What’s in a Title

Victoria Griffith on the trend towards egalitarian organizational structures in the US

The next time you are handed an American’s business card it may look strangely uncluttered. Instead of the customary “vice-president” of this, or “chief officer” of that, there may be just the person’s name and a space.

Companies in a number of sectors are stripping away titles. Entertainment giant Walt Disney, motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson, the newswire group Bloomberg, and computer groups Microsoft and Silicon Graphics are among those which are dumping titles.

Walt Disney calls almost everyone in the group a “customer service representative”. Harley-Davidson has eliminated some titles, including executive vice-president, machine operator and machine inspector. Bloomberg prints business cards with names only. “We can use titles on business correspondence if necessary,” says Stuart Bell, who runs the group’s Princeton-based operations. “But if a fancy title is important to you, you shouldn’t work for us.”

The distaste for titles reflects a desire for more democracy in the US workplace. Titles are associated with hierarchies, representing specific rungs on a well-defined corporate ladder. Increasing numbers of US corporations are throwing out the ladder metaphor to embrace flatter organisations. Corner offices have disappeared in favour of open-plan floors, the company’s president may show up to work in jeans, and no one is expected to bring anyone coffee anymore.

“Getting rid of titles is not just a superficial change,” says David Baldwin, in charge of organizational operations at Harley-Davidson’s Capitol Drive plant. “It means you have to get rid of the executive bathroom, the executive dining room, special parking spaces for upper management and all that. It means breaking down the barriers between workers and managers.”

Traditionally, titles in the workplace have reflected privilege as much as management roles. Old films are full of do-nothing bosses, napping behind closed doors while harried secretaries run the company. It is doubtful many executives ever enjoyed such ease, but the idea that titles can be misleading strikes a chord with Americans.

There is a growing feeling that the extensive use of titles clashes with the new, more flexible approach to management. At many companies employees are expected to jump from one project to another, making their positions difficult to define. “As corporations become more team-oriented, it makes it easier to accept the lack of a title,” says John Bassler, managing director at the management consultancy Korn/Ferry.

Bloomberg launched a crusade against titles six years ago when management feared new positions were dividing the organization. “Someone would be doing a good job, so after a year, we’d give them a raise and a new title,” says Bell of Bloomberg. “Then we’d have to find something for them to be responsible for. We were chopping up the company into little pieces.”

Another problem with titles say, sceptics is that they can encourage workers to shirk responsibility. “I sometimes tell people I’m chief bottle-washer,” says Baldwin of Harley-Davidson. “I’m trying to send the message that we all have to be willing to handle whatever comes up here. If you’re calling someone a machine operator and something goes wrong with the machine, the temptation is to say ‘Oh, that’s not my job. I’m a machine operator. The machine inspector should take care of that.’ ”

Titles are not on the wane in every industry. Banks, insurance companies, and other groups with a great deal of customer contact still love to hand out vice-presidencies and managing directorships. And some companies have dealt with the need for greater flexibility by adding even more titles to executives’ names. A single manager may be known as “chief financial officer, treasurer and corporate secretary”.

Management theorists say it may be useful for companies to distinguish between the use of titles internally and externally. In an organization, employees quickly get a feeling for the sphere of influence of various executives, regardless of their job descriptions. Yet to those outside the corporation, titles can send messages of power and status.

Much of the world still places great importance on titles. In some cases, it may be advisable to inflate someone’s title to facilitate their access to top people in other companies. Impressive titles can be especially important to anyone dealing with foreign cultures, especially areas such as Japan and Latin American countries, where an unimportant-sounding executive may not get in to talk to the top brass.

Elite headhunter Heidrick & Struggles advised a client to advertise for a “chief executive officer” instead of a vice-president. The client said ‘I don’t care what you call him as long as he knows I’m the boss’,” says Gerard Roche of Heidrick & Struggles. “It helped us locate a more qualified person.”

Because titles still mean so much to so many people, it will probably be a long time before they disappear completely. People outside a company want to be able to identify who is in charge, and many managers consider an important-sounding title the reward for years of hard work.

Yet addressing the age-old question of what’s in a name is having an impact on US corporations. “It makes you think about your work,” says Bassler of Korn/Ferry. “I can say I’m managing director, or chairman of consumer products, or a member of the executive committee that runs Korn/Ferry. But in the end, I’m basically a consultant.”

(Adapted from an article in the Financial Times)

`What’s in a title?’

Financial Times

Task A                                                

The answers to the following questions are to be found in the article.

Are Disney, Harley Davisson and Bloomberg all going to completely abolish titles?

1. David Baldwin of Harley Davidson is against titles in companies. Explain the two reasons he gives.

–

–

2 What new trend in the workplace makes it more meaningful to have no titles?

3 What is the Bloomberg company’s objection to titles?

 

4. Two different managers are in favour of completely opposing approaches with regard to titles in order to reach similar goals.
a) How does each deal with titles?
b) What reasoning is behind this? Stuart Bell of Bloomberg:

Gerald Roche of Hedrick and Struggles:

 

5. What type of companies find it important to retain titles, and why?

6. Explain one reason for actually upgrading an employee’s title.

 

Task B                                               Interpretation

What does the author of the article want to express with the following phrases?

 

• flatter organisations
• titles can be misleading
• launched a crusade against titles

 

Task C                                                Vocabulary

 

Find words or expressions in paragraphs 1 – 5 of the text which mean the same as the following:

• usual, conventional, normal
• divisions, areas of business activity
• dislike
• shows indicates
• hierarchy
• merely cosmetic, on the surface, not deep

In the same section (paragraphs 1 – 5), find four expressions that mean `to abolish’:

•                                                             –
•                                                             –