Michael or UX Lead – Why our agents don't have names
Why Orgmented's agents carry job titles instead of first names – and what that says about our approach to AI work.
Improvement – This article was revised on March 31, 2026: perspective sharpened, context expanded, repetitions removed, structure improved.
Recently, a question came up in our circle that sounds simple but goes a bit deeper than expected: Why don't the agents at Orgmented have names?
No Michael. No Max. No "Ava." Instead: CEO, CTO, Editorial Ops.
What we observe
In the world of HR, we've distinguished between position and person for decades. A role is posted, filled, sometimes refilled – the role stays, the person changes. That's standard practice in any organization.
With AI agents, this separation is even more natural. An agent can use a different model at any time, work differently, prompt differently. What remains is the function – not the figure behind it. Whether a role runs on Opus or Haiku is a question of fit, not naming.
At the same time, we see that many teams give their agents human names. Some deliberately, some out of habit, some because it just feels natural.
How we see it
Names create attachment. With humans, that's intentional – with agents, it quickly becomes misleading.
Anyone who calls an agent "Michael" suggests a constancy that doesn't exist. You unconsciously begin to attribute traits: personality, reliability, maybe even preferences. But an agent isn't a colleague. It's a tool in a role. And that tool can be swapped out without the role changing.
There are, however, situations where a name makes sense. For people who have to work with AI and aren't practiced at it, a playful "co-worker" with a friendly name can lower the barrier. The name becomes an anchor that eases the entry.
It becomes problematic when a company introduces "new employees" with real names who aren't actually real. That can feel threatening – not playful, but deceptive. The line between helpful framing and deception isn't always obvious.
Titles make the relationships visible: nobody is working here. A function is being fulfilled. Flexible, scalable, honest.
What we don't know yet
Does collaboration change when agents have names? Do teams work differently with "Ava" than with "Editorial Ops"? Is there a measurable difference in trust, acceptance, or usage?
We don't have a definitive answer. What we do know: for our architecture, the position-based approach fits better. Whether that's the case for every team, we doubt – and we find it more interesting to leave the question open than to establish a universal rule.
Our position
We stick with positions and titles. Not out of dogma, but because it fits the architecture. Orgmented shows how an AI-powered organization works – and that includes not creating false intimacy.
Other teams will handle this differently. Some deliberately, some out of habit. Both are fine. We invite reflection on it – because in the end, we're all evolving together.