= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Why officers vs. enlisted? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (143)
Traditionally the distinction is that employees do the work, the managers manage employees, and the executives manage managers.
In the XX century there was also real distinction between different ranks of managers in certain spheres, notably law firms and investment banks. They were organized as partnerships so the boundary was between employees (including managers) who were paid a salary and partners who had an equity stake in the company and received a share of profits besides the salary.
Actually, there are many non-exec managers who manage managers, so that can't be the defining distinction. There are also a tiny handful of execs who don't manage anyone, though that might be just an exceptional case.
The definition of "executive" is fuzzy and there has been some inflation over time. Look at titles, e.g. vice president. Fifty years ago it meant you're a big shot, nowadays it usually means you're a middle manager.
Note that there is also a separate, legal concept of "officers of the corporation" which is a different thing.
OK, so the two pools originally were the founders and the employees, then ("capitalists" and "workers" in Marxist terms). Before it all morphed together.
No. The basic definition of executives, from the perspective of the capitalists who own the company, is responsible employees who take care of the business.