recognition."

just to chime in, how does "creative services" sound as a job title? certainly fits on a biz card better than "graphic designer, copywriter, art director, producer and calmer of clients' fears," donnit?

my old boss used this following title trick. he always refered to himeslef as the "creative driector," when in fact he was the only principle. he never referred to himself as "president," because it's advantageous to be able to go to a higher authority... as in, "gee, i'd sure love to be able to not charge you for the 47th unbudgeted round of revisions. let me see what the president has to say about that."

> just to chime in, how does "creative services" sound as a job title?

It sounds like you work for the "creative services" of Kinko's. Or worse, of a printer who offers "creative services" for low prices as long as you print with them. Other than that, it sounds great!

Graham -- even you have to admit that Tomato's structure and work environment is unique. I totally see your point -- and agree with it to much extent. But your model, no matter how ideal and practical it may sound, isn't the norm -- nor can you assume that it's a universal solution.

Then, there's the fact that you're seeing it from a partner/owner's perspective. I wonder if one of your support staff would feel the same. Probably yes, but I'm just asking.

>Not having that type of label encourages me to be more and do more, to take chances and not let someone else decide for me what I'm capable of.

Yes, but suppose a few years from now, when you could have a "senior designer" title -- would you feel the same, Lauren? Would you be ok w/ being on the same plane as an entry-level production artist, and would you yearn to have the freedom to do what a creative director does? In other words, when your title actually matches and fulfills your skills and aspirations.

Experience will change your perspective I would bet.

Hey, at the end of the day -- do whatever gets you going. The no title/job satisfaction debacle is just my perspective and experience. Who knows, maybe I've had really bad luck w/ employees as well.

Just remember that there's reasons why some conventions are the way they are. You can't always assume that the people who run these larger firms and implement these structures are egomaniacal idiots. They work the same job you do, and have been the same place you are.

Many have worked on the agency side themselves.

Ah. Alas, I've never worked with those type of internal buyers. Though I've always thought they'd be the best for the position.

Having multiple cards tells people that you really don't understand what your value and business role is. Jack of all trade/master of none applies here.

Two points:

- You don't give the same person all your cards (duh)

- Often people really do need a jack of all (well, many) trades.

According to management experts -- most employees in companies find it reassuring and positive to have well-defined job descriptions and career paths, ie. a title structure.

Why are you listening ot management experts? That's like saying 'according to most pig farmers, pigs find it rassuring to be penned up in little crates'. ;o)

BTW, how many of you know people that received 'job title + responsibility' promotions sans pay raise?

would you feel the same ... when your title actually matches and fulfills your skills and aspirations[?] Experience will change your perspective I would bet.

That's a very good point, and I suppose you might be right. Though I'm wondering if it's possible to reach a point at which I'm 100% satisfied with what I'm doing. There's always something more out there to strive for.

But maybe that's just me in my youth speaking, again. Ask me in ten years.

I don't remember exactly but... I think Tibor Kalman had "creative troublemaker" as a title on the colors magazine directory... or something close...

>You don't give the same person all your cards

No shit. But if the idea is to maintain and grow a client relationship, as well as create a referral network for yourself in a market. One day, some way, some how, I guarantee that your schizophreniac cards will meet and then the masquerade will be over.

Why is it so hard to decide and concentrate on what you're good at and aspire to do it?

>Why are you listening ot management experts?

Hey, some of these management mantras come from legit orgs like the APDF, a cut above the average pig farmers. Course, take it w/ a grain of salt.

Btw, on a semi-related note. Did you know that it was Herman Miller who instituted the idea of cubicles? Course, their original cube walls were 6 ft tall and more private oasis, instead of the 4 ft pigpens we all know and hate today.

I don't remember exactly but... I think Tibor Kalman had "creative troublemaker" as a title on the colors magazine directory... or something close...

Wrong--his title at Colors was Editor-in-Chief, and a lot of time and energy was spent on the hierarchy, titles and layout of that masthead, for all the usual reasons people care about titles.

Once someone from the press called M&Co asking what Tibor's title was. His response: "Creative Overlord." Here we just identify people by what they do: proprietor, senior designer, designer, manager, producer, intern.

fyi: a while back I was curious to understand the official definitions of some of the design positions out there. I looked all over google and couldn't find anything - I guess I was having a bad search day. I asked around and Aquent was suggested - they had the definitions I was looking for. If you want to know the difference between a senior designer and designer is for example, check out definitions

Here we just identify people by what they do: proprietor, senior designer, designer, manager, producer, intern. -Scott

OK, devils advocate:

that makes no sense. those are still titles.

does an intern always "intern"? as an internI designed EuroDisneys logos/signage for 3.50 an hour . Is a designer automatically less than senior? when i was at Ogilvy I asked for no title. I automatically got designer, however, later I was made design director for no special reason. It offered no more money, no more prestige and no more authority or better circumstance than previously.

