LEADERSHIP WITHOUT TITLE

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Finance Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Managing Director, Chairman and Managing Director, Non-Executive Chairman, Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Senior President, First President, Senior Executive Vice President, Executive Vice President, Senior Vice President, Vice President 1, Vice President 2, Associate Vice President, Assistant Vice President, General Manager, Deputy General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Chief Manager, Administrative Head, Head HR, Group Head, Jt. Managing Director, Dean, Vice-Chancellor, Professor, Adjunct Professor and to top it all.....................

CHIEF MENTOR

Every aspect of the Business world or otherwise and irrespective of what we do in life outside the homes cannot be without titles..or is it really that? The woman of the home feels it is very low if she is not introduced as "The Home Maker" and to further show case the position, advertisements depict the Lady first as "The Home Wife" instead of "House Wife" since the House is not in her name and the Home Wife is something much inferior to the House Wife..

I have personally been smitten by the Title and at each point in time wanted to showcase every title which came my way as something of an achievement. And the title decided the way my communication was. If I were to communicate with someone equal, the same was full of sarcasm trying to put the other person down so as to prove a point.

It has become so ridiculous, that association of a quality person with an organization cannot be without attaching a title to his name. Philosophically speaking it is a Zero sum game. Let us leave philosophy for the time being and concentrate on the person. Unfortunately, we have come to a situation that the Title achieves all and the person with the title is "Nothing" without the title. Did we all get it wrong when it was said that everything is a Zero sum game?If so why do we attach so much importance to the Title?

I specifically bring in the reference to the CHIEF MENTOR. This was a title which was provided to the out going CEO of a leading Corporate Giant. The person in question was one of the best leaders of people and the very behaviour of the person was something every person would like to emulate. His very presence could shake an entire building full of quality audience and could silence the noisiest crowds when he stood to speak out his mind. He is an inspiration even after many years of exit out of the active business life. Unfortunately, neither whosoever gave him the Title, nor himself did understand the very meaning of the CHIEF MENTOR or rather the meaning behind his role as a Mentor. Did they give him the title that the Mentoring from him could be expected only if they crossed the entire bureaucracy of other Mentors? Did they have other titles like Deputy Chief Mentor, Assistant Chief Mentor, Mentor, Assistant Mentor, Junior Mentor etc.,? This is the absurdity with which titles are being prepared by the business world and we are becoming puppets in the hands of titles.

Or is it only restricted to Business life? Deputy Chief Minister and Deputy Prime Minister is something we have been subjected to many a time. So politics has not been spared either. General Secretary, Vice President, President etc., keep coming and going. But the best is ex-General Secretary, Ex- Vice President etc., etc., Even after years and years of achievement, the name has to be associated with a title irrespective of it being Current, Former, EX or otherwise. Simply funny.

Enough of the pre-cursor to this post. Honestly I am fed up with various Titles in our society. Titles were provided as a matter of respect and to convey the Importance of a particular person with respect to his achievement  in the Society, The Kingdom, The Country and so on. This has now become a joke that anything and everything starts and ends with the Title.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi--In a gentle way you can shake the World.

This Man did not have a title until someone thought it appropriate to call him "The Mahatma" and that is what it is. The Great Soul.

Subash Chandra Bose--became Netaji

Jawahar Lal Nehru--Chacha Nehru

Indira Gandhi--Was always Indira Gandhi, the PM post was only something which was identifying her position in the Government.

Nelson Mandela--Was always only Nelson Mandela till he became President. But the role he played and achieved was something which he did without the Title.

The idea behind this post is to bring to readers' notice to how we are all restricted by the Titles we hold and we cannot think beyond the functional roles we play. There is no holistic view for most of us and we are all trivialized by the Title. Just remove the Title and see how it works, most of the times it would be chaotic, because without the Title we end up as Nobody and the Zero sum game plays its role once more.

Further, I am not trying to say that positions should not exist, they will probably bring in more organized approach and all that which shows who is under control. However, if we really think within the box of the Title, there is very little beyond exercising control. That is what differentiates between the Real Leader and the Title Holder. The Title holder will try to protect his Title and all that comes along with that and the next Title and the next and so on and so forth. However, a Leader has only one role to play, he leads and is focused on what he has to do for his Team. Every person has a leadership quality within himself and success is his birth right. However, the moment we build a cocoon around us in the form of a Title, the cocoon only becomes larger while we are confined within the cocoon, whereas the world at large has much more to offer than the cocoon. Finally, the complacency will play its role and we end up in mediocrity.

Every person in an Organization should assume the Role of a Leader of his work place. However, if the alignment does not happen with the big picture, this position remains in the confines of the Title he holds. This is what happened to IAC or India Against Corruption. It was a revolution in the making, brought about by people without Titles. Anna Hazare was nothing beyond Anna and did he not lead? Unfortunately, the moment someone felt that a movement can be successful only if they become the PM, the whole movement just crumbled. It finally became the Aam Aadmi Party. Some called it the Mango People's Party. That is how the Titles work, it means something for some and something else for others. Whereas, Leadership means only one thing and that is "Leadership". It is a feeling for a person which the followers have and they are not bothered what his Title is, but definitely relate to the Work he does and the impact he creates. So does it require a Title to create an Impact? We cannot be restricted by the Title to do what we think is right. We end up doing those things which we would not do if not for the ruse of the Title which we will get after some really hard work of trying to keep someone happy (all the time).

The Leader is someone who gets the position much before the achievement of a Goal, whereas a Title is something which one gets after doing a particular activity. While Leadership is journey, Title is an End. In Leadership the focus is on the Goal and the Goal alone, whereas in the Title, the focus is on the Title alone. In Leadership, the Person is the brand, whereas in the Title, the Title is, irrespective of whoever the person. Leaders have followers, whereas for Title owners there are sub-ordinates without names, they too have Titles.

Leadership is something related to how brilliantly you work and how masterfully you behave, whereas a Title is always based on where you work and what you do as part of your work. There is a significant difference between the two. Smartness is something not a common factor among the two. Let us imagine a situation of Thomas Alva Edison having the Title as "The Light Man", Einstein, as "The Relativity Man". How absurd it would be? These greats were always known by the Work they did and it cannot be confined by one Title. There were so many things invented and given to the World that they cannot be "TITLED", lest they end up without the "T" in the middle. That's what happens to all of us when we focus on the Title, the "T" or the tenacity of a leader is missing in the Title and we end up in the "TILE" completely engulfed by the functional aspect of the Title.

Leadership provides Contentment, whereas Title provides Satisfaction. Once satisfied, we are finished. It is good to be Contented but never should we be satisfied since satisfaction means we have reached the level of complacency.

Finally, the best quotes I ever found while doing a search to write this post:-

1. You Need no Title to be a Leader, whereas you need not be a Leader to have a Title
2. Title is only an extension of your Name. In Leadership, your Name is everything
3. Turbulence builds great Leaders, whereas there are no Titles in turbulence, it is only Chaos.
4. The Deeper your relationships, the stronger is the Leadership, whereas the number of relationships, the stronger is the Title. Sometimes, you can still be the CEO of a two man Company and that is how trivial a Title has become.
5. To be a great Leader, one should become a great person, whereas to get a Title..Forget it I do not want to go any further.