#retention

CRM here. We are overwhelmed. Supporting 70 plans is way too much. My friend at Voya who is in a similar role has 36 plans. Plus, they have a CRM assistant. We have nothing like that & need it. No wonder the company can't retain clients. Many of us are fed up. Our leadership is out of touch & checked out. Leaders only pay lip service to our needs.

A friend of mine who is a corporate attorney has been inside a few companies like NM. He put it in pretty plain terms, As a US only wealth management and life insurance company their entire revenue base and regulatory footprint sits inside American expectations yet a big chunk of the actual work, both onshore and offshore, runs through large numbers of foreign nationals brought in on visas, heavily skewed toward younger men from developing jurisdictions and emerging market talent pools. In a smaller city that concentration is obvious to everyone. People see who is filling the professional roles while the local white collar market tightens. It reads as a deliberate choice to source outside the domestic pipeline rather than supplement it.
The offshore “body shop” vendors follow the standard high volume model. They pull from regions that still carry documented issues around worker leverage and labor standards (aka these countries literally allow slavery). That keeps the cost structure attractive on paper, but it also imports the downstream exposures around consistency, knowledge continuity, and supply-chain scrutiny. When the client only serves US customers, the optics of routing core functions through those channels start to look like a mismatch.
Trust is the real product they sell. Customers hand over retirement assets and life insurance details expecting the institution to operate inside familiar norms around data handling and professional conduct. Large inflows from jurisdictions with different baseline assumptions on gender dynamics and workplace hierarchy create friction inside the building. Multiple women in affected teams have described patterns of interaction that feel off from standard US professional boundaries. It is not every individual, but the volume makes it recurring. From a culture standpoint it is material but more importantly a risk exposure standpoint it is something that needs documentation and consistent handling rather than being treated as background noise.
Data security sits on the same fault line. These are sensitive financial and personal records. Jurisdictions in parts of the emerging markets do not run the same privacy or enforcement frameworks the US requires. Concentration in a narrow set of sourcing channels turns any incident into a bigger governance and reputational event. Cognizant, one of the larger global services firms with heavy reliance on similar delivery models already flagged negative perceptions around outsourcing to developing regions in its recent 10k regulatory filings, including concerns over domestic job effects and data stewardship. That is not theoretical anymore. It is showing up in formal risk disclosures.
Visa structure adds another layer. People whose continued presence depends on employment have limited room to raise issues in control or compliance functions. That dynamic has shown up in research on financial reporting irregularities where reliance on such workers is heavier. It is a governance concern that sits quietly until something goes wrong.
The client needs to treat this as a single set of connected risks rather than separate HR and vendor issues. Workforce composition, conduct patterns, third-party concentration, and data posture all reinforce each other. A clean diagnostic on where the actual friction lives, followed by deliberate rebalancing toward domestic talent in anything that touches customers or sensitive information, would reduce the accumulated exposure. Stronger, evenly applied conduct standards help, but they become harder to maintain when the sourcing model itself keeps introducing the same patterns at scale.
The cost advantage looks different once you factor in retention drag on female employees, customer perception risk, and the concentration that turns routine operational problems into brand events. They need to address this before one of those threads pulls loose.

I used to be the person who volunteered for extra assignments, who looked for ways to cut waste, who stayed late to get things across the finish line. Then I noticed that the people who did those things either burned out and left, or they got managed out by leaders who felt threatened by anyone who seemed too competent. Meanwhile, the people who just showed up, did exactly what they were told, and never rocked the boat were the ones who stuck around. This place doesn't want people who think or try. It wants people who nod and comply.

Employees with a meets expectations or higher on the year end scorecard were offered a retention bonus if they are still employed by December of this year. 1.5 % of your annual salary is hardly a reason to stay until December. What an out of touch and insulting incentive.

How many of you will stay (or leave) if the eliminated the pension plan?

Costs are on the rise and there is plenty of work in West Texas. What will
Devon do to retain their talent? News of Houston and OKC retention bonuses will only further ruin field morale.

:(

I feel so bad for these people they worked so hard to get to where they were and we’re all very high performing branch managers. Hopefully a lot can find a spot and be retained.

The role just wasn’t deemed to be profitable from an ROI standpoint seems like which isn’t shocking.

Well well well looks like Devon bit off more than they could chew. 1 year salaries being offered to select groups in Houston to stay on in the Houston office because OKC can’t absorb it.

