|
In today's society,
we have become significantly defined by our job titles. And, we
often define ourselves by our titles. Not that I think this is healthy,
however this has become particularly clear in the work we do with
executives in transition or when recruiting new employees.
And so, at a
time when so many people put so much weight on titles, I am interested
to note that we have become terribly "sloppy" with the
use of job terminology. Both job incumbents and the executives hiring
employees seem to have forgotten what various titles connote. Of
course, we are also getting very creative in establishing new titles
- many which challenge our sensibilities.
Thus I thought
it might be valuable for readers to have a little "primer"
on creating/using job titles. You may not need it today - but chances
are this will be a good reference for you in the next few months!
Here's what is covered:
- Fundamentals
of Management levels and titles
- C-Suite titles
becoming standard around the world
- Learning
from a Grand Experiment - that failed
- Concepts
from "Requisite Organization' and Elliott Jacques
- Application
to Realities of today
Fundamentals
of Management Titles
In the first organization in which I entered the executive ranks,
I was invited into a meeting with the VP Compensation & Benefits.
As I entered his office and shook hands, he closed the door and
congratulated me. What followed was a formal session outlining the
organization's expectations of me. Performance and Results of course,
but also community service, role model & ethical practices,
privileges, and so on. The brief also included information on how
the executive committee "worked" and how I was expected
to know about the whole organization - not just my Division. It
was at this point that I truly appreciated the difference between
watching VP's in action (from lower in the organization), and now
understanding the ramifications of the unseen responsibilities and
accountabilities of being an executive.
In the second
organization which I served as a VP, it seemed the big distinction
was in what kind of company car I was allowed to have. Other than
that, there was a general vacuum of concrete and specific expectations
- although we did engage in strategic meetings and behave as a bit
of a select 'club' looking out for the whole organization.
In the third
organization in which I served as VP, I think it was generally expected
that because of my experience, I would know what was meant by being
part of the executive team. Over the first 6 months of watching
and listening to others, and feeling the effects of different personal
contributions around the exec table, the specific expectations of
this organization became clear. However, there was one formal conversation
I had with the President and CEO that I will never forget.
"As a
vice-president, you are acting on my behalf," said the CEO.
"You are not representing your Division to me, rather I expect
you to lead and manage the Division on my behalf." This was
a blinding flash of the obvious - yet I immediately understood
that in so many organizations today this simple concept is not
appreciated or understood either by the VP's themselves or the
people lower in the organization.
In fact, in
many organizations, and for countless members of the management
cadre, the specific expectations, accountabilities and chain-of-command
are poorly communicated. Here then, are the core elements of distinction
within the levels of the management cadre.
| Supervisor |
This
is the first level in most management structures and lifts one
up out of the "professional" role or front-line provider
role - individual contributor - to a responsibility bigger than
your self. |
| |
Performance
|
-
Your performance is measured by your ability to get others to
meet performance
expectations, to grow and develop. |
| |
Accountability |
-
Generally to a manager, to ensure all your people achieve their
tasks on-time,
on-budget, with appropriate quality. |
| |
Responsibility |
- Usually
the supervisor has limited budget or other resource flexibility,
or
decision-making leeway. Their main responsibility is to delegate
tasks, coach, support and motivate those you supervise to
achieve expectations for those tasks. Of course, these are
important expectations and responsibilities. You must learn
to adapt your style and support coaching to the unique needs
of each employee. In many settings, you are also a 'team'
leader - responsible for getting people to work effectively
together.
|
| Manager |
At this level, most organizations expect you to "manage
resources", or "manage clients/ accounts"
or "manage projects". This could include managing
staff, but not always; sometimes you are expected to work by
influence rather than formal authority. The distinction over
a Supervisor position is that a Manager is expected to exert
judgment about prioritization, juggling of different deliverables
with available resources, and allocating those resources in
order to achieve results. |
| |
Performance |
-
Ability to meet or exceed longer-term objectives - perhaps project-based
or quarterly/ annual targets.
