Director at age 35 - Really? Me?
Discussion
DSLiverpool said:
Being simplistic
Director with share options and dividend = real director
Director with none = senior manager with better title
See USA examples of Vice President, senior vp, junior vp etc - UK equivalent.
Go for it, if they work you too hard for too little move on.
Director = Signing 288aDirector with share options and dividend = real director
Director with none = senior manager with better title
See USA examples of Vice President, senior vp, junior vp etc - UK equivalent.
Go for it, if they work you too hard for too little move on.
That's the only real measure isn't it?
NDA said:
Director = Signing 288a
That's the only real measure isn't it?
Showing your age there, I think That's the only real measure isn't it?
Form 288a was filled in by Directors before (IIRC) 2009. It's been AP01 or AP02 for a while.
Fully agree that it's the only formal measure (but then again it could be argued that being the Director of a one-man band isn't really the same as being a director of a FTSE100 plc or even an equity partner in an LLP)
I doubt a junior director would be required to sign an AR01.
Countdown said:
NDA said:
Director = Signing 288a
That's the only real measure isn't it?
Showing your age there, I think That's the only real measure isn't it?
Form 288a was filled in by Directors before (IIRC) 2009. It's been AP01 or AP02 for a while.
Fully agree that it's the only formal measure (but then again it could be argued that being the Director of a one-man band isn't really the same as being a director of a FTSE100 plc or even an equity partner in an LLP)
I doubt a junior director would be required to sign an AR01.
I've only just recently signed those forms again - I didn't read them, obviously.
A manager who is unapproachable? You're not going to get much done that way.
My US employer does the professional, associate, vice president, executive director, managing director stuff. It exists in its own space and has nothing much to do with your position in the org chart. I.e. you might have a VP who has two or the tiers of employees under them, and you might equally well have an MD with two direct reports neither of whom have any reports themselves.
And frankly it is a stupid thing to impose on a business. It encourages people to think in terms of hierarchy, separates execution from authority, encourages top down decision making, and bakes in a fair amount of arse kissing and politics into career advancement. It is a self-reinforcing mistake. People who like hierarchy and are interested in job titles get rewarded by the system. Credit to the individuals though, some of our more senior management negotiate this stuff effortlessly while still managing their reporting tree as an effective team and manage to do a superb job in spite of the pseudo structure.
My US employer does the professional, associate, vice president, executive director, managing director stuff. It exists in its own space and has nothing much to do with your position in the org chart. I.e. you might have a VP who has two or the tiers of employees under them, and you might equally well have an MD with two direct reports neither of whom have any reports themselves.
And frankly it is a stupid thing to impose on a business. It encourages people to think in terms of hierarchy, separates execution from authority, encourages top down decision making, and bakes in a fair amount of arse kissing and politics into career advancement. It is a self-reinforcing mistake. People who like hierarchy and are interested in job titles get rewarded by the system. Credit to the individuals though, some of our more senior management negotiate this stuff effortlessly while still managing their reporting tree as an effective team and manage to do a superb job in spite of the pseudo structure.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff