4 ms·

Honestly, if all the compensation details are exactly as agreed and the title doesn't visibly look like a demotion or otherwise undesirable on your CV, I'd cons

Honestly, if all the compensation details are exactly as agreed and the title doesn't visibly look like a demotion or otherwise undesirable on your CV, I'd consider it a win. More runway for promotion, merit increases, RSUs, etc. Also, this happens with alarming frequency across firms with nebulous managerial titles. Different firms use titles like VP, Manager, Director, Supervisor, Principal, etc. interchangeably or defined entirely differently from their industry counterparts. One company's VP may be another company's Senior Associate; one company's Supervisor may be another company's Director, etc., so ultimately it's really just the level of responsibility and how you're able to sell it to future firms or partners that matters most.

ryandrake 6y ago
I'd say the opposite: you're closer to the ceiling for raises. If OP's compensation is mid-range for L+1, it is probably near the top of the range for his actual L. So future raises will not be great (since OP's comp has already maxxed out for his (incorrect) level. You want to be near the bottom of the comp band for whatever level you are at, so there is lots of room for future raises without having to get promoted. I would seek to correct this for the sake of future raises.
- eganist 6y ago
  Sounds like: If you want to coast in your role without promotions but still want raises, object to the structure. Or quit. If you want promotion potential and the wider raise potential that comes with it, accept it. I don't know. Faced in a similar position, I'd be grateful for the opportunity to get better raises with promotions rather than raises within my current role.
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    Maybe it is an Australian thing, maybe I work at the wrong places. But "internal promotion" as it seems to be talked about here practically doesn't exist in my world. You simply apply/interview/move jobs, preferably to a complete other entity. If you liked a place, apply for a job back there eventually. The "band of compensation" thing is common though. Once you are at the top of your band, hopefully you get "inflation" top ups but it isn't guaranteed. Hence, get a job elsewhere...
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      Exactly, hence my comment. Assume you’re never going to get promoted internally, because it’s generally not possible. I’ve been in the industry for 20 years and never got close. It is just very uncommon. You want to start out at the low end of your job’s salary band, giving you lots of runway to get raises. Once you get to the top of the band, just find another job, rinse and repeat. You dont want to be “underleveled” at the top of the band.
      - eganist 6y ago
        Yikes, and here I am as a manager trying to create employee development plans for my team members so I can vouch for their promotions come end of year (or next, depending on the plan and the leveling-up needed). Sorry you all have had these experiences. In two of the companies I've worked at, I've been promoted to new titles with substantial pay bumps at least once, so this is pretty foreign to me.
        _carbyau_ 6y ago
        I think it is a culture/approach thing. Where I am, you have a job with a pay band. As time goes by you pretty much automatically go up the pay bands unless you have done something drastically poor. Once you hit the top, that's pretty much it. "Performance planning" is universally seen as mostly for show, so that HR can say they are implementing best practice. If we didn't have to do it we'd breathe a sigh of relief. Different horses on different courses.
        ryandrake 6y ago
        I'm not trying to change the world here, just making a practical utilitarian point: Due to an HR mistake, OP is underleveled and likely at the top of that level's pay band. You don't want to be here because being a the top of your pay band limits your future raises. It's in OP's financial best interest to bring this up with HR ASAP and get it corrected. If you think promotions are straightforward when you're performing well and found to be underleveled, then the problem is less urgent, but in my experience this is not the case. As the saying among employees goes: "It's easier to get hired at [FAANG competitor] than to get an internal promotion." I know that we HN folks have heard this one before, so I'm kind of puzzled by the downvotes.
alexfromapex 6y ago
This happened to me at a Fortune 500 and as long as the pay is great just ignore the title as most other companies will realize your responsibilities are in line with a higher title.
- listenallyall 6y ago
  Personally I disagree. There is far less friction within an organization to fill a VP job with someone who is currently (or once was) a VP, rather than "taking a chance" with a candidate who has never previously held that title. Further, I have very rarely seen interviewers actually take the time to learn what your responsibilities are, let alone determine that they are representative of a title other than the one you have.

ryandrake 6y ago

I'd say the opposite: you're closer to the ceiling for raises. If OP's compensation is mid-range for L+1, it is probably near the top of the range for his actual L. So future raises will not be great (since OP's comp has already maxxed out for his (incorrect) level. You want to be near the bottom of the comp band for whatever level you are at, so there is lots of room for future raises without having to get promoted. I would seek to correct this for the sake of future raises.

eganist 6y ago
Sounds like: If you want to coast in your role without promotions but still want raises, object to the structure. Or quit. If you want promotion potential and the wider raise potential that comes with it, accept it. I don't know. Faced in a similar position, I'd be grateful for the opportunity to get better raises with promotions rather than raises within my current role.
- _carbyau_ 6y ago
  Maybe it is an Australian thing, maybe I work at the wrong places. But "internal promotion" as it seems to be talked about here practically doesn't exist in my world. You simply apply/interview/move jobs, preferably to a complete other entity. If you liked a place, apply for a job back there eventually. The "band of compensation" thing is common though. Once you are at the top of your band, hopefully you get "inflation" top ups but it isn't guaranteed. Hence, get a job elsewhere...
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Exactly, hence my comment. Assume you’re never going to get promoted internally, because it’s generally not possible. I’ve been in the industry for 20 years and never got close. It is just very uncommon. You want to start out at the low end of your job’s salary band, giving you lots of runway to get raises. Once you get to the top of the band, just find another job, rinse and repeat. You dont want to be “underleveled” at the top of the band.
    - eganist 6y ago
      Yikes, and here I am as a manager trying to create employee development plans for my team members so I can vouch for their promotions come end of year (or next, depending on the plan and the leveling-up needed). Sorry you all have had these experiences. In two of the companies I've worked at, I've been promoted to new titles with substantial pay bumps at least once, so this is pretty foreign to me.
      - _carbyau_ 6y ago
        I think it is a culture/approach thing. Where I am, you have a job with a pay band. As time goes by you pretty much automatically go up the pay bands unless you have done something drastically poor. Once you hit the top, that's pretty much it. "Performance planning" is universally seen as mostly for show, so that HR can say they are implementing best practice. If we didn't have to do it we'd breathe a sigh of relief. Different horses on different courses.
      - ryandrake 6y ago
        I'm not trying to change the world here, just making a practical utilitarian point: Due to an HR mistake, OP is underleveled and likely at the top of that level's pay band. You don't want to be here because being a the top of your pay band limits your future raises. It's in OP's financial best interest to bring this up with HR ASAP and get it corrected. If you think promotions are straightforward when you're performing well and found to be underleveled, then the problem is less urgent, but in my experience this is not the case. As the saying among employees goes: "It's easier to get hired at [FAANG competitor] than to get an internal promotion." I know that we HN folks have heard this one before, so I'm kind of puzzled by the downvotes.

alexfromapex 6y ago

This happened to me at a Fortune 500 and as long as the pay is great just ignore the title as most other companies will realize your responsibilities are in line with a higher title.

listenallyall 6y ago
Personally I disagree. There is far less friction within an organization to fill a VP job with someone who is currently (or once was) a VP, rather than "taking a chance" with a candidate who has never previously held that title. Further, I have very rarely seen interviewers actually take the time to learn what your responsibilities are, let alone determine that they are representative of a title other than the one you have.