One of these titles need to go. Seems pretty useless having 4-5 Associate Directors reporting to a Sr. Director. Then you have 4-5 Sr Directors reporting to a VP. Really id--tic in my opinion. But that’s VZ, time to make the donuts guys.
5 replies (most recent on top)
On VBG side its worse, they have IC, Assoc Dir(used to be Sr Mgr), Director(ued to be Assoc Dir) and Sr Director(used to be Director)I think one level can be compressed.
Holy S—t, thats me 😱
Could be a good reason for that, and if you asked me to think of one…
- ) Remote testers and support need that many layers of management because of the amount of escalations each manager receives.
- ) Construction techs need that many layers of management because of the capital budget each team is responsible for.
- ) Maintenance tech crews might require a manager to oversee a mixture of both.
No because the operational managers are under the associated directors named supervisors… no other company runs their network this way. Any other company the technicians wear multiple hats and are not micromanaged by a supervisor…. It’s just the way verizon maintains the network they always had 4-5 tiers of managers for each segment of the network down to cable pullers, NOC, techs and so on
Would 4-5 mgrs to a director and 4-5 directors to a vp be better? That is what it is in reality.
Just a couple title only bumps here and a title bump there easily seen in waves of linkedin updates.
Glad no one asked for your opinion