What do you call my work?

M

mikemanila

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Hi, people. This has been bugging me for some time. Now, I need to rehash my CV so I need to get this resolved - I don't know what is the usual name given to my current work. Can anyone help?

I'm an employee of an oil refiner. I do analysis of the financial performance of the company, I help create and implement financing plans for big capex projects, I evaluate financial instruments (including derivatives) for applicability to our company, I formulate and present policy recommendations to top management on things financial, I drive our enterprise-wide risk management initiatives. I'm also the CEO's sidekick when investors visit us. I have a staff - not line - function but in rank, I'm in middle management. But since this company is very stingy of titles, I'm officially a "finance officer" - which I feel doesn't really capture all that I contribute to the company.

Corporate financial analyst? Seems awkward. Comments?
 
every company has different titles which mean different things. the title isnt important, it is the work you have accomplished. i would include your official title on your resume and then explain your key responsibilities in a couple bullet points.
 
More importantly, explain what you acomplished, not just your responsibilities.
 
Actually, mike@manila has a good point. Is it always best to put down your official title? One other example of slight ambiguity is that at many research firms, the 'analyst' is the person whose name is at the top of the research report and who effectively runs the coverage universe. However, at other firms, 'analyst' is a title given to new employees out of undergrad. Similarly, some firms reserve 'research associate' for post-MBA candidates while others call their undergraduate hires 'research associate' too.

Now, let's say you were a 'research associate' at one firm where the title is reserved for undergrads, but moved to another firm where 'research associate' position is typically reserved for post-MBA's -- essentially a promotion of sorts. However, anyone who wasn't completely familiar with the two firms might think that the person just spent several years in the same position without actually moving up.

Would there be a way to explicitly express the differences in the 'research associate' title between the two firms, other than describing the nature of responsibilities through bullets?
 
numi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, mike@manila has a good point. Is it
> always best to put down your official title? One
> other example of slight ambiguity is that at many
> research firms, the 'analyst' is the person whose
> name is at the top of the research report and who
> effectively runs the coverage universe. However,
> at other firms, 'analyst' is a title given to new
> employees out of undergrad. Similarly, some firms
> reserve 'research associate' for post-MBA
> candidates while others call their undergraduate
> hires 'research associate' too.

Yeah, when I was first doing informational interviews, people said I should look at jobs as an analyst. So I looked at jobs with "Analyst" as a title. Those were for B.A.s just out of college (mostly). I've been in a job and hired at the wrong level before, and it's miserable. Then someone pointed out that you have to separate the Analyst "function" (doing analysis), from the Analyst "title," (usually a junior person recently out of college), and that someone with my background should be looking at "Associate" titles.

But the world seems to be full of exceptions. I think the size of the firm may have a lot to do with it.

>
> Now, let's say you were a 'research associate' at
> one firm where the title is reserved for
> undergrads, but moved to another firm where
> 'research associate' position is typically
> reserved for post-MBA's -- essentially a promotion
> of sorts. However, anyone who wasn't completely
> familiar with the two firms might think that the
> person just spent several years in the same
> position without actually moving up.

I have a feeling that smaller/less known firms may pass out associate titles more easily, in part, because they want to show potential clients that they have associates on their staff, and partly to attract better junior staff with a nicer title.

>
> Would there be a way to explicitly express the
> differences in the 'research associate' title
> between the two firms, other than describing the
> nature of responsibilities through bullets?

There could be a real-estate issue on your cv, but if you feel your title understates your responsabilities, you might search for one or two adjectives that you can put down in parentheses or something to indicate that your title isn't the whole story. Or you could organize your resume such that all titles have plain language functional equivalents, so it doesn't seem like you are breaking the form for one specific job.

Otherwise, I guess you just have to hope your bullets are interesting enough to catch people's eyes. Maybe organize the bullets so that the first one shows the largest responsability you had, and therefore it's clear what level of responsability you actually have. My guess is that you'd be doing that anyway, but just concentrate on getting the info out in the first bullet.

Anyway, tough issue. I think good people may recognize that titles are only the tip of the iceberg.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 11:19AM by bchadwick.
 
mike@manila,

As long as the section on your achievements and responsibilities is ok, then your title won't matter much. Changing it on your resume won't look good when recruiters do a reference check. It could cause confusion and shed doubts on your legitimate achievements.

You might want to refer to yourself as "the" finance officer instead of "a" finance officer.

If it really bothers you, why not ask for a change in title? Depending on how long you have been doing this work, your career progress and the purpose of writing your resume, it could be on the cards.

numi, good question. I suppose that one would assume that it was a post MBA role if you had an MBA. I�m not sure how one would differentiate the role without listing the achievements/responsibilities. Perhaps insert �(a post-MBA role)� after the title.
 
mike@manila Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Corporate financial analyst? Seems awkward.
> Comments?



