There is nothing more useful than invoking "use and custom" to explain many of the paradigms and even a large part of the expectations that float in society in relation to certain elements of contemporary administration, such as the so common titles and names that are given to charges.
Dreaming of being the president of a firm is not strange to anyone, and it is that even cultural expressions such as movies and soap operas feed this type of fantasies by offering images of wealthy tycoons with extensive and luxurious offices where money seems to be associated with a position or title in particular.
This type of social illusions generate in people at least two opposite expressions, oriented to the same end but with different methodologies to achieve them, either the hard way: studies, work and deprivation, or the "easy" way through not so obvious elements.
The possession of titles and positions seems to be a common denominator that resides in the subconscious of each person who wishes to grow in the work field, no matter their position, either as an employee or as an employer.
Some companies have exploited these claims by giving simple, operational, and monotonous activities flashy names that appeal to people whose dominant paradigm places particular importance on names in any office. For example, it seems to have more level and sophistication to be a "Sales Executive" than a "Salesperson" even when the purpose is completely the same. Being known as the "Director of Administration" and not as the "Head of the Company" will be more in line with the responsibilities that one has in a particular area and, finally, it does not seem to have the same impact, as regards the protection of the facilities is about hiring a "Guard" instead of a "Security Officer".
Es un hecho. Muchas posiciones son sobrevaloradas debido a la explotación del nombre que le asignan obviando totalmente el nivel de responsabilidad e incluso de remuneración que la misma posee. No obstante, una vez que se ingresa en el mercado laboral esta ilusión asociada a los nombres puede llegar a producir decepciones alarmantes, pues es también muy común observar como cargos u ocupaciones que carecen de ciertas exigencias resultan mejor remunerados y dan mayores satisfacciones que aquellos que parecen inalcanzables y son rudamente disputados en la escena laboral.
An example of these encounters with reality can be seen in the cyber market. Programmers and systems analysts usually have respectable levels of income depending on the level of expertise they possess. It is so interesting to study these cases that for some people it is unusual to observe that a young oracle programmer, to name a few branches, can receive as compensation the same amount or more than any director, manager or head of systems of a medium-sized company, and All this without having to assume the limitations associated with these names, since in this field it has been understood that the programmer has levels of efficiency that are not necessarily tied to traditional schedules.
These differences between positions and income are everywhere, from people who have been dedicated to the sale of products in multi-level companies, to briefcase consultants whose advisory function seems vital to any organization, the interesting thing about these cases in which none of them You present yourself as the CEO of your area, even if your income exceeds or equals that position.
So titles are a myth. People are not more or less important because of the titles of their positions, the root of the importance is not in the name of the position they occupy, but in the impact that the operation or the strategy of the same impresses on the organization. This means that if a person occupies a position called "Administrative Assistant" but their functions, products and services generate a determining relationship in the company, their consideration being the same size of that impact, it does not matter if they are called that or what call her Chief Executive Officer.
Anyone who has studied Organization and Methods or some way of putting order in organizations could contradict the above, since offering a name to each position and offering a level of importance to that name is what allows companies to maintain order, hierarchy and the motivation to climb to higher positions. And that's fine. It is fine for companies structured and designed in the purest fashion of the first half of the 20th century.
But contemporary organizations do not require such gadgets to keep the employee, seen now more as a collaborative partner, interested through complicated and intermingled names to generate fictitious statuses that collapse when compared to other benefits and trade-offs.
Contemporary companies look at the individual under a different concept and therefore it will be worth more the more value added, regardless of the name of the position they occupy.
Perhaps this complex link of titles and degrees is the result of an ancestral tradition associated with monarchies and their wide subdivisions, where it was necessary, and even vital, to hold a title to enter the nobility and be heard by the rest of the " important people ”, as it is still understood today that people can do once they have reached a supervisory position in any traditional company.
Another myth associated with titles and positions is the very existence of them as essential elements to be recognized as companies, at present it is utopian to imagine an organization without positions and hierarchical structures, as it is exposed in the Managerial Zeitgeist, since traditionally those they are elements of commercial companies that are required in the same legislation, which by the way has been shaped by people who have a typical conception of the company.
People should focus more on the object of the position they occupy than on the name of the position itself, and perhaps this was the success of sycophants in monarchies, because even when they were considered inferior, they knew the level of influence that such positions had. and its impact on the king's decisions. These people were called in many ways, and even enjoyed derogatory or funny names, but such was their strength that they could rule in the life or death of a person.
The monarchical concept is understood in companies under the vision of the president, who is the king, and the vice presidents who become the viceroys, the directors could be equal to the shareholders and so on, which shows that the titles and positions are only a paradigm that has been translated from other administrative sources and whose importance and interest responds more to a pattern that refuses to disappear than to a legitimate administrative reason.