- Ability to motivate and empower staff, supervisors,
external suppliers to achieve excellence as well as performance
targets. This includes training, career support, recruitment
and performance management. |
| |
Accountability
|
-
Achievement of annual/quarterly results, within a given
but somewhat flexible Budget. "Results" tend to include
financial, service, quality, efficiency, professional standards
and other measures.
- Often the Manager is asked to draft his/her annual budget
and performance measures in-line with higher level organizational
goals. |
| |
Responsibility
|
-
To understand how your area 'fits' into the bigger picture
interdependencies and communicate this with those you manage.
- To exert good judgement in your use of, prioritization
and allocation of organizational resources.
- To take initiative to advance the organization through
your own or your team's innovations.
- To cross-boundaries within and external to your organization
to enhance your effectiveness and advance the organization.
- A level of self-direction and self-motivation
in aligning personal and team actions with the goals of the
organization.
In a manager-level position, you are expected to summon-up your
own energy to take some risk, take initiative and contribute
beyond the words of a job description. Waiting to be
told what to do, then doing it is not in the zone of being a
manager. You are expected to figure out what needs to be done
and make it so. In exerting judgement you will occasionally
make mistakes. Managers take personal responsibility for mistakes,
missed performance expectations and work to fix the problem,
then get things back on track ASAP. Managers focus first and
foremost on delivering results, and orchestrating others - clients,
staff, volunteers, suppliers, etc. proactively so that all elements
come together as expected or better! |
| |
|
| Director |
Directors are generally responsible for a clear business unit
or Department or Function within an organization. This level
of management is generally considered to have some strategic
responsibility for the advancement/ adaptation of their function
or business unit in light of changing marketplace or community
conditions.
In many organizations, Directors are the layer of management
most responsible for the day-to-day success of major parts of
the organization along with some strategic expectations on an
annual and business planning basis to continuously improving/growing
their area's impact. |
| |
Performance |
- Beyond results (which are also important), performance
is often assessed by the
level of impact the business unit/function is achieving
for clients, for products/services, for community, shareholders
and stakeholders.
- Significant leeway is often given to Directors to exert
judgment, take risks, adjust annual plans 'on-the-go' as
required to advance the organization, achieve impact
and deliver results.
- We also expect director-level people to set a good example
in working across the organization and establishing a presence
outside the organization - in community, business or professional
associations. |
| |
Accountability |
- Achievement of annual/quarterly results.
- Positioning/advancement of image and reputation of
the business unit/ function within the organization and externally.
- Empowerment and vision establishment with staff, suppliers,
etc. such that all are committed to advancing the organization
and impact of the business unit.
- Succession planning, resource development, professional
development and risk management.
- Strategy for improvement, advancement, innovation and development
of Annual Business Plan. |
| |
Responsibility |
- To understand how your business unit/function creates impact
in the community
and inter-connects with other parts of the organization.
- To pay attention to trends, best practices, industry/ professional
standards evolution - and ensure these are applied/ used to
stimulate advancing practices and performance of the business
unit.
- Authority for selecting, recruiting, adjusting the unit's
staffing, alliances/ partnerships, suppliers to ensure the right
human capital is in place to today and the future.
- "Team" creation, leadership and mobilization in
order to advance the unit and the organization.
- Deliver results today, while positioning/growing/adapting
to deliver improved results for the future.
- Investment, risk-taking, initiative into uncharted territory
for the business unit/ function.
- Signing Authority often to commit the organization and its
resources to projects, contracts of service provision with clients
and some service/product purchase contracts. |
| |
|
|
| Vice-Presidents |
VP's are generally considered officers of the organization responsible
for leading major Divisions,
Professional Functions (Legal/Marketing) or Strategic Business
Units of organizations.
In government, this level can be referred to as Assistant Deputy
Minister (ADM). While expected to handle day-to-day operations
through the next layer of management (Directors), VP's are also
expected to operate at a higher, strategic level - focussed
on the future, developing longer-term strategy, investment,
alliances/partnerships and connection to major stakeholders.
They are also expected to represent the organization externally.
As an officer of the overall organization, a VP is not only
supposed to lead and advance their own Division, but to find
ways to contribute to and advance other parts of the organization
as well. Often they must represent, answer on behalf of, and
sometimes defend the actions of other executives with staff
and public. |
| |
Performance |
- Like all layers of management, VP's are measured on results
attained by their
Division and all those therein.
