Executive directors at JPMorgan

JPMorgan has inserted executive directors between its vice presidents and managing directors. Is it good news or bad news for people who work there?

It's good news according to a spokesman for the bank, who says the use of the executive director title, which was announced in November and came into effect on 1 February, will allow the bank to recognise its vice presidents (VPs) who have managing director (MD) potential.

But what about those VPs who were hoping to become MDs but now have to make do with a staging post? The new titles won't make any difference, says the spokesman - all those who were up for MD selection this year will still be up for the promotion, whether they've just been made executive director (ED) or not.

Some are less convinced that the move will prove positive for JPMorgan staff, however. Rumour has it that the introduction of the title has coincided with lower-than-expected bonuses in some areas. "There's clearly a need to keep people motivated and a new title is a cheaper way of doing that than a large bonus," says Jean Facon, an ex-JPMorgan MD turned consultant at headhunter Christopher Beale Associates.

JPMorgan's move to standardise its titles in line with most other US banks should at least be good news for recruiters, who are currently forced to juggle different titles at different firms. Instead of the standard analyst, associate, vice president, executive director and managing director, UBS, for example, ranks its staff as non-officers (non-entities?), associate directors, directors, executive directors and managing directors.

"It can be complicated," admits the head of HR at one US bank. "We usually count the number of years of experience and use that to decide which title someone joining us should have."

Best to go straight from VP to MD, or is a staging post best?Add your comment and let us know what you think.