The Ethics of Titles

A few weeks back there was a story running around the news sites about the director of a major social service agency who had once served in a high national office, and how she was now requiring everyone who worked for the agency to address her by her former title, rather than as Ms (or by her first name). If you’ve spent any time on the non-profit side of business you already know that this is a bit eccentric; most non-profits are managed and operated by people who care about the cause they are working on, or at least about the constituency they are trying to serve, to the exclusion of money, fame, status or any other common motivation. They are unlikely to request any special title or form of address, and even less likely to tolerate being required to acknowledge someone’s status in any other organization. But just because such a requirement is eccentric, not to mention arrogant, does that mean it is also unethical?

There are any number of high-ranking posts that include a permanent title as one of the perks of the job. Someone who has previously served as the governor of a state, for example, is correctly addressed as Governor Whoever, even if their term ended decades ago and they have never returned to public life. One could certainly argue that anyone who has devoted the time and effort required to achieve high public office – and then served in that position with any degree of distinction – has earned the right to be accorded with a title of honor from then on. Where this convention becomes murky is when these honors are claimed by people who have never been elected to any post; who served in appointed positions at the pleasure of an executive who may have been merely returning an old favor or rewarding a trusted crony (with no particular virtues beyond loyalty to his or her patron). Continued use of the title is still legal, but requiring people to acknowledge your achievements when all you have accomplished is toadying, boot licking and the like seems a bit questionable…

On the other hand, most non-profit organizations require working ridiculous hours under impossible conditions in the pursuit of solutions to impossible problems for insultingly low compensation – and that’s just for the temps; most of the permanent staff have it even worse. Anyone who has given up a comfortable, high-paying, well-respected position offering perks like a permanent title in order to manage such an agency is probably entitled to anything that makes them feel better – assuming, of course, that it doesn’t undermine the agency or its mission. The problem is that all of the other employees of your average non-profit have also given up higher-paying jobs with more perks and better working conditions – sacrificed, in other words, just as the executives have, and frequently without the benefits of a fancy title to use or a staff of subordinates to feel superior to. Such people may be willing to accept the conditions they work under because the agency offers them a chance to participate in making a better world – but they’re unlikely to be impressed by anyone else’s sacrifices, given the ones they are already making…

In the long run, most of the people who are committed enough to a cause to work full time for an agency that works on that cause don’t really care what the people at the top want to be called, so long as they are good for the agency and ultimately for the cause itself. The question is, all else being equal, should the agency encourage the use of first names (or some other egalitarian form of address) in order to foster a collegial atmosphere, or use any available measures of respect (titles or otherwise) in order to express appreciation for people with experience, influence or connections who are willing to lend their credentials to the enterprise?

It’s worth thinking about…