I know hiring and firing is the easiest way. But this whole place is such a mess, with so many needless procedures and paperwork, barely competent mid management (who also love to breathe down our necks as if they have nothing better to do - which they probably don’t), so many people coming in and leaving. Is that really the best way to manage a company?
17 replies (most recent on top)
“I have not seen any single “leader” gets fired for incompetency.”
TK got demoted
I’ve seen an exec take a forced retirement and another one likely did it.
An addict must first admit they have a problem, i.e. the self indulgent narcissists that have run this bank into the ground must look in the mirror and experience this epiphany.
As a front line manager, we pretty much do all the work, together with our teams. There are so many levels of useless leadership only making up work to make them look useful, adding no benefit. They have no clue what it takes to run a successful business unit. Actors and posers that do nothing but make our jobs harder. I’d give them a day on the front line to actually have to work and they’d fold.
@guv the definition of exempt, at least in my state, is completely at odds with the overseer/be-in-the-office model you're espousing.
One of the requirements for exempt status is that the employee’s job duties must involve the use of discretion and independent judgment. Your argument for being in the office is the opposite of that requirement.
I have not seen any single “leader” gets fired for incompetency.
@WSS Maybe we do have too many employees in general. However, based on my reading of various threads on this message board, we certainly have too many employees that don't want to come into an office and actually work. Rather than having to spend resources catching people with "mouse jigglers," booking fake meetings, or using key stroke programs, why don't we just work together and in person? We could actually interact, talk, and see what people are working on in an actual office. A good portion of the bureaucratic procedures that everyone complains about are simply the result of trying to work around that fact that we are not interacting in person on a regular basis.
@dkp well thank you. Just getting ready for the Bridget/TK team.
@iag comparing someone who learned how to upload a spreadsheet to SharePoint with a general "agile technologist" makes you sound significantly smarter than everyone else in tech. With your mastery of buzzwords, you're absolutely executive material.
In tech, they should get rid of the management and/or replace it with the mid-management. They also should get rid of the BECs and replace them with competent, certified business analysts who know how to elicit requirements, model, and create suitable requirements.
The older tenured management who learned just enough tech to convert the user's spreadsheets to websites is dangerous. They are being replaced here and abroad by competent, trained, agile specialists.
Go back to the Caribbean island you got your online MBA from and demand a rebate. Getting rid of your most efficient employees is the worst way ever to get efficient. Getting rid of SF and NYC employees might make some sense.
@vyp Do we have the exact same business model and product profile as our direct competitors? If so, why do people here constantly complain about Charlie making us more like JPM?
I get the comparison, it's like BMI. It makes looking at things in a broad picture a lot easier. I'm just arguing it's not as easy as guys who buy degrees from elite business schools make it out to be. Evaluating complex things is difficult.
That metric is compared against our direct competitors. Why shouldn't it be similar?
@pqz Only ignorant business school automatons think every business is exactly like every other business and should therefore be measured by the exact same metrics. Ignoramuses like you are the reason things are breaking left and right but you keep whining about too many people being employed.
WE HAVE TOO MANY EMPLOYEES...
Our revenue per employe ratio is horrible. We have an asset cap.
The only way to fix our ratio it to get rid of employees. By my estimates, at least 30,000.
Coincidentally we have over 20,000 REMOTE employees that are low hanging fruit for this operation.
Corporate culture is for people to come up with how they're adding value, build fiefdoms, and to put the proverbial "feather in their cap" on what they've done. Few people come up with ways of working themselves out of a job (i.e. eliminate things that we shouldn't do or waste time/money). No, what people do is implement 1/2 a$$sed things they think are good then often force others to live their their nonsense. In 1-3 yrs you can half a$$ something, get smoke blown up your a$$, then move on when reality hits that you've solved little, and likely added more garbage. If a leader gets put in charge of some initiative, they build their fiefdom and just add more bureaucracy. New people (especially leaders) think they've got the silver bullet to solve an issue and often want to bring in what they think worked at their previous company-- forgetting that what might have worked there (or flat out didn't) would work here and their favorite tools/technologies etc. should get put in place here. Reality hits when they can't do what they think is their "genius idea" in the 1-3 yrs, then they move on, or sell leadership on the next d-mb idea.
And far too many people will either not make a decision, tell you no, or do nothing. We either go far to crazy on some things (risk averse, pedantic focus on things that don't matter, and over engineer them, or do next to nothing to address things b/c it's too hard).
So you end up with the bloat we have and the fastest way to solve things is simply sack people and the stuff they do.
Why wouldn't executives who live and die by the quarter focus exclusively on the short-term outlook?
Empires don't matter, stability doesn't matter, and only the next quarter's numbers and the share price as of the vesting date matter.