Job Titles and Perception - Ninjas, Gurus and Rockstars?

No alt text provided for this image

Somewhat unfairly, I tweeted this comparison recently.

The photo compares the titles afforded to two luminaries of the technical world. One is Sir Tim Berners-Lee OM, KBE, FRS, FREng, FRSA, DFBCS, he implemented the first successful communication between a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client and server via the Internet and is often credited as being the "Inventor of the World Wide Web". The other is David Shing, a speaker and futurologist for AOL, the American mass media organisation. I offered the comparison, as unfair as it is, flippantly and the seeming absurd disparity for Berners-Lee's humility and Shing's presumption seemed to hit a nerve with the twitter audience.

As a recruiter it makes me think. If we can all see a disparity so huge in this example that is becomes absurd why do we still see people using titles that seem at odds with an individual's function in an organisation?

Your job title communicates a lot more than you might realise. Regardless of what an employer calls you most are pretty indifferent to you presenting yourself differently online. The titles people self identify with can have a larger affect on the perception of the individual than you might expect. Particularly in technical organisations there are a wealth of titles that are used to describe the same role - so how does the onlooker separate the Ninjas, Rockstars and Gurus from the Craftsmen, the Programmers and the plain old (like Sir Tim) Web Developers? In making a choice and opting for a "wacky" title you make a statement that will shape the perception of others. In most of these cases, for most of the people I've spoken to, they see a correlation with self claimed Ninja, Rockstars and an overestimation of their own skills and abilities. For most of the people I've spoken to there is a connotation to brogrammer culture and the identification as the "Ninja" in question seeking to portray themselves as the hero in their own particular story...

All of this might be fine. If the employer you want to work for has this culture you'll fit in well and probably be successful. I don't think it's helpful for potential candidates to seek to be seen in this light. The best technologists I've worked with, "best" here being the feedback from peers and the community, were also the most humble. These were the people who had created tools and languages the world over, known in their fields as leaders and yet they let their achievements speak for themselves.

What then of a company that advertises to hire a "Rockstar Developer"? If a company advertises for Ninjas, Gurus and Rockstars does the reader infer that they are a fun place to work with little hierarchy or that the environment will be competitive and celebrate the individual over the team as a whole? For me that distinction is too great of a risk, I wouldn't want the advert to put people off applying for a job they might be otherwise perfect for, at the very least I'd prefer a part of the process to determine their fit rather than their reaction to a joke job title. Whilst this might be true for me and the companies I recruit for if might not be the same for your organisations. For example this video, recruiting developers for Kixeye, might illustrate they'd love some "Ninjas" to apply. A company advertising a new position should take the time to reflect on what their job title means for attraction. Remember that whilst you might love the fact your business card proudly states you're a "Ruby Ninja", a "Marketing Badass" or even the "Chief Instigation Officer" (yes really!) the communication of these ideas is a two way street and your true meaning will always be affected by the listener's own values, attitudes and beliefs.

Whatever your job title and however you want to portray yourself, awareness is key. The next time you have to respond to this type of job title this site might help. For employers who might be using these job titles just for the shock value, I'm afraid that time has already passed, perhaps you could consider becoming a not for "Prophets" organisation?


* * * * * * * * *

Matt Buckland is Director of Talent Aquisition at Elliptic. He tweets@elsatanico

Triza Codillo

Technical Recruiter at Creative Alignments

9 年

Might be note worthy to mention that my fellow recruiters often like to bestow these titles to themselves also. Adding to the list: wizard, hero, hunter...

回复
Madame Diamond L.

Persuasive Editor & Writer ?? | CDL Class A Graduate

10 年

Kathryn Callow you hit the nail on the head. How would a recruiter find me in a Boolean search engine? I am a career changer and have loads of IT experience which is different from working in Higher Ed!

回复
Zsuzsa de Koning-Szabó

Talent Acquisition Specialist - Hiring #timesetters at TNO

10 年

Hackers. Visionaries. Prophets. Chief Visionary Executives (yes really). The list just gets longer and longer...

回复
Sam Bessalah

Consulting Big Data Architect

10 年

As a principle, I never apply, nor respond to job enquiries stating that hy're looking for Ninjas, Gurus or other Rockstars. I'll find them utterly ridiculous, and over the top. And I have had plenty of bad experience working with so called ninjas and rockstars.

Kat Callow

Building world first generative brands | ex-Amazon | ex-N26 | ex-Nokia Android | ex-Unilever l MIT l Imperial College London

10 年

You've misunderstood me let me try and make my opinion (which is all it is) a bit clearer: Sure. I take the point. Look how humble the founder of the internet is. Great. That’s awesome. I'm really not fussed on the particular example more the point as a whole. But as an industry what are we saying? Are we saying we want robots? No thank you. I want humans. Personalities apply here (shameless plug). How much longer will we all spend significant budget on differentiating our brands in attraction only to have candidates all go through the same copy/paste application and processes. I was in head hit desk mode reading some of the comments on this piece. A fair amount of wagging fingers: it won’t help them in search… it’s pretentious…. I’m so sick of it… rolling of eyes etc etc. Here are a few meandering thoughts: 1. Always remember that candidates are not recruiters. Some don’t know how to be found and some simply don’t care. The likelihood of a creative being concerned in the slightest by this article is a chance scale from unlikely to dismal - something we can agree on perhaps? 2. The vast majority of examples are from different generations. Classic case of millennial-phobia. I despise GenY data - really I can see no more regurgitation of 2020 this and that - so I won't go into it I know we all know but if you’re comparing them to different species of talent and not speaking their language then… good luck. 3. Don’t put talent into a Boolean search box – you will miss out. Too many recruiters commented on the lack of SEO consideration to such titles. Please refer to point 1. My personal preference is to see as much candidate soul splashed across a profile as possible. Love it or hate it – it will tell you a great deal about the culture fit. You seem to hate it in the current example: which is fine: the answer then is not to recruit them. But when you expect and preach everyone to behave the same and fit social confines expect a lack of diversity and therefore quality in your internal decision making. Of course this is the culture catch 22: go too far with culture fit and screening and diversity suffers, don't go far enough and risk culture clash and anarchy in the teams. I personally believe recruiting against culture now and then is healthy in the right doses those candidates can become agents of change internally. Say no to talent clones. Perhaps we've forgotten the best way to assess talent is to engage in conversation human to human not screen to screen. I really just can't agree that talent should fit in with recruiters for me its the other way around. Is anybody out there? Am I alone in this?

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Matt Buckland的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了