The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

'Personal titles' and 'job titles' Options
leonAzul
Posted: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:00:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,462
Neurons: 27,375
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
A cooperator wrote:

Thanks a lot, LeonAzul,
First of all, I noticed that you have capitalized the first letter of 'Doctorate', which make me get asking myself why?
I think if the full degree name was stated, then we must have capitalized all the first letters of the degree name, like a Doctorate's Degree in Computer Science, a Master's Degree in Computer Science, a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science.


Sorry if that caused any confusion. I admit that my use of capitalization is not always standard. In this case I intended to refer to any specific degree within the class of degrees that includes Ph.D., LL.D., etc.

The standard in the USA is to refer to a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. in Computer Science (CS).

A cooperator wrote:

Secondly: Who do you mean with 'latter' in your statement "although the latter can refer to someone who is well-advanced in their doctoral program.". Do you mean with 'latter' with "[a] Professor"?
I don't think an "Associate Professor= Co-professor" is often interchangeable with an "Assistant Professor" since an "Assistant Professor" is a lower ranking than an "Associate Professor= Co-Professor", which, itself, is a lower ranking than a "Professor".


One point you should understand through this thread is that these titles are not necessarily hierarchical, nor are they standardized from country to country, state to state, or even among different schools.

The titles are not necessarily logical, but rather traditional according to the location and type of college or university. The only consistency is that a full professor with tenure has either earned one or more doctorates, or has been granted an honorary degree in order to qualify for the position.

A cooperator wrote:

Finally: As Drag0nspeaker, mentioned that "Head of Computer Science Department" is equivalent to a director"
I read that "A job title can describe the responsibilities of the position, the level of the job, or both. For example, job titles that include the terms executive, manager, director, chief, supervisor, etc. are typically used for management jobs.
Thus, even if the Head of Computer Science Department is an assistant instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor, then "the Head of the Computer Science Department" would still be equivalent to "the Director of the Computer Science Department"?


Not necessarily. The position of director is usually administrative, and so experience in running a school is often more important than experience actually teaching for such a position.

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
A cooperator
Posted: Friday, October 6, 2017 7:36:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,807
Neurons: 10,237
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
leonAzul wrote:
Quote:
Sorry if that caused any confusion. I admit that my use of capitalization is not always standard. In this case I intended to refer to any specific degree within the class of degrees that includes Ph.D., LL.D., etc.

The standard in the USA is to refer to a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. in Computer Science (CS).


Thank you very much indeed, LeonAzul,
(LL.D.; Doctor of Law in English) or a Doctorate's Degree in Law is a doctorate-level academic degree in law, or an honorary doctorate, depending on the jurisdiction.
(LL.M.; Master of Law in English) Or a Master's Degree in Law.
However, I don't know for what 'LL.D' or 'LL.M.' stands?
Also, you think I cannot say 'a Ph.D., M., or B. in Law( in the standard in the USA) or Doctorate's Degree in Law, Master's Degree in Law, or Bachelor's degree in Law(in the standards in other countries.). Thus, no need to say 'LL.D.; LL.M.; or LL.B.

leonAzul wrote:
Quote:


A cooperator wrote:
Quote:
Finally: As Drag0nspeaker, mentioned that "Head of Computer Science Department" is equivalent to a director"
I read that "A job title can describe the responsibilities of the position, the level of the job, or both. For example, job titles that include the terms executive, manager, director, chief, supervisor, etc. are typically used for management jobs.
Thus, even if the Head of Computer Science Department is an assistant instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor, then "the Head of the Computer Science Department" would still be equivalent to "the Director of the Computer Science Department"?


Not necessarily. The position of director is usually administrative, and so experience in running a school is often more important than experience actually teaching for such a position.


Here I intended to know if a professor was appointed as the director/head of a department at a college, or as the dean/head/manager of a college or even the rictor of a university, then s/he would be still titled as a director/ manager/ rector in his/her job title, although s(he) has still been/was teaching staff. If yes, then I would be confused about titling the teaching staff still teaching in the teaching professions and teaching staff becoming managing management jobs since, as said, I read that job titles that include the terms executive, manager, director, chief, supervisor, etc. are typically used for management jobs, and not teaching jobs.

