When are too many executives too much?

bcla

On our rugged Eastern foothills.....
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Quite a few businesses (especially banks) hand out executive titles like candy. I’ve gotten several loans over the years from well known national banks, and when I was handed the business card of a loan officer it would typically say “Vice President”. It seemed like anyone with a desk was a VP. I’ve heard rumors that up to 40% of the employees at the big retail banks have some sort of VP title. It seems a bit odd.

Places where I worked didn’t have that much title creep, but it did seem odd at one place where we had three VPs in a group with maybe 40 employees.
 
Last “big” company I worked for had ~2,500 employees and 3 VP’s (4 at the end). We don’t have any here (28 employees).

The Mexican factories I worked with didn’t have VP’s, but they had several redundant layers of management compared to the same factories prior to leaving the US.
 
I remember hearing decades ago that banks were big on titles but not pay. The VP title was used a lot even back then. I wonder if that was true, and if so if it is still the case or are pay rates now more what you would expect with a VP title.
 


Well - I was really thinking of the case where middle managers are basically given a fancy but generally meaningless executive title. Obviously a bank is going to need branch managers, loan officers, and middle managers, but when there are a half dozen "VPs" at every bank branch it does seem to devalue the worth of having such a title.
 
Well - I was really thinking of the case where middle managers are basically given a fancy but generally meaningless executive title. Obviously a bank is going to need branch managers, loan officers, and middle managers, but when there are a half dozen "VPs" at every bank branch it does seem to devalue the worth of having such a title.

Before teaching I worked in corporate America for a large marketing company. Title dictates salary. So if hey wanted to pay some one xxx amount it has to fall under a certain title.


At my school we have an administrator for administrators and few involved in the day to day activities. Lots of checklists paper work and goal making for the future!
 


When the number of executives exceeds the number of workers, and NONE of the executives is qualified to do, or willing to do any of their employees jobs.
 
The bigger the company the more oversight is needed but with robotics it doesn't mean the more overall staff is needed.
This is particularly true of publicly traded companies whose shareholders spend a lot of time looking at the reports and won't tolerate labor excesses in any direction.
JMHO.
I got out of the corporate rat race a long time ago on purpose.
 
I remember hearing decades ago that banks were big on titles but not pay. The VP title was used a lot even back then. I wonder if that was true, and if so if it is still the case or are pay rates now more what you would expect with a VP title.

I worked for a “too big to fail bank” (and it tried very hard) and every fall we had to complete the employee survey. The results were always more recognition and a cost of living raise.

After a bunch of committee meetings, we got new job titles.

The survey administered a week after 9/11 had high job satisfaction. When the meetings to discuss the results came around I mentioned that the high number was due to the new national fear and uneasiness, I was told no you all love your jobs.
 
I worked for a mid-level bank several years ago. Under the CEO, each major division had an Executive Vice President (such as Human Resources). Under that person were several Vice Presidents (mid-level managers) for each part of the division (such as Employment, Employee Relations, Compensations and Benefits). Under the VPs were Assistant Vice Presidents (basically supervisors who might have two or three people reporting to them), specialists (the worker bees with no direct reports) and administrative assistants (who kept the place running!). I worked in the CEO's office so I got to see the how everything worked from the top down. I do recall there being a lot of VPs and AVPs.
 
I work for a private school that just keeps adding administrators and not enough teaching staff. It is crazy!

Our local pubic school system does the same thing - layers of admin at the superintendent's level, secretaries having assistants, but yet no one knows who is in charge of curriculum (for real, not just having that title on the door). It's disgusting. They've cut the teaching in staff by 1/3, but have they cut one admin? No!
 
I have to say that, as much as I enjoy where I work now, we do seem to have a lot of pointless VP titles. As far as I can tell, the title means next to nothing and only gives some middle manager types a sense of self-worth. Most that I work with do realize that despite my lack of a fancy title, I technically outrank them. Once or twice I've had one try to "pull rank" on me (so to speak) claiming their matter should get extra attention from me because the CFO or whomever requested it. I'm like, "If the CFO cares that much about your pet project he can tell me himself why its more important than the other matters he's personaly requested that I work on at the same time!"
 
Vice Presidents at the big banks are most definitely not executives. It is a title given for not even what would be considered a middle level management position. Banks are not a good example for a basis of this discussion, IMO.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top