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.
The blog post "Vpternlog: When three is 100% more than two" explores the confusion surrounding ternary logic's perceived 50% increase in information capacity compared to binary. The author argues that while a ternary digit (trit) can hold three values versus a bit's two, this represents a 100% increase (three being twice as much as 1.5, which is the midpoint between 1 and 2) in potential values, not 50%. The post delves into the logarithmic nature of information capacity and uses the example of how many bits are needed to represent the same range of values as a given number of trits, demonstrating that the increase in capacity is closer to 63%, calculated using log base 2 of 3. The core point is that measuring increases in information capacity requires logarithmic comparison, not simple subtraction or division.
Hacker News users discuss the nuances of ternary logic's efficiency compared to binary. Several commenters point out that the article's claim of ternary being "100% more" than binary is misleading. They argue that the relevant metric is information density, calculated using log base 2, which shows ternary as only about 58% more efficient. Discussions also revolved around practical implementation challenges of ternary systems, citing issues with noise margins and the relative ease and maturity of binary technology. Some users mention the historical use of ternary computers, like Setun, while others debate the theoretical advantages and whether these outweigh the practical difficulties. A few also explore alternative bases beyond ternary and binary.
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.