This may be a question for IMHO but it is really part of a wider issue of office heirarchy. I am trying to figure out which business title is the ‘more senior’ of the following:
There don’t seem to be any hard and fast rules but I am wondering whether it is more impressive to have less ‘scope’ or more ‘scope’, as defined by the remainder of the title after VP. When I was working for a bank, almost everyone seemed to be called Vice-President.
Is there a general heirarchical structure to small sized (ie < 100 people) companies?
It’s always best to describe yourself as accurately as possible in your work title. At least that way there are no embarassing “explanation” conversations where you have to explain that you are not the VP of the entire company, just of your little bit…
I see. What if you could reasonably argue that you * are * VP of the entire company? Is it better then to have just VP or does it actually help to add on nebulous endings like ‘strategy’?
There’s no way you can tell just from the title, since many companies make up titles to fit the position. The only way to really know is to look at an org chart. If all of the VP’s you listed report to the CEO, then they are more or less equal. If some of the VP’s report to other VP’s, then you know where the seniority is.
If the person is indeed the only Vice President, then there would be no need to add anything more descriptive.
Usually however, even in smaller companies of say 100 employees, there are more than one VP. In these cases there are often more senior titles of the “C” class. CFO, CIO, COO, CCO, etc. These level titles are ususally held by the most senior level managers.
Of course, between the C-titles and the VP titles you often have Senior Vice Presidents and Executive Vice Presidents. Especially in Financial Services.
In an ideal world, it would seem fitting that a vice president is the number two person in an organization (after numero uno el presidente).
If there are several VPs, one would assume, in an ideal world, that they’re all equal peers and all answer directly to the president.
If there is a VP in charge of X, then one would assume that when it comes to X, that this VP is in charge (except when answering to the president). And it would stand to reason that the VP of X can’t interfere with Y, which has its own VP of Y.
It would also stand to reason that a general VP would be number two and ahead of all the VPs of X, Y, and Z.
But, alas, an organization can give whatever titles they like and organize their flow of power any way they like, even if it runs counter to reason.
I just feel compelled to note that I once worked in a small business of only 5 people where everyone had “manager” in their title. How’s that for confusing?
I’m familiar with the plethora of vice-presidents in most of the companies for which I’ve worked, but what’s the difference between a president and a CEO?
One does not have to be senior to the other. VP is the level of authority they have within the company. In that way, they are equally vested with the authority to do certain things, like sign checks, bind the company to a contract, hire and fire employees under their supervision, etc.
BTW, that’s why there are so many chiefs and so few indians in banking. Any signatory has to have a title, and that title dictates what class of instrument and up to what amounts their signature is valid for.
Good question. I’d like to know that too. I presume that there are legal issues. Also, who is more important, a Vice Chairman an Executive Vice President or a CFO?
** algernon ** states that the ‘C’ class is higher than any ‘VP’ class, but it seems pretty hazy to me.
What about President & CEO compared to Chairman & CEO? Can you be Chairman, President & CEO?
Titles can be helpful in assessing status within an organization, but they can’t always tell you who’s really running the show. They will not always tell you who’s making more money, either.
Sometimes a person is kept around with a big title who has made contributions in the past but is not really running things now. There may be several reasons why that person is not pushed into retirement. For example, Bill Gates is still Chairman of Microsoft, whereas Steve Balmer is now CEO. Gates will always be the more powerful so long as he owns the stock.
In my own Japanese company, the shachou is “President and COO” and the kaichou is “Chairman and CEO.” Both titles are close to meaningless, however, as the two jyoumu are more powerful and have much more influence.
As for the VPs in the OP, as one poster said, an org chart would help. Still, even though one person may seem higher than another on the chart, someone else might be closer to the power center.
I dont know if a person can be chairman, president, and CEO all in one. “Chairman” means, concretely, chairman of the board of directors. The Chief Executive Officer, in theory, has hire/fire power above anyone else in the organization (but not board members, of course, who are elected). “President,” seems the least concrete of the titles. Does anyone know the history of C-titles and how they relate to the history of the “president” titles. It seems that C-titles were not around until after WWII, but I could be wrong.