- Ensure the direction their Division is headed is appropriate
given the changing landscape around them.
- Phasing out areas on the wane, investing-in and innovating
new products/ programs/ services that will position the Division
for sustainability and growth.
- Share in the performance of the whole organization, including
poor performance, and other Divisions. |
| |
Accountability |
- Achievement of annual/quarterly results
- Growth and increased profitability over longer term - say
5 years or more
- Turn-around, start-up/growth, or downsizing strategy and execution
towards results over a 1-3 year period
- Contribution to shareholder/owner 'value' improvement.
- Development of assets: human, financial, technical,
IC, network & alliances, community/government relations,
etc.
- Return on investment in assets
- Brand recognition, product/program/service reputation,
community goodwill
- Operational impacts and side-effects |
| |
Responsibility |
- To accurately read the 'dynamics' in your industry
and beyond, including:
" changing expectations and demands for your services/products
" opportunities for innovation
" potential leverage with other parties through alliances/
partnerships
" provide clarity & accuracy in reporting, transparency
& accountability
" compliance or leadership w.r.t. regulation & standards
that apply to operations
- To grow the asset value of your Division
- To facilitate knowledge exchange and innovation throughout
the network of formal staff, suppliers, customers and community
members.
- To create Vision, and mobilize the Division towards a desired
future state in-line with overall organizational vision and
goals. |
| |
|
|
| Variations
On a Theme |
General
Managers/ Executive Directors/ Country Managers
In larger organizations or situations where there are distinct
'pods' of operations (geographic or Functional), companies will
sometimes create a layer situated between Director and VP. These
roles are similar to the VP role, except generally not officers
of the organization or members of the executive team; but the
do have overall responsibility and authority for both strategic
and operational aspects of their 'pod' of people, programs,
services, and product adaptations. |
| |
Senior
Vice-Presidents/ Executive Vice-Presidents
Again, mainly in larger organizations, there are added layers
within the VP cadre.
Senior Vice-Presidents will either be given such a title because
of their experience and seniority and/or they may have several
VP's reporting to them in a strategic area of organizational
operations from around the world - such as Sales, R&D or
IT.
The Executive Vice-President title is generally reserved for
a very senior class of VP's - often those that form the executive
committee of the CEO. In organizations where there are too many
VP's to have all of them together, a more nimble and smaller
group of advisors to the CEO and Board, the EVP's provide the
top strategic layer of the organization's management team. In
some cases the EVP title is reserved for the distinction of
the organization's #2, or from a succession point of view, the
next CEO. Now, often, Executive VP's are being appointed directly
by the Board - ensuring Board involvement in succession planning
and choice of its senior management cadre. |
| |
The
C-Suite - Standardization in Sr. Executive Titles is Evolving
Historically, and in many jurisdictions still today, the legally
recognized head officer of an organization in titled President.
Some organizations however have given the title of President
to an elected or appointed position leading the oversight body
such as the Board. This has required a different title to designate
the senior-most Management position which is responsible to
the oversight body/Board. |
| |
| Chief
Executive Officer |
In various
sectors and geographies, this role had become traditionally
titled as Executive Director, Managing Director, Deputy Minister,
Managing Partner, etc. often leading to confusion between
sectors and jurisdictions. Thus, the CEO title has evolved
to become somewhat of a standard worldwide to designate this
senior-most Management position accountable to the Board/
ownership body.
The CEO's
role in most organizations has also become consumed with activities
related to dynamics scanning and direction-setting, Board
linkage, plus the securing of financial and relational resources.
This requires
a great deal of work external to the organization - and while
they are expected to be accountable for and oversee day-to-day
operations, plus provide overarching Vision and direction,
the time-demands for CEO work alone often leads to the creation
of the next C-suite position - Chief Operating Officer.
|
| |
| Chief
Operating Officer |
Usually,
the #2 executive manager of the organization, this position
allows the CEO to travel, explore, think and raise financial/
relational capital for the organization. The COO position is
thus the one who is personally involved in leading all areas
of day-to-day operational management of the organization. Clearly
the CEO and COO positions must work closely together, trust
one another, and be in-synch. |
| |
| Chief
Financial Officer |
Similar
to the COO position, the CFO needs to be in-synch with the
CEO for all
matters financial. Historically the senior financial manager
in organizations has had varied names too. However, with the
evolving consistency of securities regulations around the
world and particularly the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act, standardization
around this CFO title has occurred rapidly.
