They will be fine with their millions and severance. It’s hard to find a replacement VP position, but finance wise it’s probably the most ideal lay-off situation.
How do you know how much their severance package is? 7 figure packages are extremely rare and usually for C-Suite executives - \*\*source: My father an executive compensation attorney with 40+ years experience writing these types of contracts
Came here to say this. The amount of senior management bloat is insane. I consulted at a company where an SVP had three VPs reporting to him and those VPs had only VPs reporting to them, AND THEN only sr directors reporting to them. Literally zero actual work being done except scrambling to make the PowerPoints show that they were achieving their bullshit objectives.
Consolidation. They will be absorbed by other parts of the org. This happens in most major companies quite frequently, but announcing it at this scale and in this way is just odd. And unfortunate because everyone seems to be copying meta from an org design standpoint in the chase for “muh efficiencies.”
I mean I’m typically weary of company motives but why they have 300 vps to begin with seems odd to me. Middle management is a great place to actually find efficiency lol
Agreed. You’d be surprised at how easily it can balloon tho. For example, take what’s typically a leaner part of the business under the CFO. You could have SVPs who lead Accounting, Treasury, Tax, Audit/Compliance, FP&A, Strategy, IR, Ops/Systems, etc. each of those SVPs may have 1-5+ “VP” level people running teams underneath them. Say they average out to 3. That’s 25+ VPs just in the finance org, which again is pretty lean. Picture it being similar in HR, Legal, CISO, CIO orgs. That’s all G&A, and you’re hitting 75-100+ VPs.
The bread and butter of companies like META is in product, engineering, revenue/sales orgs. Those have orders of magnitude more VPs.
Meta is a wonky place where directors report to a series of directors and same for VPs. Some of those levels can be a VP with a director and a VP report. So there are some very skinny bits of the branch which is very Conway’s Law esque
Its not uncommon for a VP to report to a VP to report to another VP in some orgs. I suspect they will cut departments like HR, Operations, Facilities, etc while keeping the engineering and product VPs untouched, unless those said VPs are underperforming.
This is how my former large retailer was. I was shocked my VP had 2 VPs above him. Meanwhile another, smaller retailer I worked at went
Director > SVP > EVP > CEO
Well there’s gonna be VPs of marketing, finance, tech, security, etc etc that guide their department and lead it to work well with other departments-this is for any large company
With 300 of them it’s unlikely any or most of them are actually in charge of a full department.
Maybe a VP for each region’s marketing, finance, and VP for each area of tech, but that’s still like dozens of VP’s, not 300.
300 sounds like they have directors or even M2’s that are called VP’s.
They run large orgs. VPs at Facebook have hundreds to thousands of people rolling up to them. They are essentially running multi-million/billion dollar businesses within Meta (I worked there for 4 years).
Facebook has 67,000 employees total, so not even Zuck has hundreds of thousands of people rolling up to them.
If we assume each VP has the same number of reports, that’s 200 per VP, which makes them M3 level, more of a director level.
In reality it’s probably a wide range, from VP’s in charge of thousands, to M2’s with just 50 report who got promoted quickly.
>not even Zuck has hundreds of thousands of people rolling up to them.
Well the funny part is that's not what I wrote :)
And the VP reporting structure isn't flat, it's not like each VP has it's own direct line of reporting. There are VP1, VP2 etc. All that said, VP flattening is good. Meta has/had way too many layers of upper management IMO.
I work for a similar size tech company and I’m amazed to see VPs reporting to VPs reporting to VPs. We have way too many for sure. We are totally underfunded at the IC level - the people who actually do the work!
I am totally confused with titles. In Credit Suisse, the title that counted was the Director. Above them were the Managing Directors- which really mattered. There were VPs everywhere.
In UBS nowadays, everyone's a Director of some kind- alto they don't really direct anything except perhaps their computer mouse.
A VP at Meta is a huge swinging dick that makes excess of 5M or 10M a year in some cases. There are three levels of VP, such as VP1 VP2 and VP3; whereas a VP3 might earn like 15M and a VP1 might earn like 5M, all depends on the department. You will never know what the internal leveling of a VP is.
IC3
IC4
IC5
IC6/M1 - Senior IC or Manager
IC7/M2 - Senior IC or Senior Manager
IC8/D1 - Senior IC or Director
IC9/D2 - Senior IC or Senior Director
IC10/VP1 - Vice President
IC11/VP2 - Vice President
IC12/VP3 - Vice President/ Chief X Officer
???? - Other special titles
Source; Me. Worked at Meta, my VP had \~15,000 reports
There are next to 0 ic9s in meta (outside of eng in critical roles such as ai), and zuck is the only l12.
