The Trouble With Your Job Title

Job titles. People tend to either avoid mentioning them or they wear them like a badge, looking for opportunities to mention them while asking for the balsamic. It's often a case of social 'posturing' and people push the most impressive facts forward and avoid the rest. As soon as we reach a level which has 'senior' strapped to the front of it or 'manager' strapped to the back then our behaviour changes a bit. We may consider leaving our newly-printed business cards lying around conspicuously, next to the copier or the kettle, or updating our email signature and mailing people we hardly know or like. It's a big deal.

The trouble is that your title seldom illustrates what you do or are responsible for. It may just be me, but if I ask you what you do it's because I want to know what you do. I'm far more captivated by a picture of your average day and responsibilities than in a title which means 5 things in 5 places. But that's just me. Sometimes it takes some conviction to wade through the posturing which is sometimes the first response.

Our identities can get wrapped up in these things which is interesting because they are usually things which get assigned to us, like a desk, or a stapler. It's easy to be the person that is, but would we be willing to drop it to be known as the person who does, which is a little less socially economical? Unless it's something you've fought for then it's weird to get protective over it.

Corporates like titles because they keep things neat. It's easier to control what's going on when the names are in the right blocks. As long as the organogram is neat then people should know how to behave around each other and there should be less need for sombre discussions in the HR office, in theory. Titles are also handy managerial tools: "As an ABC we expect you to be able to.." or "you're unlikely to become an XYZ until you can..". They're also handy retention tools when necessary: "If you withdraw your letter we'll promote you to ABC..". And recruitment: firms can offer inflated titles to ordinary jobs in order to lure staff from competitors. Staff move and feel smart until they realise they're doing the same stupid work further from home. And so on.

One of the challenges in Corporates is staff responding to this neatness by sticking to their boxes with a "that's not really my job" reaction to things. So, while the employer is encouraging teamwork and collaboration, the Strategically Titled are letting that phone ring because, like, where the hell is that guy anyway?

Smaller firms such as agencies and start-ups have an opposite challenge. They often fumble around for titles because their focus is more on the important work at hand than where everyone fits in. They're just trying to get the work done. You can usually spot the new guy who came across from the corporate, other than by the chinos and nice hair. He'll spend a few weeks asking questions like "who do I report to?", and "is there a template for this?". For some small firms creating titles it's often a creative upwelling resulting in a resident Skull Grinder and an Awesomeness Master, which look cute on cards but may make your next job move challenging.

In most cases, you will be limited by your title. William Wallace said something about people following courage rather than titles, and while most of us don't aspire to lead with a broadsword we do need to be taken seriously. I'd suggest that if the suits down the passage won't consider your innovation because of your title then you may be working at the end of the wrong passage. And if you're not prepared to take your idea down the passage because of your title then you're just playing their game. Choose awesomeness, despite what the email signature says.

Work Is Like A Pocket of Marbles

Work is a transaction.

It sounds a little impersonal. 'Transactions' are not really things which happen in relationships where there's warmth and care, but rather sounds like stuff between people on opposite sides of armoured glass. At it's core, though, this is what work is. Let's break it down a little to see if the reference is valid.

John introduces himself to The Corporation and presents his skills, experience and time. All three are an attractive bundle for The Corporation (because none of them would be useful individually) which has certain needs. But it's a transaction, so John now allows The Corporation to present itself. A positive environment, plenty of opportunity and an amount of money are offered in exchange. A piece of paper is signed and John agrees to sell a portion of his day to The Corporation in which he will use his skills and experience for their betterment instead of his. Seems fair, I mean, this is what happens.

It's important to identify where the 'sacrifice' is sitting. John enjoys using his skills and The Corporation already had a positive environment which they benefitted from, so neither are a sacrifice. John's time and the money offered for it are both sacrifices, as he would rather spend his time spraying his roses and The Corporation could be spending the money on new cutlery for the staff kitchen. And maybe a sandwich toaster. This is the core of the transaction, time and money. The rest of the items on the signed paper are peripheral and add some colour to the arrangement, but it is these aspects which either create balance or imbalance. John's perception of what he is receiving for his time will ultimately either bring contentment or anxiety.

Now, let's imagine that all aspects of the daily transaction are represented by marbles. Not the ones with green shapes in the middle though, because they look like snake eyes. John receives marbles monthly which represent all which the Corporation is offering him, and he uses up the marbles as he gives of his time and uses his skills and experience at work. Let's ignore money for now because it isn't really variable like the other things. For the sake of the analogy, John walks in with a pocket of marbles daily and pops them into a box next to his desk during the course of the day, representing all that he is contributing, until the end of his day. Because the employment arrangement is equitable, all marbles are used up daily.

Then the fun starts. A demanding project means that John has to put in some extra hours. He works late for a period, starts to skip on his exercise routine and misses his daughter's first word one evening. It happened to be 'dog' but that's not the point. John finds himself dipping into his personal stash of marbles (time, perhaps) in order to deposit all that is required into the box. Now there's an imbalance and John is 'poorer' for it. But then John's commitment is noticed by The Executive who show their personal appreciation and suggest that this could fast-track his progress. Balance is restored as the previously-lacking marbles are replenished through hope and prospects. Then the project at work ends but a new expectation has been created and John struggles to dial back his hours as more responsibility is placed in his capable hands. Displays of competence can do this. Then John's immediate Manager suggests that he's being creative when completing his timesheets. The tone changes, and the long hours and spirit of mistrust mean that John starts running out of marbles by mid-afternoon, again, having to dip into a personal supply. The Executive become aware of the situation. They don't want to remove him from his important accounts which are flourishing, and avoid addressing his Manager because she's related to the MD, so start discussing whether the window seat will restore balance for John. It won't cost them money, and it's pretty easy to move that other guy to the copy room.

This is the transaction which takes place daily. Balance comes and goes sometimes several times a day, and the equity of the whole thing can really only be determined by the employee in the middle of it. But if any imbalance is left unaddressed then we're all at risk of missing more than the word 'dog'.