CFO's
along with CEO's are now accountable to sign-off on the accuracy
of financial statements for their organization - with substantial
penalties for inaccuracies or malfeasance. As a result, the
CFO not only reports to the CEO but often has a direct connection
to the Board for financial reporting, processes and internal
procedures audit.
|
| |
| Chief
Information Officer |
The CIO
title is probably the next most common C-executive title.
Usually related to the IT function, it has also expanded beyond
this to include all organizational information and technological
back-bone, data-base, and e-commerce elements of the organization.
|
| |
| As
one can see, the C-titles are largely replacing the Executive
Vice-President language, or get added to the President and Vice
President titles in smaller organizations due to evolving standardization.
Other C-suite titles emerging include: |
| Chief
Administrative Officer |
-
Popular in Civic Governments as an alternative to the CEO title. |
| Chief
of Staffs |
-
Top HR executive |
| Chief
Talent Officer |
-
Top HR executive |
| Chief
Innovation Officer |
-
May be found in Research & Development or Marketing driven
organizations |
Chief
Strategy Officer
Chief Investment Officer
Chief Knowledge Officer |
- These
last few are probably self-evident, but start to break down
the distinction of such titles as being executive positions,
if not held by an executive.
|
Learning
from a Grand Experiment
In the early 1990's, while I was working at a major Canadian multinational
financial institution, the company's leadership embarked upon a
bold initiative to change titles in the organization.
For context,
we had spent many years building employee engagement, instituted
stock purchase, option and loan programs, and developed a significant
customer-focussed culture. Management had worked hard to break-down
barriers between management and non-management employees so that
all felt as "partners" in the business. The organization
chart was even circular - with customers/clients on the outside
rim along with front-line staff and professionals that served them.
management was represented by "spokes' of the wheel, with executives
at the hub - supporting outward the work of everyone else in delivering
value, products, programs and services to clients and community.
Such initiatives were very successful, engaging and helped drive
growth in the various business lines. We had a dynamic 6,000 employee
base around the world, "firing on all cylinders" so to
speak.
The next initiative
was to change titles in the organization. The idea was to go to
only 3 different titles - supplemented by functional description.
It was well considered, researched, debated and agreed upon by VP's.
| Managing
Partner |
The
Managing Partner title was to be for the executive/ officers
(VP's) with major
Divisional responsibility and authority. It was also marked
by the fact that these individuals had "invested"
in long-term growth and success of the company by purchasing
large blocks of company shares through a loan program organized
by the company.
Internally and externally, these individuals had accountability,
responsibility and authority to make final decisions. Clients,
suppliers and staff would know that "the buck stopped"
with these individuals. |
| |
| Partners
|
This
title was assigned to other managerial levels and key professionals
who could truly
impact and advance the organization by the decisions made and
judgement rendered. These individuals were also expected to
be investing in the company stock-purchase program (with matching
company contribution) and many senior-level Partners also received
"options".
The Partners were envisaged as the day-to-day "point-people"
for various business units and were also expected to work together
in a team environment - supporting one another. They were also
expected to be aware of how their own actions and those of others
in the Partner cadre would affect their share of success in
the overall organization. |
| |
| Associate
Partners |
This
title was for support staff and professionals largely working
as individual
contributors and directly interfacing with clients, suppliers,
community. Also, an Associate Partner was one who chose for
financial or other reasons not to participate in the company's
stock purchase plans. In most cases an Associate partner reported
to a Partner - sometimes a Managing Partner. |
Brilliant in
its simplicity and team-enhancing design, shortly after implementation
it was a complete failure!