Moreover,
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Quote:
Your referee has the post/position/job of "Head of Computer Science Department", which is an assistant to the Professor (the Head of the College of Sciences).
"Head of Computer Science Department" is equivalent to a director (director n
3. (Professions) a person who directs the affairs of an institution, trust, educational programme, etc
) as he directs the educational programme "Computer Science".

The Head of the College of Sciences is equivalent to a manager (manager n
1. (Professions) a person who directs or manages an organization, industry, shop, etc
) as he manages the whole College.
professor n
1. (Education) the principal lecturer or teacher in a field of learning at a university or college; a holder of a university chair

(All the coloured definitions are from the Collins English Dictionary)


Thus, could you please address these points below::
Firstly: what do you think that Drag0nspeaker meant with the "The Head of the College of Sciences", which is equivalent to a manager, as he manages the whole College? Did he mean with "The Head of the College of Sciences" with "the dean of a college, in which there are many science departments. Thus, the head/manager/dean of the College of Sciences" has a higher position than "the head/director of a department"?

Secondly: Drag0nspeaker had said "professor[/b] n - 1. (Education) the principal lecturer or teacher in a field of learning at a university or college; a holder of a university chair"
But, I think some professors are appointed as the heads of a departments, deans of colleges, the vice-rectors of the academic affairs, the vice-rectors of the students affairs, or even the rectors of universities although all those job titles are only managment jobs, and not teaching jobs/academic teaching appointments. Thus, why do you think a professor must only be "the principal lecturer or teacher in a field of learning at a university...."


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
leonAzul
Posted: Saturday, October 7, 2017 5:10:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,462
Neurons: 27,375
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
A cooperator wrote:

But, I think some professors are appointed as the heads of a departments, deans of colleges, the vice-rectors of the academic affairs, the vice-rectors of the students affairs, or even the rectors of universities although all those job titles are only managment jobs, and not teaching jobs/academic teaching appointments. Thus, why do you think a professor must only be "the principal lecturer or teacher in a field of learning at a university...."


Whatever you think doesn't matter. What matters is what actually takes place in any particular university.
Think


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 8:51:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,807
Neurons: 10,237
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
leonAzul wrote:
A cooperator wrote:

There are differences between executive, managerial, and operative. If I might make a joke, executives dream it up, managers assign the tasks, and operatives get them done. Whistle How this is reflected in the typical job title will depend on the type of business. As your own examples suggest, the way a university is organized will be very different from a milk bottling plant, a lumber store, or an automobile body shop.
[quote]


Thank you, Leon
But, if I am going to categorize employees according to their positions(job titles) and with considering, the typical terms for job titles in the United Kingdom and US, then you think this ranking from up to down is correct Also, I must capitalize their job titles. I don't think that operatives, guards and cleaners must have their job titles capitalized since there are not a specific jobs, like Chairman, President etc. So, I must leave them empty or write them in lower cases.

For instance,

Personal title + Name: Dr Saeed
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: Chairman

Personal title + Name: Mr John
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job Title: Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (in the UK, General Executive Director)

Personal title + Name: Mr Micheal
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: Office Manager of General Executive Director

Personal title + Name: Mr Gray
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: Chief Operating Officer

Personal title+ Name: Mrs Soha
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: Director of Financial Operations

Personal title + name:
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: Chief Financial Officer (CFO)(in the UK, Finance Director (FD))

Personal title + Name: Ms Soad
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: Executive Chairman

Personal title + Name: Mr Ahmed
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: Lead Accountant

Personal title + Name: Ms Liyla
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: accountant

Personal title + Name: Miss Liza
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: customer service representative

Personal title: Name: Mr Nabeel
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: guard
Personal title + Name: Mr Rafet
Organization: Tadamon International Islamic Bank
Job title: cleaner




Also, you think that this organizing above will be applied for a university, a milk bottling plant, a lumber store, or an automobile body shop?

Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Romany
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 11:22:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,382
Neurons: 44,788
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
I'm not going to engage in a Q & A session - just to give my own experience: -

This is cultural - so, once again, there is no 'definitive' answer. In my culture the concept of equality would demand that, if the job titles of those in some sectors (the office staff) of the organisation were capitalised, it would be discriminatory not to capitalise the job titles of staff in other sectors .

