The company I work for is going through a restructure, but unlike the vast majority of tech companies out there, no one is losing the job. The changes are a reshuffle of one of our departments, splitting the function so they report to different parts of the organization. Yet, despite everyone's role staying the same and no one losing their positions, it is a reminder as to how important a job is in people's identity.
For instance, people tend to define themselves by their professional selves over their personal lives, which is why people ask, "What do you do?" and the reply is career-based, or at a more general level, tell the company that they work for. And, this is also why the biggest changes in life actually come around the retirement age, because it is here that people will tend to "lose" how they have seen themselves for the last forty-odd years.
However, the reminder at the announcement came through the reactions that some people had to the news, which wasn't actually a massive surprise, and the changes do make sense, if looking at the company at a macro level - but most don't. Instead, people look at it through the lens of their role, which is natural - however they also have a confusion which I have mentioned several times over the years, where they think that it is their job.
When working for a company, the employee is filling a company role, the position is owned and defined by the company who pays someone to perform the tasks. Looking at it this way, we are all outsourced workers, contracted to perform accordingly. But, naturally, we start to believe that we own the position that we fill and as such, no one can change it in anyway without our permission. Of course, there are contractual obligations that go each way, but for instance, people tend to complain about a new software tool they are required to use, as if they actually have a choice in the matter.
But, this sense of ownership gets extended outward beyond the role also, so for example, if a role stays identical, but is shifted from one organization to another, people feel that their role has somehow changed, because the name of the organization the report to is different. Remembering that the role itself is the same, including the title being the same, what has changed?
However, these reshuffles do cause some hierarchical headaches for some people, if they adhere to hierarchy at all. The hierarchical structure of this company is there in the sense of the organization, but it is relatively flat in terms of daily practice and culture. However, this is different on the US side of the organization where people seem to be far more sensitive to their level, both upwardly and downwardly.
For example, when I was in Lisbon a few months ago for a global meeting, I was sitting at a table eating lunch with a group from the US, with a Sales Leader and some Sales People. I sat down late there and just started joining into the conversation, where I noticed that the Sales people were nodding along as if the Leader was a mythical being. While I am exaggerating somewhat, they definitely were more agreeable than what they would be in Europe, and when I started essentially taking the piss out of the Leader, who is several rungs up the ladder above me, they didn't know how to react.
While right or wrong, this is my nature, and authority itself means very little to me. I respect this person a lot, but not because of their position, because of who they are and as a result, we have a relationship of mutual trust and respect. This is a topic I would dive into at another point from a cultural perspective, but highlights the hierarchical nature of some people who act differently when they sense authority, creating power dynamics.
And, with the changes in the organization, my Supervisor brought up a potential change in power dynamics for me, which I hadn't considered. Because, if the changes are finalized as expected, my previous supervisor who is technically above me, will be placed beside me in the structure. This was brought up to see if I think it would cause any problems for us personally, but I do not believe so, because of the relationship we have always held. One where we were colleagues before they were promoted, but always maintained a level way of talking to each other. In fact, when they were promoted by my current supervisor, I was asked my opinion about their suitability for the role and after they took the role, I was a sounding board for them, even after I left their team to my current role.
Yet still, hierarchy is something that needs to be considered, because I have often brought up with the leaders I work with, I do not have the authority to tell their teams to do anything at all. However, also don't have the responsibility of their results, even if I play a role in their success or possible failures. My approach is on one of suggestion, where I build a framework for something that they can leverage if they choose, which makes it all opt-in, not forced. If they use it and it works, great - if they don't, fine - if they use it and it fails, well... That doesn't happen too often.
Which means that despite not having hierarchical power, it doesn't mean I don't have authoritative power. It is essentially the role of a narrow influencer that effects behavioral change, but it is through a narrow lens that has quantifiable outputs that prove effective or not. This means that through experience, the authority is given by impact made on the organization, not through the title of the role.
Andi think that this might be a subtle difference for some, but it also highlights what I was speaking about before in terms of the position not being owned by the employee. Sure, I am a paid contractor for the role and there are tasks that have to be done in order to meet the needs of the organization, but I own the way I behave - that is what defines me. It has nothing to be with my title or the name of the department in which I work.
But, it is far less tangible than a title and it cannot be conveyed well in a conversation where people ask what I do, because the role doesn't describe my behaviors, skills or the impact made. It is like three people saying "professional driver" as a role, but one drives a taxi, the second an earthmover and the third a Formula One car. Does the title describe each accurately enough?
In this day and age, it is super unsexy to talk about working in a company and being good at your job, because the public discourse is all about people quiet quitting (and getting quiet fired), bare-minimum Mondays and complaining about terrible bosses who have the gall to expect the people they have hired and signed a contract for a wage to perform certain tasks, to actually do those tasks. Yet, even when I talk to the young people who have almost no credible experience under their belt, they still define themselves by the role they are currently doing, often trying to make it sound far more authoritative than it actually is, by giving it an important sounding title.
Again, part of a different discussion that deserves more in depth though, but I believe that title inflation, is part of a larger trend in society that devalues everything of value through ubiquity. Everyone is a photographer and with AI, counts themselves an artist or a writer too. Yet, at the end of the day, it really does come down to us as individuals and the impact we make on other people, where authority is not granted by a role, but how that role is played.
This is going to become far more apparent in the coming years, when the unskilled are going to struggle heavily, because they are unable to do the tasks required to make themselves valuable to an organization, or community, because an AI can do it and, it doesn't care about what it is called, or its position in society. Nor does it care about being respected for a job well done, and it can't be punished for poor performance - it just gets made obsolete.
Like many of us will soon become.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]