Why Job Titles Mislead

Two people with the same title can do almost entirely different work, and two people doing identical work can hold titles several levels apart. The reasons are structural rather than accidental.

Titles are internal instruments

A title's primary function is to place someone in a hierarchy for purposes of pay, approval rights and reporting. Describing the work is a secondary consideration at best.

Because the hierarchy differs between organisations, the same label maps to different responsibilities in each. A senior designation in a small organisation may sit below a junior one in a large one.

Nothing dishonest is happening. The label is doing an internal job accurately and is simply being read as though it carried external meaning.

Inflation runs one way

Titles are frequently used as compensation when pay rises are constrained, since they cost nothing directly. This pushes labels upwards over time without changing what is done.

Recognition is also asymmetric: titles are readily granted and almost never withdrawn. The overall drift is towards more senior-sounding labels for equivalent work.

The consequence is that any given label means less than it did, and that comparisons across time are as unreliable as comparisons across employers.

The gap between title and work creates real problems

Someone whose responsibilities have grown without a corresponding label finds their history hard to describe later. The evidence of the work is contained in a word that understates it.

The reverse case is also awkward. An impressive label attached to narrow work invites expectations that the experience does not support, and the mismatch appears quickly.

Both situations are best addressed by describing the work in concrete terms: what was decided, what was owned, what changed. Specifics travel between organisations; labels do not.

Titles do carry information about the organisation

A structure with many finely graded levels tends to indicate a large one where progression is formalised. A flat structure with few labels usually indicates the opposite.

Reading titles this way is more useful than reading them as descriptions of individuals. They describe how an organisation arranges itself, which is genuinely informative.

The number of levels above a role also indicates something about progression. A role near the top of a short ladder offers different prospects from the same role near the bottom of a long one.

Optimising for the label has predictable costs

Pursuing a title rather than a scope of work can result in a senior label attached to responsibilities that have not grown. The gap becomes visible during the next move.

Choosing scope tends to produce the label eventually, since demonstrated responsibility is easier to argue from. The sequence matters more than the destination.