In foolish hindsight I realise I cofounded the BIG/O&M and shouldve capitalized early.

(I was the only designer)

Had I asked to be an Overlord I may have gotten a blow job in the coffee machine room.

with the intern.

Now that was unnecessary. See, I'm less mature than most interns.

tan-"Graham -- even you have to admit that Tomato's structure and work environment is unique."

no-fuel, gtf, pentagram, why not, hard werken, grapus, fletcher-forbes-gill, hipgnosis, acne, stylewar-a few from a long list. nowhere near unique-in the world, that is.

". . . nor can you assume that it's a universal solution."

i don't. we're designers. we decide the form of things. that's what we do. we create norms. potentially there are as many business models as there are designers.

"Then, there's the fact that you're seeing it from a partner/owner's perspective. I wonder if one of your support staff would feel the same. Probably yes, but I'm just asking."

and if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle. i'm talking from the perspective i'm talking from; one which is formed particularly from the fact that i've always thought that designers should not be employees. in fact designer-as-employee as oxymoronic. freelance is close to the ideal state-that or your own group/company.

"You can't always assume that the people who run these larger firms and implement these structures are egomaniacal idiots. They work the same job you do, and have been the same place you are."

i don't assume-i know. i've seen the work. dull, pedestrian,mostly talentless, too; they're after the easy buck and god knows i wish i knew how too, sometimes. they certainly don't do the same job i do, and have never come close to where i've been.

>potentially there are as many business models as there are designers

But there's only one Graham Wood.

The way you approach things inspires me. I'll leave it at that.

It sounds like you work for the "creative services" of Kinko's. Or worse, of a printer who offers "creative services" for low prices as long as you print with them. Other than that, it sounds great!

only the proprietor of a really great design discussion board that i spend way too much time on every day could make that comment without getting flamed. :)

Yeah, Len....

I bit my tongue when I read that. Not that I'm one of them, but it doesn't lend much to the person at the computer at Kinko's who wants to be more than just a design slave. Kind of elitist. Bad Armin. Bad.

One day, some way, some how, I guarantee that your schizophreniac cards will meet and then the masquerade will be over.

Well, I've had clients that thought it was great that there were multiple titles. Sort of a 'collect them all' thing.

If a client is worrying that much about titles on my business cards, I really don't want that client.

Why is it so hard to decide and concentrate on what you're good at and aspire to do it?

It's not hard. It's boring. To me, at least. Some people like that. They take a career path and they stick with it for 40 years. Some people hate that. Can't stand being a niche expert on anything.

And, like I said, everyone needs specialists, and everyone need generalists. So there's plenty of room for both.

Hey, some of these management mantras come from legit orgs like the APDF, a cut above the average pig farmers. Course, take it w/ a grain of salt.

You're naive if you think Pig farmers aren't highly trained management experts themselves. ;o) ;o) ;o)

Did you know that it was Herman Miller who instituted the idea of cubicles?

Those bastards! Damn. I guess I got to go burn my HM Eames furniture in protest.

(If only I had soem HM Eames furniture to burn...)

> Kind of elitist. Bad Armin. Bad.

Oy. I know, I know. It isn't the most politically correct comment I have ever made. But, let's admit it — elitist or not — how many design firms use that term to describe what they do? Not many. Funny thing is that many RFPs label the work done by designers as creative services to be completed by creative team. Ugh.

I apologize to Kinko's designers worldwide.

And I apologize in advance for that apology coming off as patronizing.

I also believe I have admitted in the past of being somewhat elitist… not that that makes it OK.

Here we just identify people by what they do: proprietor, senior designer, designer, manager, producer, intern. -Scott

OK, devils advocate:

that makes no sense. those are still titles.

Who said that they weren't? They are really simple titles that say exactly what the people's jobs are. The no-title thing has its conceptual and political appeal, but when there's a client on the phone they kind of need to know what you do in order to be able to have any kind of conversation with you.

Not to prove the argument here, but thought I'd share all of the titles of people on a team (across multiple offices in multiple countries) in a recent proposal.

Client Managing Director

Executive Creative Director

Senior Design Director

Creative Director, Naming and Writing

Naming Manager

Senior Brand Research Consultant

Senior Research Director

Senior Client Manager

Client Manager

Account Director

And that's just the upper-level management team listed. It doesn't account the support team underneath each specialty.

