Thread regarding Edward Jones layoffs

It's different, but is it better?

When ER was first announced, I thought it could be a decent idea. Cut the bloated leadership, weed out the toxic people who are just here to ladder-climb, prune those who clearly don't carry their weight. Focus on work that helps our branches and clients, trim the rest. Improve the FA-to-home-office-associate ratio.

But when you look at the changes thus far, that's not exactly what's happening. Some leaders are getting pushed out only for new leaders to come in from the outside. How is that reducing layers? In fact, there are some NEW layer 5 and layer 6 GP roles.

This is different, but is it better?

by
| 1552 views | | 8 replies (last August 14) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k20dca0v

8 replies (most recent on top)

Unfortunately better never means better for everyone and it always means worse for some.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ba+1k20dca0v

@bc you are so spot on.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @en+1k20dca0v

@b0 well said period

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d5+1k20dca0v

@an you are so right. So many recognizable failed GPs somehow spared again. For instance I see a GP that led the centennial that had to be rescued from her own debacle. Yet she is back. How?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cf+1k20dca0v

They probably want it to blow up. Why else schedule a DR test the same day as hundreds of people are leaving? LOL

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bd+1k20dca0v

Everybody wants to climb the ladder high enough where they don’t actually have to do the work or even understand the work. They want to sit around and talk strategy. Leadership is to blame for allowing this culture to thrive. Promoting the best bull$hitters. It won’t happen overnight, but this place is starting to show some cracks. They had a chance to get rid of some waste and they clearly missed.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bc+1k20dca0v

The firm is opening itself up to incredible risk.

If the goal was to eliminate middlemen/leaders, why did they offer VSP to so many associates? And then, whey did they accept all of them? We are starting to see a lot of tenured talent with an end date of 9/5. We are starting to hear the word “no” when we ask service areas for support. We are starting to hear, “we are losing people and can’t accommodate your request. There’s a hiring freeze. Sorry, can’t help you.” Also, a lot of firm knowledge is walking out the door—irreplaceable history, yes, but that’s not what I’m concerned about. It’s the regulatory acumen that keeps us out of trouble. We are losing a bunch of support people. And it’s not just putting the 2030 ambition at risk, it’s day-to-day work. An+1 is correct. We have too many leaders who don’t understand the teams they lead. I would add, they don’t understand the work. RIM has been deprioritized by departments for YEARS. It will take ONE bad audit to flag the regulators. Or one disgruntled associate to turn us in after they walk out the door.

If EJ was a restaurant, the owner (ELT) would be buying decorations for the dining room while cooks were walking out the back door and cockroaches were crawling into the food stores. Worse, we are down two dishwashers and there’s a dog licking plates to “restore capacity.” And if you’ve ever seen “He-l’s Kitchen” with Gordon Ramsey, it’s going to take a miracle to fix this disaster once people start noticing bugs on their plates. And we can only hope no one ends up in the hospital (lawsuit city!).

BCG (Bad consulting Group) has a history of sc--wing the firm, but I guess ELT never checked into their history of producing bad work product. The people paying the invoices know. The leaders reviewing the disastrous prototypes know. It’s a well-known secret. But ELT will sit in their pretty conference rooms and eat their fancy meals and fly on their jets to exotic places and never step foot into an actual department to review a process map or talk to real people about what’s actually happening. It’s a shame, really. We are all singing hymns on the Titanic.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b0+1k20dca0v

It makes no sense. I started with an open mind but these new org charts speak for themselves. Some questionable leaders thrived.

My conclusion is that this is a failed exercise and we have too many leaders who don't understand the teams they lead and aren't discerning enough to differentiate between effective leaders and good salesmen.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @an+1k20dca0v

Post a reply

: