How to move up to management?

sports_brah said:
Per the title, just curious how to scrabble up the Corporate ladder? I'm thinking a possible career change at some point to doing my own thing, but for now I might as well push forward...

I've got 3 years experience in a couple roles, exceeded expectations, have been a supervisor of a number of analysts (IB) etc.

But there seems to be a chasm of getting to the VP/Director/higher level without having to work a serious grind?

Anyone been in the same boat? Does it call for a jump to another place? Do I need to be pushing certain areas more?

It seems that once you get to VP level (and quick enough, I don't want to be just hitting VP at 30 etc) places invest a lot more in you, and it seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy after that...

So any hints and tips?
Click to expand...

Do you want to be management or a director?

There is a different focus if you are targeting a director/VP by 30.

To be a director or equivalent, regardless of personal traits, professional memberships and academic qualifications; first and foremost you need to be great (ruthlessly efficient and effective) at making money and developing a business.

If you want to be management with a view to progressing, then the chartered management institute is a great platform for training, development and recognition.

I would recommend you start there, work hard and enjoy the ride. You have to enjoy it, because the cost and the sacrifices are always significant when you want to achieve success young.
 
VP is a title that means different things in different organisations; a company I used to work for despite not being that big had many VPs within IT (at least half a dozen) but most of them were essentially just a tech lead for a given technology, or a 'Head of' type role. A couple of them didn't even have managers reporting in to them, they were the direct line manager of developers. All of them were in their 30s or older though, at least by the time I joined. Some 10 years later and they now have fewer VPs I believe, to the extent that someone who used to be a VP is now classed as a manager, another an architect.

I think most people that hit that sort of level (director / true VP) in their 20s at a medium-large sized company have either got there by getting in early at a small company that has undergone significant growth and/or acquisition, or have performed exceptionally well (and I mean exceptionally well, not just very well in terms of generating significant business for the company) within their field of expertise (again, perhaps in an emerging area for the company).
 
HangTime said:
VP is a title that means different things in different organisations; a company I used to work for despite not being that big had many VPs within IT (at least half a dozen) but most of them were essentially just a tech lead for a given technology, or a 'Head of' type role. A couple of them didn't even have managers reporting in to them, they were the direct line manager of developers. All of them were in their 30s or older though, at least by the time I joined. Some 10 years later and they now have fewer VPs I believe, to the extent that someone who used to be a VP is now classed as a manager, another an architect.

I think most people that hit that sort of level (director / true VP) in their 20s at a medium-large sized company have either got there by getting in early at a small company that has undergone significant growth and/or acquisition, or have performed exceptionally well (and I mean exceptionally well, not just very well in terms of generating significant business for the company) within their field of expertise (again, perhaps in an emerging area for the company).
Click to expand...

True, they vary a bit. I was an AVP at JPMC, which was a development team lead/architect role. VP level put you in charge of the wider project (not just dev). ED level had you in charge of the whole program for that division.

Citibank IIRC has a lower definition where team leads would be VP.
 
A VP role in the UK has less value/weight typically associated with it than the USA in my experience.

There is also a big difference between a statutory board director and department director regarding their legal roles within a company.

Achieving a VP or 'Director of .......' role in finance/IT in the UK isn't overly onerous.

Reaching a proper exec position or statutory director isn't quite as straightforward unless it's your company or you have a share in it.

Once you have full ownership of the P&L, taste that angst of cash flow; having to earn the money before being able to spend it, and when your company depends on your successes, you very quickly decide if it's a lifestyle choice for you.
 
I'd say the opposite! A manager in the US = someone who manages a system, not people. Director is equivalent to UK manager and VP in the US is more like a UK director level.
 
You need a lot more experience in life in general, let alone your industry, to get ahead fast n furious.

Firstly, always work hard. Try to be the most hard working person in your team as that makes up for both talent and intelligence but make sure your hard work adds value to the bottom line.

Secondly, you need lots n lots of connections. Family, friends, coworkers, former school mates and clients are all resources. Use them, invest your free time in the ones that are likely to provide opportunities etc. Attend events, team building, courses.

That's it. Everything else, such as improving your education, can be done 'on the way'.
 
Last edited:
MM-Seat said:
You don't think it's hard work to become a finance director?
Click to expand...

Yes I do think it's hard work to be a finance director but I didn't say that. I said a 'director of....' in finance (as in finance industry). One is a statutory company position, the other is effectively a high tier manager.

I also said it isn't overly onerous. That still involves hard work but it's not insurmountable.

Also to be fair my perception of isn't overly onerous is probably sightly skewed.
 
Scrutinize said:
Yes I do think it's hard work to be a finance director but I didn't say that. I said a 'director of....' in finance (as in finance industry). One is a statutory company position, the other is effectively a high tier manager.

I also said it isn't overly onerous. That still involves hard work but it's not insurmountable.

Also to be fair my perception of isn't overly onerous is probably sightly skewed.
Click to expand...

Ah ok. I'd misread your statement is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom