Latest / Career Coaching with Fexingo: Professional Coaches, Career Counselors, and Guidance for Workers / Why Your Last Job Title Is Lying To You
Transcript
- Lucas: Let’s talk about the lie we tell ourselves every time we update our LinkedIn profile. It’s not always malicious, but it’s almost always inaccurate. I’ve been looking at some recent data from recruiting firms in the Bay Area, and they’re reporting that nearly forty percent of senior-level candidates are listing titles that don’t match their actual scope of responsibility. Luna: Forty percent is staggering. Are you saying people are just inventing titles like Senior Vice President when they’re actually mid-level managers? Lucas: Exactly. And it’s worse than just vanity. It’s structural. Companies have started giving out flashy titles—like Head of Growth or Director of Strategy—to retain talent during layoffs. But when those people move to a new firm, the new employer realizes the title was just a retention tool, not a reflection of real authority or impact. So the candidate gets filtered out before the interview even happens. Luna: That sounds like a classic case of internal signaling versus external credibility. The company plays nice to keep you quiet, but the market sees right through it. Lucas: Right. And here’s the thing most coaches miss: they tell you to focus on achievements. But if your title is misleading, no amount of achievement bullet points will save you. The hiring manager’s first question is always implicit: did you actually lead this team, or were you just along for the ride? When the title doesn’t align with the story, trust evaporates. Luna: So what’s the alternative? Do we just strip the title entirely and list functions instead? Lucas: Not quite. Let’s look at a specific example. There was an engineer named Sarah who worked at a fintech startup. Her official title was Principal Engineer, but she spent eighty percent of her time fixing bugs and twenty percent designing architecture. She listed Principal Engineer on her resume for three years. When she applied for a CTO role at a Series B company, they rejected her because they felt her experience was too operational, not strategic enough. Luna: And yet, if she had listed herself as Staff Engineer with a focus on system reliability, would that have been more honest? Lucas: Yes, but here’s where it gets tricky. If she changed the title to Staff Engineer, she might have missed the cutoff for roles requiring Principal level. So the dilemma is: do you stay truthful and risk being underqualified on paper, or do you inflate and risk being overqualified in reality? Luna: It feels like a trap. Because if you inflate, you get interviewed, then you fail the technical deep dive because you never actually held that weight. If you deflate, you don’t even get the interview. Lucas: Precisely. And this is why I think we need a new framework for career branding. We call it Scope Mapping. Instead of focusing on the title, which is often arbitrary, you map the scope of your decision-making. Did you set the budget? Did you hire the team? Did you define the product roadmap? Those are the markers of true seniority, not the word on your business card. Luna: Scope mapping makes sense. It shifts the burden from the label to the evidence. But does that work for recruiters who use automated filters? Lucas: That’s the million-dollar question. Most ATS systems still parse the title field. If you write Principal Engineer, you pass the filter. If you write Staff Engineer, you might not. So there’s a tension between passing the robot and passing the human. I’ve seen candidates put both: Principal Engineer or something similar to bridge the gap. Luna: I haven’t seen that format before. Is that common practice now? Lucas: It’s becoming more common among savvy career advisors. It’s a way to say, hey, I’m respecting the internal hierarchy while acknowledging my actual output. But it requires a cover letter or a summary section that explains the context. Otherwise, it looks confusing. Luna: Which brings us back to the narrative. You can’t just fix the resume; you have to fix the story you tell in the interview. Lucas: Absolutely. In the interview, you’re going to be asked, 'What was your scope?' If your title says Principal but your answers sound like a mid-level contributor, you’re dead. You have to own the discrepancy proactively. Say, 'My title was Principal, but my day-to-day was heavily focused on execution. That’s why I’m excited about this role, because I want to shift toward strategy.' Luna: Turning the weakness into a deliberate pivot. That’s smart. It reframes the inflation as a desire for growth rather than a lack of competence. Lucas: Exactly. It shows self-awareness. Hiring managers love self-awareness. They’d rather hire someone who knows their limits and wants to grow than someone who inflates their title and crashes