Perhaps in your corporate ladder discussions it may be useful to mention unions vs. managers to make the point clearer. Focusing on senior managers vs. executives is a weaker description because most people see that as one unified ladder, and not two separate ladders.
Similarly: What’s a corporate executive? I understand that there is a management hierarchy, but why the arbitrary distinction between a senior manager and a junior executive? Aren’t those just two rungs on the ladder? In corporate-speak, an executive is called a “decision maker.” What a strange term! Isn’t a manager or even a lowly “individual contributor” also a decision maker—at the scope that their own managers allow?
Yes, they are just two rungs on the (same) ladder. In corporate-speak, an executive is usually responsible for an entire function (e.g. marketing, HR, finance, engineering, IT, sales). “Junior executive” is typically an informal title bandied about in corporations with a deep management hierarchy tree. Senior Manager is usually a formal title. The distinction is less clearcut than you believe other than the formal title vs. informal social references.
OK, thanks, I guess it depend on the organization. In the large companies I am familiar with, “Executive” is a definite formal status, and most managers are not executives.
But I see that “senior management” can be used as a synonym for “executive.” Still, most managers are not executives, even where that terminology is used.
Also, but some fast-track up-and-comers are executives—these might be called junior executives.
executive is usually responsible for an entire function
I don’t think so. Do you mean an executive is responsible for a function like marketing across the corporation? There are definitely VPs of Marketing and VPs of Development in charge of one part of a company. There are non-execs who are in charge of marketing for some smaller piece of the company. There are execs who are responsible cross-functionally for a profit-and-loss line of business, not one function.
Instead, it seems to me that executive is an arbitrary, though formal border between two groups, and, though no one says so out loud, the underlying difference is what I said in the post.
Perhaps in your corporate ladder discussions it may be useful to mention unions vs. managers to make the point clearer. Focusing on senior managers vs. executives is a weaker description because most people see that as one unified ladder, and not two separate ladders.
Yes, they are just two rungs on the (same) ladder. In corporate-speak, an executive is usually responsible for an entire function (e.g. marketing, HR, finance, engineering, IT, sales). “Junior executive” is typically an informal title bandied about in corporations with a deep management hierarchy tree. Senior Manager is usually a formal title. The distinction is less clearcut than you believe other than the formal title vs. informal social references.
OK, thanks, I guess it depend on the organization. In the large companies I am familiar with, “Executive” is a definite formal status, and most managers are not executives.
But I see that “senior management” can be used as a synonym for “executive.” Still, most managers are not executives, even where that terminology is used.
Also, but some fast-track up-and-comers are executives—these might be called junior executives.
I don’t think so. Do you mean an executive is responsible for a function like marketing across the corporation? There are definitely VPs of Marketing and VPs of Development in charge of one part of a company. There are non-execs who are in charge of marketing for some smaller piece of the company. There are execs who are responsible cross-functionally for a profit-and-loss line of business, not one function.
Instead, it seems to me that executive is an arbitrary, though formal border between two groups, and, though no one says so out loud, the underlying difference is what I said in the post.