The average person doesn't spend much time thinking about that: it just seems polite.

Edited.
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 5:37:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,807
Neurons: 10,237
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Romany wrote:
I'm not going to engage in a Q & A session - just to give my own experience: -

This is cultural - so, once again, there is no 'definitive' answer. In my culture the concept of equality would demand that, if the job titles of those in some sectors (the office staff) of the organisation were capitalised, it would be discriminatory not to capitalise the job titles of staff in other sectors .

The average person doesn't spend much time thinking about that: it just seems polite.

Edited.

Thanks to you, Romany,

I'd absolutely agree with the viewpoint of yours above "In my culture the concept of equality would demand that" if it'd been a matter of politeness and courtesy . However, capitalizing an employee's job title reflects that there is only one person holding that specific position in that sector/organization. However, the job titles including operatives, guards, cleaners, etc. could be given to more than one employee holding the same job title in the same sector or organization. So, I don't think that capitalising of their job titles would be acceptable.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
leonAzul
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 6:03:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,462
Neurons: 27,375
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Romany wrote:
I'm not going to engage in a Q & A session - just to give my own experience: -

This is cultural - so, once again, there is no 'definitive' answer. In my culture the concept of equality would demand that, if the job titles of those in some sectors (the office staff) of the organisation were capitalised, it would be discriminatory not to capitalise the job titles of staff in other sectors .

I would also add that it (the topic of appellations in English) is really quite flexible. As a guide for correspondence, the general tone of the message is much more important than the 'proper' title in the salutation. Seriously, anyone who get's so totally wound up in their title is most likely someone with whom you don't want to deal.
Think
Romany wrote:

The average person doesn't spend much time thinking about that: it just seems polite.


Yet within the academic milieu, a first impression might be the last hope for an opportunity to advance.

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 2:25:12 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,048
Neurons: 6,735
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Romany wrote:
I'm not going to engage in a Q & A session - just to give my own experience: -

This is cultural - so, once again, there is no 'definitive' answer. In my culture the concept of equality would demand that, if the job titles of those in some sectors (the office staff) of the organisation were capitalised, it would be discriminatory not to capitalise the job titles of staff in other sectors .

The average person doesn't spend much time thinking about that: it just seems polite.

Edited.

Thanks to you, Romany,

I'd absolutely agree with the viewpoint of yours above "In my culture the concept of equality would demand that" if it'd been a matter of politeness and courtesy . However, capitalizing an employee's job title reflects that there is only one person holding that specific position in that sector/organization. However, the job titles including operatives, guards, cleaners, etc. could be given to more than one employee holding the same job title in the same sector or organization. So, I don't think that capitalising of their job titles would be acceptable.


Here I would agree with Romany perhaps it is a British Cultural issue but even Cleaners, Security Guards should have their job titles capitalised, each are in their own way important to the safe, productive operation of a company.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 2:25:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,048
Neurons: 6,735
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Romany wrote:
I'm not going to engage in a Q & A session - just to give my own experience: -

This is cultural - so, once again, there is no 'definitive' answer. In my culture the concept of equality would demand that, if the job titles of those in some sectors (the office staff) of the organisation were capitalised, it would be discriminatory not to capitalise the job titles of staff in other sectors .

The average person doesn't spend much time thinking about that: it just seems polite.

Edited.

Thanks to you, Romany,

I'd absolutely agree with the viewpoint of yours above "In my culture the concept of equality would demand that" if it'd been a matter of politeness and courtesy . However, capitalizing an employee's job title reflects that there is only one person holding that specific position in that sector/organization. However, the job titles including operatives, guards, cleaners, etc. could be given to more than one employee holding the same job title in the same sector or organization. So, I don't think that capitalising of their job titles would be acceptable.


Here I would agree with Romany perhaps it is a British Cultural issue but even Cleaners, Security Guards should have their job titles capitalised, each are in their own way important to the safe, productive operation of a company.
Edit: This is a link to one of the UKs major supermarket chains recruiting website.
https://www.tesco-careers.com/search-and-apply/

As you can see Customer Assistant is capitalised.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:38:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,462
Neurons: 27,375
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Sarrriesfan wrote:

Here I would agree with Romany perhaps it is a British Cultural issue but even Cleaners, Security Guards should have their job titles capitalised, each are in their own way important to the safe, productive operation of a company.
Edit: This is a link to one of the UKs major supermarket chains recruiting website.
https://www.tesco-careers.com/search-and-apply/

As you can see Customer Assistant is capitalised.


