The Art & Science of Job Titling: Why Job Titles Matter More Than Ever

Job titles are more than just labels. They define how an employee is seen, both internally and externally, signalling scope, responsibility and seniority. In today's workplace, where transparency, equitable pay, and clear career development are crucial, having accurate and consistent job titles is essential. Well-defined titles help structure compensation, support internal mobility, and shape how the company is perceived externally. 

In this article, we’ll explore some key considerations on both the art and science of job titles, and why getting it wrong can have consequences.

Challenges with Current Job Titles

Many companies struggle with inconsistent or inflated job titles, often due to outdated systems and decentralized decisions. This can lead to:

• Difficulty comparing roles across departments: Titles that sound the same can have very different responsibilities in the same organization. For example, a “Marketing Manager” might run paid campaigns, while another might oversee a team and set strategy. When HR or leadership tries to compare their scope and pay, it’s nearly impossible to do fairly.
• Challenges in aligning with market benchmarks: A company could use “Lead Software Engineer” for a mid-level developer, but surveys may assume it’s an advanced senior level role. Misleading titles result in flawed benchmarking, and compensation decisions that are too high or too low.
• Confusion around promotions and career paths: When job titles aren’t tied to defined levels, it’s hard for employees to understand where they stand or how to grow. Two “Marketing Specialists” may have completely different responsibilities, with no clear indicators of who is more senior or how to move up.
• Issues with fairness initiatives: If one “Director of Engineering” oversees a single small team with little to no budget, the title alone doesn’t reflect their real impact. This makes it harder to justify pay differences during a pay equity review.

These challenges are driving more organizations to invest in structured job titling and leveling systems. Internal mobility and career development are difficult to manage when job titles don’t clearly reflect scope or seniority. As Pave points out, without defined levels and job architecture, companies risk introducing inconsistency and confusion into everything from compensation reviews to hiring. In particular, vague titles like “Head of” can distort benchmarking and hinder internal mobility.

Bottom line: job titling is a foundational element of organizational clarity. When done right, it enables consistency, fairness, and transparency at scale.

Best Practices for Effective Job Titling

Clear Job Architecture

To ensure effective job titling, organizations should begin by creating a clear and structured approach to assigning titles. This involves grouping roles into job families where possible and defining job levels. Titles should align with the overarching job architecture, as well as with career tracks, if any (Individual Contributor (“IC”) vs. People Leader (“PL”)) to support consistency across the organization. 

For example, in an IC track, a typical progression might be: Associate Software Engineer, Software Engineer, Senior Software Engineer and Principal Engineer. 

In a PL track, titles might progress as: Engineering Manager, Director of Engineering, Senior Director of Engineering, and Vice President of Engineering.

It’s also important to balance internal clarity with external recognition. Common titles like “Software Engineer” can help with recruiting and market comparisons, but must reflect the true scope of the role. For instance, a Senior Software Engineer should typically be expected to lead complex engineering projects and mentor more junior engineers, not just write code at a higher velocity.

As a general rule, companies should avoid title inflation (assigning senior titles without senior responsibilities), as this can lead to misaligned expectations and pay equity issues.

Simple & Scalable 

Organizations should use a consistent titling format like “Title + Level Indicator”, where the level indicator can reflect seniority and complexity (e.g., Senior Software Engineer) or organizational scope (e.g., Director of Engineering). This makes it easier for employees and candidates to understand the role hierarchy and expectations.

Organizations should also avoid ambiguous titles like “Head of Engineering”, which is often used inconsistently, sometimes referring to ICs and sometimes to an Executive level role.

Connected to Career Paths

Job titles often carry personal significance; people connect their role to their professional identity, development, and career growth. That’s why it’s important to explain how titles are assigned, how they connect to pay and career progression, and what’s required to progress.

Managers should be equipped to have clear, helpful conversations about titling with their teams.They should know how to explain why someone holds a specific title today, and what they need to demonstrate to progress to the next level.

For example, moving from Software Engineer to Senior Software Engineer might require leading more complex projects, mentoring others or driving more impactful decisions. Advancing from Engineering Manager to Director might involve leading multiple teams, setting broader technical strategy, and influencing organizational direction.

Common Pitfalls

In a world of remote work and flatter organizational structures, titles don’t always indicate influence. That’s why the job levels, and not just titles, are key. 

Companies that rely too heavily on titles like “Head of” or “Lead” without a supporting leveling framework risk creating confusion around seniority and progression. Without clear levels tied to titling guidelines, employees may struggle to understand how roles compare internally, how to move up, or what the expectations really are. This not only undermines credibility but also leads to overpaying and underpaying talent.

One of the most overlooked consequences of inconsistent job titling is market mispricing. When job titles don’t clearly reflect internal levels or responsibilities, it becomes difficult to benchmark compensation accurately, leading to overpaying or underpaying talent. For example, a Finance Manager at one company might refer to someone managing a small team and overseeing significant budgets. At another, it could apply to an individual contributor focused on reconciliations or reporting. Externally, both are labeled the same, but internally, their scope, complexity, and pay expectations are different.

Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that when firms gain access to formal salary benchmarking tools, wage dispersion decreases by 5.0 to 6.2 percentage points from market medians, which translates to a 15% drop in pay variance. This finding suggests that a lack of structured titling, and the misaligned benchmarking that often follows, could significantly distort compensation decisions and pay.

Leveraging Titles Strategically

Job titles aren’t just formalities, they’re strategic tools. A well-thought-out titling structure brings clarity, supports fairness, and helps both employees and employers make better decisions. Use them well, and titles will reinforce your compensation strategy, fuel career development and enhance your employer brand. Let titles act as a lever, not a liability.

‍