Unless you visit a tech company outside of the financial business... or really a ton of other companies.

So, Twitter VPs aren't company officers?

Edit: Twitter's bylaws suggest that a VP is a company officer.

Twitter's bylaws (and those of the other companies) are ambiguous. They do not clearly say a VP = officer. They only use them in the sense that they mention them in the same sense.

It's very company dependent.

2 data points from other industries, based on LinkedIn:

1) Ogilvy & Mather: 7,289 employees, 188 with Vice President in the title.

2) Johnson & Johnson: 63,072 employees, 1,154 with Vice President in the title.

3) Microsoft: 129,445 employees, 2,514 with Vice President in the title.

I think Vice President doesn't mean as much as it used to. :-)

I am not sure what you are trying to say. The ratios seem quite well aligned. 1) One VP for every 39 employees 2) One VP for every 54 employees 3) One VP for every 51 employees

Yes - that this isn't an elite group of "Top 10 execs" at a company. That it's reasonable for Twitter to have several VPs of Product.

Nope. I've been a VP without being an officer.

I know this may be naive, but what does the officer part entail or mean?

An officer has authority to sign contracts on behalf of the company.

That's why I said usually. I did just check the bylaws for Alphabet/Google, Twitter, Amazon, and eBay. All have similar language showing vice presidents as officers. It's also been that way at the companies I've worked for, across several industries.