I'm up for a promotion and a change in title. I'm currently an Associate. My company is looking for feedback on what title I should have for my new position. Internally, my title will be "Manager", but that doesn't correlate to a normal title in the RE world. I work in a family office so titles here are a little different and more in line with corporate tiles (Analyst - > Associate -> Manager -> Director -> VP -> SVP etc.). As such, VP is totally off the table. I could maybe ask for a Director title, but that will probably get some push back.
On the real estate side of things, we are a "eat what you kill" type of operation. I source, execute, and manage all the investments I am responsible for (direct, JV's and Funds). I want to have a title that is appropriate for the external parties I'm interacting with. The best thing I've come up with so far is Portfolio Manager, but I'm not sure if that is accurate.
Thoughts?
Enough push back to not ask?
No. However, I want to have solid reasoning/support for my ask.
Director is a pure sourcing role.
How hard you push would be equivalent to how many people under you you have. I've spoken to top head hunters (not 20 year old girls, like at Atlantic Group or Bacharach), and it sounds almost career suicide to be a director with 1-2 direct reports. You cannot lateral to a positions, let alone a manager position.
Can you elaborate here. I have 2 direct reports, but it will soon be three once we on board our new hire. Why is it career suicide to have that title with so few reports?
It would depend on what your next step is. One thought is that it shows to an inflated title. And while we on the forum knows that titles run the gamut, HR has no idea.
I have to disagree here. I think it is very common for directors to be both supporting a VP in originations who owns a territory or product type while also managing the analyst and associates in the review and diligence process.
I think in a large corporate context you are correct. When the guy has 2 direct reports, maybe a bit too much?
That's a bit too all encompassing. I don't think real estate firms have a consensus on where a "Director" level employee ranks in the organization, let alone what that person does for a living.
I've seen as many Directors above Vice Presidents as I have below.
Well in Investment sales apparently it is a junior position.
I mean in development, it's a project manager as sorts. In finance/investments it usually means a heavy sourcing especially for small companies. So to be pedantic, yes I was very broad in the definition. But, I'd agree, I've seen Director higher than VP, but USUALLY in banking.
Real estate titles have a ton of variability. You could be a Director at one shop, a VP at another, a Development Manager at a third, and a Senior Associate at a fourth and be doing the same level of work from the standpoint of seniority/experience. Not sure how long you have been there, but Manager seems pretty reasonable. You can always make the argument that it costs the firm nothing and makes you appear outwardly more legitimate an capable to brokers and capital partners.
I've done some homework and people with my level of experience (8 years) have titles that are all over the place. I recognize that Manager isn't a "bad" title. I want to make sure that my title reflects the work that I'm doing. I'm a little concerned that Portfolio Manager implies I'm only working on managing existing investments, and doesn't give me credit for the souring and executing responsibilities. I'm trying to keep my next career step in mind as well.
FWIW when I hear "Portfolio Manager" I think of somebody who is working exclusively on the existing portfolio.
I feel like throwing "Investment" infront of Manager makes a diff optically.
I've also seen "Investment Officer"
Investment Manager or Director of Real Estate Investment.
IM sounds too portfolio focused...
No it doesn't.
“Investment Director” ...thank me later.
So first, Analyst - > Associate -> Manager -> Director -> VP -> SVP etc., is essentially the ranking/title system at my firm and I've seen it at several others. It's only the finance and brokerage world that seems to invert VP and Director (this is to make MD a consistent). At many other firms, EVP is functionally equivalent to MD or M. Partner. Brokerages take it to a crazy level with all producers sometimes called VPs and top level ones being called "chairmen" (still laugh when I see this).
I really don't see an issue with "manager", at least from any career/resume perspective. Externally, I can see your point, but I think how you communicate matters more. Director implies more seniority/responsibility, and your years of exp make it appropriate, but I wouldn't get too caught up.
In short, people really do not care about titles as much any more because they have become so inflated (by big name firms no less). In some ways, the more understated the title the more it means at time (i.e. the VP of Real Estate at a major corp is a really big deal).
Eaque omnis voluptatum dolorem quia fugit dolores esse. Voluptatem assumenda corporis magnam molestiae deserunt veritatis in quis. Non quisquam illo non dignissimos ipsa.
Ea sit aperiam suscipit optio. Officiis dolorum aliquid est tenetur excepturi. Consequatur ipsam dicta iusto laudantium expedita dolores.
Sapiente reiciendis dolores occaecati aspernatur possimus. Omnis est qui culpa ipsa praesentium quia.
Quibusdam dolorem consequatur occaecati quae voluptates ut atque. In dolorem et debitis sit rerum et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...