What's with all the fancy titles in this company?? We got a new "associate director" that has the management skills of a high schooler. We have a "principal" who can barely operate MS teams. It seems like there are so many directors that they are actually just a bunch of middle managers. Is it true the higher the title, the less likely to be laid off?
16 replies (most recent on top)
I'd love to see how patches come in on that 20 year old laptop. I actually have my legacy T Compaq from 2002, maybe it would work on the network?
I find this very difficult to believe! If this is true, then it’s solely on you and your fault. You should get a refresh every 3 years like clock work. If not, then you fell through the cracks and need to bring it to your supervisor’s attention. Better yet, just go online and do it yourself through the refresh link.
To be fair, many of us can barely operate MS Teams.
The interface has kinks to be worked out and features yet to be delivered, which is a surprise for seemingly mature product. You have to remember Microsoft started beta-testing their software as releases with Windows 3.1 and never stopped after that.
Just try to figure out an international employee's ATTUID from Teams. This has been on their to-do list for months.
I'd love to see how patches come in on that 20 year old laptop. I actually have my legacy T Compaq from 2002, maybe it would work on the network?
Much worse than Level 2 and 3 titles is the fact the company has quit using titles in announcements for Officer levels. Started last year. A bunch of BS, all you have to do is look in Webphone and see the actual title.
No one gets lease exceptions. I swear you all are half insane or high.
This is true - my “Principal Business Manager” hasn’t leased roll here laptop in over 20yrs (I’m not lying ) because she doesn’t know how to do it . She keeps getting waivers.
The true job title is provided by HR after comparing position duties to industry standards. Departments are free to assign a 'vanity' title to any position to reflect their org structure or individual's responsibilities. If you are management, each year you complete a survey where you indicate if you are performing specific tasks for your official job title. If the response differs above a specific threshold, an HR job review is triggered. Sometimes this leads to a "market adjustment" in salary or a job reclassification. Any company has to have a baseline job description for any position, despite what local titles are. Just look at bank branches, everyone is a VP or Executive, or some other elevated title, regardless if they just open new accounts. Job cuts are based on multiple targets or 'universes'. A universe could be a specific HR Job title, located in another universe, such as a state, which prevents individual discrimination. Other universes such as specific performance rankings are also usual. but not NCS (which could be viewed as age discrimination).
I was once an "Assistant Staff Manager" with no staff, back in 1986 LOL
“ Is it true the higher the title, the less likely to be laid off?” I don’t believe this to be true. Anyone can be laid off at this company, doesn’t matter if you are a Manager or Senior Vice President. There is no loyalty to employees, with the exception being family members of executives.
Too many silly stupid titles.
Director Corporate planning
Defender of the faith
Emperor of India
Lead principal technical wizard
As someone who has had their title change this go around I'll say this, there is no rhyme or reason to them. I have the same title as another person whose job responsibilities could not be more different. It's akin to the person who runs the train and the person who maintains it having the same title. I can't tell what someone does by looking at their title anymore. Oh, and there's another guy that loads baggage on the train, same title too. And that makes sense?
Can someone explain this?
It is protection from mid-management at the L3-L4 level. Changing from titles that were in target reduction categories. It is also providing protection in some areas where span of control ratios exist to flatten yet keep the AVP intact.
It has always been that way, I think it enticed people into management if they had a fancy title.
It’s a mixed bag. There are some that are good, but that’s usually the exception and not the norm. The people that would actually be best for leadership roles are almost always deemed too valuable to production. Then they never move up because they can’t afford to lose them doing the roles that they have. I’ve known many working here that you are on calls with and you think wow this person is sharp, I guess that’s why they are a director, then you learn, wow this person is just a senior manager??? Seen it way too many times.
I hear you. My last associate director was a bumbling a-s who couldn't find his way around a word document, much less direct a group of people. He had the management skills of a snail and leadership acumen of a soap dish. Yet he fully believed he was a "leader" simply because he had direct reports.
My AVP was some young bimbo who looked like and acted like she was still in a college sorority. Bi--h had no technical acumen to save her life, but she knew how to change the colors on a power point deck, and bully people around with her AVP title, so in her mind that made her a "leader" and smarter than anyone else.
What passes for management and leadership at AT&T is so incomprehensible it should be criminal.
When you got too skills and your career is going nowhere, criticize management. Like that makes you competent.
It is protection from mid-management at the L3-L4 level. Changing from titles that were in target reduction categories. It is also providing protection in some areas where span of control ratios exist to flatten yet keep the AVP intact.
You may not like it but get on the train and ride it.