Why does WF have so many AVPs and VPs? Taking the token title away and making bonuses actually based on something could save a lot of jobs\money.
17 replies (most recent on top)
I received an Assistant Vice President title for leading a project to build out and roll out a major new financial transaction system 22 years ago. I truly valued that recognition.
10 years ago I received an email to me and about 4,000 others congratulating us on becoming Vice Presidents.
I just hit delete.
The poster must not understand Corp America or certainly wf as an avocado/vp/svp title literally mean zero here. You’re not running g anything here with those titles, they aren’t f if they say so.. even an evp is suspect unless direct or 1 down from ceo. Ava/vp here are nothing.. no offense
Well in tech it’s as such:
AVP
x-x Engineer
x-x Assoc Mgr
VP
x-x Snr Engineer
x-x Manager (non-Assoc titles)
SVP
Senior Engineering Manager
Technology Executive
Technology Senior Executive
If you've been here for awhile, how do you not have at least AVP? If not, maybe that's your sign. Maybe less whining and more working.
they hand those out like candy at a parade.
I’m a VP of nothing and have no idea what it means. I don’t use it at work and wonder why anyone does. It’s also kind of mean to put it in emails, knowing others don’t have this B.S. designation.
The AVP title is based on years of service and has nothing to do with actual title. There is no increase in salary, extra bonus or vacation. It is an uncompensated, mean nothing title.
Lots of interesting reply’s. Any officer can obligate WF to Financial risk. Contracts are generally required to be signed by two officers. This happened in Charlotte at E@S in the neighborhood of $10,000,000. You can look it up using google and the Charlotte Gazette.
The titles do pose risk and I can’t understand risk management not intervening on these. It would have a big impact on that department as well if they did.
Long ago at Wachovia/First Union, a VP title got you 4 weeks of vacation.
In technology the corporate designation is based on job title, not level of responsibility.
Banks for decades have given out titles in lieu of meaningful compensation. It’s a pat on the head but does nothing for your bank account or 401k. And I agree with one of the previous posts, if you have a title it means not much, if you don’t have a title you have been overlooked. In essence, if you breathe, your titled.
An officer title is virtually meaningless until you don't have one. If you don't have one, then everyone wonders exactly why you don't have one.
I have an AVP officer title, and it means jack squat.
it used to be that for certain jobs, I know was the case in risk, they made everyone VP. on some other groups its used more for recognition. I always just figured they used it for scapegoating purposes so they can say an officer did x y and z
This is not a WF phenomenon. Most banks have inflated titles compared to other industries. Wells got worse with the Wachovia merger. Wachovia was “generous” w VP and SVP titles, so once we merged everyone on the WF side wanted parity. In my last group we had well-liked, so-so performing individual contributors in their mid-20s who demanded VP titles… and got them. Because as noted, it didn’t cost WF a dime.
Pretty soon, literally the entire team except interns and contractors were VPs and above.
I took my VP title off my resume etc because when I applied outside banking, the assumption was I was too senior/too highly comped for the jobs I applied for.
A whole lot of them can go.
Ok Charles. I know a plant when I see one. These titles cost the company nothing, but they do allow highly experienced employees to be differentiated from others. The company wants to get rid of them I'm sure, because they want everyone's job title to be some euphemism for "new hire pleeb" as an underhanded way to justify low MRPs and pay increases.