I'm in a group of 9 people that report to the same manager. All 9 of us have the same job title. I am the only one with an officer title according to the Job link in our Workday profiles. Is there a salary trigger that causes someone to have an officer title? I know there's no real benefit to having one, but I find it weird no one else does. My manager doesn't have one either and I assume he makes more than me.
16 replies (most recent on top)
Titles are worthless. So is the “merit” increase.
If that's the case then Wachovia did it right. Doesn't cost the business anything, might as well hand them out.
The officer title and $6.75 will get you a small coffee at Starbucks. It means nothing to no one. Looks good on a resume though…so use it. Nobody hiring can check. You’re a great VP! Get out of WFC ASAP!
Officer titles mean nothing at WFB. Previously at Wachovia Bank all employees were given VP titles...everyone was getting them. When their bank went under and was taken over by the U.S. Govt., then purchased from the govt. by WFB for pennies on the dollar, their titles came with them destroying/watering down the WFB officer title value. Anymore it is just a flag saying your boss likes you at that moment. It's a shame.
I'd like a corp title. The current execs S all over the idea of anyone outside the C suite having a title though. It's an asinine position IMO, they are free for the company to hand out and they improve employee job satisfaction soooo, why not? Some people don't care, but others do. Might as well do it considering how easy / cheap it is. One more reason to say F Charlie.
Being in a group of 40,000 makes you 6x more unique than being in a group of 240,000. It's simple math.
It’s the difference between being Assistant Manager and Assistant TO THE Manager. Titles are meaningless.
When my group found out I was looking for another job, they tried to offer a title to stay. I took a 30% increase outside the bank instead.
When a company has 40,000 Vice Presidents, then being a "Vice President" doesn't mean much.
Titles were at one point tied to job title, and meant you could act on the bank's behalf for certain things. Then people would get re-orged, or job title would change, but you wouldn't lose the VP, or whatever officer title you had. It was also tied to compensation at one point. Now they want to get rid of titles (helps to enforce the lowly peon mentality). While officer titles are pretty useless for the most part (I've never used mine, not even on my resume), it is something that is just one more strike against Wells Fargo if they take it away.
Titles issued by banks are a way of keeping you happy yet paying you less!
Titles in the Financial Services Industry, i.e, brokerage firms (stocks and bonds) mean something and are granted with salary raises.
Hence, WF Titles such as, Managing Director, Director of….., Sr. vP, First VP, VP, Asst. VP etc mean your getting a title in lieu of meaningful $$$$compensation….
In Tech they changed the officer title process 3 or 4 years ago to make it tied to job title. No process other than being in a job title. That made all the people that had to go through the double secret probation process glad they were bestowed such a distinguished honor.
It's up to your manager on if they want to fight to get you recognized with one. It serves no other useful purpose.
You are entitled to better treatment as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention
No. It's completely separate from your functional title and, oftentimes, doesn't have anything to do with your level. I think they're working to change this though
Titles are cr--ker jack box toys for children.