Believe it or not, each of these people have very defined roles, and assume pivotal responsibilities for this particular job and client. And I have no doubt that the client team will accept and understand all of the different roles as it corresponds to the process.

But this is admittedly an extreme case -- rarely will there be such a large soup of titles for a job.

This has to be Graham's vision of hell.

And I have no doubt that the client team will accept and understand all of the different roles as it corresponds to the process.

title do not necessarily = roles

I completely agree that a variety roles need to be filled in any project. But there isn't always a one-to-one mapping of 'job role' to 'employee job title'

As for the list, some of those titles are still pretty vague and can me all sorts of different things based on the context of the project.

Naming Manager?

My favorite has been my cousin at MegaCorp whose title is simply, "Your Daddy."

This is something we've been talking through as things get more convoluted in small web shops. I not only do the graphic design, but also the IA and HTML and CSS and the books and and and... while my partner does all kinds of programming things I don't even understand enough to name. Currently I'm listed as "Creative Director / Interactive Producer" while he's "Senior Programmer / Administrator." The titles are too wordy and yet too vague, and we've talked to people who didn't understand that we're also the principals. I thought about "Front / Back" but that doesn't mean anything; "Front-end /Back-end" but that rings especially strangely as we're married.

Before reading these comments I have to admit that I fell more on the side of "titles are for the confused" than "titles are a form of wayfinding". I can see how clients would use the title to help them in the beginning of any sort of relationship. But, I also think, that after a solid relationship is formed, they no longer look at you as "you are a senior designer" but as "you are my partner".

I work at a very small company. We all wear many hats. It would be impossible to list all of the titles we find ourselves wearing. Further, we have found from past experience that titles cause problems. People start to think their title entitles them to not perform certain tasks. Titles segregated us from a team into a bunch of bench sitters. But I have to say that perhaps larger companies need the titles just as much as small companies do not.

Zoelle said: "Does anyone see a direct correlation to job title and education where they work--good or bad?"

I haven't noticed this here, too small, but I have to say if someone is a CEO of a company without traditional education, more power to them. I say traditional because we all know that education does not only occur in a formalized environment.

Tan said: "According to management experts ... ."

Interesting. I guess it is a double-edged sword then. I love structure and solid (positive) management. But I suppose there needs to be a clause of some sort that says something like "and perform all tasks contained herein. However, should we throw you a curve ball, this contract also binds you to hit said curveball without balking or pouting." I would then be comfortable with this idea.

If I were in the position to give titles, I probably would. But, I would also hope to be a good manager and have the support of a team. Titles don't mean anything unless the person wearing the jersey wants to be part of the team at all costs. That includes cleaning the odd toilet now and again. (so to speak)

>But there isn't always a one-to-one mapping of 'job role' to 'employee job title'

Now you're just being argumentative for the sake of it Darrel.

You're not making sense. Titles exist to give clients some idea of what the hell you do. That's your job role. Ideally, it should match your job title.

If your role doesn't match your title, then that's not the fault of the title -- but perhaps indicates a poor match of responsibility and the position. Change jobs or change the title.

You know, there's lots of specialized design fields out there -- some of them are really complicated. It's not always as simple as picking up a project, design, then billing it. We're a commercial profession -- what's so wrong with having some structure and definition for what we do? Look at the movie industry. They're a creative industry, and they have titles and roles out the ying yang. You don't see them debating the necessity of labeling people by what they do.

I'm so tired of this bullshit renaissance-artist, don't-define-me-cause-I'm-a-designer attitude. If you have a title that doesn't fit, then get another damn job that does, or work for the role you want to do. Or fine, don't have a title. Just don't expect everyone (including clients) to cater to, always accept, or admire your resistance/inability to define what you do.

>I guess it is a double-edged sword then.

Yes, exactly. THANK YOU for understanding that.

Being a good manager/boss is sometimes like being a good parent. Kids don't need their parents to always be their friend -- sometimes they need their parent to be a parent. As an owner/manager, your first inclination is to be one among the masses. Everyone's the same in a lovefest of design nirvana. But that's not managing -- and it's not helpful to the staff that depend on your leadership and guidance.

The reality is that most people want to grow in their jobs. They have goals -- and as a manager, it's your job to give structure and guidance to help them achieve what they want out of their career. But in order to do so, you also have to define things to let them know what they still need to learn/achieve along the way.

I absolutely HATE writing job descriptions (defining roles/responsibilities/titles) and conducting employee reviews. But those things, no matter how bureaucratic and superfluous they may seem, are very beneficial to employees who do not have the benefit of experience. It can also be a good opportunity for an employee to let you know "Hey, my role doesn't match my title. What gives?" Then, you can both go out, and talk it over some beers.

