Whats in a name?

Yesterday, it was in the headlines. Tata Motors scraps designations to create a flatter organisation.

While the company spokesperson shared, "People can now focus on work instead of their designations", it did trigger some doubts in me. As a ringside observer in the hiring dynamics, it was intriguing as I thought most were motivated by titles, promotions, and the perceived impression by others. In a blog post in 2009, I had reflected on the cultural context in India, where I thought we were, as a nation, 'title conscious'!

Have things changed since?

So, I quickly tried to get some opinions from fellow professionals -whom we are now so comfortably connected to -courtesy WhatsApp/Telegram. Here are some interesting comments and observations I was privy to. (I have 'cut pasted' them keeping the lingo intact!)

My first port of call -was my Uncle, a Tata Motors lifer, who had joined as an Engineer trainee in Jamshedpur in the 70s, and had a splendid career with them, moving to Pune when the new plant was set up, and had risen to a leadership role- and even post retirement, was engaged as a CEO of a group company. His was a crisp response - "Titles only creates false superiority complex.".

A veteran HR professional -with over 3 decades of HR experience, across different styles of management,( Indian business houses and MNCs, and a premier business school) had this to share

"We used to find it difficult to hire new recruits because of the titles. Glad to see maturity descending in this area. I find it really funny when I see titles like Jr general manager, Dy general manager, general manager, additional general manager senior general manager. While one looks at the job description there will not be much of a difference. "

"Also experienced an organisation with 18 levels or designations. Where the company had a practice of promoting people once in 2 years. But giving below market increments, and I saw how people overlooked the money but got carried away by the change of titles."

" It's not the age or seniority but we need earn our titles by changing our role and living up to its requirements. I feel one should earn their titles Not just get labels. But then the external identity plays such a big role in employee engagement that the role efficacy gets diluted." 

Another senior professional from the consulting domain, a Big 4 had this to quip

"Title gives you a social status which role can't. If you mention your title as VP and say you lead HRBP function you would be accepted a lot more than when you mention it with using the title as a lead or manager."

"In my earlier organization we did a study and we found that in general the South Asian population used work as a social symbol and was integral to their life and thus designations were important for them.            

In fact most of their life is centered around work unlike Europe or North America"

Another doyen -with 20yrs of experience, (in India-in the post liberalisation age) desired to probe

"So Designation is a cultural embellishment? As valuable as remuneration itself?

And the responses?

"Precisely and this is more of the Gen X early Gen Y challenge in India and south Asia, our earlier generation did not consider Designation ever as a hurdle"

"Huge impact on the motivation factor. We almost do all professional dealings with importance to designation with emphasis on hierarchical stature. This also acts as a motivation factor for career progression in the corporate ladder & may impact roles where the delegation of authority is based on levels in India. European counterparts focus on functional structure for organograms".

Well, I realise, one is known by the company she/he keeps. And perhaps my immediate circle of influence is not so much beyond the Baby Boomers. Am sure the GenX, Gen Y and the millennials have a different take?

With the mortality of companies in the VUCA world being higher, career ladders giving way to lattices, matrix structure reporting, lifetime employment is a passe'. As we see most listed companies are going from quarter to quarter, and an increasing variable pay deciding to reward performers, and the onus on managing one's career purely shifting to the individual, is it wrong to expect to defer gratification?

A rose by any other name will smell as sweet?

I shall be glad to have your comments/observations...We are not mere Human Resources. Human Beings first, right?