ARTICLES

Titles signal status. In hierarchical businesses, the gap between titles at different levels communicates something about who is valued, whose judgment counts and whose contribution is considered strategic versus operational. When the most junior people in a business carry the most generic titles — “coordinator,” “associate,” “assistant” — regardless of the complexity or impact of their work, the signal is not subtle.

Titles also shape identity and self-perception. Research on role identity suggests that what people are called influences how they think about the scope of their contribution. A person whose title reflects the strategic dimension of their work thinks about their role differently from someone whose title describes only the functional one.

And titles shape external perception in ways that affect an businesses ability to attract and retain people. Candidates compare titles across businesses as a proxy for seniority and progression opportunity. A title that is generic relative to market equivalents can make a role look less advanced than it is, and can affect both who applies and whether a strong candidate accepts.

None of this suggests that title inflation,  escalating everyone’s title regardless of responsibility, is the answer. It suggests that businesses should be deliberate about what their titling conventions are communicating, and whether that communication is serving their business, people and their culture.

 

If you want practical support reviewing your workplace policies, contracts, leadership capability, or workplace culture, Blue Kite HR Consulting can help you take a proactive approach before issues become bigger problems.