Who said that they weren't? They are really simple titles

yeah, my devil was indeed pathetic.

i guess my weak, broad point was (and we knew this already) that titles are there merely to lift your spirit and/or offer false reward. I mean how many VPs do you really need?

Proprietor is understated and simple, but would you walk into an initial meeting and say "hi my name is Scott, your proprietor, I'll be handling your orders"...?

Sounds like you may want to toss on a little more flair, captain brand of the guru enterprise? Eh, I got nuthin...

please try and find a book called 'the middle mind' by curtis white. it's an important read.

This is something we've been talking through as things get more convoluted in small web shops.

I'm now at a small web shop, part of a two-person internal web team at a .gov agency.

My title is 'web analyst' and my roles cover graphic design, IA, UI, usability, accessibility, markup, css, and programming.

Now, ideally, we'd have a full team for that, but, well, we don't. So I guess that's why I have the title 'web analyst' as vague as that is.

Now you're just being argumentative for the sake of it Darrel.

Well, DUH...this is a blog, isn't? ;o)

Titles exist to give clients some idea of what the hell you do. That's your job role. Ideally, it should match your job title.

Tan, in a large corporate firm, sure. But specific roles don't always map to specific titles. Many people wear many hats. As such, to give them a title that describes that is to give them a rather vague title. Which is fine, but that doesn't support your argument that the client needs a specific title to know what exactly you do.

The best, most productive environment I was ever in was a small 5-person firm. We all had the title of 'designer' and the owners had a second set of cards stating that title.

All projects were group-based. All 5 of us worked on all aspects of all projects. This is in sharp contrast to the 50 person firm I was at where everyone had very narrowly defined roles/titles.

I found the 5 person team much more productive. Work was done faster, better, and usually for a lot cheaper.

But that's just my experience.

If your role doesn't match your title, then that's not the fault of the title -- but perhaps indicates a poor match of responsibility and the position.

I think we just completely disagree on this (which is fine). I think you state that all titles for a project must be filled with the appropriate staff and skill-set to match. I think all ROLES for a project must be filled. Whether that's one person or 10. Actually, we're probably more in agreement than we think if we consider 'title' and 'role' as being interchangeable or at least close synonyms.

what's so wrong with having some structure and definition for what we do?

Nothing.

I'm so tired of this bullshit renaissance-artist, don't-define-me-cause-I'm-a-designer attitude. If you have a title that doesn't fit, then get another damn job that does, or work for the role you want to do. Or fine, don't have a title. Just don't expect everyone (including clients) to cater to, always accept, or admire your resistance/inability to define what you do.

OK.

BTW, I have no problem defining what I do. I'd have more of a problem defining a title. Here at work, I just call myself 'the web guy'. Not a very formal title and completely vague in terms of specific roles, but everyone know that they should come to me for anything pertaining to our web technologies.

Also, I don't think 'generalists' are 'bullshit' either. Like I've said, there's plenty of room for both generalists and specialists. I've seen many a project go down the (expensive) drain due to over-reliance on specialists without any generalists to help see the big picture.

;o)

>I don't think 'generalists' are 'bullshit' either.

Nothing wrong w/ being a generalist Darrel -- I wasn't implying that. I just have problems with those who think being a generalist is the only way of truly being an artisté in this profession.

>'the middle mind' by curtis white

thanks Graham. will do.

Nothing wrong w/ being a generalist Darrel -- I wasn't implying that. I just have problems with those who think being a generalist is the only way of truly being an artisté in this profession.

Ah. Gotcha. And I agree.

Probably off-topic: Perhaps those who think they can be artists and designers need a huge wake up call? The reason I couldn't be an artist is because I thrive on the constraints given me by the clients. The title "Graphic Artist" just makes no sense to me.

Re-reading this again ... titles are a good idea. BUT only if the person bestowing the title is has also written/explained/articulated all expectations. As well, those being bestowed upon must understand their titles and responsibilities.

I also believe I have admitted in the past of being somewhat elitist… not that that makes it OK.

i thought being an elitist was the fun part about this whole design thing... right? (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

no harm, no foul, Armin.

I used to use the title “namesake” because of my assumption that my parents were prescient in naming me after Gunnar Swanson Design Office long before it existed. Then I decided that it was just blind luck that I didn’t have to learn to spell another name and I moved on to putting random titles when forms demanded one. If I’d bothered keeping track of what title I put in what form I could tell who was selling what mailing list. I used to get a lot of mail with “Moby Dick” in the “title” field.