3 ms·
I found it interesting that the author mentioned tactical planning for manager and director, but not strategic planning for the VP. That seems like a useful di
by alistairSH 2y ago
I found it interesting that the author mentioned tactical planning for manager and director, but not strategic planning for the VP. That seems like a useful differentiator to me (with extremely contrived examples)...
C-level - sets highest level strategy (We're going to the moon!)
VP - adds level of detail to strategy (draws a map from earth to the moon, decides we need a rocket ship to get there)
Director - bridges strategy and tactics (creates high level requirements the rocket ship, makes sure there are enough gas stations on the way to the moon)
Manager - ensures tactical success (ensures the team builds a rocket that meets the spec, makes sure the rocket stops for gas on the way)
And of course, for a sufficiently large org, some of this gets offloaded to dedicated Product Managers, Program Managers, etc. But, that's orthogonal to the point of the article, I think.
- nyclounge 2y agoVP seems like just a title that corporation gives out when they run out of brownie points or something.
- astrange 2y agoI think the impression comes from banks, because you need to be a VP to sign contracts for the company or something like that, so they just make everyone a VP.
- 110jawefopiwa 2y agoC-level - sets highest level strategy (We're going to the moon!) VP - Tells directors to work faster Director - Tells managers to work faster Manager - unblocks team ICs - do real work
- jimnotgym 2y agoOr another way to put it is VP- protects their empire from the C level Director- protects their department from the VP Manager- protects their team from the director IC- can get real work done because they are protected from this political crap