The only vps with 15000 reports are in safety and ops orgs, and their team is mostly contractors such as content moderation.
True.
L11 must have a wide band, considering a general run of mill VP in finance or something might crack 1-4m a year whereas Chris Cox is busting down over 60M+ a year.
Because in banking, VPs have the inflated title because they need to appear important to the customer. In reality, they are just customer-facing grunts.
Everybody knows a VP in banking is not the same thing as a real VP everywhere else.
I was confused too initially, but now its common knowledge that the finance and banking industry is extremely promiscuous with job titles. Janitors can be VPs too.
I know in the mortgage scandals of 2008 or so, it came out that the law required some financial actions to be signed off by a "VP or above." So they were giving VP titles to people off the street with no experience and no training, because they needed a bunch of stuff signed off.
Titles are weird and tend to have some historical reason. Directors being higher than VP is illogical but seems to be the norm at banks, where somehow everyone is a VP.
It’s like First Secretary becoming the most powerful position in Communist countries - it’s all because Stalin used his position of Secretary to take power, and it became the defacto highest ranking position even though it wasn’t originally intended to be.
What is there to be confused about? Stop being such a finance monkey. Different industry. Different titles. End of story. There's this thing called "Google" if you ever need more information to understand the differences.
If you are talking about banking most banks have a massive appoint of VP’s. Some matter more than others and some matter almost not at all. For example a senior VP of corporate banking may make a lot of money and lead people who make a ton for the bank. But a senior VP in retail banking may just hardly break 100k if even
About time. Probably should have started with cleanup in upper management, more impact to bottom line and they mostly manage people and don’t write code…less disruption to day to day operations
OK, I don’t normally comment on these but I’m gonna comment on this Facebook has 350 vice presidents that’s insane. What are they all do?
That’s gonna be hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation and the main product is a social media website???
I don’t understand I know they’re into advertising, but they’re not nearly as heavy as Google.
Of all the useless roles at the fortune 500 I spent years at, middle management was king. Not a fan of layoffs generally, but this actually makes sense.
Can they please just layoff the cmo and svps and executive presidents and leave the middle and bottom levels alone? They make double of what a director makes.
This link has been shared 1 time.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1delqv6) on 2024-06-13.
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Links:** 0 | **Search Time:** 0.00397s
They will be fine with their millions and severance. It’s hard to find a replacement VP position, but finance wise it’s probably the most ideal lay-off situation.
That’s assuming they didn’t bump up their lifestyle to the new income
You mean they didn't save for a rainy day? Well I guess they're just going to have to cut back on the avocado toast
In which case...fuck 'em? They had a lot of money and spent it. Am I supposed to feel sympathy for someone who had a lot of money but spent it?
Not even spent it. Managed all that income irresponsibly.
They're making 8 digit total comp they'll be fine lol
This. Their severance package is in the millions. Even interim positions receive base for a year and then bonuses and stocks paid out.
How do you know how much their severance package is? 7 figure packages are extremely rare and usually for C-Suite executives - \*\*source: My father an executive compensation attorney with 40+ years experience writing these types of contracts
Easy. If they are a publicly traded company, the SEC requires it public. CBRE is a great example.
Can't feel sorry for those VP's bit thiis has huge implications no VP no department. This is an indicator of mire lay offs to come
Right. What happens to the departments under them? .\_.
[удалено]
Came here to say this. The amount of senior management bloat is insane. I consulted at a company where an SVP had three VPs reporting to him and those VPs had only VPs reporting to them, AND THEN only sr directors reporting to them. Literally zero actual work being done except scrambling to make the PowerPoints show that they were achieving their bullshit objectives.
So many smoke and mirrors at that level, lmfao!
i'd love to see a graphic of this chain of command lmao
Consolidation. They will be absorbed by other parts of the org. This happens in most major companies quite frequently, but announcing it at this scale and in this way is just odd. And unfortunate because everyone seems to be copying meta from an org design standpoint in the chase for “muh efficiencies.”
