It started as a simple office convention: everyone called each other by first name, no big deal. But when one professor suddenly demanded formal address-only for himself, things turned awkward fast.
The secretary (yes, our hero) replied with a polite email, but added a condition: if you want the formal name, you must use mine too. And just like that, a small act of rebellion turned into an eight-year lesson in equality and respect.
Now, read the full story:
I found myself secretly cheering for her. The story paints a common dynamic: the professor uses his title not to reflect genuine professional respect but to elevate himself over someone who happens to be in a lower-tier role.
And the secretary didn’t just shove it under the rug – she mirrored the demand, exposing the double standard. I felt proud of her for drawing that line. She didn’t deny the title’s value; she refused the unequal treatment.
This feeling of isolation many support-staff feel, it’s textbook. Let’s dig into why this kind of “title fight” matters more than it might seem.
At the core: someone demanded a formal title just for themselves in a context where equal footing existed.
That created a power imbalance. Research shows that formal hierarchical rank is one thing, but workplace status – how people are viewed in practice – develops informally and strongly influences performance and relationships.
Workplace psychologist Melody Wilding recently remarked in The Times of India: “Authority isn’t about job titles, it’s about how you speak” (paraphrased). True leadership arises from respectful communication and not simply demand for formal address.
And leadership experts James Kouzes & Barry Posner famously write: “Titles are granted, but it’s your behavior that earns you respect.”
What does that mean here? The professor had a title, yes. But personnel dynamics matter. The secretary’s pushback didn’t deny his achievement, it demanded consistency. When others were treated informally, why not her? The professor’s earlier email essentially said: “Call me Dr. X but you may still be informal.” That sends: your role is lower. She refused to accept it.
Expert commentary on psychological safety emphasises that people need to feel “safe to speak up” without fear of being humiliated. In a sense, the professor’s demand threatened that safety for the secretary: it said “we will have different rules for you.”
Moreover, workplace culture stats show that when culture is weak, employees feel undervalued -42% reported inconsiderate treatment from a manager in the past year. That number underscores how often subtle power plays (like title-games) contribute to deeper problems of morale and respect.
What to take away?
-
Ask: if you demand formal address from others, are you willing to accept the same? Double standards create resentment.
-
If you’re in the secretary’s shoes (or any support role): you can insist on consistency calmly. This story did that — not with aggression, but with a firm boundary.
-
Leaders should use titles thoughtfully. If the culture is “first names for all,” then insisting on a title for only one person undermines that culture.
-
Organisations: setting explicit norms about address and respect reduces awkwardness and power-imbalance signalling. Incorporating phrases that build psychological safety (“Your input is valued,” “We speak as equals”) helps mitigate status-based anxiety.
Check out how the community responded:
Team OP (Support for the secretary’s stance):
It shows that seeing the unequal pattern triggers a strong reaction.
Calling out hypocrisy and titles for show:
The sentiment: “Yes your doctor title matters, but not when you use it to put others down.”
Anecdotes & humour around titles:
These lighten the mood but still point to the absurdity of one-way formal address.
Reflection on workplace structure & names:
These comments highlight that the issue isn’t only disrespect, it’s how titles affect practical interaction and dynamics.
What started as a request to “call me Dr.” turned into a solid lesson in respect, equality, and language. The secretary’s clever tactic wasn’t petty, it was precise: if you want formal for you, formal goes both ways. And the professor, likely craving special treatment, found it uncomfortable to be the only one playing that game.
What do you think? Is insisting on your formal name a legitimate boundary, or could it backfire? Have you ever been caught in a “title-trap” at work, where someone wanted first names for all except one?
Let me know your story.
