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 argues that Vice President Kamala Harris should not wear her Apple Watch, citing security risks. It contends that smartwatches, particularly those connected to cell networks, are vulnerable to hacking and could be exploited to eavesdrop on sensitive conversations or track her location. The author emphasizes the potential for foreign intelligence agencies to target such devices, especially given the Vice President's access to classified information. While acknowledging the convenience and health-tracking benefits, the post concludes that the security risks outweigh any advantages, suggesting a traditional mechanical watch as a safer alternative.
HN users generally agree with the premise that smartwatches pose security risks, particularly for someone in Vance's position. Several commenters point out the potential for exploitation via the microphone, GPS tracking, and even seemingly innocuous features like the heart rate monitor. Some suggest Vance should switch to a dumb watch or none at all, while others recommend more secure alternatives like purpose-built government devices or even GrapheneOS-based phones paired with a dumb watch. A few discuss the broader implications of always-on listening devices and the erosion of privacy in general. Some skepticism is expressed about the likelihood of Vance actually changing his behavior based on the article.
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.