#retention

Executives and their narcissistic egos still can’t accept that the world changed.

Five years after the pandemic, employees have overwhelmingly shown they value flexibility. The data keeps showing hybrid work isn’t going away. Yet some leaders remain obsessed with attendance, visibility, and control instead of results. That’s exactly what we’re seeing at AT&T.

Instead of focusing on performance, productivity, innovation, talent retention, or competitiveness, leadership is focused on presence reports, badge swipes, and making sure people are physically sitting in a building.

The irony is that the people making these decisions are often the same people wondering why morale is collapsing, why experienced employees are leaving, and why younger talent isn’t interested in coming here.

Employees adapted, the workforce adapted, the job market adapted, but this leadership didn’t.

The future of work is flexibility. Every major survey and labor trend points in that direction. Younger companies and younger leaders are embracing hybrid work while companies clinging to rigid mandates are increasingly fighting yesterday’s battle.

AT&T’s leadership continues to act like forcing people into an office five days a week is some competitive advantage. It isn’t, It’s a recruiting and retention disadvantage and a morale disaster

And the longer leadership refuses to acknowledge that reality, the further behind the company falls.

You can force people into a building but you can’t force talented people and the people you want, to stay.

I've been here long enough to remember the old days. When someone with real knowledge gave notice, management would scramble, make a counteroffer, promise to make necessary changes. They'd do whatever it took to keep them.

That doesn't happen anymore. I can't recall the last time someone stayed because they got a better deal from us. People give notice and management just says okay, good luck. That's not smart at all, in my opinion. It'll cost us in the end.

July is for sales only, I've heard around 20-30 layoffs

Company retaining most of it's talent , and growing

I have a fairly uncommon skillset, and I'm worried they might block me from leaving. If they do, I guess I could ask for a raise, but that would probably just get me laid off anyway LOL.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZnNlmlOeKo/

The company took immediate steps to retain other top executives. Suryadevara was promoted to president on Monday, according to an analyst report from TD Cowen. A Fiserv spokesperson declined to comment on that information.

Also, Chief Financial Officer Paul Todd received a stock grant equal to $5 million, according to the SEC filing, amounting to a measure designed to retain him.

https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/fiservs-new-ceo-retains-team/823029/?utm_campaign=Yahoo-Licensed-Content&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral

I'm not happy here. But I also know my friends at other companies have it worse. So I'm staying for now. But I'm curious about people who are ready to leave. What would it take? What would be the final straw that makes you quit?

People are leaving for competitors every single week. And the company isn't offering them better pay or any incentive to stay. Not even a conversation. With others being kicked out through layoffs, where does leadership think that will leave us in a few years?

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