People are leaving. Retention bonuses timeline expired, so many are leaving.

Anyone hear anything on when we will get the retention bonus now that the sale is through?

Anything longer is just pouring energy into a dead end. Looks good on a resume, but don't expect a career or any real payoff.

I understand why longtime employees stay because routine and stability can trap you after enough years, but I genuinely don’t understand what newer hires are seeing in this place now. Most of the things that once made it attractive disappeared a long time ago, yet people still keep coming in the door somehow.

Now that Pioneer employees have received the last of their retention bonus money the resignations are rolling in.

But by now I know the systems, I know the people, and leaving feels like starting over. So I stay. It's stupid but it's honest. I think there are many stuck at IBM with a similar mindset.

Belden is acquiring Ruckus from Vistance for about $1.85B. Expected to close in the second half of 2026, pending regulatory approval.

Between now and close, they will keep operating as separate companies — that’s a legal requirement, not a formality. No joint planning, pricing, or customer data sharing with Belden. Integration planning happens, but only through controlled “clean teams.” If they have people they can’t afford to lose, they will flag them now. Retention conversations are starting.

Most people won’t feel much change at first. The Ruckus brand stays. Product roadmaps, customer contracts, and sales teams keep moving. Customers and partners shouldn’t see disruption.
What’s happening as this is being written: the consolidation has started. A few functions will move over to Belden — HR, Finance, Legal, Tax, Treasury, Audit, Procurement, Corporate Comms, IR, and eventually IT. Real estate gets looked at wherever there’s overlap.

This may change, but what stays at Ruckus, at least for now: engineering, product management, sales, channel ops and partner programs, customer support, and the go-to-market teams. These are the reasons Belden bought Ruckus, and disrupting them would undercut the whole deal.

Now, the bridge period: Vistance will keep providing back-office services through a Transition Services Agreement for a while. IT separation alone usually takes 12–18 months, and in my experience it always costs more and takes longer than the first plan suggests.

1 to 1.5 year outlook: expect channel programs, partner tiers, and sales comp to get harmonized. Product lines that overlap with Belden’s will get rationalized.
Please ask any questions.

Is your area experiencing attrition because of people quitting in favor of other companies that are more flexible? I’m curious if Dimon’s stance on 5 days in office is hurting Chase’s ability to retain and recruit talent.

Changing MGR review to 100% multiplier BUT still staying 25% payout based on individual multiplier. The jokes wrote themselves.

Love the additional info where managers can't quit on Sept 1 beginning of fiscal and and still collect bonus in November.

This proves they KNOW everyone hates this job and this company so they change the rules to force management to stay longer.

1️⃣ Lack of Leadership
Employee: “I stopped looking up because there was no one to look to.”

Great leaders set direction, model integrity, and earn respect every day.

2️⃣ Lack of Trust
Employee: “Every time I spoke up, it cost me something.”

Great leaders reward honesty, defend their people, and prove every voice matters.

3️⃣ Feeling Undervalued
Employee: “My work spoke loudly. No one was listening.”

Great leaders notice effort, name impact, and show appreciation often.

4️⃣ No Growth Path
Employee: “I wanted to grow. They wanted me to stay the same.”

Great leaders build clear paths and invest in growth early.

5️⃣ Lack of Challenge
Employee: “I used to feel alive solving problems. Now it’s just tasks.”

Great leaders reignite curiosity by giving purpose, not just projects.

6️⃣ Burnout
Employee: “The more great work I do, the more they expect.”

Great leaders protect energy, balance ambition, and stop rewarding exhaustion.

7️⃣ Lack of Inclusion
Employee: “I was in the room, but never really part of it.”

Great leaders create environments where every voice is heard and valued.

8️⃣ Unfair Pay
Employee: “They said they valued me, but not enough to show it.”

Great leaders match reward to impact and make fairness non-negotiable.

https://www.stephanieshills.com/weeklynewsletteroptin

Most companies say they value their people. Yet fail to create cultures where people actually feel valued.

