A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME....

I had to take a few days to actually work on my job hunt, but here's #3 in a series of blogs about job hunting. I'd like to talk about titles...

I don't think this will be particularly applicable to consultants. If you're a consultant, your title at a given company is "The Consultant", whether you're acting as a tester, lead, manager, or director. Your authority will be derived from whomever hired you. The client is not going to care what your actual title is and they don't have to worry about fitting your position into their permanent corporate hierarchy. Any title they associate with a consultative opportunity is merely an indication of the level of expertise they require, if they even bother with that. For example, if they say they need a lead, they don't necessarily care if you have 5 or 25 years of experience, as long as you can get the job done within the rate they have in mind.

If you're looking for a full-time opportunity, however, your title is important whether or not you personally care about such things. In the corporate world, your title establishes your placement in the corporate hierarchy. This isn't just for you or for your ego. This tells OTHERS in the company where you fit in, what you control, and what kind of authority/responsibility you bear. Your title alone tells others how they need to interact with you. It can smooth your path, or place difficult obstacles in your way.

Every person at your level is your peer. So if you work in a company with 200 test managers, it's likely your responsibilities will be similar to that of a lead and you will not have authority that extends beyond the testing products of a group responsible for one application or suite of apps. In addition, the way your group operates may be dictated to you.

So even if you've worked as "just a lead" elsewhere, if it was a small shop and you ran the show, you might find the position somewhat restrictive, to say the least. Still, if you're presently a lead, this might be a good career move, if other aspects of the job are appealing. Having the word "manager" in your title can open other doors.

Because titles are unique to each company, they should be largely disregarded when exploring a job opportunity. But the title's placement within the hierarchy should never be disregarded. The opportunity you accept should place you in a slot that gives you the best opportunity to be successful within that environment.

Consider, for example, that the actual job that needs to be done is to establish and manage a testing function, with all that implies. The position is called "QA Manager". Pretty standard, right? But say upon further investigation, you find the highest-ranking development and operation managers with whom you would work are senior managers and directors. They report to a VP who reports to the CIO. The QA Manager position reports to a director who has no specific QA or testing experience. They may report to the same VP that handles operations and development. What does this tell you?

Well, a prudent advisor would tell you that it would be tacky to leave a job interview screaming "Noooo!!!!!" while fleeing the premises. It doesn't really tell you "DON'T TAKE THIS JOB, FOOL!!". It does, however, tell you in clear and honest terms, what kind of issues you'll be working through if you choose to take the position. Your position is at least 2 levels below the highest-ranking managers you'd be working with and need to influence. In short, they're gonna outrank you.

Anyone at a level above you will have more clout and a closer link to those that control your world. They are not, in unspoken corporate reality, obligated to negotiate with you, listen to you, or treat you like a peer. In fact, if they don't like your shoes, they might decide to undermine your efforts. You need the authority to do what you need to do, and a title automatically sets the expectations of OTHERS to a certain level. If you're a peer, even if others are predisposed to not want to work with you (and this can be based on many things, not because you're not a Great or Talented Individual), your status within the hierarchy requires them to treat you as an equal and try to work things out. Or else you have the same options for escalating problems that they do.

So if you don't have the title, it means you need to understand and accept that successfully performing the job is going to require you to be exceptionally confident, persuasive, and determined. It's possible that even those qualities won't help; you won't know unless you take the position. If you have not historically been an outstanding negotiator with people predisposed to dislike you or testing groups in general, you might want to consider this opportunity carefully. One of the realities of life is that people often dislike, fear, or mistrust change. Your presence in the company is going to represent some level of change. You need to be ready to act as an agent of change, and that's not easy if you don't have the authority to do so.

And promises are just that - promises. They are not what represents actual reality right now and they may or may not come to pass. I've found (for myself) that it is infinitely better to look at a position as it exists and assume it will remain that way. Are you accepting a position you want right now, or the position you hope it might become? What if your wishful thinking never comes to pass? Will you still be satisfied? Ruthless management of your own desires and expectations can help you find the right position.

Likewise with being swayed by title and money. What if that Executive Director of Quality or Associate VP position has no direct reports and no budget? That makes you a cat with no claws. You'll still be able to yowl, but you won't win any fights. And that's OK, if you prefer yowling to fighting anyway. As long as your expectations are met and you have the authority to do what you need to do, it's All Good.

Generally, I think you need to "trust your gut". If something smells bad, it probably IS bad. If, however, the job makes you salivate, you continue to think about what you'd do and how you'd tackle the job at all hours (as opposed to just thinking about how you'd spend your paycheck), then you're In Love and it's probably best to ignore titles, if you can, and just go for it. I passed by director and AVP titles for my last position, which was a "mere manager", because the job itself was what I wanted to do. And I have to say it was the right decision. For ME. Sexy titles might be a deciding factor for you - there's nothing wrong with that if it makes you happy. I know MANY people where status is spice that makes everything else worthwhile. I think they're nice-to-haves. I certainly wouldn't pass by a Juicy Title if everything else was in line with my career goals, but it doesn't tempt me otherwise.

I spend a good half of my time sorting out what a given opportunity's title actually means; if you fling yourself into the job market, you'll probably find yourself in the unenviable position of doing the same. It doesn't help that some contracting and placement firms send you every opening they've got available without actually reading your resume. I've found that being clear in your cover letters is helpful, as well as requesting a job description from (whomever) contacts you. From there, questions regarding "who reports to whom" are best covered in the actual interview (s).

So here's hoping I find a "Queen of QA" position that doesn't end up being either "Untouchable Goddess With No Staff", or "Wretched Serf With Less Authority Than a Rutabaga". Now if you'll excuse me, I've just received an inquiry as to my interest and availability for a "tester" position for which I'd have to relocate to
Upper Mongolia. I've always wanted to live in a yurt.....