Title leveling has become one of the most difficult issues in consumer packaged goods (CPG) executive hiring. A Director in one company might be considered a Senior Manager in another. A VP in Europe could be calibrated closer to a Director in North America. These mismatches create friction across the hiring process, frustrating candidates, slowing down decisions, and leading to costly mis-hires.
For companies competing in today’s market, getting title leveling right is not a minor HR formality—it’s a competitive edge. The way organizations define and communicate seniority directly impacts how they attract, engage, and retain leaders.
In the CPG sector, a title is rarely a universal measure of scope. A Brand Director at a food company in Europe might oversee a single country’s operations, while a peer with the same title in the United States could be managing a multi-brand, multi-channel portfolio worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
This inconsistency becomes a real challenge during executive searches. Candidates arrive with expectations shaped by their past employers or regions. They assume a move upward in title is the natural next step, regardless of whether their experience matches the new scope. Employers, on the other hand, evaluate candidates based on the size of the business they’ve managed, the teams they’ve led, and the complexity of their markets. When those two perspectives clash, alignment breaks down.
Nowhere is this more evident than in marketing functions. Marketers tend to be especially title-sensitive. From early in their careers, they are taught to follow a linear path—Brand Manager, Senior Brand Manager, Director, Vice President. When a role doesn’t match that progression, even if the responsibilities are broader, candidates often hesitate or disengage.
The risks of title mismatches cut in both directions.
For candidates, being told their “VP” title translates to a “Director” role elsewhere can feel like a demotion. Even if the new position offers more responsibility, the perceived step back in title can damage morale and lead them to walk away.
For companies, inflating titles to match candidate expectations can be just as damaging. An inflated title often brings inflated compensation, internal equity challenges, and retention risks when the scope doesn’t actually match the seniority implied. Other employees may feel overlooked or under-leveled, creating a ripple effect that destabilizes the broader team.
There’s also the impact on the search itself. Without alignment on leveling at the start, searches stall. Hiring teams debate whether candidates are too junior or too senior. Pipelines grow messy with mismatched profiles. Some companies take over a year to fill a role simply because they failed to calibrate titles to responsibilities at the outset. The cost isn’t just time; it’s opportunity lost in the market.
Marketing is where the stakes are highest for title leveling.
Titles carry more prestige in marketing than in many other functions. A Director of Marketing may be evaluated as much by the perception of their title as by their actual scope. This isn’t as common in areas like finance or operations, where levels are tied more tightly to measurable accountabilities such as budget size, plant responsibility, or headcount.
In marketing, however, candidates compare themselves to peers across the industry and expect certain title milestones at specific career stages. When an employer says, “This is a Director role,” but the candidate views themselves as already operating at VP level, the disconnect is personal. The result is greater sensitivity, more negotiation, and a higher risk of losing candidates mid-process.
Organizations that succeed at title leveling follow a deliberate process.
The first step is to benchmark scope, not titles. A Director who has managed a single brand in one country should not automatically be considered equivalent to a Director who has led a global portfolio across multiple categories. Evaluating scope—budget, geography, reporting lines, and brand scale—creates an apples-to-apples comparison.
The second step is to run calibration exercises early. Internal HR teams, hiring managers, and external search partners should align before outreach begins. Agree on what a Director means in your structure, how it compares to competitors, and where exceptions might be necessary.
The third step is clear communication with candidates. If the move is lateral or even sideways, explain why. For example, candidates moving from Europe into North America often need to accept a lateral title in exchange for broader market exposure. Framing this as a long-term career step helps maintain engagement.
Finally, review your job architecture against the market. If your company doesn’t recognize levels such as “Senior Director,” but competitors do, you may be unintentionally shrinking your candidate pool. Aligning internal structures with external expectations avoids unnecessary constraints.
When done right, title leveling strengthens the entire hiring process.
Candidates feel respected because their scope is acknowledged, even if their title is calibrated differently. Hiring managers gain confidence because decisions are grounded in shared benchmarks rather than subjective perceptions. And retention improves because employees understand how their role maps to broader career paths.
In an industry where speed matters and top talent is scarce, this alignment becomes a differentiator. Companies that communicate leveling transparently and consistently are more likely to win candidates against competitors who leave expectations vague.
Q: Should a company ever give a candidate a higher title to secure them?
A: Only if the scope of the role truly supports that level. Otherwise, inflated titles create long-term problems in compensation, equity, and retention.
Q: How do you explain to a candidate that they need to take a sideways move?
A: Use scope as the anchor. Explain the market size, portfolio complexity, and exposure they’ll gain. Position it as a strategic career step, not a step back.
Q: What’s the best way to benchmark title leveling against competitors?
A: Review job postings, LinkedIn profiles, and compensation surveys from comparable CPG companies. External recruiters and industry reports can provide additional calibration.
Q: How often should companies revisit title leveling internally?
A: Every 18–24 months, or whenever business scale shifts significantly (e.g., acquisitions, entering new markets, or brand portfolio changes).
Q: Why is title leveling more sensitive in marketing?
A: Because marketing career paths are traditionally structured around clear title milestones. Titles are often perceived as career markers in themselves, more so than in finance or operations.
Title leveling in CPG is not just semantics. It shapes how candidates view opportunities, how companies communicate expectations, and how quickly searches move. By benchmarking scope instead of titles, calibrating internally and externally, and being transparent with candidates, companies can reduce friction, accelerate decisions, and improve retention.
In a competitive hiring environment, mastering title leveling is no longer optional—it’s a strategic advantage.