But here's what actually makes people stay:

✅ Paid Well – Compensation reflects their worth
✅ Heard – Their voice actually matters
✅ Respected – Not just for what they do, but who they are
✅ Challenged – Growth is encouraged, not stifled
✅ Trusted – Micromanagement doesn’t exist
✅ Supported – Through wins and setbacks
✅ Recognized – Effort is seen, not overlooked
✅ Included – A real part of the bigger picture
✅ Developed – Opportunities to learn and grow
✅ Appreciated – Beyond performance metrics
✅ Empowered – Given autonomy, not just tasks
✅ Promoted – Hard work leads somewhere

Retention isn't a strategy. It's an outcome of how you treat people every day.

Ask your team: “What’s one thing we could do better to show we value you?” Then listen.

What’s one thing you’ve done (or seen) that made people choose to stay longer?

Change announced as of 4/27/2026 @ 1:00pm EST

Our departmental groups have been chatting about this potential since the beginning but the info finally dropped. That group is just but one of the many departments being squeezed to absolute death with due dates and high expectations of the perpetual ‘pull-in’ cycle of doom.

At the very least, we could look forward to being appropriately compensated via overtime. With that having been taken away as soon as Friday, I ponder how many people will leave prior to the handoff. Likely stick around for the ‘retention bonus’.

Wild a-s info but sadly it’s been expected for a while now.

We still have a couple days left, who the he-l knows what other last minute thing they may pull out of their a-s.

Godspeed ya’ll.

As of this passed Saturday, many branches nationally have officially expanded to closing at 2pm. I heard there are a couple more phases before EOY for the rest of those Saturday branches to do the same. We now have TCR’s making us more effective, however getting harder and harder to find staff. Some of branches nationally have closed drive-thru, some areas have not.

At what point do we put the employees first???? For overall workload and retention.

Any one have any ideas what the next step of the way our branches operate takes place ?

And it's deliberate, because talent costs money. But people are the foundation. Everything else can be replaced or fixed. That can't. Especially if you’re gunning to stay on top.

We were a smaller bank that loved its people. Like the year we all donated 2 days of vacation to save employees from being laid-off? Or the time we took stock options instead of a full bonus or when you could still volunteer at your church, helping the homeless with bags of food and clothing and count that as a volunteer day, or when we respected women leaders and promoted them, or when RD said he knew we were the best bankers and to go out and prove it - and we did! Q after Q!

In the last year we have lost so many benefits, our self-esteem, Clients, our edge, our talent. Just chip, chip away until us seasoned, experienced worker bees (remember when it was ok to not WANT to step over dead bodies to save your job and you could just have pride in what you did) leave for greener fields.

I appreciate growth, promotion, and working hard to get there. I have won numerous awards at USB for top sales, but one day you just realize the top tier cancer has eaten too much of the good to outweigh the bad and you know there is no treatment for the cancer and so you abandon the host and find a new clean place to do your best and give your all and grow. I can't believe the number of people leaving and then taking all their top talent with them. You think a LTI loss forced signature is going to stop them? The new banks have already given them a sign-on bonus that took that pain away.

We used to be amazing for our Clients, employees, partners, vendors and now all we are is painful to watch.

Yes, I am leaving for a new job and so I can say all this, but I grew up in this family and it is hard to watch and extremely hard to leave my siblings behind.

My group is small and kind of isolated from the rest of the company. And nobody here wants to leave. The pay is good, we don't work crazy hours, and leadership keeps telling us we're safe. Whether that's true or not is not certain, but it's enough to make people want to stay.

This is one of the most frustrating teams I have worked in at CIBC. There is a strong perception that hiring decisions are heavily influenced by personal connections with certain consulting vendors, rather than being fully merit-based. Many roles seem to be filled through preferred consultancies, which raises concerns about fairness in the hiring process and how corrupt these indian managers are.
Additionally, promotion decisions often appear to favor a close circle of internal contacts, which makes it difficult for genuinely strong performers to grow within the team. Over time, this environment has led to a loss of trust and has pushed talented individuals to consider leaving.
Overall, while the work itself can be meaningful, the lack of transparency in hiring and promotions significantly impacts morale and retention.

Execs won.

Nothing else matters. Morale, retention, long term goals. The mandate was $200 at any cost and they did it.

Expect them to accelerate the pain because the market loves it.

If rumors are true with a May LR do you still receive RSUs that vest in June and July? There’s usually a 2 month period where you’re still technically an employee, right?

Just wondering, now that bonuses have been paid out, is NM seeing an increase in people leaving?

I'm not seeing the same level of employee retention, respect or overall job satisfaction moving forward after the post-merger with SNPS.

