#orgstructure

Curious people’s thoughts or knowledge of Gunjans announcement from last week announcing the new AiDI org and the change of moving Ankit under CBB product. Seems like a big change that will shift how we work but can’t quite piece it all together, and if it’s viewed as a positive move. What say you, layoff people?

What’s the reason our tech org isn’t centralized like at other companies, and why do we have so many layers of management?

PLEASE, what home that org is.

With so many associates gone, who exactly are all these managers, senior managers, directors, senior directors, and VPs leading now? The teams that remain are extremely lean. It’s hard to understand why leadership layers continue to stay intact while cuts are happening primarily at the lower levels. At some point, you have to question whether all of these layers were necessary to begin with, especially now.

The orgs in MT has average ahe around 50+.
And 20-30% folks are greater than 60.

Do you think att has to get rid off folks who are 60+

What do you make of the re org

Chat are we cooked/ Chat who is cooked?

Is ops innovation working? Another leftover appendage from Greg Smith

I’m pretty low on the totem pole but how big of a change allows for a layoff?

There have been a few high manager changes and I can’t tell if it’s just reshuffling from the layoffs last week vs just flattening out a team reporting line. Anyone have more info?

Leadership changes coming? any info….

I've stopped learning people's names. By the time I figure out who reports to whom, they reorganize again and everyone moves. It's been three or four restructures since I started. None of them made anything better.

He's got 28 under him right now, soon to be 29.

What's the endgame? What's going on?

Is it just me, or this looks like an "AR role was not performing as expected, so we removed his reporting lines" with an over-enterprised envelope of "This is to be more aligned with markets"?
Is something going to really change?

Upvote if know a leader with patni working as contractor

Architecture leadership without architecture, direction without clarity, and decisions without grounding, this isn’t strategy, it’s a slow, well-documented collapse

are exit conversations happening all week?

Hearing 15-18 for managers and 7-9 for directors. Is that real across orgs or only in certain lines?

There is a significant concern across the teams regarding the lack of bottom-up input in this new structure. From the conversations I’m having, there is near-zero buy-in because the workload and structure don't seem to reflect our operational reality. How does leadership plan to address the fact that the people expected to execute this plan believe it is fundamentally set up for failure?

For those familiar with both organizations, how does the Corporate Risk structure at JPMorgan Chase differ from Wells Fargo today? There have been some mentions of aligning more closely with how organizations like JPMC structure their risk functions. Curious if anyone has visibility into what that could look like in practice.

Is this going to be another one of those initiatives that are all fluff and no substance? Would we really see radical change immediately? I'm still of the opinion the company will look radically different in 2 and 3 years but more so cause of AI, automation, offshoring, loss of clients, and trying to streamline various platforms and processes under one unified solution (which is supposed to be one of project's goal).

Feels like five managers for every person actually doing anything. Someone told me when I started that one percent of people do ninety nine percent of the work. They were right.

When will ESG take care of the redundant managers?

There are still many redundant managers in ESG.
Below is the HR guide to weed out them:

1. Managers reporting into other managers at the same level.
2. Managers with less than half their direct reports in the same location.
3. Managers with fewer than 8 direct reports.
4. Managers who are remote employees themselves.

The GM of ESG should really take a hard look at the managers under the directors, since directors will always try to protect the ones they’re tight with. And keep an eye on recent org changes, because reporting lines can get shuffled around just to help certain managers dodge these criteria.

Consider starting with voluntary early retirement packages for long-tenured employees whose roles have shifted primarily toward coordination rather than direct output.
Reduce organizational layers, as there is an excessive number of VP and director roles.
In some cases, directors oversee little to no staff, which is difficult to justify outside of highly specialized environments.
Finally, conduct a thorough talent review to identify roles that are more administrative than technical and assess whether they align with the future direction of the IT function.

managers with under 20 person reporting to them , should just merge with other teams .

Looking at our current structure, it feels like the 'manager-to-grass root level employee' ratio has drifted toward an unsustainable level of middle management. multiple layers of management, which creates a 'bottleneck of consensus' rather than a bias for action. To save cost and be competitive, Oracle need to flatten the org chart, empower individual contributors to make decisions, and reduce the number of 'status-update' layers.

Can anyone confirm/deny? Heard from several sources….

Real question. Realistic answers please. Would we be better off? Would chaos ensue? Could the Dir level successfully form a coalition and get $hit done?

what's up with all this vps reporting to vps?

we talk about flattening nike but keep hiring more sl.

I do not see any big changes in the Network org. Most cuts are happening on the consumer and business side.
Our network is getting worse and worse.. Network org remains As-Is ..
Is there any changes in that area ?

Haytaian is transitioning away from Carelon and everyone will move under the CFO. What are the group’s thoughts about this departure?

Is this an eventually going to become OPOO 2.0?

If I was running a company, I too would just spend the majority of the time, shifting people around re-organizing restructuring the departments and hope eventually we would make money

I wouldn’t worry about the role responsibility confusion or ramp up time to get everybody knowledgeable about what they need to do I would just keep on shiftin

When will the organisational structure for lower levels be announced.
Waiting 7 weeks at this stage since the ccs sale went through.
Beyond ridiculous... as my team advised on townhall weeks ago that it would be announced shortly!!!

As part of flattening the organization, Managers and Senior Managers don’t have duties of people management. Directors are having them now. And thus they are now strictly technical. Do Managers and Senior Managers have to contribute now? In other words, do they now have to work on tasks like others on the team?

Will there be a reorganization where certain technology teams from brokerage and wealth management are moved to the enterprise ?

Saw this on fishbowl. Is this true “Any insight into the changes involving
Leads no longer being allowed to have direct reports (unless essentially grandfathered in) and ADs no longer allowed to have Leads reporting to them? What else can we expect?”

I assume most posters here are from the commercial side. Does anyone have insights into how things are going on the FEPOC side? Morale? VSP impacts? The organization became very top-heavy over the years, and I know a lot of VSP electees were MLT/SLT/ELT. However, there were also some seasoned "regular" employees with tons of technical and/or business knowledge who departed.

Just got mine invite for very early tomorrow from my boss I guess I’m out?

Can’t imagine that this whole company won’t be in TX in 3-5 years. Stop backfilling OKC jobs in OKC and let normal attrition handle 15% of the lift while targeting back office jobs for rolling relocation (IT, HR, Accounting, Legal). Geologists and Engineers will hang on longest as the “center of excellence” but eventually bye bye.

Proposed reorg to save Meg some time: Step 1. Merge P&O, G&LC and Technology into one business (2 EVPs can walk with all the entourage), merge C&P and T&S, get rid of EVP level positions for the rest of the org. Saves min £20m pa on the headcount with improved efficiency and accountability. Get rid of strategy function completely - it has been a failure. Strategy should be driven by BUL leadership and segment EVPs not central function..same for RC&S teams - its a testament to the weakness of the EVP that they still exist. Same for Ventures - no new businesses came out of it in 20 years of its existence so its an ego satisfying project for the execs but no real value generated and a distraction for the businesses.
Step 2. Get rid of functional organisation and organise by Business Unit structure, with clear P&L accountability. No central functions that do not feed directly into a specific P&L. Desperate measures for desperate times but company needs to put profits into the cornerstone of performance and current structure is way too broad to enable such focus. BULs will start cutting costs when they have full control over it.. Step 3. Very light exploration and central subsurface team which will enable new growth (outside of existing basins, otherwise driven from BUs). Any other ideas?