Do titles matter?

Title policies are a sensitive matter, and hot topic, in many organizations. However, how, and which titles are used varies greatly.

1. Most companies come up with titles that express #hierarchy rather than job content, think “Director” or “Vice President”. These titles stem from traditional hierarchical structures as they are geared towards the concept of a position being superior and inferior to others, and are often associated with the amount of power and importance.

2. A similar concept is using “Head of”, which may be linked to leading a department or organization but might as well just indicate someone overseeing a certain topic, no matter if they lead a team or not (in which case “Head of” may be over-used).

3. Building titles around job content rather than hierarchy is most used in smaller companies or those with flat hierarchies, think “Accountant” or “Quality Engineer”. These titles represent a profession, like in the old days when your family name indicated the work you are doing – Miller, Baker, or Smith.

The key question is: What does the usage of titles tell you about a company’s culture? Does hierarchy rule, and leadership is considered a matter of power and authority? Does job content matter, and what someone does in their daily work, regardless of their rank?

My opinion is that organizations do not work without any titles but that companies should choose wisely which approach they take:

• If you are a traditional, hierarchy-based company, adopting titles from fancy start-ups is nothing short of ridiculous.

• If you aspire to delegate authority and empower your people, sticking to hierarchy-driven titles might indicate that you are not serious about this goal.

• If you adopt a title policy, be consistent and avoid an inflation of made-up titles. Stick to one concept and have a clear definition of each set of titles.