when the pressure hits. Luna: But what about companies that do this intentionally? Like, if I work at a place that gives everyone a Director title, am I stuck with that baggage? Lucas: No, because you control the narrative. You can list the title, but you must clarify the scope in the description. For example: Director of Product. This tells the recruiter immediately that you wore many hats and operated with lean resources. It turns a potential negative into a demonstration of agility. Luna: Lean resources is a good keyword. Startups love that. It implies you’re scrappy and versatile. Lucas: Right. And versatility is valuable. But you have to be careful not to sound like a generalist who lacks depth. The key is to highlight one area of expertise where you had genuine impact, even if your title was broad. Luna: So depth within breadth. That’s the sweet spot. Lucas: Yes. Now, let’s pause for a moment. If we’ve helped you think through a career move or decision, and you want to support independent journalism that keeps these conversations ad-free, you can find us on buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo — that's F. E. X. I. N. G. O. Luna: It really helps keep the research rigorous and the analysis sharp for all of you listening. Lucas: Thanks for the support. Anyway, back to the title issue. Another common pitfall is the functional title vs. the corporate title mismatch. In some industries, like consulting, your corporate title might be Associate Consultant, but your functional role is Project Lead. Which one do you put on your resume? Luna: Functional role seems more powerful. But is it ethical to list it if it’s not your official HR title? Lucas: It’s ethical if it reflects your actual responsibilities. If you were leading projects, managing clients, and driving revenue, you were effectively a Project Lead. The corporate title is often just a grade level. Listing the functional role is standard practice in many fields, especially creative and tech sectors. Luna: But finance and law are different. Those industries are obsessed with hierarchy. If you deviate from the standard ladder, you raise red flags. Lucas: You’re right. In finance, if you’re a VP but you managed a small desk, you better explain that. In tech, if you’re a Manager but you led five teams, that’s impressive. Context matters enormously. You have to know your audience. Luna: So there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. You have to tailor the truth to the industry norms. Lucas: Exactly. And that tailoring process is where most people fail. They send the same resume to a bank and a startup. The bank wants the hierarchical precision. The startup wants the functional reality. You need two versions of your career history. Luna: Two versions. That’s a lot of work for one application cycle. Lucas: It is work, but it’s necessary work. Because applying blindly is a waste of time. You’re not just submitting a document; you’re submitting a hypothesis about who you are. Make sure the hypothesis matches the data. Luna: Data-driven career management. I like that. It removes the emotion from the equation. Lucas: It should. Career moves are business decisions. Treat them like M&A deals. Due diligence on both sides. You’re assessing their fit, and they’re assessing yours. If the title doesn’t match the scope, the deal falls apart. Luna: So the next time you update your LinkedIn, ask yourself: does this title represent my actual leverage, or just my tenure? Lucas: Tenure is easy. Leverage is hard. Focus on leverage. That’s what gets you paid. That’s what gets you promoted. And that’s what gets you hired. Luna: Leverage over tenure. A simple rule, but one that changes everything. Lucas: It does. And it starts with honesty. Not just honesty with yourself, but honesty with the market. The market rewards clarity. It punishes confusion. So be clear about what you did, how you did it, and why it mattered. Luna: Clarity is currency. I think we’re going to see more professionals adopting this scope-mapping mindset as the economy tightens. Lucas: I agree. As hiring slows down, competition increases. And in a crowded field, precision wins. Vague titles get lost. Precise narratives stand out. Luna: So, precision. What’s the first step for someone listening who feels stuck in a title that doesn’t fit? Lucas: Audit your last year. List every project, every decision, every person you influenced. Then compare that list to your current title. Where is the gap? Close the gap by adjusting your language, not your integrity. Luna: Adjusting language, not integrity. That’s the line we walk every day. Lucas: Exactly. And when you walk it well, you build a career that’s resilient, adaptable, and truly yours. Luna: Resilient and adaptable. Sounds like a plan for Q4 and beyond. Lucas: Indeed. Let’s see how that plays out as we head into the end-of-year review cycle.