POINT  .  .  .

By Arnie Biondo

What's in a title? It's the work done that counts, correct? Maybe, maybe not.

In the field of public parks, recreation and conservation, titles are part of a jargon exclusive to that field. When speaking to community groups or business leaders, we are careful to avoid jargon because the audience won't understand the meaning. Yet we expect the same people to understand the breadth, depth and responsibility of our jobs by the title.

But they do NOT always, or often, understand. Titles such as Supervisor, Superintendent and Coordinator are not descriptive. Rather, they are vague and misleading. Look in your dictionary. Supervisor and superintendent have nearly identical definitions.

How often does this conversation take place at a Chamber of Commerce meeting, with relatives, or at a conference:

"So, what is your line of work? "I'm the Superintendent of Recreation (or Parks, or Finance, or Planning) at Podunk Park District."

"Oh ... so what do you do there?"

It's worse if your title is Recreation Supervisor, because then you hear, "Oh, so you work with kids on playgrounds or at the gym."

"We . . . frequently deal with commissioners, Council members and business leaders who are NOT recreation and park professionals. . . . Our titles must relate to them if we expect the title to describe, and focus on, our jobs."

If either of these perceptions is in our typical titles, we — as a profession — lose.

We continually and frequently deal with commissioners, council members, and busines leaders" who are NOT recreation and park professionals. They don't necessarily understand the jargon of our titles. However, our titles must relate to them if we expect the title to describe, and focus on, our jobs. For recreation and park professionals to communicate, negotiate, fundraise, and command respect (and better compensation), the title must be more explanatory.

Typical titles in the business world are "Manager" and "Director." (Doubtful? Read the Sunday want ads.) Consider the following title examples:

Personnel Manager; Product Manager; Store Manager; Marketing Manager; Promotion Director; Director of Engineering; Maintenance Director.

These titles are generally clearer and more descriptive than those used in recreation and parks. Throughout the English speaking world, the word "manager" implies a person who is getting things done through, and with other people. "Director", descending from corporations' boards of directors, suggests a role of giving guidance,

(Continued on page 18)

By Connie Skibbe

The job titles used in most park and recreation agencies are based upon tradition. Consequently, we have a recognition factor for what a superintendent of parks or a recreation supervisor does. As we have ventured into new service areas, though, our titles have become less consistent.

Job titles are extremely important because of the functions they describe, as well as the rank they define, within an organization or even within an entire profession. For us to bestow titles particular to individual situations or to conform with the latest in business lingo does nothing to advance parks and recreation. We seem to be in a perpetual identity crisis, which is probably not uncommon for any profession that is as relatively young as ours.

For the public to begin to identify with what we do, we need consistency in our job titles. If we apply titles associated with other units of government or with business, we dilute our uniqueness and deny ourselves the chance to be recognized as a separate and distinct profession. Using traditional job titles serves as a starting point from which we can build consistency and still retain our own identity.

"For us to bestow titles particular to individual situations, or to conform with the latest in business lingo, does nothing to advance parks and recreation."

Our job titles are also important because we are public and tax supported. Business titles, such as C.E.O., simply are not appropriate or necessary. The public wants to know rank and function in its simplest form. Recreation professionals gain no status or higher form of public recognition by using titles we all associate with a higher status. Public education is our responsibility and if we have to explain what we do, we ought to consider it an opportunity and not an insult.

The field of recreation has an internal problem as well, because, unfortunately in our profession, there is limited opportunity for advancement into "upper management"; recreation professionals seek substitute rewards. A title change is the easiest and cheapest fix, but can't possibly offer long term motivation for an employee who continues to perform the same duties at the same pay. Titles DO create expectations and we should change them when there is truly a change in function.

Our efforts would be better served by promoting true merit systems where top performance earns top pay. We have already reached the point where the salary survey conducted by the Administrative and Finance Section must now list job descriptions for each position in order to determine comparable salary ranges. We confuse ourselves and still expect the public to understand us. One need only to scan our directory to see the vast range of titles we currently use. Leisure Services Manager sounds good, but I have no

(Continued on page 19)

Point   .  .  . (Continued)

decision-making and authority.

By contrast, our field commonly has titles such as the following:

Superintendent of Parks; Teen Supervisor; Public Relations Supervisor; Recreation Coordinator; Superintendent of Leisure Services; Projects Coordinator; Business Manager; Senior Citizens Coordinator; Athletics Supervisor.