7 ms·

I don’t know if it is the case with Citi, but it may not be that titles are inflated, but that titles are different. I’ve spent most of my career on Wall Street

I don’t know if it is the case with Citi, but it may not be that titles are inflated, but that titles are different. I’ve spent most of my career on Wall Street (i-banking and investing) and VP is a mid level position, and it comes before director. Whereas my mom works for Google and VPs there are quite senior.

singhrac 4y ago
This is right. It’s just different, not inflated.
- jtc331 4y ago
  ISTM the definition of title inflation should be something like “titles frequently connote a significantly higher level of responsibility than the title holder actually has”. If the title communicates incorrect information it isn’t merely a different convention; it actively causes confusion.
kgwgk 4y ago
If having thousands of vice-presidents is not title inflation, what would qualify as such?
- jbjbjbjb 4y ago
  Just that the convention is different. It is just the third rung on the ladder in the finance world. You might manage a small team of junior staff.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    You don’t need to manage anyone to be VP. If you manage people you deserve a director title! More than 25% of Goldman Sachs employees are VP, for example. And of course the idea of title inflation can be rendered meaningless in any situation saying “it’s just a different convention”.
    - esja 4y ago
      It depends on the bank. In some places VPs can manage a lot of people without being promoted to Director.
      - kgwgk 4y ago
        You’re right. Let me change that to “if you manage a group of VPs you deserve a director title”!
- topkai22 4y ago
  There are historical reasons for the proliferation of the title- every city and town used to have their own bank or several. These were independent businesses, each one having a President and maybe a couple of Vice Presidents. When mergers and acquisitions happened and all these single branch banks got rolled up to mega corps they kept the nomenclature because that’s what people were used to- a manager at a bank branch was a Vice President because that’s what it always meant, but the title then got used for anyone at the same level. I’ve also heard that at least at some point the title “vice president” carried some form of regulatory meaning and was the minimum level required for sign off on some pretty basic things, but I’m having trouble confirming that and it may be wrong.
  - jorvi 4y ago
    > I’ve also heard that at least at some point the title “vice president” carried some form of regulatory meaning and was the minimum level required for sign off on some pretty basic things, but I’m having trouble confirming that and it may be wrong. I have heard the same, although phrased as ‘the lowest position where someone is allowed to speak for the company’.
  - shawabawa3 4y ago
    That's the cause of the title inflation But it doesn't mean it's not title inflation just because there's a reason for it
    - tome 4y ago
      It's not inflation because the same proportion of staff have that title as they used to (is the claim).
- cameldrv 4y ago
  The reason banks have so many Vice Presidents is that to bind a company to a contract, you need to be a corporate officer. A Vice President is a corporate officer but a director isn't. If you want to issue loans, etc, you practically need this authority. If a relatively low level employee in one part of the business is a VP, that creates pressure to make lower level people in other parts of the business VPs also. Some of this may be historical, but this as I understand it is why almost everyone at a bank is a Vice President.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    > A Vice President is a corporate officer but a director isn't. Director is typically above Vice President in financial firms. I’m not sure I follow your reasoning.
    - newsclues 4y ago
      Officer = legal responsibility Director = high level manager (of other managers)
      - kgwgk 4y ago
        You think that the vice-presidents are officers and the directors above them are not? Do the VPs lose their legal responsibilities and powers when they are promoted?
      - esja 4y ago
        Directors are also officers, just more senior than VPs.
  - esja 4y ago
    No, Directors are also corporate officers (and more senior than VPs).
- benjaminwootton 4y ago
  I viewed this more as a quirk of American IB titles rather title inflation. The path has always been Analyst > Associate > VP, and you can make VP in under 5 years.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  > what would qualify as such? “Senior Engineer” with 4 years experience.
rubyfan 4y ago
For most east cost financial companies VP is usually a mid level position. Many companies talk about VP roles as “senior” and “leadership” positions but then have poor role clarity and organization structures that make everyone in the organization behave 1-3 levels lower than their title suggests. Decisioning at these companies is usually reserved for a higher level of VP, SVP, EVP, etc. Big west coast tech companies do seem to reserve VP for a select few. As they start to mature and their equity driven compensation gives way I’d be surprised if they don’t start to inflate titles as well.

