At what point in your
Ready for a title change
Answers
I don’t believe there is a correct answer to this question. Employees have a priority that evolves. The first drive is salary which is usually closely aligned with title, but less so. Then comes recognition, also closely aligned with title, more so. I recently had a conversation with an
Most likely because you have achieved the first two, the last stage is to search for challenges.
In every situation where you deal with people, it is important to understand their motivation.
While I don't disagree with Regis, sometimes a title change is warranted due to a changing job duties, but what about the C-Suite?
Those roles are supposed to be pinnacles, so unless you think like some of the megalomaniacal dictators/royalty who created absurd titles, you are stuck with yours unless you move or take in other C-Suite duties (
Once I wanted to change my title to "OverLord of the Finance Realm"....but my CEO thought it was too middle-earthy!
Kidding aside, it does NOT really matter to me. As a perennial #2 and having also served as a Chief of Staff to the CEO, titles mean nothing to me NOW. 15-20 years ago, I was title hungry...now, not so much.
2
Emerson, that title is way too tame! You need to thing Grandiose, not pedestrian :)
That's the best answer I've ever seen. Thanks for the humor!
Christie-I think it's hard to be precise on this. One way might be to look at the employee and establish if the role they play is way above the title of the position they hold. If for example, a person "punches above their weight" then maybe it's time to recognize this.
An
How do the person's peers (in and out of their department) view the person?
How do you as their supervisor view them? Do you want to retain them longer term?
Interesting question. I think a change in title is warranted when the current one no longer reflects the duties being performed. Tangent question: Can a change in title be used as a motivator in lieu of an increase in compensation?
Unfortunately, titles still matter quite a bit. If you are trying to climb the corporate ladder, titles matter. Once you are a CFO, it is easier to be hired as a CFO by your next employer. Titles also matter as there can be a cap on your salary if you do not have the right title in a corporate environment. Titles also open doors in your professional network. CFOs like to network with CFOs. You can research the job responsibilities of those with the title you want, and if you are performing those duties, then you have the case for a new title. You should not accept the argument "we are a small company and we do not have a XXX" from your employer as your title can impact your career progress.
Excellent feedback. The title doesn't really matter to me at this point, but in a recent conversation with a friend (who is very title aggressive), she was telling me I need to go after a new title because my duties and direct reports have grown beyond CFO. I am up for review so now would be the time. I just don't think it's that big of a deal, from her point it looks better on a resume, from my point I am not planning to go anywhere anytime soon.
1
What is "beyond CFO"? In my world, that's CEO and, in my experience, the
To me, it is NOT about the title but it is all about the ROLE. And no, they are NOT the same. Example, being no. 2 brings about more duties and responsibilities than the conventional CFO position.
So how you explain your ROLE (along with accomplishments) is much more important than just having the CFO (or whatever) title on the resume.
I agree with Ernie, title matters massively. When you have been in a position for a while and there has been a significant positive change to your responsibilities, then it is the right time for a title change. If your position is to influence other people and especially dealing with
I think it's important to recognize a person's responsibilities and give the appropriate title. I have seen companies downgrade or not give an appropriate title, which is wrong as titles don't necessarily mean more compensation, so why skimp on a title?
The ironic piece of this is I am having the same issue with my Director of
1
Appropriate pay must take into account the local market as least as much any supposed "industry average". Situations are dynamic.
I work in the suburbs but could increase my compensation by 20% to 40% by finding a similar position in a nearby, major city. However, in my perspective, the commute ain't worth it and, my personal finances are such that I'm quite comfortable and wouldn't take on a huge mortgage to attempt an urban relocation. It's just not my cup of tea.
My perspective is not unique and I've found it shared by many colleagues over the years. This plays both ways. We take less but don't commute, don't pay $3,000/mo rent and don't have to deal with city life. For our employers, they get talent at a reduced rate.
And, playing devils advocate here, your example pretty much shows why titles are almost meaningless. A CFO here is likely not the same as a CFO there. That's why I find so many job equivalency comparisons meaningless. Even with identical titles, the responsibilities, required skillsets and other factors can be so different between entities.
Were you around when the retail banks made every branch manager a "VP". There was a reason to their madness. Part of it was to quell dissent amongst the ranks - "we are all equal". And part of it was to make their gender composition for the upper echelons look better. Just more evidence of why titles don't really mean much.
Value people by their contribution not by title, pay them by value unless you must do so because of your
Ernie, I love your feedback and if we had the budget to do that for everyone we would not make any money. That's one reason we evaluate annually look at what someone's annual salary was LY and compare that to industry averages. We try to pay 5% above what the industry average is, then at least then we know we are paying well and competitive.
Agree with the comments provided, specifically that titles change when employees consistently operate outside of their job description.
In addition, if Management is respected at the company, titles will be more respected as opposed to resulting in political disruption and gossiping. Why is this important?...
In this case, titles matter very much as those who are responsible for change management, representing a dept or working in a cross functional team will have more respect with a title that fits their skillset and responsibility...but again, the respect for titles comes from respect for Sr. Management.
I echo that titles do matter. I had a Director title at one time that should have been a VP. Since I worked for a smaller entity, it was not considered a VP. My peers at other organizations did not treat me equally. Bottom line, I was doing the work of two people, but given the lower title.
I agree titles matter. Unfortunately, beginning with the internet bubble, in order to attract talent, titles were passed out like trophy's in T-ball league. Everyone got one. As such, nowadays, titles are more for your LinkedIn profile, and Facebook page, than for the job you are doing. With so much title creep during the past decade or so, (I mean when did it become necessary to have senior managers, senior directors, associate vice presidents, and all the other made-up titles for doing essentially job(s) that were done before as managers and directors?), titles have become essentially meaningless, except when meeting "outsiders" who are looking for "decision makers" and "decision influencers".
Also, keep in mind the Capt. of a row boat is not the same as the Capt. of a sailing schooner, or the Capt. of an Aircraft Carrier. I mean the Manager of the flight line on an Aircraft Carrier has more responsibility, than the Capt. of a row boat. Yet he is only a "Manager".
My point is this: if titles matter to your folks, then pass them out like candy, rarely have I seen a title change that came with a lot of "work/responsibility" change. The latter usually happened either long before or long after the title change.
1
Anonymous -
Not that I don't agree with the analogy, but the Capt of a row boat and the Capt of an aircraft carrier actually have the same responsibilities, the safety and well being of the the craft, crew and passengers.
Yes, there are a myriad of technical differences, but the aforementioned base responsibilities are the same.
To your other point, title creep; just look at the banking industry. How many Senior VP's can one organization have?
If a title doesn't convey authority you do not wish the individual to have (corporate officer, etc.), then it is a performance enhancer and in my mind the same as giving an executive a larger office or corner office. If it makes them happy and the company benefits from increased productivity, everyone wins.
What's the purpose of the title change? To me the title should fit the duties of the position.
I went from a company with revenue over $100M and was a Senior Accountant because of the role I had at that company. I left there an came to a company that had less than half the revenue, a third of the staff, and my title changed to Corporate Accountant. I could have been called a Senior Accountant, but it would have been frivolous because of the company's size.
My initial thoughts is that it all depends on the size of the company and the extent of your responsibilities.
Filed Under:
Human Capital