The other sad truth was the latest RIF targeted folks that had been with Ansys for 10 plus years marking them redundant and expensive talent.

Ansys was a solid company that treated their employees with respect and dignity. They wanted their employees to successful financially and career-wise.

I bet moving forward that directors and above will be the ones getting RSUs and higher salaries planing for more RIFs while everyone that does the day-to-day work suffer or pushed out.

They've been getting rid of the people who knew what they were doing, and consistently holding on to average performers. The remaining competent people are forced to take on most of the leftover workload, while slackers have the time of their lives. It's not only a management failure, it's a conscious decision at the top. The only reason people put up with it is because of the terrible job market. Sooner or later, however, something will have to give.

I mean, not really. Maybe on paper, to an extent. Paper is just the cover. It will be money based, without any long-term strategy, any concern for team cohesion and efficiency, and without any thought about talent retention. It’s the scrambling phase. Chickens coming home to roost for the string of bad decisions, driven by greed, grandiosity and mediocrity.

Nuveen Plans £175m Staff Retention Pot for Schroders Employees

https://citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/nuveen-commits-to-keeping-cazenove-and-plans-175m-staff-retention-pot/a2485807

I'm not an employee, but I do have some experience in slowing down situations many of you are facing at FIS. Please consider passing the following petition around and send it to leadership.

Petition Regarding Outsourcing and reading.Risks at FIS

Purpose
This petition is submitted by concerned employees to request a pause and reassessment of the current plan to transition internal roles to Cognizant through a rebadging arrangement. The intent is to highlight significant operational, financial, and strategic risks that have not been adequately addressed and that may materially impact FIS’s long‑term stability, service quality, and shareholder value.

1. Operational Risk and Service Continuity

Critical knowledge concentration
Many of the impacted employees hold deep, specialized knowledge of FIS platforms, legacy systems, client configurations, and regulatory requirements. This knowledge is not easily transferable, and in many cases is undocumented or context‑dependent.

Vendor turnover risk
Cognizant’s staffing model relies heavily on offshore labor and short‑tenure project rotations. This creates:

• Higher turnover rates
• Frequent handoffs
• Loss of continuity
• Increased onboarding and retraining cycles

These factors directly increase the likelihood of service disruptions.

Client‑facing exposure
FIS operates in a highly regulated financial environment. Any instability in support, development, or incident response increases:

• SLA breach risk
• Regulatory exposure
• Client dissatisfaction and churn

The outsourcing model introduces new layers of dependency that may not meet the responsiveness or expertise levels clients expect.

1. Loss of Institutional Knowledge

Irreplaceable expertise
Many employees being rebadged have:

• 10–25+ years of experience
• Historical knowledge of system evolution
• Deep familiarity with client‑specific customizations
• Understanding of undocumented edge cases

Once transferred, this knowledge becomes fragmented or lost entirely if employees decline the offer or leave shortly after rebadging.

Knowledge drain after Year 1
Industry data shows that vendors often replace rebadged employees with lower‑cost offshore labor after the initial transition period. This creates a delayed but severe knowledge collapse that companies often underestimate.

Impact on innovation and modernization
Institutional knowledge is not just about maintenance—it is the foundation for:

• Modernization initiatives
• Technical debt reduction
• Platform stability
• Long‑term product strategy

Losing this expertise weakens FIS’s ability to innovate and remain competitive.

1. Morale, Retention, and Cultural Stability

Morale decline
The rebadging announcement has already created:

• Anxiety
• Distrust
• Reduced engagement
• Increased attrition risk

Employees who remain at FIS are questioning long‑term stability and career prospects.

Retention risk among critical staff
Even employees not directly impacted may begin seeking external opportunities due to:

• Fear of future outsourcing
• Loss of confidence in leadership
• Perceived devaluation of internal talent

This creates a cascading retention problem that extends far beyond the rebadged group.

Brand and talent pipeline damage
FIS’s ability to attract and retain top technical talent is directly tied to its reputation as a stable employer. Large‑scale outsourcing erodes that reputation and makes future hiring more difficult and more expensive.

1. Strategic and Shareholder Risk

Vendor dependency
Over‑reliance on a single vendor increases:

• Cost escalation risk
• Contractual lock‑in
• Reduced internal capability to evaluate vendor performance
• Vulnerability during renegotiations

Acquisition optics
While outsourcing may temporarily improve short‑term financial metrics, it can also:

• Signal instability
• Reduce internal capability
• Increase integration risk for potential buyers

This may harm long‑term valuation rather than improve it.

