Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 26

= August 26 =

Direct reports VS Functional reports
I work for a joint-venture and their organizational structure uses the terms "direct reports" and "functional reports"

Direct reports seems fairly simple - people below you who report to you in the course of your normal work. However, I don't understand functional reports and my boss - who is ESL - is having difficulty explaining it to me.

Help! (Thank you!) 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my (U.S.-based) experience, a "direct report" means not only someone who reports to you, but for whom you are the primary supervisor. You typically review this person's performance and decide on salary raises or bonuses -- or at least recommend these to your boss, to whom you are a direct report.
 * I would take "functional report" to mean the equivalent of a boss/subordinate relationship but without direct authority, personnel/salary responsibilities, and so on. For example, I worked directly for the director of human resource development, but spent a year and a half in charge of developing training for a large software project.  During that time, I functionally reported to a vice-president in the computer services department.  The VP technically had no direct control over me -- hadn't hired, couldn't fire, didn't control my salary -- but essentially functioned as my supervisor.  For example, my "real" boss consulted with the VP in order to write my performance review.
 * Not to say that this is your situation; just an example of what "functional report" mean in one case. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We have the same distinction where I work. I am in charge of a project, and so a number of people take direction from and report to me on that project.  However, I do not have the power to grant them promotions or raises or reassign them to a different project.  Only my boss, the head of the department, can do that.  These people are my functional reports but, like me, my boss's direct reports.  Marco polo (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, if you were working on more than one project at a time, you could report functionally to more than one supervisor. Marco polo (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OP here - excellent. Thank you everyone, it's crystal clear now! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The functional report can be referred to as a " dotted-line" reporting relationship, which is sometimes shown on organization charts by, well, a dotted line (rather than a solid one, which would indicate a direct report). At a large loan-processing company with six field locations, each location had a training specialist.  The specialist had a solid-line (direct) reporting relationship to the manager of training back at headquarters, but a dotted-line reporting relationship with the manager of the field location.
 * Dotted-line can also mean you have multiple responsibilities, some of which are overseen by your direct supervisor, and some by the person to whom you have the functional relationship. In other words, it's not necessarily a choice between only direct and only functional.  OtherDave (talk)

Cook vs. Lewis (1951), Canada
plzz guide me about the 'cook vs lewis(1951)' case. it is a case of tortious liablity. this case happened in canada. the case belong to the archive of canada supreme cort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutanswami (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a homework question? If so, you need to show you've made an attempt to do it yourself.  If not, then what do you wish to know about Cook vs Lewis (bearing in mind that the RefDesk cannot give legal advice)?  There's a detailed description of the case here, along with the opinions of the judges who considered and dismissed the Supreme Court appeal against earlier verdicts in lower courts.  Ka renjc 21:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Role and status of women under the Franco regime in Spain
My question mostly lies with the fascist and Catholic women who were on the Nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War. Those women who followed Franco believed in his cause even though he felt they had fewer and very different natural rights as compared to men. Despite this, most of the women of the right in Spain which I have read about fancied themselves feminists in certain respects because they were advancing women's movements within the context of fascism. I am wondering about the more in depth and complicated reconciliations which would have had to take place for the logic of taking away rights to advance female causes to take place. Also, how did these ideas play out with time? Did Franco have to make any concessions to women as his dictatorship drew on into the 70's? Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.185.56 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't have much, but a quick search turns up some interesting topics. See Mujeres Libres, an anarchist Women's movement that formed in Spain during the early years of the Franco regime.  The film Libertarias apparently covers the topic.  -- Jayron  32  02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)