“Zofia or Ms Manager?” — Names, Titles and Professional Respect

In Zofia’s office, with Marek present. Nia walks in and addresses her manager directly.

— Zofia, do you have two minutes?

After Nia leaves, Marek asks in disbelief:

— You’re not afraid to talk to her like that? I call her “Ms Manager.”
— I don’t think respect needs a title.

For Nia, using a first name does not reduce hierarchy. For Marek, the form of address is part of the hierarchy itself.

What really happened

Nia addresses Zofia by her first name and does not experience that as diminishing Zofia’s position. Marek uses a title because, for him, forms of address are part of professional order. At first the difference looks small and linguistic, but it later becomes clear that the words sit on top of a broader map: Marek finds it harder to challenge a manager’s decision because the distance between manager and employee carries more weight for him. Nia separates respect from formal distance. Marek partly links them. The disagreement about the title is therefore a visible symptom of a deeper difference about hierarchy, not merely a matter of linguistic taste.

What the research says

Language has long been used to mark both power and closeness. Classic work on forms of address showed that pronouns and titles can signal power as well as solidarity (Brown & Gilman, 1960). In organizational research, a related issue is how much distance people regard as natural between people at different levels of hierarchy — often discussed as power distance. Research on employee voice shows that hierarchy materially affects how willing employees are to raise disagreement, problems, and ideas to people above them (Pfrombeck et al., 2022). It would still be a mistake to infer from the use of a title alone that a person “has high power distance.” In this scene, the title is a clue to explore, not a psychological test.

How to handle it

It helps to separate two questions: how do we address one another, and what are the rules for disagreement? Zofia can say explicitly: “You can call me Zofia. If someone prefers a formal form, that is fine too. Either way, I expect you to flag a risk when you disagree with me.” That prevents the form of address from quietly becoming a rule about who is allowed to challenge whom. The general rule is: agree on forms of address, but make even more explicit whether hierarchy changes people’s right to ask questions or voice disagreement.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can show Nia and Marek that a professional title carries very different meanings for each of them. Nia may treat first-name communication as normal and collaborative without questioning Zofia’s formal role; Marek sees the title as a visible sign of hierarchy, respect, and order. Cultural context and individual profiles let Em anticipate that the same “Zofia” will sound neutral to one person and overly familiar to another. Rather than forcing everyone into one code, Empatyzer can help the team agree which forms fit which situations and where individual preference is acceptable. Em can also remind leaders that reducing formal distance does not automatically make every person feel safer speaking up. Micro-lessons help people interpret forms of address as cultural and relational codes rather than simple measures of liking, courage, or respect.