4 ms·

> So with all of that said, management is NOT "a part of career progression." Legally, in order to be able to do certain things in a corporation you need to be

> So with all of that said, management is NOT "a part of career progression." Legally, in order to be able to do certain things in a corporation you need to be a manager, director, or VP (i.e. sign contracts). A "Staff" is a made up term that is not recognized by any legal system or secretary of state, and that person will never be able fulfill vital corporate functions. Someone who is not a manager will never be privy to the full picture on people management, corporate finance, and so on due to issues with legal liability and corporate law. I understand that there are smart people who want to "Do management without any of the responsibilities" but the real world doesn't work that way. If the ultimate rung of the career ladder is "Business Owner", management is definitely a required step on that journey.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Legally, in order to be able to do certain things in a corporation you need to be a manager, director, or VP (i.e. sign contracts). (1) you probably mean “e.g.”, not “i.e.”, since you said “some things”, but “sign contracts” is just one thing. Latin abbreviations may be convenient compared to writing out full English words, but they aren’t interchangable. (2) In either case, this is wrong, since even with “e.g.” it would require “sign cobtracts” to be a valid example, and its not. To sign contracts for a corporation, you need authority from the board, which it is free to give to anyone (even a non-employee). There are a few individuals or combinations that people can safely assume have such authority as long as they don’t have specific negative information, but it is much smaller than the list you provide, and not germane to who can have signing authority.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  It’s really irrelevant that a board can give signing permission to Joe Blow - Sr. Wizard III, because the counterparty would never accept such a contract. No bank, for example, is going to write a note to a corporation that unless the person in question is clearly an officer. I only mention this because I’m on my third corporation serving as an officer. Ignoring the pedantic bits an above, an employee will never completely climb the career ladder without a management role. You can pretend that corporate officers don’t exist, or come up with an arcane loophole that doesn’t reflect reality. It’s not really how corporations are run.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It’s really irrelevant that a board can give signing permission to Joe Blow - Sr. Wizard III, because the counterparty would never accept such a contract For significant contracts, they’ll either want proof of the existence and scope of signing authority or, without that, accept only the specific officers that the law will bind the corporation for as long as the counterparty doesn't have negative knowledge, which (in CA) is: Acting individually: no one at all, not even the Chairman/President. Acting together: one each of either the Chairman, President, or any Vice Preisdent and the Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or any Assistant Secretary or Assistant Treasurer. (See, Cal. Corporations Code, § 313) I suppose its possible that some counterparties may take risks on less significant contracts by presuming lesser titles have some signing authority without specific evidence (why, though?), but I can’t imagine that anyone whose signature alone isn’t presumptively valid under applicable state law to bind the company would ever be preferred on the basis of their title versus someone with a less impressive title and documented signing authority. > Ignoring the pedantic bits an above, an employee will never completely climb the career ladder without a management role. I think you are confusing a “career ladder” (of which there tend to be multiple within an institution, including, in many areas, parallel “manager” and “specialist” tracks in the same domain) with the organizational heirarchy (of which there is one, and where the very top is definitively a manager). Yes, you will never be a CEO without being in a management role, that is trivially true.
Jemaclus 4y ago
I hesitate to respond, because I'm generally not interested in arguing on the internet. I'm also not entirely sure if you're just being pedantic or not, but IMO this is a pretty narrow view of "career progression." You don't need to manage people to level up in technical skills and leadership, and you certainly don't need to sign contracts to lead a project. There are plenty of ways to get more money and more responsibility that don't involve eventually becoming the CEO. I personally have three Principal Engineers that work for me. They don't sign contracts, but I can give them a project and they'll do all of the technical designs and mentoring and development, while my managers can focus on more people-related things, such as inter-team collaboration, daily rituals, performance reviews, promotions, engaging with team members to keep up morale and productivity, and more. And for what it's worth, my managers are not authorized to sign contracts, either -- but they're still managers!

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Legally, in order to be able to do certain things in a corporation you need to be a manager, director, or VP (i.e. sign contracts). (1) you probably mean “e.g.”, not “i.e.”, since you said “some things”, but “sign contracts” is just one thing. Latin abbreviations may be convenient compared to writing out full English words, but they aren’t interchangable. (2) In either case, this is wrong, since even with “e.g.” it would require “sign cobtracts” to be a valid example, and its not. To sign contracts for a corporation, you need authority from the board, which it is free to give to anyone (even a non-employee). There are a few individuals or combinations that people can safely assume have such authority as long as they don’t have specific negative information, but it is much smaller than the list you provide, and not germane to who can have signing authority.

oceanplexian 4y ago
It’s really irrelevant that a board can give signing permission to Joe Blow - Sr. Wizard III, because the counterparty would never accept such a contract. No bank, for example, is going to write a note to a corporation that unless the person in question is clearly an officer. I only mention this because I’m on my third corporation serving as an officer. Ignoring the pedantic bits an above, an employee will never completely climb the career ladder without a management role. You can pretend that corporate officers don’t exist, or come up with an arcane loophole that doesn’t reflect reality. It’s not really how corporations are run.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It’s really irrelevant that a board can give signing permission to Joe Blow - Sr. Wizard III, because the counterparty would never accept such a contract For significant contracts, they’ll either want proof of the existence and scope of signing authority or, without that, accept only the specific officers that the law will bind the corporation for as long as the counterparty doesn't have negative knowledge, which (in CA) is: Acting individually: no one at all, not even the Chairman/President. Acting together: one each of either the Chairman, President, or any Vice Preisdent and the Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or any Assistant Secretary or Assistant Treasurer. (See, Cal. Corporations Code, § 313) I suppose its possible that some counterparties may take risks on less significant contracts by presuming lesser titles have some signing authority without specific evidence (why, though?), but I can’t imagine that anyone whose signature alone isn’t presumptively valid under applicable state law to bind the company would ever be preferred on the basis of their title versus someone with a less impressive title and documented signing authority. > Ignoring the pedantic bits an above, an employee will never completely climb the career ladder without a management role. I think you are confusing a “career ladder” (of which there tend to be multiple within an institution, including, in many areas, parallel “manager” and “specialist” tracks in the same domain) with the organizational heirarchy (of which there is one, and where the very top is definitively a manager). Yes, you will never be a CEO without being in a management role, that is trivially true.

Jemaclus 4y ago

I hesitate to respond, because I'm generally not interested in arguing on the internet. I'm also not entirely sure if you're just being pedantic or not, but IMO this is a pretty narrow view of "career progression." You don't need to manage people to level up in technical skills and leadership, and you certainly don't need to sign contracts to lead a project. There are plenty of ways to get more money and more responsibility that don't involve eventually becoming the CEO. I personally have three Principal Engineers that work for me. They don't sign contracts, but I can give them a project and they'll do all of the technical designs and mentoring and development, while my managers can focus on more people-related things, such as inter-team collaboration, daily rituals, performance reviews, promotions, engaging with team members to keep up morale and productivity, and more. And for what it's worth, my managers are not authorized to sign contracts, either -- but they're still managers!