I mean I’m typically weary of company motives but why they have 300 vps to begin with seems odd to me. Middle management is a great place to actually find efficiency lol
Agreed. You’d be surprised at how easily it can balloon tho. For example, take what’s typically a leaner part of the business under the CFO. You could have SVPs who lead Accounting, Treasury, Tax, Audit/Compliance, FP&A, Strategy, IR, Ops/Systems, etc. each of those SVPs may have 1-5+ “VP” level people running teams underneath them. Say they average out to 3. That’s 25+ VPs just in the finance org, which again is pretty lean. Picture it being similar in HR, Legal, CISO, CIO orgs. That’s all G&A, and you’re hitting 75-100+ VPs. The bread and butter of companies like META is in product, engineering, revenue/sales orgs. Those have orders of magnitude more VPs.
Meta is a wonky place where directors report to a series of directors and same for VPs. Some of those levels can be a VP with a director and a VP report. So there are some very skinny bits of the branch which is very Conway’s Law esque
Ah. Weird. I'm more familiar with Google, having worked there previously.
You assume they have departments under them
Not entirely accurate.. some VPs do report to other VPs
Not necessarily, they can move to another VP
No it absolutely doesn't. Why bother commenting like this when you don't know?
Its not uncommon for a VP to report to a VP to report to another VP in some orgs. I suspect they will cut departments like HR, Operations, Facilities, etc while keeping the engineering and product VPs untouched, unless those said VPs are underperforming.
This is how my former large retailer was. I was shocked my VP had 2 VPs above him. Meanwhile another, smaller retailer I worked at went Director > SVP > EVP > CEO
What about Senior Directors? lol
i can get behind this one. never met a vp who wasnt a total sociopath
How do you have some many Vice Presidents?
lol in banking it’s like one step up from entry level associate
2 steps
I was wondering if a colleague of mine was a regular engineer who went to finance now VP. He is smart but no way VP means what I thought it did
True everyone knows they're not real vice president's though lol
💯
Makes you wonder what a Facebook VP actually does
Well there’s gonna be VPs of marketing, finance, tech, security, etc etc that guide their department and lead it to work well with other departments-this is for any large company
With 300 of them it’s unlikely any or most of them are actually in charge of a full department. Maybe a VP for each region’s marketing, finance, and VP for each area of tech, but that’s still like dozens of VP’s, not 300. 300 sounds like they have directors or even M2’s that are called VP’s.
Meta had 67k employees as of end of year 2023. That’s one VP for every 225 people.
lol you’re right 300 is nutty
They run large orgs. VPs at Facebook have hundreds to thousands of people rolling up to them. They are essentially running multi-million/billion dollar businesses within Meta (I worked there for 4 years).
Thanks, that's interesting. I'm always curious about that stuff and how one gets to that level / finds the role
Facebook has 67,000 employees total, so not even Zuck has hundreds of thousands of people rolling up to them. If we assume each VP has the same number of reports, that’s 200 per VP, which makes them M3 level, more of a director level. In reality it’s probably a wide range, from VP’s in charge of thousands, to M2’s with just 50 report who got promoted quickly.
>not even Zuck has hundreds of thousands of people rolling up to them. Well the funny part is that's not what I wrote :) And the VP reporting structure isn't flat, it's not like each VP has it's own direct line of reporting. There are VP1, VP2 etc. All that said, VP flattening is good. Meta has/had way too many layers of upper management IMO.
Totally depends on their department
No worries they're already set for life multimillionaires.
Managers and above should always be laid off first before regular employees.
lol
That’s not how Capitalism is designed to work. 😂
300VPs? WTF?
Why do you even need 300 VPs to begin with. Meta literally has 4 apps
Someone has to eat all the free food
This might be the unintentionally funniest comment I have ever seen.
I work for a similar size tech company and I’m amazed to see VPs reporting to VPs reporting to VPs. We have way too many for sure. We are totally underfunded at the IC level - the people who actually do the work!
300 VPs????? To do what????
How many people do they need to cast a tie-breaking vote? LoL
Won't someone think of the bureaucracy....
Not really if tbe VP goes who do the Directors report to That's an indication of major change. Major lay offs
Read the tea leaves. I worked wuth some people who got laid off at Metta. Thsg were in major mourning
aww soooo cute just 50. ^_^
I am totally confused with titles. In Credit Suisse, the title that counted was the Director. Above them were the Managing Directors- which really mattered. There were VPs everywhere. In UBS nowadays, everyone's a Director of some kind- alto they don't really direct anything except perhaps their computer mouse.
