Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmilcin | Hacker News Reader

"VP" has become, not just for Google, a title you get instead of a raise. You know, to make you feel you are getting somewhere with your career without breaking the budget.

Haven't worked for Google but I worked for couple large banks (Credit Suisse, currently Citi) and VP is currently synonym for line manager. You can be Associate VP without having anybody report to you, just a senior contributor.

View on HN

Banks and Wall Street are pretty liberal with "VP" titles. There they give you that title so the person you meet (to make a deal) thinks you are serious and sent a VP to sell.

Tech companies, not as much.

Can confirm. Source: American Psycho

"Let's see Paul Allen's card.

Look at that subtle off-white coloring.

The tasteful thickness of it.

Oh, my God. It even has a watermark."

It’s not the same at Google. Yes, someone 2 years post-MBA with 5 direct reports can be a VP in banking.

At google VPs have hundreds of people reporting to them.

At Google VP is equivalent to CXO roles, so it is not that kind of "fake" VP.

Are you thinking of SVP?

Even if you just take SVP don't they have like a hundred of them? I feel it would go a lot better if they put more wood behind fewer arrows (VP+ people). Then maybe a few projects would stick.

SVP is a big deal in Google actually.

Yes that is the problem, having like a hundred people who are a big deal means that the company has no direction.

The company is tens of thousands of people. At some point theres a limit to how flat one can be.

The current system is too flat, it is not like Sundar can control that many SVP's alone. Instead you have SVP's managing SVP's etc. Who is there to put the foot down ? I'd be fine with it if there was a level above that who kept them in check.

And lo the Executive SVP position shall be created!

This might be true, but also anybody who is a VP is making $1M+ a year. They're certainly in good hands.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com