Below the board is the so-called “C-suite”, or executive team, led by the CEO. In America CEOs accounted for four out of ten “chiefs” hired between January and October last year, according to data from professionals’ profiles on LinkedIn, a social network and job site (the figure is similar for Britain). “Chief operating officers” (COOs), who play a big part in daily management, took a 15% share, CFOs 12%, “chief technology officers” 5% and marketing chiefs 4%. Variation and muddle abound even here. Many firms have removed COOs so that important functions such as technology and HR report straight to the CEO, says Mr Sethi. Not everyone on executive teams is a “chief”. Some may be “presidents” or “managing directors” (MDs) of particular business lines. But sometimes they are called CEOs (the big boss may be a president or MD). “Vice-chairmen” may be deputies to the CEO (and possibly rivals for the succession) or right-hands to the chair. And some “chiefs” hold little sway. American companies rushed to recruit chief diversity officers last year after protests against racial injustice. Many are largely decorative.
Besides their functional titles, executives may have designations describing their standing in the hierarchy. So, befuddlingly, chiefs may also be executive vice-presidents (EVPs). Executive status can extend down another layer, according to PwC, to the senior vice-presidents (SVPs) or, in Britain and Asia, general managers. They may have weighty responsibilities as heads of product teams, divisions or regions (cue additional titles). There endeth the executive ranks, reckons PwC. Pity the humble vice-presidents (VPs) or directors (in America, anyway; Britain’s are loftier) or lowly assistant vice-presidents (AVPs). They may be called “lead” this or that. But they are just middle-managers.
A common reason for hiring new executives is to tackle pressing problems—or at least to seem to do so. The covid-19 pandemic has created a need for policies on remote working, spurring demand for “chief remote officers”. Also popular, LinkedIn’s data show, are “chief revenue officers”. Like “chief growth officers” (CGOs) their purpose is to help companies thrive as economies recover. Such appointments can help CEOs signal their priorities (seeking growth after a recession, for example) to the board, investors and staff. Executive titles and pay-packets help reel in talented recruits. They confer importance (real or not) on their bearers, bolstering them in dealings with customers and colleagues. And creating lots of enticing positions can help firms retain up-and-comers by providing ways to promote them.
Hiring fads can vary by industry. “Chief medical officers” caught on in industries such as mining with persistent safety problems, though because of the pandemic they now flourish in less risky sectors. Some roles arise for good reason (“chief digital officers” helped firms cope with the rise of the internet) but outlive their usefulness. Sometimes “uptitling” (giving an employee a better title but no more responsibility) and executive bloat follow mergers, as firms absorb armies of managers. For companies, the risks are obvious. Executives are expensive and multiple managerial layers are unwieldy. Hence, even as chiefs and presidents multiply, the prevailing mantra is for the “flattening” of structures, reducing the number of ranks. The irony is this may spawn yet more meaningless titles, awarded in place of real career progress. In some cases, then, obfuscation is indeed the point.
