2 ms·
Isn’t the most effective way to find out what you’ll be doing is by measuring how many people are going to be under you overall? A “vp” at a startup with 20 pe
by bradlys 2y ago
Isn’t the most effective way to find out what you’ll be doing is by measuring how many people are going to be under you overall?
A “vp” at a startup with 20 people under them will likely have very different responsibilities than a faang director with 200.
I believe this is why you get asked how many people are under you when interviewing at these roles. The titles - as far as I’ve seen - are mostly meaningless. It’s about the scale of your decisions. I know the article talks about the type of influence/decisions you’ll be making. (Executing others decisions vs making the decisions) But I find it’s rare for these bigger companies to really give a shit about that. They care more about how many people you’ve had under you. It’s rare to see someone be VP at startups with a few people (and that’s their only experience) and then be VP at faang in their next role.
- trentnix 2y agoThe "number of people you've had under you" does provides insight into what a role entails, but there's still a lot of variance. What does seem to be uniform is that the "number of people you've had under you" determines whether a hiring company will think you’re qualified for a job. Companies simply aren't likely to take a "risk" hiring an outsider that hasn't been in a role with a similar perceived scope of responsibility. And since actual here's-what-you're-doing-day-to-day responsibility can vary so much, the "number of people you've had under you" becomes a proxy for that. I understand the reasoning for why they put so much weight on the number of reports you’ve been previously responsible for, but it also explains why big companies stagnate. The people change but the thinking and strategy doesn’t.