Pidgeon Holes, Fake Black Boxes and Other Nasty Traps
My position is a tech focused position; whether it’s Programmer/Analyst, Senior Developer, or Architect is something I don’t know, and frankly the title doesn’t matter. Over the past 7 years I’ve grown tired of the various tech jargon titles, and I would prefer my official title be an anti-title: Team Member.
Job titles rarely, if ever, accurately reflect what an individual actually does. In fact it doesn’t matter what you are in the organization – the only thing that matters is who you are and what you contribute. It doesn’t matter if you’re an accountant, a systems administrator, a secretary, a programmer, a CEO, or the coffee guy – if you’re in a software company you will impact that company’s software. The only thing that changes is how often and to what degree you impact that software. As such, I don’t believe there’s a need for black-boxing and pidgeon-holing an employee into an exact role by means of an explicit title. The employee is just another member of the team, a member who contributes to the end result in some way shape or form, just like the guy down the hall.
Giving everybody the same title of Team Member not only removes inaccurate labels from individuals, but it also has a nice way of removing politics and encourages people to work with rather than work for eachother. You’re not a CEO, you’re a Team Member. I’m also a Team Member, and as fellow Team Members we’ll work together and we’ll come to the best solution possible for feature XYZ. You’re not a Customer Service Representative, you’re a Team Member. I’m also a Team Member, and as such we’ll work together and we’ll figure out why so many people have a problem with feature XYZ. You’re not a coffee guy, you’re a Team Member. I’m also a Team Member, and as such we can ensure that we’re both full of energy, ready to tackle anything that comes our way.
Perhaps this is too Camelot, or perhaps it’s slightly communist (hoo boy I hope it’s not communist), but I think if we’re all working together towards the same goal then there’s no real need for us to artificially restrict our sets of responsibilities with an inappropriate and inaccurate label. People should simply admit that they’re all in it together and move on.
At home on my coffee table sits a magazine I accidentally purchased the last time I was in an airport. I wanted to read something “sciency” so I picked up a copy of Scientific American Mind, not knowing that it was a brain-science kinda magazine with lots of psychological stuff (it was actually a really interesting read). One of the articles in the issue, The Secrets of Raising Smart Kids, contrasts the difference between setting emphasis on a “growth mind-set” vs. an emphasis on talent and ability.
From second paragraph of the article:
Our society worships talent, and many people assume that possessing superior intelligence or ability—along with confidence in that ability—is a recipe for success. In fact, however, more than 30 years of scientific investigation suggests that an overemphasis on intellect or talent leaves people vulnerable to failure, fearful of challenges and unwilling to remedy their shortcomings.
The whole article is 5 pages and really interesting, and I suggest you read more than the 2nd paragraph. But taking the brief introduction and what you will read in the article, I wonder if the same ideas can be applied to corporate titles and an employee’s professional ability. Is it possible that giving the title “Junior Programmer” to a fresh-out-of-college computer science graduate prohibits the grad from accelerating their career? Is it possible that giving somebody the title of Chief Executive Whateverman puffs up their ego and thus makes them less willing to listen and incorporate the ideas of others? Would simply giving everybody the title of “Team Member” combat these types of unnecessary stumbles? Is it worth finding out?
