It is interesting that the native Americans we conquered, thought the CIRCLE was a good metaphor for meetings. Maybe we could provide titles to people according to how we perceive them. How about "Man Who Cannot Manage"? (my boss) :)

V. Cornue has some great insights on new working paradigms for baby boomers at http://www.Vaboomer.com

Embedded assumptions are everywhere in corporate America & especially harmful to women. I'll never forget a new Manager in a Fortune 500 company saying his "big advantage" was a "CLEAN SLATE". I later decoded that to mean "he didn't know a darn thing about our dept's work". Try doing that as a woman. It was an embedded, unspoken "benefit of the doubt" accorded willingly to a man.

Love your work Tamara. ~ Nancy

I work from home about 2 days a week so people have no idea how many hours I really work. This can work for me or against me. Sometimes I work really long hours without largely visible results. Sometimes I am working on something that takes 15 mins but where the output is obvious for people to see.

Therefore I have to manage this quite carefully to manage the expectations of others. Despite the growing number of home workers in the UK many people imagine that we lounge around watching tv (and updating our blogs....)

Chris

http://learn2develop.blogspot.com

I LOVE IT!

I work in the logging industry, steeped high in tradition, adverse to any change, struggling with certification and the need for diversification with absolutely no exposure to change management. All this, while fighting a negative reputation, with a lot of people who feel trapped under the mounds of “iron” they own, while their ability to pay their bills lie in the hands of the mills that can change quotas and contracts in a heartbeat.

I would love to institute some of these ideas with the companies I work with, but struggling every day just to push them out of “Quadrant One” seems like a near impossible task. Unless results are visible immediately, new ideas will fall by the wayside. In corporate America, in general, there seems to be openness to new ideas, not found in the woods.

Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

The idea of the needless of job titles is observed in Henry Ford's "My Life & Work". It seems amazing that he discovered the importance of the idea in the early 1910s!

I dunno. Humans seek status. People want respect and status as much (or more) than money. Organizations use titles partly as a form of psychic pay. Employees may say they don't care about titles, but deep down many do.

When the first dot com boom happened, a bunch of new companies sprang up, with young employees. I hoped that these new young companies would not use job titles - that they could get away from these relics of the old economy. But it didn't happen. The new companies were eager to give out titles (psychic pay so they could keep monetary pay lower), and employees strutted around town with their fancy titles. It's human nature to want a title. For many people, at least.

If one wanders around the silicon valley and attends to some people in social settings, they would find plethora of VPs, Associates etc. You may seem delusional (and question your own job title) but sometimes everyone could be a VP in the gathering. Just like grades in the school, titles are definitely inflated beyond limits.

Eight to ten years worth of experience could land you a VP title. So assuming one graduates at 23, at 33 you would be a VP.
The words of the title propose much more, but then it is such a social phenomenon that it would fade away and VP would make sense in this new economy.

I feel companies need to check the titles very carefully. They dont need to do away with them. That would not be an organization any more (more of a contractual work arrangement).

Yasser

My last blog post took up this same matter as I told the story of an experience on my high school basketball team.

It is true that people seek status. And it is true that conventional job titles easily suggest some sort of narrative that goes with the title.

But accomplishment regardless of title can also award status within organizations.

I'm continually searching for ways to award status based on contribution over that of title. Successful organizations seem to be made up of people who sought meaningful contributions regardless of title or formal authority.

Thoughtful subject...thanks for stirring the pot with this post.

Keep creating,
Mike

One of the eight or so "bases" of power is "position" or "title" power. To take that base away from the next generation of managers does not benefit them.

Its an interesting idea.

Titles should be, to me, informative. They should say "what", and not "who". They should indicate the content of one's workday, and not the power associated with it, because the concept of "power" in the work place to me should be inherent in the titles that truly have it.

A CEO, is, by definition, a chief, and therein lies a certain degree of power. A "C++ Developer" is just that, implying a degree of power by way of knowledge.

But when you start handing out meaningless titles meant to convey nothing more than a step on an invisible (or worse yet, imaginary) staircase, they lose any real integral value and instead become tools of ego, unnecessary, and in some cases un-earned. "Associates" become "Assistants" become "Executive Assistants" become..what? What is it, what does it mean, and how is it better than what you were previously? What message do empty titles send to others, and what comfort can one take in it themselves as a true measure of accomplishment?

Titles should say what we do, but never who we are.

Let genuine accomplishments be rewarded in more genuine, and tangible ways.

Enjoyable article.

I agree that corporations have figured out its cheaper to give someone a "VP" title instead of more money. It doesn't cost a dime to give titles. But people buy into it. Its not going away soon.

What is your perception of someone who says "I'm President" vs. "I'm an Assistant"? And "Assistant to the President" means something too. It says something about who you are, what you do and how you should be approached.

In addition to getting a new title (and promotion) employees could negotiate responsibilities and negotiate "who reports to who".

There is leadership, there is power. Titles convey those ideas nicely. Titles have been around for 2000 years. Why change it now? Is there new research that explains why?

Hmmmm , let me guess -- Boomers got THEIR titles but Gen Xers should not expect any title. Xers shouldn't expect to move up because there is "less room at the top" of the rectangular shaped organization. AND I QUOTE: "it will become increasingly impossible to move people “up” often enough to provide enough variety and opportunity for increased compensation".

Why should younger generations compromise?

Good article!

This statement is a misleading generalization: 'many younger employees aren’t particularly interested in “up” – they prefer challenge and variety, but don’t care much about managerial responsibility. “Up” is out.'

