Titles vs Results

Education is a big deal in the business world.  Some of us are lucky to go to graduate school, some of us are self learners, some both and some none.   How much education is enough, and when does experience and real life results kick in?

Companies that are looking to fill new positions usually filter candidates by the titles a person has acquired.  PhD, MBA, Jonah, Six Sigma Master Black Belt, Lean Sensei, Certified Public Accountant;  the more the merrier. Granted, in some cases, it is a requirement to have a specific title to perform specific duties, but I suspect this is the exception rather than the rule.  Are titles the right filter to start with, and should we categorize people using this criteria?

Matt Hoffman correctly reminds us that The What is More Important Than The Where.   Instead of focusing on listing all the titles you have acquired, why not focus on the results have you achieved with the education you have received?   After someone introduces themselves by listing all their titles and degrees, I wonder if their list would be as long if asked what significant results they have achieved.  Would the list be as long?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for education, and as Deming used to say, experience without theory brings no real learning.   But sometimes people get titles for the sake of it and to get paid more, instead of focusing on what they can do with the knowledge they learn and having the courage to question and improve their area of responsibility.   Of course, the system is at fault, and note the people, as titles are the default filter that the business world uses.  But ask yourself, as the owner of a company, would you be willing to pay more for someone with a long list of titles or someone with a long list of results?

What significant results have you achieved with your knowledge?  What are you waiting for?