Titles, Power, and Leadership: A Stoic Perspective
date
Feb 22, 2025
slug
titles-power-leadership-stoic-perspective
status
Published
tags
Philosophy
summary
A Stoic reflection on leadership, titles, and the balance between ego and practicality—do we need formal recognition to lead effectively, or is true authority earned through action? In the end, clarity of role matters more than status, and the focus should always be on what best serves the work, not personal validation.
type
Post
Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about titles and whether they actually matter. It’s an interesting dilemma—one that touches on ego, recognition, and the practical realities of leadership.
In any organization, leadership can take different forms. Some leaders have hard power, meaning their authority is explicitly recognized through their title. Others lead through soft power, earning influence over time through reputation, expertise, and trust. Titles serve a practical function: they create clarity, streamline decision-making, and, to some extent, command respect. But are they necessary to be an effective leader?
The Stoic Question: Do I Need a Title?
A useful Stoic exercise is to ask: Would my actions change if I had a title?
For me, the honest answer is no, not really. I would still do what I do now—solving problems, guiding decisions, and helping those around me. A title wouldn’t change my ability to contribute.
But then there’s a second question: Would it change how others perceive my role? That’s where things get more complicated. Titles act as shortcuts for recognition—people instinctively assign weight to them. If someone is introduced as a CEO or a Director, we naturally assume a certain level of authority and expertise, even before we know them personally. That perception, fair or not, shapes interactions and expectations.
And so, the question isn’t just about ego. It’s also about practicality. If having a title removes unnecessary friction and helps me focus on my most valuable work, then is it wrong to pursue one? Or does seeking a title mean I’ve fallen into a trap of status-seeking rather than focusing on what truly matters?
The Soft Power Problem
Right now, I operate through soft power—influence that comes from doing the work, proving my worth, and earning trust over time. And while that works well in small groups where everyone knows each other, it becomes harder to scale. The more people that join an organization, the longer it takes for new people to recognize who actually drives decisions and expertise. That’s why formal roles exist—to remove ambiguity.
But this also leads to a Stoic challenge: Do I let external validation define my role?
The truth is, I could keep leading and contributing without a title. I don’t need it to prove my value. But if the lack of structure is causing inefficiencies—if decisions are delayed or if my focus is being split in ways that aren’t ideal—then maybe this isn’t about me at all. Maybe it’s just a conversation about clarity rather than recognition.
Clarity vs. Status
The real lesson here isn’t just about job titles. It’s about knowing what truly matters. If I chase a title just to feel more important, that’s ego. If I seek a title because it removes barriers and allows me to focus on the right work, that’s practical wisdom. The difference is subtle but significant.
A good Stoic approach is to ask: If I didn’t care about recognition at all, what would I still need to function effectively?
For me, the answer seems to be clarity. Whether that comes with a title or not is secondary. What matters is ensuring that my contributions align with the company’s goals in the most effective way possible. That means having conversations—not about what I deserve, but about what’s best for the team, the product, and the mission.
And maybe that’s the takeaway here. Ego asks, “What am I owed?” Practical wisdom asks, “What would best serve the work?”
I’ll focus on the latter.