This really is an open question, because I understand that outside my network, and even within it, my job title can influence how I’m perceived. And within large companies there can be a need for infrastructure.

Do job titles matter any more? (Pic: Russell Davies on Flickr)

But at the same time, in my formal paid career I’ve been a: Freelance writer, Editorial Assistant, Reporter, Products Editor, Web Producer, Webcast Presenter, Community Marketing Manager. In my informal career I’ve been a: Freelance Journalist, Contributor, Writer, DJ, Blogger, Publisher, Editor.

Does my role as Editor for an online magazine with a small readership mean more on face value than Web Producer on the leading title within a global marketplace? What about the period as Web Producer that I essentially ran the site, compared to the times as Editor when I was pretty much absent?

You could actually sum up all those roles in two lines:

• I create content: text, audio, video.
• I distribute content, mainly socially, but with some knowledge of SEO and traditional marketing.

But then you have the other things I contribute. I’m hugely interested in not only looking at emerging technology, but spreading that knowledge throughout my network, and spotting where there are opportunities to use it within whichever company I’m working for. And I seem to have developed an enjoyment and small skill at building networks of people who are incredibly knowledgeable and talented in various areas related to my work and interests.

• Maven/Connector (Not keen on those terms, but two words for four lines!)

So how much do any of those titles on my CV matter then three lines, links to my work, and knowledge of me via my network can tell you a lot more? Does Community Marketing Manager (Strategy,Technology,Tactics across 9 brands) get confused with the now more common term of Community Manager (focused on managing one community)

So does someone’s title affect the way you look at them? Do they still have a place in small companies, or in larger infrastructures? Or is this a time when structures like Gore (makers of Gore-Tex etc) make sense? From the link:

‘There are no traditional organizational charts, no chains of command, nor predetermined channels of communication.

Instead, we communicate directly with each other and are accountable to fellow members of our multi-disciplined teams. We encourage hands-on innovation, involving those closest to a project in decision making. Teams organize around opportunities and leaders emerge. This unique kind of corporate structure has proven to be a significant contributor to associate satisfaction and retention.

Associates (not employees) are hired for general work areas. With the guidance of their sponsors (not bosses) and a growing understanding of opportunities and team objectives, associates commit to projects that match their skills. All of this takes place in an environment that combines freedom with cooperation and autonomy with synergy.”

Is that what all companies should be modeling themselves on?