Long‑term cost vs. short‑term savings
Historical data across industries shows that outsourcing often:

• Reduces costs in the first 12–24 months
• Increases costs in years 3–5 due to vendor rate increases, turnover, and quality issues

Shareholders deserve transparency on these long‑term impacts.

Requested Actions

We respectfully request that FIS leadership:

• Pause the current rebadging process pending a full operational risk assessment.
• Provide a detailed impact analysis covering service continuity, client risk, and long‑term cost projections.
• Engage employees in a structured consultation process to identify alternative cost‑saving measures that preserve institutional knowledge.
• Commit to transparent communication regarding future outsourcing plans and workforce strategy.
• Evaluate hybrid models that retain critical internal expertise while leveraging vendor support where appropriate.

Closing Statement

We submit this petition in good faith, with the shared goal of protecting FIS’s operational integrity, client trust, and long‑term competitiveness. The employees who built and maintain these systems are not obstacles to efficiency—they are the foundation of FIS’s success. Decisions that affect the company’s future should fully account for the risks outlined above.

Both sites are filled with complaints about denied claims, inabilty to understand customer service agents, and poor service from Centerwell pharmacy and inability to get resolutions of complaints. Not that C-suite cares but they should care about retention of members. Or has Rechtin forgot that without members Humana doesn’t exist? I would like to see our retention rates before he came on board compared to now. Rechtin needs to go. The rodent needs to go.

WFH and hybrid aren’t perks anymore. They’re the standard. Across industries, companies figured out that flexibility drives better output, better retention, and better talent. The only places still clinging to strict five-day mandates are the ones falling behind.

Forcing people back five days a week doesn’t create culture. It doesn’t create collaboration. It creates resentment. And when you measure badge swipes instead of results, you get exactly what you’re asking for — people doing the minimum required to check the box.

Pair that with a compensation model where effort barely moves the needle, and the incentive is obvious. Stop pushing. Stop caring. Just show up.

That’s how you lose your best people without even realizing it. They don’t argue. They just leave.

You don’t build the future of a company by ignoring the market, ignoring your workforce, and doubling down on a model everyone else has already moved past.

Apparently Centene is outsourcing Fidelis Retention responsibilities to a third party called “Fortuna” as some kind of pilot, claiming it’s to “offer additional options” to members for enrollment/renewal. This is while Retention reps have been begging management to hire more staff, lighten the load, etc. I have a bad feeling about this.

Somebody should tell Mike institutional knowledge is a thing.

The current approach to promotions highlights a troubling double standard.

HR has proceeded with promotions within its own ranks including VP to SVP and reversed role classifications from Senior Manager back to Director, even though the rest of the organization was required to make those changes.

At the same time, commercial line-of-business teams responsible for generating revenue and driving business performance are restricted and effectively blocked. Across my organization, leaders have taken on significantly expanded scope and accountability, with direct responsibility for new business generation, revenue growth, and client retention. Despite these expanded roles, we were told during both job reviews and the annual merit cycle that promotions were not possible even in cases where retention risk and material scope changes are clear.

When HR the very function responsible for fairness, governance, and organizational consistency applies a different standard to itself.

There is a strong emphasis placed on accountability, performance standards, and meeting deadlines, with clear consequences when expectations are not met. Annual performance scores and compensation are directly tied to those metrics.

Given that standard, it is concerning that the organization provided only one week’s notice that the largest bonus of the year would be delayed by an entire month. The communication was limited to a generic platform notification, with no direct leadership acknowledgment or explanation.

Additionally, the messaging shared on internal earnings calls often differs in tone and substance from investor communications, which are delivered prior to company-wide updates. That contrast creates confusion and erodes trust.

Delaying annual and Q4 bonus payouts by a full month, particularly without transparent communication, raises valid concerns about financial timing decisions and prioritization. Compensation is not discretionary recognition; it is earned performance pay.

When accountability appears to operate asymmetrically, it impacts morale, credibility, and ultimately retention. High-performing employees expect alignment between standards set for them and standards modeled by leadership.

With the peanuts netapp pays, who can afford to live close to office ? With RTO you will just lose young talent and not the ones you are aiming . Don't forget about the burn out due to commute. This is just d-mb.