I read somewhere that job titles are mostly for external communications and provide little value within a company. The title is useful for establishing relationships with clients, working with vendors, supporting customers, and padding a resume. The title provides a squinty shape of your power and influence within the veil of a company. Maybe.
Power is more nuanced behind the curtain. The formal org chart is only the surface. It’s complimented by a multiverse of informal influence mind maps.
A title means nothing when believability doesn’t match. Day to day perception provides the credentials of capability. People with a track record of integrity get more done than their formal superiors with a misplaced title. Their disregard for the limitations of titles allow them to flow freely to solve the most important and interesting problems.
Even so, companies reach a size where titles begin punctuating internal broadcasts. Outdoor toys become indoor toys. External scaffolding becomes an internal fixtures, a use it was never intended for, making it difficult for everyone to move about the space. Lanauage of redirection (“that’s not my job” at worst, “who’s job is that” at best) slowly creeps in—requiring roles to be more explicitly (and narrowly) defined, lowering the overall adaptability and resiliency of the group.
These attempts at organizational legibility are well intentioned. It’s the unanticipated and unintended second order effects that go wrong.
The collaboration problem is hard. Especially when rewards are narrowly controlled, and distributed in fallible recognition of comparative efforts. Throwing out titles won’t solve these problems. I’m mostly recognizing that great teams are made up of great teammates, and great teammates rarely emerge from endowing a narrowing title.
Published: 2025-01-13