Yet here again I would assert that this represents a matter of style, which is highly contextual, instead of a matter of grammar or universal orthography within the English language.

This has very little to do with notions of egality, but rather with internal organization and accounting within a particular institution. The use of capitalized titles is intended to indicate specified responsibilities, and associated tasks and pay grades, rather than ranks. Such capitalized titles are more often useful when a governing board of directors convene to discuss budgetary issues than in general conversation.
Think


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Romany
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 6:39:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,382
Neurons: 44,788
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Leon -

I'm going to stick to my guns here - it very much concerned with egality. For us.

I don't think America realises how important and all-encompassing the idea of freedom and equality is after a nearly 1,000 year struggle. Because one very rarely hears us banging on about freedom and democracy, it seems many from the USA don't realise its importance in every part of our lives - and our language.

The American business model may indeed be modelled around parameters that pertain solely to organisation, accounting, pay grades etc. In the context of our history, ours is - or is expected to be - organised around the work-force.

It's why we don't, as a matter of course, address people as Sir or Ma'am (which latter is the prerogative of the Queen anyway!), and why we address each other by first names no matter what one's place is in any hierarchy - but it's also why Tiffany the cleaner, or Bob the security guard, would be liable to take the staff list to The Sun or the Telegraph to show them the missing capital letters and a great furore could erupt about class discrimination that all the other papers etc would comment on and everyone would get hot under the collar about.

And to both Tiffany and Bob - and millions of on-lookers in UK and the Commonwealth - it most certainly WOULD be about egality.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:24:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,462
Neurons: 27,375
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Romany wrote:

It's why we don't, as a matter of course, address people as Sir or Ma'am (which latter is the prerogative of the Queen anyway!), and why we address each other by first names no matter what one's place is in any hierarchy


Which is precisely why, as a matter of course, we Americans refer to each other as "Sir" and "Ma'am", because we each are all worthy of respect!

Think


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
palapaguy
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:07:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 10,835
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
leonAzul wrote:
Romany wrote:

It's why we don't, as a matter of course, address people as Sir or Ma'am (which latter is the prerogative of the Queen anyway!), and why we address each other by first names no matter what one's place is in any hierarchy


Which is precisely why, as a matter of course, we Americans refer to each other as "Sir" and "Ma'am", because we each are all worthy of respect!

Think


I agree completely.

"Egality." I had to look that one up.

"Social and political equality; "egality represents an extreme leveling of society" egalite. equivalence, par, equality, equation - a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced; "on a par with the best"

We all know that's not really true. The fact is that Americans tend to use "Sir" and "Ma'am" because it feels polite and respectful, and recognizes others' achievements. It's one of the few remaining signs of gentility in an increasingly coarse world.
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 5:49:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 545
Neurons: 3,474
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Romany wrote:

It's why we don't, as a matter of course, address people as Sir or Ma'am (which latter is the prerogative of the Queen anyway!),

Ma'am is by no means restricted to Lizzie Windsor.

In the uniformed services, Sir and Ma'am are the appropriate forms to use when addressing officers (of a higher rank). They are also the appropriate forms to use when addressing members of the royal family.
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 6:01:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,382
Neurons: 44,788
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Ah, Leon & Palapaguy,

So often, in questions that come up about how to address people, or giving orders/asking...our two very different cultures throw up different answers. Over the years Drago, Thar, Tovarish et.al. have tried to explain this particular difference - because it affects the way we speak as well as what's considered good manners in different English-speaking cultures.

And after we've tried to explain why this particular instance of cultural diversity works for BE speakers, someone always comes in with a stern voice and says that their usage shows "respect" - thus seemingly, casting us as a mob of disrespectul thickos who need to be reminded what good manners are?Whistle

Yep. To you guys that's the way to show respect to someone. We really do know this.

But to us, the way we speak and address each other shows "respect" (good manners).

And for both language groups - our culture is reflected in the language.

