Is it just me or does anyone else think that today’s job titles are a bit like the emporer with no clothes? Take the old reliable “Vice President”, for instance. In the traditional corporate structure, a VP title is not an honor bestowed but a newrealm of responsibilities, some welcome, some not. In today’s landscape of titles, a VP has a dubious meaning. A VP may answer to a Director, or a Director may answer to a VP. Who knows!
Another of my favorites is the title “Business Development Director” or “VP of Business Development”. Complete honesty would dictate that Business Development should be pronounced “Sales”. To state it a little less gracefully, “Shake business from the trees so we don’t go out of business.”
Why thisrash of hyperbole? My opinion is that titles today are used more to attract personnel and puff up the egos of those who demand that they deal with a VP, Director, or whatever, and they are used less to designate the functional and legal framework within which the holder of the title acts.
It’s sad that business is being trivialized in this way because as titles for less significant positions appear to be creeping up the linguistic ladder, personal performance has not been keeping stride. This can (and does) contribute to the confusion of those who need to identify the true holders of the keys to the kingdom as they try to sift out the wheat from the chaff.
My suggestion? Convey titles that describe the holder?s corporate purposeusing terms that will be clearly understood by company outsiders, not just the company’s own inbred thinkers who created them. Grant the title “Director” to someone on the Board of Directors, not to a supervisor. Grant the title Vice President to someone who frequents the company of the President and who has the power to sign checks and contracts. Call a spade a spade.
Robert DeFazio
