Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Sounds like a bank, where everyone above teller is a VP.

It’s a bank, but certainly not true that everyone above a teller is a VP. There are quite a few rungs between teller and VP.

That was obvious in jest… but also close to the truth.

I'm different banks do things differently. But every time I've done a mortgage or refinance, I've dealt with a "VP" who appears to just be customer service person.

Yes, different banks do things differently. I’m a VP and there are 5 people between the CEO and me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Sounds like a bank, where everyone above teller is a VP.

It’s a bank, but certainly not true that everyone above a teller is a VP. There are quite a few rungs between teller and VP.

That was obvious in jest… but also close to the truth.

It’s really not, but ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Sounds like a bank, where everyone above teller is a VP.

It’s a bank, but certainly not true that everyone above a teller is a VP. There are quite a few rungs between teller and VP.

That was obvious in jest… but also close to the truth.

I'm different banks do things differently. But every time I've done a mortgage or refinance, I've dealt with a "VP" who appears to just be customer service person.

My company has a few lawyers who are VPs and don't have reports, or only have one report (like a paralegal). That's often necessary to get to the comp you need to pay to lure folks with specialized skills away from law firms. I'd guess that this could be true in other fields where there are other types of employers who might compete for the same highly compensated talent (medicine, finance, etc.).

At my NGO, you’re not going to get a VP title without managing multiple levels of people. Senior Director or Lead XYZ is the best you’d get. Not managing people is generally pretty limiting for us, except in some R&D roles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Sounds like a bank, where everyone above teller is a VP.

Not true. Dh is in banking and has worked at several banks. He is currently a Managing Director but does not technically manage anyone. He got the title based on his skills and production (as did the others on his team who have the title and also don’t manage). He has managed before as have many of his colleagues and they have no desire to do it again. Hopefully, your company can find the right role for you, Op. Also, remember that compensation is more important than title .

If you work in banking, maybe, given what the culture and the people value.

I do not working in banking, I work for a NP, and am struggling with this, because as someone who will need to go outside my organization and who wants power and authority to increase so she can at some point, Title is way more important to me than $.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Sounds like a bank, where everyone above teller is a VP.

It’s a bank, but certainly not true that everyone above a teller is a VP. There are quite a few rungs between teller and VP.

That was obvious in jest… but also close to the truth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Sounds like a bank, where everyone above teller is a VP.

It’s a bank, but certainly not true that everyone above a teller is a VP. There are quite a few rungs between teller and VP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Sounds like a bank, where everyone above teller is a VP.

Not true. Dh is in banking and has worked at several banks. He is currently a Managing Director but does not technically manage anyone. He got the title based on his skills and production (as did the others on his team who have the title and also don’t manage). He has managed before as have many of his colleagues and they have no desire to do it again. Hopefully, your company can find the right role for you, Op. Also, remember that compensation is more important than title .

Work for tech company. Yes, know few IC VP,s. When I asked I was told the company couldn’t fit their salary in the director band. Know people in core tech roles and non tech roles.

There are plenty of IC at Director and Senior director level

Anonymous wrote:My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Sounds like a bank, where everyone above teller is a VP.

My firm has VPs who are individual contributors — I am one. Once you get to SVP you are almost always a manager, but not always. Director is above SVP.

Yea, in chief of staff roles- ie reporting to c level executives and chairmen. At least that’s the case in my company. But after that gig ends you’re expected to go on to a traditional VP role managing teams.

A director without any direct reports seems unusual. I work in technology and the highest IC role you can get to in my mega corp is architect. Architect pay does not equal VP pay where I am.

Lay it on me hard. I am director level for 9 years. My manager has been trying to promote me for 3 years now. The thing is I dont want to supervise anyone. I dont want to be responsible for anyone. Im an awesome IC. Like Ive won every possible award in my company for what I do. My company is top of its field. Truth be told I am bored... but not bored enough as to want to manage someone. I dont think im a good teacher or a good manager. The compensation changes significantly at a VP level and my wife tells me I really should consider. Am I crazy to think my company values my IC capabilities so much that they would make me a VP with no direct reports? Lol. Thanks for any insight .