Thread regarding U.S. Bank layoffs

Let’s call it what it is—GL17/GL18 cloud leadership, many from Amazon and Wells Fargo, are running a rinse-and-repeat game: outsource the real work to Accenture and Wipro, blame them when convenient, and then take the credit when it lands. Promotions and “Legends” awards follow—backed by DV and the Head of Cloud (AC)—while U.S. Bank keeps absorbing the cost.

This isn’t leadership. It’s a system built on blame, credit theft, and optics over execution.

If you actually want truth, scrutinize and down-level this layer. The moment you do, it becomes obvious who delivered and who just attached their name to it.

This is a cloud problem—not ISS. These hires, rewards, and inflated roles sit squarely within cloud leadership.

Cut the noise. Cut the layer. The real builders are already doing the work—you’re just not rewarding them.

Except a few gems (20%), ISS is a majority DEI Swamp (80%) - that gets nothing done, as they have no clue except to CHECK Boxes. They just focus on superficial compliance rather than meaningful action, as part of process checks (same questions asked by many different ISS Stakeholders). A total waster of $ spend on ISS.

I remember recently the clown car ISS team that demanded we make changes to secrets management, but never realized the shield pipeline wasn't ready for their changes. What a freaking clown show. Of course it's all Fresh Off The Boat id--ts from a very big country.

@da You had me nodding my head until you mentioned "DEI hires". Is that a slur for women or people of color?

GK — stop chasing RTO optics and focus on what actually matters: delivery and outcomes in your cloud program. We, as business technology leaders, are seeing a growing gap between appearance and execution reality.

The current structure under the Head of Cloud (AC) and DV is increasingly perceived as bloated and driven by narrative over measurable outcomes. If cost optimization is truly the goal, the most immediate and meaningful action is rationalizing the unnecessary GL18 layer — these roles are largely overhead rather than direct contributors to delivery. The new leadership have guts to eliminate them straightaway.

Within execution forums, engineering teams are consistently driving the actual build and delivery work, while visibility and ownership of outcomes often appear concentrated within a small set of program management roles. This has created a perception gap around accountability, recognition, and how success is defined versus how it is presented.

st "lift and shift" to meet a timeline on a report is expensive. That is the strategy even though we have about 6 different things we should do to massively reduce cost by moving to more cloud native options. Would take 2 people about a month of work.

Cloud computing is not a viable option for any Fortune 500 company that was established before 2010 and has already invested significantly in data centers. The costs, time, and resources required to relocate existing systems and untangle their complex networks to the cloud are not justifiable.
Conversely, cloud computing is exclusively suitable for startups founded after 2015, as their initial setup can be entirely executed in the cloud.
It is a hard fact that the CXO Suite has failed to understand this and, driven by fear and hype, has invested in it. This pattern of failure is consistent across large, established enterprises.
Only Beneficiaries of Cloud computing are: Microsoft, AWS, GCP (and startups).
The Cloud Leadership at U.S.Bank (Tech/ISS) are a JOKE – specifically ISS (DEI Hires at Grade 18 – have no clue except to provide LIP Service)

@ay The entirety of US Bank executive leadership is a case study in failed leadership. In order to effectively manage a company that consists of thousands of human beings, it's important to be able to inspire, motivate, and influence people. Do you see any of that happening with Gunjan, Elcio, or anyone else?

The Head of Cloud’s directors are a case study in broken leadership—promoted through favoritism, enabled by Talent Consultant HR, not real impact. They consistently claim credit without delivering, yet still collect accolades like AWS ‘Legends of Possible.’ Anyone paying attention can see exactly what’s going on—and who is benefiting.

@a6 would be king sh-t on the retail side. Wholesale little above average.

I wish I was a grade 17 or 18 project manager.

It seems like most “leaders” at the bank have no real experience in the areas they’re leading, or even experience with leading in general. My most recent director has no prior experience managing a team, no experience with the product we worked on, and no experience in the type of work our team does. It’s a sh-tshow.

Do not get me started on ISS. I left the bank two months ago but have ptsd from working with them. they contributed to this failure - people forget but it is true. They do what they want and own the narrative. Talk to fraud too they saw it

Newish to USB - is GL16 considered high or average?

A large portion of these roles sit at GL17-GL18 levels and are primarily project managers. Even a quick review of their LinkedIn Profiles will reflect same experiences. They are major driving force behind RTO push and pattern of layoff over the past two years - despite some of them being home-based themselves - highlighting a clear double standard and misaligned leadership priorities.