“Everyone wants to be important.”

Is there something degrading about ordinary job titles? You know, the kind which have been around for years? I can remember when companies had personnel departments, but someone didn’t like that so they’re now called “Human Resources.” Why? I don’t honestly know. I did find this explanation:

The human resource management or personnel function of an organisation covers a variety of activities. The term “human resource management” has largely replaced the old-fashioned word “personnel”, which was used in the past. The type of work covered in the human resource function might include policy making role, welfare role, supporting role, bargaining and negotiating role, administrative role and educational and development role.

And that’s all there is to it. The word “personnel” died because it was “old fashioned.”
Anyway, the latest trend (actually, 3674 hits make it more of a done deal) is to do away with “receptionists.” The position is now to be called “Director of First Impressions“:

She used to be known as the receptionist.
Now she’s the Director of First Impressions.
Barbara Levine is one of several employees in the Scottsdale Unified School District whose job titles have changed in a sharp departure from the traditional titles that parents grew up using.
National workplace experts say they are unaware of another school district in the United States that has changed its titles so dramatically, and they disagree over whether the new titles, which are designed to reflect the district’s commitment to learning, are good. Parents, they say, could become confused over whom to contact if they have a complaint.
Was the school bus late? Blame the “transporter of learners,” formerly the bus driver.
Got a problem with your school principal? Take it up with the 10-word “executive director for elementary schools and excelling teaching and learning,” formerly known as the assistant superintendent of elementary schools.
Sound confusing or like hyperbole?
Scottsdale Superintendent John Baracy, who created the new titles for about a half-dozen employees, doesn’t think so.
“This is to make a statement about what we value in the district. We value learning,” said Baracy, who pledges to back up the new titles with better customer service.
The new job titles got the Scottsdale School Board’s approval recently, and so far parents don’t seem bothered.
“I think it’s more a positive affirmation than hyperbole,” said new board member Jennifer Petersen, who has three children in school.
Workplace experts disagree whether the new job titles are a positive step.
Liz Ryan, who spent 20 years in human resources and founded WorldWIT, a Web site devoted to women’s workplaces issues, calls the new titles “trivial, sad and misguided.”
“When you are talking about education, you better be kind of serious, and I don’t mean stodgy, but grown-up. ‘Director of First Impressions’ makes me want to gag,” she said.
Ryan said the word “director” implies there is something wrong with being a receptionist.

That was in February. Since then, the term “Director of First Impresions” has caught on — to the point where not only is George F. Will (henceforth the nation’s Stodginess Czar) complaining about it, but its appearing on official government forms like this. (Of course, there are “Director of First Impressions” training seminars too.)
Once George F. Will and the government forms agree on something, I’d say we’re stuck with it.
Regardless of first impressions.
Back to the lowly receptionist with a new title. She likes it:

As for Levine, Scottsdale’s Director of First Impressions, she loves her new title.
“I think it’s classy,” she recently said while answering the telephone and directing a visitor to the right office. “It sounds so important. Everyone wants to be important.”

Maybe that’s the problem.
In other, totally unrelated news, I finally found a working definition (with emphasis on the word “working”) of “professional journalist”:

Professional journalists are defined as those who receive at least 50% of their income from journalistic activity, either freelance or employed by a news organization.

I guess that means that if you’re not being paid, you’re either unimportant, or self important.
Don’t look at me; I don’t make these rules and I could never make them up.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to ““Everyone wants to be important.””

  1. rodander Avatar
    rodander

    I actually think that the change from “personnel” to “human resources” is more of an indication of a dehumanizing of the workforce. Personnel are no longer people, they are merely resources of the human kind, just like equipment resources, capital resources, etc. And thus easier to “manage” by way of reducing headcount, etc.
    I’m no lefty, believe me. But I really don’t think this stems from self-importance of the personnel dept. as much as top-down short term management by the bean counters.

  2. Practical Penumbra Avatar

    Just call me the S.E.E.E.R.D.*

    One of the reasons I enjoy reading Eric of Classical Values is his impatience with all the silly trappings of the politically correct. This post on more ego-massaging titles for jobs (think “sanitation engineer”) made me realize how out of step we are …

  3. LYNN Avatar
    LYNN

    The Super. of Schools is an Idiot!! Now, the woman that is a “Director” better ask for a raise to reflect her her position as a “Director” (of something).

  4. Scott Rassbach Avatar
    Scott Rassbach

    Welcome to 1984. Newspeak is everywhere.