Hi all!
A week has gone by without Instagram inexplicably deleting my account, hurray!
Thanks for continuing to read along, and if you’ve found these newsletters interesting or helpful in some way, please share on the platform of your choice, or by forwarding to friends/colleagues!
The last year has felt like we’re all working longer hours that blur into our personal time, and yet we’re all standing still. Perhaps as a result of that dynamic, I’ve talked to many people in recent months who have felt a more acute need to reevaluate their titles - everyone is working harder and wanting to feel like they are progressing, and titles (the focus of this week’s newsletter) are definitely one major way we feel like we’re advancing in our careers.
The flipside of the argument is that titles are just window dressing. If we value the substance of the job, and we have job satisfaction, does it really matter what we’re called?
I loves me some Neil Degrasse Tyson but I found his quote below pretty controversial:
“If you need to invoke your academic pedigree or job title for people to believe what you say, then you need a better argument.”
The truth is, in many ways, job titles do matter. Sometimes, no matter how good our arguments are, we can’t necessarily make them heard without a certain title or platform to do so. It’s naïve (and privileged) to think that they don’t.
There are many extrinsic reasons and intrinsic reasons titles matter, which we’ll explore below.
Onward!
Musings
Let’s start with a few fun examples of when titles.. *don’t* really matter.
Work can be such a big part of our identities apparently, that sometimes, names and titles are interchangeable. One of the first bosses I had when I started my investment banking career took to calling me “Janalyst” (Janice + Analyst). The nickname was fitting, I was a brand new junior analyst, and it rolled right off the tongue. Since the next few levels didn’t make etymological sense, he often joked that my next obvious promotion would be to “Janaging Director.”
Not so funny was the fact that I was the only junior banker supporting two actual Managing Directors… which was pretty overwhelming. When I eventually quit, in an effort to retain me, they offered me an early title promotion. This just seemed like an extension of this running “Janalyst” joke… I could really choose whatever title I wanted (“Associate”, “Master of the Universe”, whatever), and still, all the grunt work would funnel down to me, the lone junior resource on the team.
Another fun example from the ranks of financial services: being a “Vice President” at a bank, aka the most confusing title in any job ever.
This is the title that your immigrant Asian parents excitedly exclaim over.
Yep, bulge bracket firms have thousands of “VPs” with varying levels of responsibility, and compensation, and are likely multiple levels from the actual president or key decision makers. It’s another instance that makes you wonder how valuable titles really are, when they don’t shed light on responsibilities, seniority, and often lead to confusion.
Realistically, of course, titles do mean something. As we progress in our careers, they indicate that our level of expertise and level of responsibility is increasing. Extrinsically, they signal to our stakeholders (personal and professional) what we do in our jobs. They can give us an abstract sense of security, or might actually be attached to a considerable step-up in compensation and actual tangible financial security.
Companies have tried experimenting with getting rid of titles altogether to encourage collaboration, and to get employees to focus only functional areas. Those experiments, however, still retain some some framework of advancement (e.g. titles are replaced with more ambiguous numbered levels), that can ultimately lead to more confusion without much more focus or satisfaction.
For the majority of us, if we work in a corporate structure, or don’t happen to be an sole entrepreneur, we must contend with titles, and the ways in which they define us.
Conversations
This week, I had a conversation with a friend who was navigating a title change at a maturing tech company. Her level of responsibility had increased meaningfully in the last six months, and she felt like a new title was necessary.
The company has thousands of employees, and as it grew, it needed to go through a process to recalibrating titles - including introducing “mid-stage titles”. While at an individual level, there was little doubt she deserved a title change, the company was proposing a newly introduced title that was somewhere between her current title, and the more senior one she was originally asking for. It was frustrating (and poorly communicated), and she wanted to make a case for the original title she felt she deserved.
First, we removed the emotion from it, and explored all of the rational reasons it made sense for the company to pause on giving a more senior title.
Then, we explored all of the reasons this felt unfair and why this title change meant so much to her.
Finally, we sorted through all the reasons a title change made sense, categorizing the reasons into (1) Good for her, vs (2) Good for the company to make a compelling case for receiving the more senior title.
