Which industry sector tends to promote if you’re young?
Obviously very hard to generalize and perhaps more dependent on firm size, but which industry sectors care less about YOE or seniority and are willing to promote young people to Director / VP?
Would it perhaps be the more tech-adjacent/high growth sectors like software, internet, semiconductors, etc?
Or rather more “traditional” consumer sector businesses that are easier to wrap your head around like apparel/footwear, restaurants, retail given it’s much easier to develop a real strategic perspective early on?
Seems many corporates (particularly public F500s) seem set in their ways of slow moving progression and not promoting people for example in their 20s out of a Manager title into director much less VP before mid-30s (any examples to the contrary would be great!)
Maybe I’m naive, but this seems like a great way to continue losing talent to wallstreet/startups. I mean if everything goes decently well for you in IB you can be a VP by 30. Obviously, the VP title in corporate is different but my point is the progression much less murky on Wall Street. You either move up or are laid off. I suppose the trade off is the hours of course, but still seems like a weak proposition for many public companies to the point where I’m not really seeing the appeal of corp fin as an exit?
Any thoughts or discussion would be welcome!
Based on the most helpful WSO content, industries that are more tech-adjacent or high-growth, such as software, internet, and semiconductors, tend to promote younger professionals more quickly. These sectors often value innovation, adaptability, and results over strict seniority or years of experience. The fast-paced nature of these industries, combined with their focus on growth and disruption, creates opportunities for younger talent to rise quickly if they demonstrate competence and strategic thinking.
On the other hand, more traditional sectors like consumer goods, retail, and restaurants often have slower career progression. These industries typically emphasize experience and seniority, making it less common for individuals in their 20s or early 30s to reach Director or VP levels. For example, in some F500 companies, the youngest managers are often in their early 30s, with Directors averaging 45-50 years old and VPs typically in their late 40s or 50s.
However, exceptions exist, particularly in smaller or mid-cap companies where the organizational structure is leaner, and opportunities for rapid advancement may arise due to the departure of senior staff or the need to backfill roles quickly. Additionally, corporate development roles, especially in tech or high-growth sectors, can offer faster progression for those with relevant transaction experience, often favoring ex-bankers or consultants.
In contrast, Wall Street offers a more structured and predictable progression path, where high performers can reach VP by 30. While the hours are demanding, the clarity of progression and compensation can make it more appealing compared to the slower-moving corporate ladder in many public companies.
Sources: The Other Road: Corporate Development Associate Fielding Questions, Lifestyle post promotion to VP?, How hard is making a VP?, Industries that promote young, Life at Mega Developers
Bump
Problem with that VP/Director-type role you’re mentioning, is that there are decision rights in whatever BU you’re in. It is quite hard for me to imagine that late 20s/early 30s person to be in a decision-making spot a for a large corporate or BU within that corporate.
How I see it, is that you come up to a manager level and go to a smaller or emerging company in your space to get that kind of role after proving value through multiple transactions or leading strategic initiatives at the corporate.
You note that corporate VP does not equal IB VP in terms of how senior the position is so not sure why that comparison is being made. For example, in IB you get promoted every 2-3 years early on and potentially could be 4-5+ years from director to MD. In corporate, even at the largest corporate you can still get promoted every 2-3 years but VP isn't comparable because in IB, VP is the third level whereas in corporate it can go analyst -> senior analyst -> manager -> senior manager -> director -> senior director -> VP.
My point was more so the much slower progression still. I suppose Director in IB is more equivalent to VP, so even in that case there are many Directors on the street with only ~10 YOE experience whereas that's very rare to find in corporate. Even a promotion every 2-3 years is quite slow when you consider a manager level person is already in their late 20s.
What are you trying to compare? Obviously comp is not comparable in IB vs corporate unless you are very senior in corporate and get very lucky stock comp appreciation. I think if the complaint was on comp during the switch that's valid but also the trade-off in the fundamentals of each career path.