I am not sure Corporate Financial Analyst is awkward - I am not sure what country you are in, but in Canada there are several company's with positions similar to what you described and more times than not they are titled corporate financial analyst.
 
bchadwick and imp, thanks for the insights. How often do people use parentheses to supplement job titles? Also, would it be appropriate to label the title as "Senior Research Associate" if (1) you were now working at a firm where associates (post-MBA) were clearly more experienced than associates elsewere (undergrad), and (2) there was another associate or someone less experienced working on your team, thereby making them "junior" relative to you, and (3) you were previously an 'associate' working at a firm where that job title typically pertained to undergrad hires? Or would it only be apppropriate to title it "Research Associate" and just explain in bullets that the role/responsibilities were more senior and advanced?

I guess I just want to be clear about any "rules" that might exist concerning how you express the job title on your resume. On the other hand, if it always has to be the "official" title as designated by the firm, then it's an unambiguous point anyway.

bchadwick -- also, what did you mean by "plain language functional equivalent"?

Thank you

<<numi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, mike@manila has a good point. Is it
> always best to put down your official title? One
> other example of slight ambiguity is that at many
> research firms, the 'analyst' is the person whose
> name is at the top of the research report and who
> effectively runs the coverage universe. However,
> at other firms, 'analyst' is a title given to new
> employees out of undergrad. Similarly, some firms
> reserve 'research associate' for post-MBA
> candidates while others call their undergraduate
> hires 'research associate' too.

>
> Now, let's say you were a 'research associate' at
> one firm where the title is reserved for
> undergrads, but moved to another firm where
> 'research associate' position is typically
> reserved for post-MBA's -- essentially a promotion
> of sorts. However, anyone who wasn't completely
> familiar with the two firms might think that the
> person just spent several years in the same
> position without actually moving up.

> Would there be a way to explicitly express the
> differences in the 'research associate' title
> between the two firms, other than describing the
> nature of responsibilities through bullets?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 12:02PM by numi.
 
I'd always go with the actual title, but I don't have much experience in this area. I would like to hear what others think.
 
Making up titles can be a problem as this is one of the things that is part of the the background check made by the new employer. So if you were a Research Associate and you wrote Senior Research Associate, it might become a problem.

Now some firms do have a Senior Research Associate slot - these are far and few, but make the most sense for people such as bchadwick and I to target (~35 age career transitioners).
 
I was just curious. Actually, the major sell-side shops typically don't make a distinction between who's senior and who's junior -- they just lump them all into the 'associate' category. Easiest way to tell the difference between a junior person versus a senior person is responsibilities (client interaction, modeling skills, independent coverage, etc.) and compensation (big difference between MBA and UG). In any case, I've seen more 'senior associate' titles for the buy-side.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 12:41PM by numi.
 
numi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stuff about "senior research associate"...

In the consulting world, "senior research associate" is either a senior researcher who is "associated," meaning probably not there full time, and often there just to lend academic or other credentials to the list of associates, or they are a "research associate" that has been there a long time, and has needed an improvement in his/her title to reflect that (or keep them from jumping ship). Often times there are also issues that in order to push a salary beyond a certain range, you need that kind of promotion, but you (or they) may want to keep them in a position that uses their technical talents, rather than administrative or management positions, which is where promotions within an organization tend to go after a certain point.

I assume that it is fairly similar in the investment management world, though I could be wrong.

>
> I guess I just want to be clear about any "rules"
> that might exist concerning how you express the
> job title on your resume. On the other hand, if it
> always has to be the "official" title as
> designated by the firm, then it's an unambiguous
> point anyway.

The money industry is - understandably - much more finicky about checking up on past titles, credentials, and - to the extent possible - compensation. In fact, the CFA standards and practice says that a hiring manager MUST follow up on references, or have someone do it for them. I've often wondered if there have been reference checks for my past jobs, but no wondering for the next job. So, in many other industries, if you change your official title around, they might not notice or care, but my guess is you had better have your real title on the resume no matter what (unless you just leave it off). If they find that you've changed your title, even to make it more descriptive, they may figure you're lying or embellishing it and other things. In my mind, not worth the risk.

> bchadwick -- also, what did you mean by "plain
> language functional equivalent"?

"plain language functional equivalent" referrs to the fact that if you must put your official title, and your title sounds too junior or undescriptive, you may be able to find a quick 2-3 word description that more precisely indicates what you do. So, something like "Research Analyst (Health Sector Equities, Post-MBA level)" allows you to say more without risking taking heat for playing around with your title.
 
Finance Officer is a good title if the firm is recognizable. Officer, to me, means that you operate in an executive decision making capacity (i.e. directing major capex projects), and presumably have the same or better skills than an analyst, since you'd be supervising them. I wouldn't change a thing; you're achievements and responsibilities are going to be a few millimeters under your title anyway. Hold it up with pride.
 
Thanks for all your comments. In fact, I'm printing out this thread for future reference.

Looking at your post, I think there's really no choice but to put my exact title on my resume and bullet points underneath to say what I exactly do.

Still, on interviews and the like (and in filling out forms like what CFAI requires of us), it's difficult to go on a long-winded explanation of what my job is. Anyway, that may not be avoidable.

Thanks again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top