There are historical reasons for the proliferation of the title- every city and town used to have their own bank or several. These were independent businesses, each one having a President and maybe a couple of Vice Presidents. When mergers and acquisitions happened and all these single branch banks got rolled up to mega corps they kept the nomenclature because that’s what people were used to- a manager at a bank branch was a Vice President because that’s what it always meant, but the title then got used for anyone at the same level.

I’ve also heard that at least at some point the title “vice president” carried some form of regulatory meaning and was the minimum level required for sign off on some pretty basic things, but I’m having trouble confirming that and it may be wrong.

> I’ve also heard that at least at some point the title “vice president” carried some form of regulatory meaning and was the minimum level required for sign off on some pretty basic things, but I’m having trouble confirming that and it may be wrong.

I have heard the same, although phrased as ‘the lowest position where someone is allowed to speak for the company’.

That's the cause of the title inflation

But it doesn't mean it's not title inflation just because there's a reason for it

It's not inflation because the same proportion of staff have that title as they used to (is the claim).

The reason banks have so many Vice Presidents is that to bind a company to a contract, you need to be a corporate officer. A Vice President is a corporate officer but a director isn't. If you want to issue loans, etc, you practically need this authority. If a relatively low level employee in one part of the business is a VP, that creates pressure to make lower level people in other parts of the business VPs also. Some of this may be historical, but this as I understand it is why almost everyone at a bank is a Vice President.

> A Vice President is a corporate officer but a director isn't.

Director is typically above Vice President in financial firms. I’m not sure I follow your reasoning.

Officer = legal responsibility

Director = high level manager (of other managers)

You think that the vice-presidents are officers and the directors above them are not? Do the VPs lose their legal responsibilities and powers when they are promoted?

Directors are also officers, just more senior than VPs.

No, Directors are also corporate officers (and more senior than VPs).

I viewed this more as a quirk of American IB titles rather title inflation. The path has always been Analyst > Associate > VP, and you can make VP in under 5 years.

> what would qualify as such?

“Senior Engineer” with 4 years experience.

Just that the convention is different. It is just the third rung on the ladder in the finance world. You might manage a small team of junior staff.

You don’t need to manage anyone to be VP. If you manage people you deserve a director title! More than 25% of Goldman Sachs employees are VP, for example. And of course the idea of title inflation can be rendered meaningless in any situation saying “it’s just a different convention”.

It depends on the bank. In some places VPs can manage a lot of people without being promoted to Director.

You’re right. Let me change that to “if you manage a group of VPs you deserve a director title”!