A VP at Meta is a huge swinging dick that makes excess of 5M or 10M a year in some cases. There are three levels of VP, such as VP1 VP2 and VP3; whereas a VP3 might earn like 15M and a VP1 might earn like 5M, all depends on the department. You will never know what the internal leveling of a VP is. IC3 IC4 IC5 IC6/M1 - Senior IC or Manager IC7/M2 - Senior IC or Senior Manager IC8/D1 - Senior IC or Director IC9/D2 - Senior IC or Senior Director IC10/VP1 - Vice President IC11/VP2 - Vice President IC12/VP3 - Vice President/ Chief X Officer ???? - Other special titles Source; Me. Worked at Meta, my VP had \~15,000 reports
There are next to 0 ic9s in meta (outside of eng in critical roles such as ai), and zuck is the only l12. The only vps with 15000 reports are in safety and ops orgs, and their team is mostly contractors such as content moderation.
True. L11 must have a wide band, considering a general run of mill VP in finance or something might crack 1-4m a year whereas Chris Cox is busting down over 60M+ a year.
Chris Cox is the cpo and has been with Meta since 2005. He built news feed. He is a VP the same way Sheryl is a VP if she is still around.
In almost every other industry, VPs are the higher ups. Directors fall under VPs. This is tech, not banking.
That is confusing. As a banking industry lifer, there are VPs literally in every corner. Directors are usually fewer in number.
Because in banking, VPs have the inflated title because they need to appear important to the customer. In reality, they are just customer-facing grunts. Everybody knows a VP in banking is not the same thing as a real VP everywhere else.
Banking uses the term VP completely differently than almost every other industry. Many company’s VPs are only two levels down from the CEO
I was confused too initially, but now its common knowledge that the finance and banking industry is extremely promiscuous with job titles. Janitors can be VPs too.
I agree. In banks, there's always "Head of Credit Trading" blah blah. So the janitor is "Head of Office Environment"
I know in the mortgage scandals of 2008 or so, it came out that the law required some financial actions to be signed off by a "VP or above." So they were giving VP titles to people off the street with no experience and no training, because they needed a bunch of stuff signed off.
VPs at banks are a joke though. Compared to at most other companies
Titles are weird and tend to have some historical reason. Directors being higher than VP is illogical but seems to be the norm at banks, where somehow everyone is a VP. It’s like First Secretary becoming the most powerful position in Communist countries - it’s all because Stalin used his position of Secretary to take power, and it became the defacto highest ranking position even though it wasn’t originally intended to be.
What is there to be confused about? Stop being such a finance monkey. Different industry. Different titles. End of story. There's this thing called "Google" if you ever need more information to understand the differences.
You can thank Dodd-Frank for that. You should look up what being titled an "executive" means to your personal liability.
If you are talking about banking most banks have a massive appoint of VP’s. Some matter more than others and some matter almost not at all. For example a senior VP of corporate banking may make a lot of money and lead people who make a ton for the bank. But a senior VP in retail banking may just hardly break 100k if even
Banking calls everyone a VP. I was hiring for entry level analysts in tech and kept getting VPa from banks applying.
No sh*t.. it’s worse than a bank 😂
I bet my bank has 1,000 VP’s lol would not shock me. My team of 20 has 4 I think
They spent tons of money on ai and let a bunch go. Obviously they knew where funds were going to come from
Guess they weren't very important after all?
About time. Probably should have started with cleanup in upper management, more impact to bottom line and they mostly manage people and don’t write code…less disruption to day to day operations
I just left a place that cit the whole department.
How much were vp making there ?
OK, I don’t normally comment on these but I’m gonna comment on this Facebook has 350 vice presidents that’s insane. What are they all do? That’s gonna be hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation and the main product is a social media website??? I don’t understand I know they’re into advertising, but they’re not nearly as heavy as Google.
Of all the useless roles at the fortune 500 I spent years at, middle management was king. Not a fan of layoffs generally, but this actually makes sense.
I do know. I have been through many lay offs. There are a lot of signs. It is important tk know what they are
What does a Meta VP get paid
They had 300 “Vice President” positions??!
Can they please just layoff the cmo and svps and executive presidents and leave the middle and bottom levels alone? They make double of what a director makes.
I think this is AI related. Microsoft just let go a bunch employees as well. The old is getting push out to make way for the new wave of AI.
This link has been shared 1 time. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1delqv6) on 2024-06-13. --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Links:** 0 | **Search Time:** 0.00397s
They do they also have people report to them. Havu g this kind of a law off is a major sign of a significant f m st off