Higher Ranking - Associate or Staff? (apply, jobs, companies, interest)

[ctousley819]

I know this is kind of a vague question, but was wondering what others thoughts. There are two openings at a company I am interested in. One is an Associate level, the other is a Staff level. I am qualified for either. The associate says 2 to 5 years experience, and the Staff says 3 to 5 years experience. I don't want to apply for both, just one of them. Is a "Staff" position usually a higher ranking / paying position than an "Associate"?

Thanks!

[TFW46]

In my company, STAFF was a much higher position (second only to SENIOR) than ASSOCIATE.

[nep321]

Depends on the company but usually associate is lower than staff.

[jribe]

have you seen the seinfield episode about "associates"? Pretty funny. Anyway- its completely dependent on the company- lots of places through around titles that don't mean the same at other places. But judging by the years of experience required, i would say the staff position would be the better paying/higher level.

[tnff]

So many places just throw around titles like they're popcorn so the meaning has been lost, but traditionally neither "staff" nor "line" was in itself higher ranking than the other. Rather they were different jobs with different focus. Staff was support and line was the reason for the companies existence. One example could be that accounting was a staff function while manufacturing was line. Essentially staff is a cost of doing business while line actually produces the business. There might be line personnel with higher rank than staff personnel and vice versa.


Probably one of the biggest problems in American business today is the staff tail has gotten too big and is now wagging the production dog.