This sounds good but I'm not convinced this is actually based on anything. I work at a company with about 50 employees, half of whom are under the age of 30. I absolutely agree that there are some who don't want managerial responsibility and moving 'up' necessarily. But I would also argue that this is true of many people I've met above the age of 50 as well. Within my company there's also quite a few in the under-30 set who do care quite a bit about job titles, moving up, and taking on more managerial responsibility.

Power transferred by virtue of title is a false sort of power that is only as useful as the wielder is capable. If we were to do away with titles we might find that power and decision making responsibility shifted more fluidly to those most capable of weilding it effectively.

How many of us have been 'managed' by someone inept and had to expend huge effort in 'managing up' to ensure that their ineptitude didn't impact significantly on our own capacity?

Bring on an organisation where titles denote skills and people management was left to those with the inclination and ability to do it properly.

Informal networks can be highly influential in some organizations. The powerful will yield influence with or without titles. I think that MBO is a more reliable way towards greater organizational effectiveness. It may be more of a journey of rediscovery than hacking for professional business managers.

I think this is crazy and will never happen.

What ever happened to the old storyline about how there are not enough leaders/managers to fill departing Baby Boomer's jobs? Now organizations are "rectangular shaped"?

This sounds like a dilema for organisations wishing to appear global. They are having a hard time differentiating whether status is ascribed or achieved or whether a blend of the two is appropriate for them (based on what everyone else appears to be doing). There is not a one size fits all solution. National and organisational culture needs to be clearly defined before any decisions of this potential magnitude can be reached.

Unfortunately it appears to me as if organisations looking at "hacking" have no clear direction other than they feel the need to do something because they might be accused of standing still. Doing something for the sake of it is as bad as not doing anything at all.

MBO, status, power and all traditional rewards need to be reassessed to find the best mix for your particular organisation. It is not a case of letting employees run roughshot over managers. It is time to develop partnerships within the organisation so that employees can give and feel their best. It isn't difficult, just different.

Speaking from the younger generation's perspective (I am 24), I agree that my peers and I are not as interested in moving 'up' as previous generations have been. However, we are goal-oriented, and we do desire to be heard.

I love the idea of removing bureaucratic titles, though I do think titles provide something of a road map for us. I am very goal-oriented, and that next 'title' gives me something to work towards. I wonder in the practical sense how removing titles would effect how things like career success and salary would be measured.

titles or positions have to be worked for, and i think anybody in the organization aspires to move up to where higher responsibility and challenging role is along with equivalent compensation. As a matter of fact titles and positions are limited depending on the organizational structure and this sometimes resort into power struggles

i agree on one of the commentators that titles assume "psychic pay" when you acquire certain promotion it is something about self-fulfillment, monetary consideration would just become next important.

Ms Tamara Ercikson you really have a great idea!

Working without a title is like living without breathing.

Very simply put there is always a one end-decision maker and unfortunately without titles it becomes unclear who is the empowered person who makes such a decision.

Similarly personally I have experienced an event related to titles or rather the lack in the use of a title.

I know of a situation where in an organic structure yet where decisions are strictly top down on an end of year evaluation the employer asked the employee if he had an academic title.
Fortunately he had 2 academic titles and the proof of evidence was shown.

Working without titles can lead to misjudged and incorrect situations. Decisions and judgments are based on the total picture and the total pictures is not always clearly visible. Using titles gives definition and mandates to act on.

I can understand the no tilte idea proposition but every situation is unique. That what works for one situation possibly will not work for another. With a common respect for each other and not looking at racial backgrounds or other backgrounds working without titles might be possible. This ideal is what it states, an ideal.

I believe that the best working environment is the environment that is based on trust between all interoperable disciplines (individuals).

Everyone should bound (know) his experience and knowledge which he use in the enterprise. As mentioned in the article, the roles will be defined naturally although there maybe some risks from where some emotional feeling will affect individuals but eventually the owner of the business will be able to distinguish.

knowledge is everywhere but we need to seek it properly based on responsibility

Execuse my bad english

An interesting and ultimately valuable insight I think, and very appropos to my company.

I work at a company that has grown rapidly over the past five years. As a result, we are a young organization, top to bottom, and thanks to the growth and cash flow we have attracted lots of quality people who have remained loyal to their first employer as the titles and money flowed. However, the growth is slowing and cash is tight, and so the opportunities for advancement and "the next greatest thing" have largely dried up. The company is visibly struggling for new ways to make jobs meaningful and keep employees engaged, but we're stuck in the pyramid mindset, resulting in career gridlock.

Your suggestion would seem to be the answer to our thorny problem, except that it requires a transformed (hacked?) HR function, one that is able to accurately assess the value of individual labor to the company without the benefit of organizational position as a template. If the particular resource is a manager last year, a senior individual contributor this year, and lined-up for part-time on multiple projects next year, how do you compensate them? I think it would require expanding and projecting the HR function into the functional areas, where they would have daily visibility into the added value and quality of work any given employee provides. For many companies that have cost-reduced (and out-sourced) the HR function, this is the opposite of current design and requires much more skill.

The idea of a square organization and floating job title would seem to answer the needs of the employee, allowing them to seek interesting work without worrying if it would result in a dimunition of perceived value or compensation, but it does challenge the company to come up with the best use of internal labor resources. If a resource comes with a given cost burden, will the company support using it on a lower priority project, even though the resource wants to work on it? Can/would the company come up with an alternative compensation scheme that transfers some or all of that cost burden back on the resource, in the form of diminished pay or bonus? Can employees accept a breaking of the paradigm that you will always make more as you get older?

I hope this idea works - it would be of great benefit to me - but I think the devil is indeed in the details of this concept.