Do you have to have staff reporting to you to be a manager?

[Creampastry]

Strange question, but can you be a manager if you have no staff which report directly to you? There is a role I am interested in which is manager level but I am told not recognised as manager level because there are no direct subordinates. Is this right/fair?

I'd assume any manager had people to manage.

I'd suggest you can be a manager without staff, you can manage projects / budgets etc.

Depends how the company is managed. I work for a company with a matrix management system, your line manager does not necessarily manage your day to day work. We have people who project manage who don't have any direct subordinates (the people who report to them on a project are technical specialists who are frequently the same grade as the manager and sometimes are a higher grade). On the other hand we have (more junior) people who line manage but who don't yet manage people on projects.

In my organisation you can be a specialist and therefore be at managerial level hierarchically and with a manager title or an area sales manager and not have a team but mostly I think you would have people reporting to you.

Perhaps... you might be a project manager (though that implies staff)

maybe?

Why do people put the term manager in titles unless they manage staff though?

Just because your job title does not carry the term manager, does not mean you are not working at the same level/pay grade as management. You just may not need so much assistance in your department.

I would say that to be a manager of a department would be wierd with no staff?

Yes, in banking and finance manager level positions may manage projects/strategy/customers etc

I don't understand how it can be manager level but not recognised as such, it either is manager level or it isn't.

I'm a project manager. I have no direct lines. However on each of my projects staff are seconded in and are part of the team I oversee and they have responsibilities within the project, even though they direct line elsewhere as part of their normal role. I'm recognised as a manager and part of the management team.

If it's not recognised as a manager, then it's not a manager level role. I think someone is having you on.

Yes that is true. I had a job as a "contracts manager" years ago as a temp. I always felt it was a bit of a twatty title though. Same in finance there are "manager" titles flung about which mean nothing other than the managing of your particular job. I have also regularly seen "marketing managers" who don't manage people.

So while it happens and seems to be the done thing I always look and think another one of those "titles" again. A bit like people putting their letters after their name in internal memos.

Cream pastry it really depends on what you are doing.
I think if you are there as expertise it would often be the case that you are not managing anyone, but are paid and respected as well as managers of departments. Obviously you would not be a manager as such as you would not be managing anyone and the addition of the manager tag would be pointless

I was a manager for a bank. I managed a portfolio of customers but was never anyone's line manager. There were managers who managed staff but they could often be a lower pay grade than me. I always felt a bit odd putting Bank Manager as my occupation on official forms as I've never actually managed a bank. Same as my DH - he's managed to become a Director in a bank without ever once in his career having any staff directly reporting to him.

It's perfectly possible to manage something, a process, area of work or similar, without having any direct reports, but its down to each individual organisation to decide what roles it has and what 'counts' as management.

I find it odd that you say the role you are looking at "is manager level but... not recognised as manager level". How does that work then? Either your organisation has decided that role is management or it isn't?

Salespeople are often called business managers or account managers - they wouldn't have any other staff to manage

I'm not sure this is a job title issue as such, i suspect maybe there is a salary structure issue behind the post ie it's being put forward as management level but is not paid accordingly. The op would need to clarify.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to pay managers who actually have to deal with all the headaches of managing staff more than those who are called managers but don't have that to deal with though. Is that the issue OP?