I live for the day when an AE poster, after hearing why our way is different to theirs would just say something like "Oh, I'd never thought about that before.Yes we certainly do look at it from different points of view, don't we?".

I promise you, we aren't all a mob of disrespectful thugsAnxious We have our own codes just as you do. Respect - from our neigbours, from our government, from our co-workers, from our family,from our bosses, is very important to us. So important we don't just give it away: it has to be earned.

Our way is to treat everyone with good manners and to treat them equally. Respect is something that may or may not grow as one learns more or interacts with someone. But we're polite whether we respect them or not.

It's not a matter of whose way is the best: it's a matter of recognising - and respecting - different cultures.
thar
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 11:54:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,852
Neurons: 72,390
I have both an outsider's and insider's view of this. In BrE culture I am well aware of how hard people try to be egalitarian, and humble. I think that is also a factor. Talking about your job title or about how much you earn is simple not done! If you have a senior post, you downplay it (or risk coming across as a total wanker!). A job title belongs on a business card, not in the way someone talks to you. But there is a class divide between the 'Mr' and the 'Bob', - but I think the 'sir' or 'madam' is classless - that is just politeness when addressing a stranger.

In Iceland, it is similar in many ways, even though it is so different in others. People are still reserved, and unintrusive - they would not ask the sort of questions that Americans seem comfortable with. But there respect is not expressed in titles but by paying people the respect of a personal relationship.
I think most people would agree that Iceland is not a particularly disrepectful place, by reputation, but the idea of calling anyone sir or even Mr is just not part of personal relationships.

This is guidance for foreign businesspeople doing business in Iceland:

Quote:

Face-to-face communication

Icelanders might seem to be somewhat shy at first as they do not want to appear intrusive, but as is often the case with Nordic people, they will loosen up. The best places for getting Icelanders to open up for conversations are pubs, parties, bonfires and sometimes also hot tubs.

Business relationship
In Iceland business and pleasure are often interwoven. Things do not have to be written down on paper for them to be binding. Icelanders place a high value on keeping their word, in fact an oral agreement is binding according to the law of Iceland.

Personal titles
Just as in the English language, Icelanders do not have a formal way of saying “you”. Rather formality is expressed through the vocabulary one uses and the tone of voice. It is typical for Icelanders to address each other by their first names. Sometimes they also refer to each other as Herra, Frú and Ungfrú, equivalents for Mr, Mrs and Miss, but these words are very rarely used. This is true even in the Icelandic school system.



This is sort of a circular argument - people use first names, so there is little protocol in naming. But I think it works the other way round. There is little protocol in personal address, so people have continued to be able to use first names.

First names themselves are not without protocol of course - in the Turkish community where I live in London it is all first names but the protocols of -bey, hoca etc, indicating age, respect, power relationships, levels of intimacy, even among siblings - all completely protocol-driven. So that is an element of culture, not of 'first names'.

In this system (which, as Romany stresses, is just one system of many that address the same issues) the respect comes from recognition of the other person as an individual, not a role or a job title.

Quote:
In Iceland, we never use or address one another by last names alone. We would never address Bríet Bjarnhéðinsdóttir as Mrs Bjarnhéðinsdóttir or Bjarnhéðinsdóttir. However, it is custom to say Mr President or Madam President when introducing the President at formal occasions but we always address our Ministers and our elderly by their first name.


For example, a popular past President of Iceland was Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, who was reelected several times. If you met her, you would call her Vigdís, because she deserves that respect. So does your teacher, or your boss, or the company cleaner or the food delivery person. If your name is Vigdís, you deserve the respect of being called that - not by your job title or by some name that says you are older or younger, or more senior of junior than someone else. Your friends might well call you Dísa, but that is more intimate.

I am not saying this is better or worse than any other solution to the problem - just that terms of address are not the only sign of a civilised society. Each society has its own solution, and problems come when people from different systems interract. First names are the route in Iceland, but in Britain I find the use of my first name before that relationship point has been reached as intrusive and over-familiar. Back off! But I would never comfortably call anyone 'sir' outside of a military environment. I would not feel justifiable.
The trouble comes when people from different systems interact - and understandably apply their own system to the other's words or actions. Misunderstandings and offence taking can then ensue!