singhrac 4y ago

This is right. It’s just different, not inflated.

jtc331 4y ago
ISTM the definition of title inflation should be something like “titles frequently connote a significantly higher level of responsibility than the title holder actually has”. If the title communicates incorrect information it isn’t merely a different convention; it actively causes confusion.

kgwgk 4y ago

If having thousands of vice-presidents is not title inflation, what would qualify as such?

jbjbjbjb 4y ago
Just that the convention is different. It is just the third rung on the ladder in the finance world. You might manage a small team of junior staff.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  You don’t need to manage anyone to be VP. If you manage people you deserve a director title! More than 25% of Goldman Sachs employees are VP, for example. And of course the idea of title inflation can be rendered meaningless in any situation saying “it’s just a different convention”.
  - esja 4y ago
    It depends on the bank. In some places VPs can manage a lot of people without being promoted to Director.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      You’re right. Let me change that to “if you manage a group of VPs you deserve a director title”!
topkai22 4y ago
There are historical reasons for the proliferation of the title- every city and town used to have their own bank or several. These were independent businesses, each one having a President and maybe a couple of Vice Presidents. When mergers and acquisitions happened and all these single branch banks got rolled up to mega corps they kept the nomenclature because that’s what people were used to- a manager at a bank branch was a Vice President because that’s what it always meant, but the title then got used for anyone at the same level. I’ve also heard that at least at some point the title “vice president” carried some form of regulatory meaning and was the minimum level required for sign off on some pretty basic things, but I’m having trouble confirming that and it may be wrong.
- jorvi 4y ago
  > I’ve also heard that at least at some point the title “vice president” carried some form of regulatory meaning and was the minimum level required for sign off on some pretty basic things, but I’m having trouble confirming that and it may be wrong. I have heard the same, although phrased as ‘the lowest position where someone is allowed to speak for the company’.
- shawabawa3 4y ago
  That's the cause of the title inflation But it doesn't mean it's not title inflation just because there's a reason for it
  - tome 4y ago
    It's not inflation because the same proportion of staff have that title as they used to (is the claim).
cameldrv 4y ago
The reason banks have so many Vice Presidents is that to bind a company to a contract, you need to be a corporate officer. A Vice President is a corporate officer but a director isn't. If you want to issue loans, etc, you practically need this authority. If a relatively low level employee in one part of the business is a VP, that creates pressure to make lower level people in other parts of the business VPs also. Some of this may be historical, but this as I understand it is why almost everyone at a bank is a Vice President.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  > A Vice President is a corporate officer but a director isn't. Director is typically above Vice President in financial firms. I’m not sure I follow your reasoning.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    Officer = legal responsibility Director = high level manager (of other managers)
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      You think that the vice-presidents are officers and the directors above them are not? Do the VPs lose their legal responsibilities and powers when they are promoted?
    - esja 4y ago
      Directors are also officers, just more senior than VPs.
- esja 4y ago
  No, Directors are also corporate officers (and more senior than VPs).
benjaminwootton 4y ago
I viewed this more as a quirk of American IB titles rather title inflation. The path has always been Analyst > Associate > VP, and you can make VP in under 5 years.
kasey_junk 4y ago
> what would qualify as such? “Senior Engineer” with 4 years experience.

rubyfan 4y ago

For most east cost financial companies VP is usually a mid level position. Many companies talk about VP roles as “senior” and “leadership” positions but then have poor role clarity and organization structures that make everyone in the organization behave 1-3 levels lower than their title suggests. Decisioning at these companies is usually reserved for a higher level of VP, SVP, EVP, etc. Big west coast tech companies do seem to reserve VP for a select few. As they start to mature and their equity driven compensation gives way I’d be surprised if they don’t start to inflate titles as well.