It is true that the use of language in naming and renaming things reflects the value and usage of a thing, place or person on a certain level. For example, an excellent title motivates and inspires people to do their job more effectively by realizing their commitment with the job. We can also see that on the examples you have given, the bus drivers was renamed ‘transporter of learners’ and the school receptionist into ‘director of first impressions’. People concerned with providing titles see this as a requirement to encourage productivity in them.Imagine being called a ‘director’ from simply a receptionist makes the person proud and be diligent with his work believing that this is a greater responsibility rather than just entitling him plainly as a receptionist. The title ‘transporter of learners’ is also a thing to be proud of by the driver.
He is now considered not simply as a driver of a school bus but transporters of people who are learners, educators and future leaders of a nation. However there are points to be considered in naming or renaming the title of people in a workplace.This is where language comes in. Language basically is used to convey communication and express correct reasoning. Although we use language even to irrelevant reasons, our language has words and phrases that have both literal and descriptive meanings to illustrate ideas and descriptions. That is why excessive use of emotionally charge language can create a signature of disagreement between people but the use of emotively neutral language neutralizes negativity in any sentence (Kemerling, 2001).
As in the use of the proper language in providing a good title, generally it makes a worker more effective and productive in the workplace because his title serves as his badge that is regarded highly by his organization. Heads of the organizations are always careful in giving titles and the use of language to their workers. Every details of the title requires a thorough understanding that entails job description, terms of reference or the specific description of the person’s job.Language thus serves as the basis of naming and renaming title of people. From time to time, organizations do opted to rename positions. Although this sometimes causes a case of misunderstanding with the title holder it has its reasons to follow.
First, renaming position is required because the person who holds the title does not reflect what he really does so it is absolutely necessary to alter his title and put him in the right direction. And second, renaming is necessary if somebody’s responsibilities have actually changed.In that case, the organization must discuss to the person why there is a need to rename his position. But prior to that the management must first analyze if the new title will or will not be understood as a demotion or a promotion by the person. If the new title is viewed as a demotion by the person, it can create negative effect on his productivity and lose confidence in himself and in the organization.
If the new title presents promotion, the benefits of it must be provided to the title holder.However, when a position is legitimately devalued because of varying conditions such as economic, change of management and other internal factors downgrading the position, the organization must be discussed this with the person holding the title to avoid misunderstanding (Article, 2008). Examples related to work organizations. Today, more and more companies are changing their titles for many reasons. Some of them do this to attract customers, to give morale to their employees and to provide a sense of belongingness with the company.But this strategy depends on the individuals involved.
In some industries particularly on sales and banking industries, the position can speak the volumes of customers and potential customers they are dealing with so the real value of promotions and change of title really interacts with their accomplishment. Unfortunately other companies are not into the same considerations. Title inflation sometimes does prove to be counterproductive and can have the opposite effect. An example is given in the case of the 12. % upgrading of top 5 executives on the Russel 3000 stock index although reportedly there were no salary increase with regards to these positions. It strong implies that the boosting of titles is no more than a form of gimmickry for other businesses although the title entails burden to the person holding it as well as with the clients and prospective clients.
This situation does not help anybody but this move create a feeling of alienation rather than pacifying the employee whose title has been changed (Munk, 2008).