Edit
Oh, yes, and social engineering by terms of address is dodgy too. You might decide to make the company more egalitarian by saying to your workers "I am the boss of this multimillion-pound company but you can call me Bill" - but are they comfortable doing that? Who made that decision - the senior management. The employees didn't get together and say they wanted to call the boss Bill. A large number would probably be far more comfortable calling him Mr Popadopalous, but that is not an option any more, because The Boss has spoken. d'oh!
And as schoolteachers soon learn, pupils can say 'sir' with an amazing amount of disrespect packed into one syllable.
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 3:58:05 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,382
Neurons: 44,788
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Thar -

Yes, that's interesting - and would not have been such a culture shock for you when you went to UK? Or was it?

Which got me thinking: - you hear Aussies called all sorts of things, and their drinking culture is notorious. But in general Australians don't have a reputation for being rude and/or impolite. It's not a cultural stereotype of those in the Antipodes.

Yet, by the standards of many cultures Aussie contempt for titles, or people who are 'up themselves' (which includes those who want to be called "Mr/Ms") is scathing, loud and immediate. If the Prime Minister is doing a handshaking photo-op in the streets, you'll hear people calling out "Good on you, Mary", or "Pull your head in, Mary". No-one even considers that this is being disrespectful.

Also, you can know people socially for years without knowing a) They have a title: like "Lady Mary" "Sir John" ) b) an academic title: "Dr.", "Professor", etc. c) a work title: they're the CEO or General Manager, e) once had a title like "Mayor", "General".

At the same time, words that some cultures consider taboo or impolite are not only part of the Australian language, they're often used as terms of endearment or approbation. (There are still millions of Australians who simply don't understand why the USA one year, would not accept their new annual tourist slogan:"Where the bloody 'ell are you?")

And, to get respect from an Australian you really have to prove yourself! While to show respect is done mostly through a few instances over time.

But good manners are there to ensure that no-one can tell whether you respect a person or not in every culture.

Cultures differ. That's what makes life so exciting. Learning about them is, to me, a form of respect. Thinking them inferior because they differ? Not so much.

EDITED to clarify: "Mary is not the name of the Australian Prime Minister. They're going through PMs like used tissues at the moment, though, so "Mary is as good as anything."
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 10:13:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,807
Neurons: 10,237
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Thank you all of you,
But, even the kinds of job titles used in English-speaking countries are spelt differently although they are given to a person holding the same position.
For instance, the Job Title, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), used in the US, is written as General Executive Director. in the UK.
Also, the job title, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), used in the US, is written with another term, Finance Director (FD))
As a result, an English learner would be confused by such huge kinds of job titles for the same position. - There is no convention.
In my own Arabic language, we title persons according to their jobs in Arabic. So, it will not work here unless translated. Though I don't know which wordings can be the most suitable translation for any corresponding English job titles.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2018 3:11:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,140
Neurons: 176,780
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hi!
Great to see everyone agreeing to have a nice quiet discussion.

Firstly - for Leon, Romany, Palapaguy and anyone else interested - I think that thar (as the 'outside-insider' here) has seen something not mentioned by any of us so far. He is describing the Icelandic attitude, but it 'fits' my attitude too.

"respect is not expressed in titles but by paying people the respect of a personal relationship.
. . .
"For example, a popular past President of Iceland was Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, who was reelected several times. If you met her, you would call her Vigdís, because she deserves that respect. So does your teacher, or your boss, or the company cleaner or the food delivery person. If your name is Vigdís, you deserve the respect of being called that - not by your job title or by some name that says you are older or younger, or more senior of junior than someone else."


Call someone "Sir" or "Ma'am" and you're almost saying "You are excluded from my circle of friends. I treat you as someone separate from us" it is aloof (a word which is not very commonly used, really, but which describes the situation well, in my mind).

aloof - adjective
Emotionally reserved or indifferent
American Heritage
distant, unsympathetic, or supercilious in manner, attitude, or feeling Collins English Dictionary
reserved or reticent; indifferent Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary

This is why, as Bob says, they are used in the Forces (and the Police). When you are on duty, you are not friends - you are "an officer" and "a junior rank".

This why teachers are called "Sir" or "Miss" (I've never heard "Ma'am" for a teacher).
They are aloof - they are not friends of the pupils.

