Employee roles and seniority have generally been defined in simple terms. However, as jobs change, new – and sometimes arbitrary – titles emerge. What’s the risk?
CEO stands for Chief Executive Officer. Marketing manager. Author in charge. Sales representative. For many years, job titles like these have been the norm in the workplace. They’re brief and to-the-point, conveying important employee information like job function and seniority. They are clear to both employees and recruiters, leaving little room for ambiguity.
However, job titles are another feature that is changing in the ever-changing world of work. Labels such as “chief visionary officer,” “chief innovation evangelist,” “business development guru,” and “chief remote officer” are emerging, making the traditional system appear rigid, if not stale.
On the surface, there may appear to be little harm in changing an employee’s name or creating entirely new titles. After all, as jobs become more adaptable, Job functions and how we describe them are evolving as well. These new titles, in many ways, reflect the changing times; they enable some employees to discover new talents or feel a stronger sense of belonging.
However, there is a reason why traditional job titles have lasted so long – and why loosening the rules to create arbitrary titles isn’t always the best approach.
Clear and rigid
Job titles serve a variety of functions. In general, they are distinct and reflect the employee’s seniority and responsibilities. For example, it is widely assumed that assistants are lower than associates, who are lower than directors, who are lower than vice presidents, who are lower than CEOs. Clear titles indicate hierarchy and responsibility, as well as a path to earning status and advancement. They’re also how employees look for appropriate roles when job hunting, and they’re what recruiters base their searches on.
While most industries have had some iteration of these status indicators in the past, this is especially true in hierarchical industries, where an employee’s title corresponds to their rank in an organisation across companies.
If my job is all about getting attention, then the title should do that, too – Lennie Hughes
The legal profession is a prime example. “Traditionally, in most firms, career progression in law is from trainee solicitor to solicitor, to associate, salaried partner, and then equity partner,” explains Rustom Tata, partner and chairman of DMH Stallard in London. “It conveys relative seniority within a specific firm’s perspective on an employee’s experience and development.” While many law firms have added new layers to their organisational structure in recent years, such as “senior associate,” “managing associate,” and “paralegal,” the language of job titles and where they rank in a company remains clear and understood across the industry, according to Tata.
However, while job titles are fairly established in industries such as law and finance, they are evolving in many other industries, particularly creative ones. Employers in less rigid settings have nearly free rein to create job titles for employees, whether new or recently promoted. These new titles can be used as recruitment or retention tools, as well as to attract clients’ attention.
This was the case for Lennie Hughes, the ‘head of hype and culture’ at Truant, a creative advertising agency based in London. The position was initially advertised as a more traditional ‘head of marketing and new business,’ not as this title. According to Hughes, what stood out during his interviews was his strong people skills and natural culture fit – rather than traditional marketing experience.
Hughes collaborated with Truant to develop a new title for the role he’d take on, one that focused on fusing traditional external branding and communications with a new perspective on internal workplace culture. His daily responsibilities include curating live events, podcasts, and apparel lines, as well as managing social media accounts and press releases.
While marketing and new business are still in Hughes’s remit, he says the new title suits him better – he feels it’s “innovative”. He also acknowledges that it has strategic value. “If the purpose of my job is to attract attention, then the title should do the same.”
A ‘PR move’?
According to experts and employees alike, flashy, even arbitrary job titles can have an advantage.
According to Pawel Adrjan, director of EMEA economic research at the hiring platform Indeed, based in London, changing job titles can help employees feel more valued at work. He cites Indeed data obtained by BBC Worklife, which shows that “people” has surpassed the traditional title of “human resources”; similarly, the standard title of “talent acquisition” has increased by 75%, while “recruitment” has decreased by 19% since 2019. Similarly, “client success” and “customer success” are replacing “sales” in job titles.
“The term ‘human resources’ can sound bureaucratic,” Adrjan says. “By instead using ‘people’ in the title, employers can say they invest in people. This language allows you to Companies are attempting to demonstrate that they value individuals as customers and partners, rather than as resources to be exploited.”
Employees who are given unique, newly minted titles may find them exciting. “It gives you a lot more confidence,” Hughes says. “They believe in your abilities and promise to do everything in their power to create an environment in which you can thrive and develop.” Traditional titles, he adds, “can feel restrictive” because many job paths are no longer linear.
From the recruiter’s standpoint, they can help lure workers by signalling a progressive, even fun culture. These vague-but-flashy titles can also help companies tap a broad candidate pool. This may be especially useful in a tight job market, says Adrjan. “When hiring is so competitive, employers have to do more to stand out from the crowd: from offering pay, benefits or even job titles.” It is, as Hughes points out, “a PR move”.
However, the downsides of new monikers can be significant, too.
For starters, they can be fluffy and meaningless at times, leaving employees with a grandiose title but little guidance as to what their job actually entails. “Rather than ‘barista’ or ‘HGV driver,’ ‘team member’ has become popular as a branding exercise,” Adrjan says. “It implies that the candidate will be a valuable member of the company, but it provides no information about the occupation.”
Finally, when a non-descriptive, inflated job title is used as a low-cost recruiting tactic to boost worker ego, the ambiguity can lead to a misalignment of expectations between employer and employee. At the extreme, this could result in jobs being oversold.