What’s your perception of a leader who has an “interesting” title?
Our reader poll today asks: What is your perception of a leader who has an “interesting” title with words like “guru” or “ninja” in it?
– It’s awesome and fun: 3.71%
– It’s OK: 4.3%
– I don’t care what they’re called as long as the work gets done: 23.28%
– It’s silly and I view them as less credible: 68.72%
Stop being a guru ninja! Clearly most folks find self-given titles like “guru” or “ninja” to be silly and you lose credibility for having it on your card or signature block. At best, you get apathy over it and clearly it drives a very small percentage of people to think you’re more highly of you. Now while you may not have a silly title like that, you must realize this dynamic applies to every aspect of your “signature block persona.” You need to ensure your don’t fall into the typical traps of a bad electronic calling card. Your first impression and credibility depend upon it.
Do you agree with these poll results? Let us know in the comments below!
– Mike Figliuolo at thoughtLEADERS, LLC
Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!
These results were originally a SmartPulse poll in SmartBrief on Leadership which tracks feedback from more than 190,000 business leaders. Get smarter on leadership and sign up for the SmartBrief on Leadership e-newsletter.
Nice point! It is nice to confirm from your data that people cut through the “cute titles” and appreciate solid organizational basics. Thanks for providing consistently high value content.
At our company we’re allowed to make up whatever title we’d like (within reason of course). The main point is that titles are generally not descriptive of what you really do (how many “Vice Presidents” do you know of at companies?) and limiting in terms of pigeon-holing your capabilities. Not having set titles avoids people getting hung up on moving up the title career ladder and should be more about what value they bring to the table. Lastly, they do give people a chance to express themselves in a creative kind of way.
The majority of people I’ve come in contact with have liked the idea, and I’ve never heard of a situation where people were considered less credible as a result of using a creative title.
The poll response might also be interpreted as an indication of how resistant we are to change and innovation. As the founder of a micro college called Campus for Communities of the Future, the existing and traditional titles simply didn’t reflect our collaborative, responsive, flat, and nimble way of working. As a result I’m not a CEO with all that might convey in terms of tradition and command-and-control. My title is “Principal Collaborator” and I think it is a much more accurate description for how I work both internally and with external stakeholders. Maybe sometimes new ways of doing things simply need new language.
I share Joe and Brenda’s perspectives. Usually what people think is more a reflection of their own biases. It’s unfortunate that we are quick to judge others based on a title instead of who they are and what they bring to the table. At the end of the day, if I’ve chosen a ‘fun’ title and someone downgrades my credibility before getting to know me, I’m probably better off not working for/with them. I’d be concerned it might mean we also won’t align on some core values and principles which is essential to success.
I suspect these results are highly industry-specific. If you’re offering professional services to Fortune 500 services, “Master of Legal Magic” isn’t appropriate. But for a series-A startup? It’s probably just fine.