With normal people, it is not respectful to say "You are not in the same class as the rest of us, you are different, you are excluded" - it is respectful to say "We accept you".

*****************
To A Cooperator -

You are right. "There is no convention."
Many UK executives are called "the CEO".

It doesn't matter how many times you ask.
You will receive different replies from different people - it depends on the companies they have worked for or the universities they have attended.
Each company and college calls its executives and academicians by different titles.

You simply have to call someone by the title they use themselves.
If a person says "I'm the Managing Director", then their post title is Managing Director.
If they say "I'm the CEO", then their post title is CEO.



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2018 1:14:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,095
Neurons: 53,528
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Let me follow up Drag0's last post with a story from my dim dark past.

I was born and raised on the US left-coast (west). This is a much more casual part of the country than the Midwest, Deep South, or East Coast, especially the Northeast Coast (geographical proper names). When we graduated from high school, several of my friends went to school (college, university) in other parts of the country, a few in the northeast. I went to a small private school out here in the west that had a large number of students from around the country, and especially from the northeast prep schools. Prep schools are high-class private secondary schools. Very much a part of elite, upper class, and therefore more formal, culture.

One of my roommates came from a New York City prep school. Shortly before semester break (i.e. before the Christmas vacation), she had a meltdown, a major emotional upset. She was homesick, and very unhappy. She said she hated it here, that the people were awful. They were false friends, who pretended to like you, but then weren't really friends. (She did come back and, in fact, finished all four years.)

So, the semester ended. I went home for the vacation and, of course, got together with high school friends. We swapped stories about school. A couple of the people in school in the northeast were not very happy. They said the people weren't very nice. They were cold and unfriendly. It was very difficult to get to know anyone or make friends.

See what was happening? In each case people, my roommate on the one side and my high school friends on the other were misreading the social signals of the people around them. My roommate was reading casual interactions out here as indicative of close, personal friendship, and was distressed to find they weren't that close. My high school friends were reading eastern formality as coldness and unfriendliness, and were failing to continue relationships.

It made an immediate, big impression on me. The world is ever so much easier to deal with if one assumes that most people one will meet will be basically good, decent people who want to be nice. If it initially seems otherwise, it is absolutely most likely that signals are being misread. Shaking hands, hugging, kissing, looking someone in the eye, holding hands with a friend in public (same sex/opposite sex--two different cases), these are each appropriate in some places and not in others.

Variety is the spice of life, as the saying goes. One must just have patience and persistence. And a willingness to observe before acting helps, too.
Richard Adams 1
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:45:35 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 9/20/2018
Posts: 2
Neurons: 10
Location: Falls Church, Virginia, United States
Romany wrote:
Leon -
but it's also why Tiffany the cleaner, or Bob the security guard, would be liable to take the staff list to The Sun or the Telegraph to show them the missing capital letters and a great furore could erupt about class discrimination that all the other papers etc would comment on and everyone would get hot under the collar about.


Just a quick note, but reading over this, I think something got lost because the OP used various different castes/classes in providing their example, and their actual point was lost in that choice.

What I read the OP as saying wasn't that it's janitors or cleaners who shouldn't be capitalized, but Chairman or Senior Manager who should. Rather, they were saying that for a *group* of folks, it would not be capitalized - but for a specific, individualized title, it would.

Such that, just the same as janitors or sweepers wouldn't be capitalized in the OP's usage context, equally so "managers" would not. All the same, had you only one janitor, Janitor would be for them.

The OP also might have meant specialization/uniqueness of the title *itself*. Although I don't think they did, I figured I'd add it anyway. Such that, janitors or managers aren't capitalized. But Toilet Cleaner or Executive Development Manager would be.

Ultimately, my main reason for posting to clarify is that I *very* much did not take the OP to mean nor intend for the "salary" of the job title to play any part whatsoever in capitalizing it or not. Rather, their sole concern was more of a "batch" thing versus a singular/specialized one, and connoting an additional level of respect in more formalizing their description of that person in writing.

Hopefully what all I just wrote makes some sense and I'm correct in what I believe to be was what the OP originally meant, before the conversation sort of diverged quite a good deal.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2018 3:46:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,048
Neurons: 6,735
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Richard Adams1 I would agree if the OP was talking about cleaners or security guards in general. however in the example list of names and job titles of individuals that A Cooperator gave close to the too of this page it capitalising "important" people is exactly what they did.