It is hard to
know exactly why it didn't work out, especially with all the years
of work leading up to it. And, there were many business imperatives
to support it: de-layering, removal of "hierarchy" and
reduced bureaucracy. Clearly there was a multi-dimensional set of
issues that brought it crashing down.
Internally
the several layers bundled together now into the Partner category
led to confusion of the distinctive differences in performance,
accountability and responsibility outlined in the title parameters
earlier. Some felt 'demoted', others felt uncomfortably 'stretched',
yet in truth there were many who embraced the approach with exuberance.
The cultural foundations had been well laid down.
Probably the
layer least affected was the Managing Partner group. They were already
well established and recognized anyway, and they already had maturity
and capacity for working with ambiguity. There were also some with
dissent in this group too, as could be expected.
The Associate
Partners category felt a little ostracised, in a way we didn't predict
and certainly wasn't intended. And, there was some confusion around
the whole involvement in the stock purchase program. Some who were
involved in the stock purchase program were still given the Associate
Partner title.
Externally
the world just wasn't ready for such a significant change. Again
there had been lead-up and lot's of communication. But clients still
needed to know which Partners did what, and to whom they should
elevate special requests or complaints. Other organizations and
suppliers were dubious whether all Managing Partners actually had
authority to sign contracts and represent the organization - and
again to whom did they elevate concerns/issues?
In general,
the social importance and personal identity dynamics caught up in
titles was really underestimated. The move to only 3 Titles also
caused confusion - where once we had well developed clarity - about
what was truly expected from each Layer and/or Function and/or Professional
nomenclature. This initiative went up against generations of 'conditioning'
which, while most were intellectually agreeable to the change, was
difficult to handle at the 'gut' level. Within about 2 years of
its implementation, titles had reverted back to the traditional.
We learned the
hard way, that titles play an important structural and social role
in organization and broader society! We also learned appreciation
for all the good things that had evolved over the years in the existing
titles and the clarity built into the system. Additionally, I think
that it proved titles can evolve and should do so something like
the C-suite evolution. The initiative might even have been successful
if it had added the 3 titles to people's business cards, then over
time, eliminated the traditional. Unfortunately the 'revolutionary'
approach proved to be something much more difficult!
Requisite
Organization
Any discussion on organizational titles and structures would be
deficient without reference to the work of Dr. Elliott Jacques.
Jacques, a Canadian psychologist who spent most of his years in
England and some in the USA, was one of the Human Resources field's
leading thinkers. He developed a rigorous theoretical base form
a systems thinking perspective, focusing on organizational management,
leadership and human resources.
His work on
managerial accountability hierarchies recognizes that no matter
how collegial and team-based we aspire to be, our organizations
and society still have natural hierarchies - and must do so to function
well. He examined corporations, government, religious organizations,
the military and more. He examined the fads of the past century
that have come and gone, along with various modern concepts that
do work.
Jacques built
his Stratified Systems Theory which examined organizational strata
based upon:
- Complexity
of time/role
- Time-span
aspects for thinking, judgement-rendering, and decision-making
- Values/commitment
alignment
- Skilled knowledge
required for the role
His strata for
organizations identified 7 fundamental levels:
|
Requisite
Organization - Stratified Systems Theory Summary
|
| Stratum |
Complexity/Time
Span Judgement |
Organizational
Title |
| VII |
- Constructs
complex systems
- 25
yr envisionment for planning/judgement/impact
|
CEO/COO |
| VI |
- Oversees
complex systems
- 12
yr conceptualization for programs/strategy
|
EVP |
| V |
- Judges
downstream consequences Business Unit
- 7 yr
critical task identification/ investment/ prioritization
|
President/VP |
| IV |
- Parallel
processes & multiple paths to success
- 3 yr
projects, Business plan /Budget considerations
|
General
Manager |
| III
|
- Creative
alternative pathways
- 18
month development and cycle thinking
|
Unit
Manager |
| II |
- Diagnostic
accumulation - success/perf. assessment 1st
- 6 month
improvement - within annual budget/plan
|
Line
Manager |
| I
|
- Overcome
obstacles, use of practical judgement
- Daily
to weekly outputs
|
Shop
& Office Floor |
The reader can
see that Jacques' grid is similar to the management layers presented
earlier in the article. Somewhat controversial in Jacques' work
is also the consideration of whether individuals have the mental
capacity/experience to work at higher levels. One thing is clear
in my experience, that throwing people into higher levels without
any experience at lower levels is sure recipe for failure. And yet,
organizations often do this. Technical-professional development
is not the same as the socio-strategic elements wrapped up in Jacques'
stratification.
