Are You Fostering Equity and Respect in the Use of Titles, First Names, and Honorifics?

How do we address one another in the academic workplace? This is not a trivial question.

In many workplaces, addressing one another by first name is the standard. This is done irrespective of organizational hierarchy and as a means of facilitating comfort and respect among all employees and establishing a cordial, non-hierarchical office culture. Leadership development expert Jodi Glickman notes that “hierarchies are seen as stiff, outdated, [and] stifling,” and the use of first names reflects a “cultural shift of power to the people.” She states, “maintaining the balance between informality and proper lines of authority and deference can be difficult. But this shift echoes the larger move to a more open, informal, and egalitarian business culture.”

This is not to say that organizations have abandoned the use of formal address, such as Dr., Ms., and Mr., altogether. Etiquette protocols draw distinctions between the use of first names, first and last names together, and honorifics and courtesy titles, based on the level of formality, such as during meetings and formal presentations, when making introductions, and during job interviews. Special rules also apply when addressing individuals with specific academic and professional titles in written communication.

What is the comfort level for using first names rather than honorifics and last names in the typical academic workplace? Do employees — meaning faculty and staff together — feel a sense of comfort, respect, and cordiality based on how they address each other, or is there a continuing sense of stiffness and formality out of touch with the modern workplace? Should the academic workplace be different in this regard? I don’t answer these questions, but offer considerations as leaders, administrators, and employees assess whether their workplaces are equitable, respectful, and comfortable for everyone.

How are faculty and academic leaders addressed in the office? If the academic workplace follows the modern standard, we should expect all individuals to address one another by first name, irrespective of faculty or staff status, educational attainment, or specific academic rank or title conferred. I am referring specifically to the internal office environment, or within a specific work unit or team, where everyone knows everyone else and the informal use of first names fosters respect and comfort for everyone. This practice may shift, of course, when someone external to the office environment enters the workspace. A simple illustration draws the distinction:

Dean Sally Rogers enters the office suite and says to Jonathan Byrd, executive assistant, “good morning, Jonathan,” who responds, “good morning, Sally, how was the conference yesterday?” A brief conversation ensues. Ten minutes later, a student enters the suite and says she has an appointment with the dean, to whom Jonathan says, “Dean Rogers will be with you in a moment. Please have a seat.”

Office members understand when to make this shift based on circumstances. Yet, in some academic offices, the head academic leader, and perhaps all faculty and academic administrators with terminal degrees, are routinely referred to formally through title or honorific such as Dr. or Professor, irrespective of the distinction noted in the scenario. At the same time, staff members — those in non-academic roles, some who may also have terminal degrees — are routinely referred to by first name. The equivalent to Dr. for individuals without terminal degrees would be Mr. or Ms., but does this seem old-fashioned? Yet is it equitable and respectful to expect blanket referral to academics formally in all settings, even the internal office environment, without the equivalent referral to non-academics?

How are employees in non-academic positions addressed in formal settings? Academic professionals generally expect formal address by title, rank, or honorific, or a combination, in situations like formal introductions before groups, in the classroom by students, and in public settings. Should non-academic staff and others without terminal degrees expect any less formality? Another illustration, perhaps a little exaggerated, illustrates an equity faux pas:

Eugenia Graham is office manager, and Dr. George Mallow is department chair of an academic unit. Eugenia prefers to be called “Ginny.” She has been busy in the last month organizing a symposium, which includes a keynote from another institution. As the symposium begins, Dr. Mallow says at the podium, “Before I introduce Dr. Louise Binford, our keynote, I want to acknowledge the great work of our staff in organizing today’s event. I am especially grateful to Ginny. You all know Ginny. Let’s give her a hand for making all this possible.”

Or consider another example:

At a reception after the symposium, Dr. Mallow and Dr. Binford are chatting when Daniel Yamada, another staff member, walks up. Dr. Mallow says, “Dr. Binford, this is Dan, who works alongside Ginny in our office.”

The inequity of acknowledgment and introduction is obvious. For the two employees referenced, the use of Ms. and Mr. in a formal introduction would be appropriate, along with full name and office title.

“I am especially grateful to Ms. Eugenia Graham, who is the Office Manager for our department. Please join me in thanking her for her efforts. [applause]”

“Dr. Binford, allow me to introduce you to Mr. Daniel Yamada. Daniel is our Program Manager.”

Academic professionals have full expectation for formality in these settings. Are similar considerations afforded to others?

What role does bias play in how employees address one another? Women consistently experience the inequities of not being recognized by their titles and honorifics in comparison to their male counterparts. Implicit bias, where women are not associated with professional careers to the extent men are, is one factor contributing to this problem. It requires acknowledgment of the problem, self-awareness, and commitment to ensure consistency in the manner of address, introductions, and use of titles and honorifics (among other considerations).

This is the unfortunate reality of what women and others from underrepresented groups within academic disciplines and ranks face. Do academic leaders professing to promote their institutions as a “great place to work” consider the implications of such unattended inequities in both faculty-to-faculty and faculty-to-staff relations? Are assumptions made that professionals in non-academic positions don’t mind or don’t expect similar considerations as academic professionals? Do leaders give much thought to these implications for creating or destroying an equitable workplace?

How does your office manage conversations and misunderstandings around the use of titles, first names, and honorifics? There may be academic workspaces where non-academic professionals don’t mind, and wouldn’t contemplate doing other than, referring to academic leaders and other faculty by titles and honorifics, at least within the office space, while giving no thought to being referred in return by first name only. I would suggest this is rare, and if it seems so, it may be because employees don’t feel comfortable expressing their discomfort as they quietly find work with a non-hierarchical, egalitarian employer.

Are leaders examining these issues and talking with all employees about their perceptions and preferences about how they address one another? If you are such a leader, are you given deference but not seeking to understand how others feel about doing so in contrast to how you or others in academic positions address them? When new employees join the workspace, is there upfront communication about these issues so they feel comfortable in how they are addressed and don’t inadvertently commit a faux pas in how they address others? And do you seek to balance the playing field, such as gently correcting others who don’t balance their form of address between individuals based on title, use of first and last name, and honorifics?

This article may sound like an etiquette lesson. So be it if it helps foster equitable, respectful, and comfortable academic workspaces where all employees can thrive.