A company can have several cleaners but when you are refering to an individual person their job title is Cleaner, at least in British English.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
srirr
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2018 5:25:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 6,809
Neurons: 283,907
Location: Delhi, NCT, India
An interesting thread revived! Applause

There is one point on which we all have agreed so far that it is (once again) a cultural issue how to address or greet someone. No one wants to be disrespectful, but because of the cultural values imbibed in hearts and minds, I may show a different style of respecting from someone from other part of the world. Accepted or criticized? Depends.

A cooperator wrote:


... capitalizing an employee's job title reflects that there is only one person holding that specific position in that sector/organization. However, the job titles including operatives, guards, cleaners, etc. could be given to more than one employee holding the same job title in the same sector or organization. So, I don't think that capitalising of their job titles would be acceptable.


This may not hold true. An organization may have many account managers or senior managers or directors. All these directors or vice-presidents have the first letter of their designations capitalized. Isn't it?

To me, it seems when we talk of blue collar jobs, we tend not to use capitalization. For white collar jobs, it is used. And, higher we move in hierarchy, the importance of capitalizing job title increases.



We are responsible for what we are, and whatever we wish ourselves to be, we have the power to make ourselves. ~ Swami Vivekanand
Romany
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2018 7:59:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,382
Neurons: 44,788
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Srirr wrote: "To me, it seems when we talk of blue collar jobs, we tend not to use capitalization. For white collar jobs, it is used. And, higher we move in hierarchy, the importance of capitalizing job title increases."

And, being familiar with Indian culture, I'm sure that's how it's seen from your point of view.

However, Coop was looking for "one-size-fits-all" titles and ways of writing them.

We, however,have been trying to illustrate how - and why - one simply cannot make a common ruling on such things and apply it to every culture.

So that the sentence of yours which I copied above is the very reason those of us from UK, Australia and many other countries DO adopt the the capitalisation of all titles etc.

It's precisely because it is NOT cultural for us to denigrate one section of the working population as members of an an hierarchical structure in which only those at the top of the hierarchy are important, that we DO strive for equality of address.

Most of the differences in Indian English, British English, American English, Australian English etc. etc. are dictated by our cultural differences. They are neither right or wrong but simply a demonstration of the old meme "Different strokes for different folks." Understanding language means understanding cultures as well.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2018 8:49:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,140
Neurons: 176,780
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Yeah. Go Romany! Making Great Britain Great again!

Silenced Sorry - got carried away there! Shhh

As a quick reply to Richard Adams.
I get what you mean, but (after several weeks and several threads about this same subject) that is not the problem which A Cooperator is trying to solve.

I think he knows now that (for example) there are three directors on the board of the ABC company.
The word "directors" there is just a normal word and doesn't have a capital. However:
There's the Executive Director, Finance Director and the Legal Director.
These are post titles and are capitalised.

However, he has been searching many (many, many) universities and colleges to find THE definitive post titles and personal titles of the various Deans, Professors, Heads of Department, Bursars etc. He wants to use these to translate, and needs to know how to address different posts while conversing by e-mail.

Some colleges have some words capitalised and not others. Some colleges call some names 'personal title' and others say they are 'job titles'.
(Just from the original post, one college says:
Personal title - Mr; Mrs; Miss; Dr; Professor; Chairman, Department of Modern Languages; The manager, Human Resources,

Job /post title - Accountant, secretary, salesclerk, Jeweler, "The general Secretary of the vice rector for the Academic affairs", Professor, Assistant Professor
(a whole mixture of capitals here. Why is "Secretary" capitalised, but not "General" or "Vice-Rector"? Why is Accountant capitalised but not "secretary"?)

It then became more complex because of the American habit of calling anyone who works in a university "professor" or even "Professor" - and it seems that in A Cooperator's country it's more so -
A Cooperator wrote:
"I really type in the personal fields, "Dr", if a person is either one of academic staff ranked with an Assistant Professor or above rank(Assistant Professor Co-professor/Associate Professor or Professor)"


We have given the 'stable datum' - "Use capital letters to start anyone's job title, no matter how lowly they are" - but that seems to be unacceptable.



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.