Are Associate and VP positions redundant or necessary?
Gonna get a lot of MS, but just a thought experiment here. I’ve seen MDs work directly with Analysts on staffings (albeit, very few) and the dynamic seems to work just fine, if not better. MD gets exactly what they want, while sacrificing a little extra time directing the analyst rather than delegating that responsibility. Why is this not a thing? What’s the point of this middle management?
Two reasons
First is basic math. Hypothetical numbers, but if MD makes $3mm and works 40hrs/week, VP makes 600k and works 60 hours a week, Associate / analyst make $400k and $200k respectively and work 80 hours a week
1 MD hour is the same cost as 30 analyst hour equivalent, 1 Vp hour is 4 analyst hour equivalent, 1 associate hour is 2 analyst hour equivalents
In a complete vacuum, if you have two choices:
- Choice 1: MD works 2 hours, analyst works 15, this is a total of 90 hours spent (analyst equivalent scale)
- Choice 2: MD works 1 hour, VP work 3 hours, Associate works 5 hours and analyst works 30 hours is a total of 82 hours
From a pure efficiency standpoint, choice 2 is an absolute no brainer.
More importantly, everyone learns and is invovled in the process if you follow choice two. This way if client calls and some are tied up, others can fill in. It also makes it more efficient the next time for the MD Three iterations of that and pretty soon it may only take 30 minutes of MDs time, 3 hours of VPs time, 5 hours of associates time and 40 hours of the analysts time which adds to 77 hours and saves an additional 5
Provident incidunt omnis officia sed. Exercitationem ut consequatur commodi vel beatae eveniet omnis. Fugiat voluptas aspernatur sint vitae omnis. Ratione expedita vitae laudantium porro non 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...