I had a strange conversation with a coworker earlier this week. She was justifiably annoyed about how another coworker in a different position treated both her and her boss, and made a remark that this coworker thought she was all that because she’s project coordinator of this and that other thing.
This gave me pause because that’s in my title too - it’s in my current title and my soon-to-be revised title will be “online services coordinator” - and when I was thinking about the switch a few days before that, I’d realized that I’ve always thought “coordinator” sounds kind of low-brow rather than carry any sort of implied prestige. Obviously we have different ideas about how the word sounds.
In my last job, I was a such-and-such coordinator, and could hire and fire-- in fact, hiring and firing was a huge part of my job-- but basically every other manager was higher than me. All of the union staff saw me as a management stooge, the rest of management saw me as a peon. Nothin’ but respect, I tells ya.
I am the Coordinator for the program I run for pit bulls at the local shelter. I am responsible for all of the other volunteers, scheduling, training, promoting the program, etc. I have a co-Coordinator who helps me. With the exception of the founder of our rescue group, I’m in charge, but since it’s a volunteer program, and not a paying job, I like coordinator because it doesn’t sound like I’m anyone’s boss.
Speaking from an ITIL perspective, coordinator sounds more like a role than a job title. I suspect that many HR directors don’t understand the difference between a role and a job title, and coordinator will eventually replace manager (or team leader) like executive assistant replaced secretary.
We have a number of Project Coordinators. The one I deal with most often is infamous for scheduling meetings over people’s lunch times because [del]she can[/del] that’s when she’s available. :rolleyes: Hence I now have a standing meeting on my calendar from 11:30 to 1pm and unless it’s a whole team thing or required by my boss, I’m busy (eating lunch).
In my field, “coordinator” is an entry level job synonymous with “assistant” or sometimes “analyst”. It’s below manager and above administrator.
A coordinator will have real responsibilities, but they will be primarily administrative or routine. They won’t be charged with much innovative thinking, nor will they push projects through the organization like a manager might.
What was your previous title? If you were a manager, it sounds like coordinator might just either be a title change or a slight step down (but not always; it could be misunderstanding from management that coordinator could imply that). If you’re currently a specialist, associate or analyst, it seems like it’d be a step up.
In my current company, coordinator can either by synonymous with some type of manager (though without any direct reports, more like project manager) or it can be the next step above an admin. Usually it’s the latter, but sometimes it’s the former.
But in the company I worked at last job, a coordinator is the day-to-day manager of employee activities in a given group. They don’t have the power to hire or fire, but they’re responsible for organizing work and coaching employees who aren’t performing appropriately.
In my agency, most of us in technical positions has the generic job title of “Environmental Scientist”. If you are a P.E, you get “Environmental Engineer”. When someone outside the agency asks me what I do, this is the kind of title that I think of.
But our working titles are much more specific to our duties. If your duties require managing all the bits and pieces of a project, there’s a good chance you’ll get the “coordinator” title. Which no one, including myself, really likes. First of all, it sounds like something divorced from science. Like we merely “coordinate”, but never actual do, which isn’t true. We’re not just counting beans and checking off boxes; we can get in the weeds as much as the staff we oversee (which makes us different from managers, who often cannot contribute much to the technical discussions). And then it sounds kind of “low man on the totem pole”. When really, we have a lot of “management” type responsibilities without the “management” pay. We don’t hire or fire anyone, and when someone screws up, all we can do is kvetch to our boss about it and hope the message is communicated to the screw-up’s boss, since we aren’t necessarily in the same programs or even the same agency. But when upper management has a question about the project, we are the ones who are called into the conference room. It’s our ass who’s grass if there are any problems.
When I worked in advertising, “coordinator” was the lowest title they’d put on a business card. “Account Coordinator” was the title the lower administrative assistants were given.
Of course, the next-lowest title was “Manager” so my experience may not have been typical.
Project Coordinator, Research assistant, Research Associate are very common where I work.
A Professor gets a grant to study the mating habits of turtles. He’ll hire a Project Coordinator, a lab assistant and some work study employees (students). Someone has to get a room allocated, buy the lab equipment, set up the lab, supervise the work. It’s not the Professor.
We also have Project Coordinators in the administrative areas running programs.
Coordinator works under a dept head. Some project that requires too much attention for the dept head to do himself.
Coordinators may just be glorified assistants or they may have real responsibilities. It depends on the managing style of the dept head. How much he delegates.
The size of a project matters too. A Dept Head can’t micro manage a really big project. He just doesn’t have the time. He has to trust his Admin Assistant or Project Coordinator.
Theres some CYA there too. If the Project Coordinator is working independently. Any screw ups are on them.
In my agency, a coordinator doesn’t hire and fire. They can help make hiring decisions and they can say shit to get someone fired. But they don’t actually make the decisions. If there’s a personnel issue, you have no authority to discipline anyone.
They also don’t manage the money. They may track expenses, and they may handle stuff like RFPs. But it’s the job of managers to handle the budgets and grants. If you’ve got to make purchases, you’ve got to go to a manager and get it signed off.
Also, a coordinator doesn’t have the leeway to invent policy. If an issue comes up that challenges the status quo way of doing things and it has big ramifications, the coordinator has to get guidance from management on how to go forward.
If you enjoy having a somewhat low profile in an organization but you still want to have some power and control, a coordinator isn’t that bad of a job. I like that I get to make recommendations to management, but I don’t have to actually make decisions.
(In my agency, a “team leader” is a coordinator who does the administriva of management, like time cards and performance evaluations. You get a little more pay, but you also deal with the shittier side of management. Only ambitious types, who have their eyes on real management, want to be be bothered with this. )
I’d say the prestige comes from the environment it’s used in and the words added on (and there’s always something else tacked onto “coordinator”).
At my old job, the most common coordinator was Workflow Coordinator. It was the first step up from an entry level position, but we had people that stayed in the role for decades - until we went digital and eliminated the position since computers doled out the assignments.
However, at our place Project Coordinator was a biggie, as it was a temporary role. Typically, someone in management was prepped for promotion by being put over a project; if it went well, you moved up. But it was also the number one cause of execs getting fired, as your head was the one served up if it went badly.