Rationally, why companies can’t always give us the titles we want:
Companies need to standardize
Yes, companies care about their employees’ individual intrinsic motivation and need for advancement, but they are tasked with managing everyone’s desire for advancement.
Early in a company’s growth, it may hire people with all kinds of titles to fit the immediate needs of the business. As companies mature, there is a need to streamline operations and people, sometimes bringing together groups of people that objectively have the same experience but different titles because their original groups evolved differently. In solving for the best solution for the whole, some people may feel slighted or downgraded.
Companies need to signal internal hierarchy
Titles help answer that *super* important question of:
Joking aside, titles do help explain things like who reports to who, who has oversight and decision making power, who works together and who works on what. These things are important to the efficient operation of a company.
Companies may want to reserve senior titles for future/external hires
This concept of having someone hired over us (being “layered”), can cause a lot of anxiety or stress.
Obstacles to our career advancement can feel like a personal affront. It feels ‘scarce’, like something is being taken from us, or it will limit our ability to progress any further. Yes, it’s possible that hiring someone above you is an indication that you’re not a fit to ultimately advance, but it’s also possible that the company is growing in a way that needs someone with an entirely different experience or skillset than yours (and that you can’t replicate in short order). Examples might include bringing on someone that has broader geographic experience, or someone that has worked on a broader product.
In our portfolio (at my fund), we have phenomenal CEOs or founders that have brought companies along from seed stage to earning hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, and yet may not the best fit to take a company public. They are ultimately supplemented by a board member or occasionally replaced. It happens at the highest possible level of title! (I encourage you read last week’s newsletter on “Weaknesses”, and how having them and not being a fit for something is not a bad thing.) Supplementing around weaknesses or lack of experience is incredibly powerful and can help us focus on our niche. In this example, original CEOs/founders typically find other early stage opportunities to re-develop from the ground up, which they love to do and thrive at.
Companies can use titles as a bargaining tool vis a vis compensation
This is akin to the “You can have it all, just not right now” adage. Quote attributable to Oprah, and one that I think about all the time.
It makes sense that when we’ve accomplished something, or have a new skillset or responsibility, we want it reflected in every way possible. We want it all - the title, the increase in compensation, the warm fuzzies - and we want it all now. A company may be limited in its ability to give both a title change and a salary change to everyone who is advancing at the same time. They may need to stage these things out over a time period to keep you motivated over a longer period of time. Reserving title changes can be a way to give you room to grow.
Emotionally, why we want different titles:
(These are more self-explanatory. I will chill out on the gifs).
We feel behind
You know this feeling. Every time you do some light LinkedIn research (stalking) of people you went to high school or college with, it seems like everyone is a “Founder”, “Chief something or other”, “Managing Partner”, and you feel panicked that you are very behind. It’s hard to calibrate without context, there are millions of reasons why your title and paths are different (not to mention, people can give themselves whatever title they want on LinkedIn), but it doesn’t make this feeling any less daunting.
We think we would be more highly valued elsewhere
Maybe recruiters reach out to you with different job titles. Maybe you have friends in the same industry as you with more advanced titles. Again, it’s very hard to know the nuances in most cases, but this is definitely a more solid comparable than the general world of LinkedIn self aggrandizing. This feels not only unfair, but actionable - you could have this title if you went elsewhere. This can actually be a helpful datapoint for building the rationale of wanting a different title (the market validates that someone with your years and type of experience should have this title).
It doesn’t feel fair to be penalized by the collective
You’re right. It’s not fair to be held back or delayed in your advancement because of a bureaucratic decision that needs to be made across a group of people with varying performance, but this is an unavoidable challenge of working with and for something bigger than ourselves. Sometimes (admittedly, less common), this can work in your favour. In some law firms or human capital consulting firms, in an attempt to retain rising senior talent, junior or mid-level partner titles are created and given out earlier than the average timing, benefiting an entire strata of people (some of whom probably contributed more, some of whom contributed less).
We feeling ill-equipped to drive outcomes (e.g. negotiate, or run projects)
Because titles signal our relative position in a hierarchy, and is often a mapping tool for others in the organization, when we don’t have the seniority we want, it can impede our ability to influence people and outcomes.
