Antiwork

Roughly: Titles in management typically denote the scope of what they oversee. A manger will over see a small team. That manager reports to their senior manager, which either reports to or is a director of a large part of the organization. Directors report to vice presidents on progress or achievements by their division.

Vice president is where a person leads several teams by steering their managers. Steering is either a set of objectives, some key results, or other metric that feeds into the corporate strategy. At that level the corporate decision are made by gathering a group of managers to get a feel for what their options are. (This is where most enshitification gets started.) Decisions at this level are not arbitrary but usually run through a few layers of testing for feedback to understand what will happen.

Presidents oversee the same as vice presidents but make more money and have more access to the C levels but otherwise have the same scope as VPs. A president will run an entire part of the org, like Marketing, and approves all decisions made under them that effects the entire organization, like pricing changes.

Senior VPs and Presidents are the same pay scale but have different levels of responsibility, depending on the company culture. Presidents are chief officers within their part of the org and get corporate objectives to meet by the CEO.

CEOs are beholden to a board of supervisors which determines the progress of a corporate objective and also speaks for investors and shareholder. This pipeline to the top of power is what has caused folks to despise shareholder decisions; constant poor voices for only short term gains is counter to any longevity of a company.