This 2015 blog post outlines the key differences between Managers, Directors, and VPs, focusing on how their responsibilities and impact evolve with seniority. Managers are responsible for doing – directly contributing to the work and managing individual contributors. Directors shift to getting things done through others, managing managers and owning larger projects or initiatives. VPs are responsible for setting direction and influencing the organization strategically, managing multiple directors and owning entire functional areas. The post emphasizes that upward movement isn't simply about more responsibility, but a fundamental shift in focus from tactical execution to strategic leadership.
This 2015 blog post by Kellblog, titled "Career Development: What It Really Means to Be a Manager, Director, or VP," delves into the nuanced distinctions between these three common leadership roles within an organization, focusing on the evolving responsibilities and scope of influence as one ascends the corporate ladder. The author eschews rigid definitions, acknowledging the variability across companies, and instead offers a framework for understanding the general expectations and skillsets associated with each position.
At the managerial level, the primary focus is on tactical execution. Managers are deeply involved in the day-to-day operations, directly supervising individual contributors and ensuring the team effectively implements pre-defined strategies and achieves specific objectives. Their core responsibilities encompass resource allocation within the team, performance management of direct reports, and the removal of obstacles impeding the team's progress. They are responsible for the efficient and effective utilization of their team's capabilities to deliver tangible results.
Moving up to the director role signifies a shift towards a more strategic perspective. While still retaining some operational responsibilities, directors are primarily concerned with defining the "what" and "why" of their department's work. They are tasked with developing the strategies and roadmaps that guide their teams, ensuring alignment with the overarching organizational goals. This involves anticipating future market trends, identifying opportunities for growth, and making data-driven decisions that position their department for success. Directors are also responsible for cross-functional collaboration, working with other departments to ensure cohesive execution of the broader organizational strategy. They are accountable for the overall performance and strategic direction of their department.
The vice president (VP) role represents the highest level of leadership discussed in the post, characterized by a focus on vision and organizational influence. VPs operate at a more abstract level, defining the "how" at a company-wide scale. They are responsible for setting the overall direction of the organization or a significant portion thereof, influencing company culture, and securing buy-in from key stakeholders, including the board of directors and investors. Their decisions have a significant impact on the long-term trajectory of the company. VPs are less involved in day-to-day operations and instead concentrate on building relationships, fostering innovation, and ensuring the organization has the necessary resources and capabilities to achieve its long-term objectives. They are ultimately accountable for the success of their entire division or area of responsibility, often encompassing multiple departments and directors.
The author emphasizes that these distinctions are not absolute and can vary based on company size, industry, and organizational structure. However, the core principles of increasing strategic responsibility, scope of influence, and focus on long-term vision remain consistent as one progresses from manager to director to VP. The post serves as a valuable guide for individuals navigating their career paths and seeking to understand the evolving demands of leadership roles within an organization.
Summary of Comments ( 84 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43434093
HN users generally found the linked article's definitions of manager, director, and VP roles accurate and helpful, especially for those transitioning into management. Several commenters emphasized the importance of influence and leverage as key differentiators between the levels. One commenter highlighted the "multiplier effect" of higher-level roles, where impact isn't solely from individual contribution but from enabling others. Some discussion revolved around the varying definitions of these titles across companies, with some noting that "director" can be a particularly nebulous term. Others pointed out the emotional labor involved in management and the necessity of advocating for your team. A few commenters also shared their own experiences and anecdotes that supported the article's claims.
The Hacker News post linking to the 2015 blog post "Career Development: What It Really Means to Be a Manager, Director, or VP" has generated a moderate number of comments, offering various perspectives on the original article's framework.
Several commenters discuss the applicability of the article's definitions across different company sizes and organizational structures. One commenter notes that the described roles and responsibilities can vary significantly between smaller startups and larger, more established corporations. They point out that in startups, titles often carry less weight and individuals may operate with broader responsibilities than their title might suggest. Another echoes this sentiment, adding that in smaller companies, the lines between these roles often blur, with individuals performing tasks across multiple levels.
Another thread of discussion centers on the importance of influence and impact as key differentiators between management levels. One commenter argues that the article's focus on scope and scale overlooks the critical element of influence, suggesting that a more effective distinction lies in how much influence each role wields within the organization. This is further elaborated upon by another comment, highlighting that true leadership at higher levels involves influencing not just direct reports but also peers and superiors.
The original article's emphasis on "managing managers" as a defining characteristic of director-level roles also draws some scrutiny. One commenter challenges this notion, pointing out that many managers don't manage other managers and yet still function effectively at a director level. They propose alternative criteria for defining a director, such as owning a significant area of the business or possessing deep technical expertise. This perspective is supported by another comment which suggests that the article's framework might be too rigid and doesn't account for the diverse ways companies structure their organizations.
Finally, some commenters offer personal anecdotes and experiences that either support or contradict the article's claims. One shares their own career progression, noting that their experience aligns closely with the article's descriptions. Another, however, recounts a different experience where the lines between manager, director, and VP were much less clear, suggesting that the framework may not be universally applicable. This reinforces the overall sentiment that the article provides a useful starting point for understanding these roles, but real-world application can be far more nuanced and context-dependent.