When a colleague or client asks, “Oh, will the [partner/director/executive]" be joining?”, it feels like the patronizing equivalent of asking a small child “Can you put your mommy or daddy on the phone?”
Even if we are more than capable of our jobs, sometimes stakeholders completely tune out of the engagement if they aren’t sitting across from the ‘right’ title.
We already feel undervalued by other actions by the company
Maybe not getting a change in title is the cherry on top of a shit sandwich (I’m conflating idioms here and I don’t care), and just one more way you feel undervalued, and it isn’t changing anytime soon. The lack of title change is but a symptom of a broader misalignment. I wrote a post on this dynamic earlier this month: assessing if the best path forward is really to quit, and how to know you’re doing so for the right reasons.
Making the Case for a Better Title
“What matters to you” vs. “What matters to the company”
Often when we go into negotiations like this, it is tempting to lead with the points that you feel most strongly about - the visceral feeling of “this isn’t fair”, or “I could get a better title elsewhere”. While these things may be true, and your manager or team may sympathize, they are also required to consider the first set of points above, the company’s constraints.
If your intent is to stay at the company (or, to obtain a different title before you quit), I think it’s necessary to keep in mind the company’s objectives, and shape your argument within that framework.
(YES. EVEN IF IT FEELS FRUSTRATING AND LIKE A CONCESSION).
A few thoughts below:
Focus first on internal implications, not external
Externally focused points: “X Y Z company calls people with this level of experience so-and-so” , “My title isn’t not on par with others with my years of experience at other companies.”
If your company believes you measure yourself with external benchmarks, which they are unable to match, yes, you might be better off going elsewhere, but that’s not a great place to start a negotiation. If you are prepared to leave your current situation, perhaps it make sense to bring this up with your manager. But if you want to stay, starting by pointing to how someone else will value you a certain way doesn’t give a great signal.
Internally focused points: “It seems like the typical path for a “senior X” is # years, and I think my performance is on track with that, plus I’ve done a, b and c”
Are there internal examples at the company that have the trajectory you want? Point to those precedents. Point out where you are ahead of the company’s schedule for promotion. Asking to calibrate yourself on the internal scale shows that you’re focused on growing within the company.
External benchmarks can strengthen your case, and you can certainly reference them later in the proposal. Point to these benchmarks as independent, third party, market-driven data as just that, vs. a place for where you want to end up.
Focus first on “I can do more for the company”, not “I want more”
I want more: “I’ve been here for X years, I should be Y”, “I do more than that person, why don’t I have that title?”
I can do more for the company: “With this title, I can drive more outcomes with clients.” , “With this title, we can reduce confusion about ownership of outcomes and streamline this project.”
Shift the conversation to realign objectives and goals. Affirm that the company wants you to be in the best position possible to achieve certain outcomes that are best for the collective. It’s cheesy, but the ‘one team, one dream’ mentality is a great starting point here: if you are empowered with a better title, you can do more for your team, and in turn your company’s goals.
“If not now, when?”
I mentioned this question before in my equity negotiation post). Maybe the company is not in a position to give a new title immediately, but the discussion around future milestones and what the path to a new title looks like catalyzes the company to discuss their long term investment in you.
Back to the friend looking to negotiate a better title!
She negotiated on the point that having the more senior title would enable her to drive progress and outcomes with internal stakeholders. She reminded her managers that she was the sole female in a technical line of business, and having an alternate “mid-level” title would be confusing, and would further compound the problem of not being naturally heard or respected.
She received the original title she was promised, and was also commended by her manager on framing her ask in a compelling and constructive way.
Resources/Links:
CNN highlights “Companies that tried doing away with titles”
A very amusing read from CB Insights: Absurd Titles In Tech … wtf is a Dream Alchemist?
Cool ladies doing cool things: Youn Yuh-jung’s Oscar acceptance speech, the 73-year old south Korean Best Supporting Actress winner (for her role in “Minari”) seems delightful and hilarious. Watch her subtly flirt with Brad Pitt and then subtly serve Asian mom energy when she reminds her sons how hard she works FOR THEM.
Tell me about you:
When has a title change made a really big difference in your career?
When has a title change made no difference in your career?
How have you successfully negotiated for a title change?
Is “gif” pronounced with a “hard g” or a “j”?