As Elliott Jacques
passed away in 2003, the Knowledge Economy was just starting to
come into prominence. It would be interesting to see how his concepts
may have evolved to include knowledge-professionals outside the
management sphere that must address increasing complexity and time-span
effects of their judgement.
Application
to Realities of Today
The most obvious application of these concepts is for executives
and their organizations to ensure titles are used correctly - and
that those at each level of management truly understand the performance,
accountability and responsibility elements of their role.
However, the
bigger challenge today comes from de-layering. Making our organizations
"leaner and meaner", has meant often eliminating layers
of management, plus adding responsibility and team-leadership/ self-direction
expectations to our non-management knowledge professionals.
So, if
you eliminate a layer, what do you do with their responsibilities
- push them up or push them down?
This is a critical
organizational design question.
Often
we push them down - hoping, expecting that the lower layer
people will rise-up to the challenge. In some cases the individual
is ready, willing and has the capacity to do so. Frequently however,
we push these higher-level management functions, expectations for
judgement, plus requirement for handling complexity and ambiguity
down and it backfires. Particularly in the absence of coaching or
mentoring by executives, this is proving to have debilitating effects
in many organizations.
Another option
of course, is to pull the responsibilities upward.
Clearly the capacity and competence should exist with the more senior
people, but there is usually a different cost. As senior levels
reach down and absorb the responsibilities of eliminated layers,
we see delay or procrastination of longer-term strategic thinking.
Also frequently observed is the reduced facilitation of innovation,
knowledge exchange and motivating inter-personal practices. This
condition of "overworked executive", absorbing the eliminated
lower-level responsibilities, has become almost endemic in North
America and the deleterious effect is starting to make its way across
Europe too.
The more we
de-layer and ignore the different natural levels of systems hierarchy
and management, the more we realize that these layers were our "engines"
for such value creating organizational practices as: knowledge-exchange,
innovation, and succession preparation.
We find ourselves
staring at a paradox. The answer unfortunately, is not to re-layer.
Rethink -
Redesign
Staring into this paradox, realize that our traditional approach
to control-point, mentoring and management layers is threatened
by more than economics. Global expansion, along with our demographics,
is such that the number of doctors, lawyers, executives, and complex
socio-strategic decision-makers are starting to decrease through
retirement and slower replacement rates from new generations. Electoral
processes, some narrowed leadership thinking, and frankly some desperation,
are putting people into positions for which they have had no development
and arguably have insufficient capacity to handle.
We must stare
into this paradox further and re-invent structures, authorities,
control-points, and "case" or "team" approaches
to address this challenge. Be careful however, these are not traditional
team, case or structural approaches. We are going to have to integrate
managerial/leadership elements along with knowledge professional/technical
roles. But this will not occur naturally or without careful development
programs either. As learned from the financial institution experiment,
we will have to evolve into these structures rather than totally
revolutionizing them.
In North America,
demographic trends suggest we have about 5 years to evolve these
new structures before it will be too late. This also gives us time
to use the aging "Grey Wave" generation to serve as important
mentors and guides during this evolution process.
When it comes
to job titles of the future, they will still form an important source
of social standing and personal identity. Increasingly they will
be globally referenced. Most importantly they are going to have
to be different - rewired into Partnership and Team approaches,
but also taking into account natural strata of complexity and time-bound
thinking. Finally we will have to work very intentionally, to be
clear about the performance, accountability and responsibility components
of these new roles and structures.
The challenge
is now. The timing is urgent. Organizational design for
the future of companies, our health care system, our systems of
audit and financial integrity, our legal systems, government, and
voluntary organizations are all suffering and need this attention.
What's in
a job title?
A complex socio-strategic-structural-accountability web that is
faced with undergoing significant change in the next 5 years!
|