In terms of seniority, a corporate VP at a large F500 is more like a senior MD not a director. A corporate VP is the level right before CxO positions. I wouldn't consider an IB director to be second in line of a major investment bank. An IB director might align with director in corporate especially if its for a particular BU / segment rather than the full company.
For reference, I've seen post-MBA IB VP/directors exit to director level corporate roles at F500s and associates exit to manager level corporate roles. From undergrad, I've seen corporate folks at manager level in their mid-20s especially coming out of an FLDP which would track with an A2A associate exiting at a manager level so neither feels slow.
I may be misunderstanding your question then. Are you asking for a title, or responsibility?
An example in my personal circumstances: I’ve been at my spot for 3 years. I am good at my job (I’d like to think so). I was lucky enough to have ~10-15% raises each year, which is rare in corporate. I just got promoted a few months ago. All that changed was they added a “II” to the end of my internal official title. However, people listen to my opinion on projects. Do I technically have decision rights for an M&A transaction? No.
But, someone on our sourcing team is asking for my help on a long-term supply contract. I offer input and my POV is valued. The hang-up comparing to IB (I never did IB, cut me some slack), is that the time and reps required is quite different. Things generally move slower here. My boss has been in his role for 8 years and has a good deal. We only have so many deals that we want to do. So, it only requires 1-3 managers, and a handful of analysts/associates to manage that. And because people like my boss have a good deal in their 40’s, they have no reason to leave or do something else. The spot above him manages 3 different teams. He doesn’t want that, because his kids are in middle school/high school and actually loves his family.
Another piece, people on the VP/Director-type roles with decision rights have enormous clout from years of actual value creation projects and industry experience. They run circles around everyone else. You simply don’t take an IB guy into corporate and expect them to understand the strategy of the business and have decision rights, because they don’t get the bigger picture. Sure they can take over the M&A transaction team but they are not a shot caller or VP in a corporate.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this as well. You are right in that F500 companies generally skew older at each level, and that is because since they are larger the responsibility is greater at the higher levels. I've worked in companies where a finance director may have 30-50 people reporting into him. I'm sure it can be even higher.
I think the industries that promote younger are the ones where people jump around more often on average. Aerospace and Defense probably averages the longest tenure and seems to lead to very few young promotions. Tech seems to skew younger, as does CPG.
Start-ups and smaller companies can skew younger as well- pay is kind of a bogey, as is the fact that it is much harder to jump from a small company to a larger company than to do the opposite.
Last thing I'll say is that I don't think I've ever seen a director in their 20s. Seen/heard of a few early 30s VPs, though. As another poster mentioned- VP is a quite senior title. VP in corporate means CFO is your next step. You're likely able to be part of high society in your town. Does not really compare to banking or sales VPs.
I largely agree, but where I would push back is Director in 20’s. That’s where I’m at right now, and my background is at PE portcos. Lots of people making ~$175k+ as Directors of Strategy and Corp Dev in their late 20’s in this area.
These are all sub-$1B revenue companies. I worked at a larger portco a few years ago and it was a lot of older people.
Dolorem sed dolorem molestias est voluptatem porro id. Qui amet veritatis doloribus vel. Ullam ex qui possimus quis officia. Dolores nesciunt itaque nulla facere consequatur cum.
Perspiciatis ad et dignissimos aut unde consequuntur dolore. Quibusdam dolor dolor consequuntur ullam. Provident aut dolorem fugiat adipisci.
Ut est sit eveniet itaque at. Voluptatem dolores autem aperiam nihil. Ut rerum ad vel ab sed excepturi quibusdam.
Minima placeat ut quasi laudantium accusantium numquam. Assumenda voluptas veniam non est esse. Repellat et corrupti odio repellat quia. Officiis maiores enim saepe veritatis repudiandae et. Deleniti maiores est ipsum eum in. Minus qui qui ad vero ea.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...