In genuine grassroots community groups, everyone should stand on equal ground united by shared purpose, not separated by hierarchy. Yet increasingly, we see people within volunteer-led organisations assigning themselves lofty titles such as Head of XYZ. While it may sound harmless or even professional, this creeping corporatisation of grassroots movements fundamentally undermines their ethos. It is not only unnecessary but also potentially damaging, particularly when such behaviour emerges from former Community Interest Companies (CICs) that have relinquished their formal status.
At its heart, a grassroots group is built on collective action. It operates through trust, mutual respect, and transparency not corporate structure. The language of “heads” of XYZ creates artificial layers of authority where there should be none. In a true community setting, no one person owns an idea, leads by decree, or speaks above others. Titles imply a hierarchy that can discourage open participation and subtly silence voices that are just as valuable, but less assertive.
When individuals give themselves inflated titles within what is supposed to be a flat, democratic group, it changes the tone and dynamic of the entire organisation. Other members may begin to question who actually has decision-making power. Newcomers might feel that they are joining an organisation already “run” by certain individuals rather than a collective where everyone has equal say. What was once a space for inclusion and shared effort can quickly become dominated by personality rather than principle.
The problem becomes even more concerning when those assuming these titles were formerly part of a Community Interest Company that has since dissolved or abandoned its CIC status. CICs are regulated under UK law, required to operate for community benefit and to submit annual reports detailing their activities and finances. They are bound by a “community interest test” and an asset lock to ensure that profits and resources are not used for private gain.
When a group gives up its CIC structure, it also gives up these legal safeguards. It becomes an informal association or a voluntary group perfectly valid in itself, but without the same accountability mechanisms. Therefore, to continue behaving as if one still holds a formal post, complete with an official-sounding title, is misleading. It can give a false impression to funders, partners, and members of the public that the organisation maintains a formal legal structure and oversight when, in fact, it does not.
This blurring of boundaries can be particularly problematic when money or external support is involved. A grant provider or local authority might assume that a “Head of XYZ” represents a regulated, accountable body. If the group is merely informal, this could expose both the individuals and the wider community to reputational and possibly financial risk. Transparency about structure and status is not a bureaucratic detail it is the foundation of trust.
Equally troubling is the cultural impact within the group. Titles can foster competition rather than collaboration. They can turn a cooperative effort into a personal platform for self-promotion. Grassroots community work should not be a career ladder. When individuals start referring to themselves in corporate terms, it can erode the spirit of voluntary service. The focus shifts from “we” to “me” from shared progress to personal prestige.
This kind of behaviour can also alienate community members who have long been involved in unpaid, unsung work. Volunteers who attend meetings, maintain community spaces, or organise local events may begin to feel sidelined by those who seem to view the group as a means of boosting their own professional profile. Once the balance tips from collective effort to individual branding, the community’s integrity suffers.
Furthermore, self-appointed titles raise ethical concerns around representation. Who authorised such a role? Who decides who gets to call themselves “Head” of anything? In a grassroots group, authority must come from consensus, not assumption. Any titles used such as Chair, Secretary, or Treasurer should exist solely to describe practical functions, not to confer superiority or prestige. These are working roles, not honours.
When a former CIC continues to operate as if it were still an incorporated body, it risks misleading the very people it claims to serve. Transparency means being honest about what the group is and what it is not. Pretending to hold formal positions or to operate under corporate governance structures after dissolving such arrangements is not just poor practice; it can undermine community confidence and sow division.
Grassroots work should be defined by openness, equality, and mutual respect. The language we use matters. It shapes how we relate to one another and how the wider public perceives us. By rejecting hierarchical titles and the corporate mentality they represent, communities can protect their authenticity and ensure that everyone’s contribution is valued equally.
In short, calling oneself Head of Anything in a grassroots setting misses the point entirely. Leadership in community work is not about titles it’s about trust. Real leaders don’t need to announce their authority; they earn it through consistency, integrity, and genuine service to others. If we want to keep our community movements strong, inclusive, and transparent, we must leave the corporate jargon behind and return to the simple, powerful principles that make grassroots action meaningful in the first place.
