How do they assign us new title? By our current title and level?
5 replies (most recent on top)
[quote] The bigger issue is the bank needs to have a path for IC to NOT manage but still have the ability to progress up the food chain. Not holding my breath.[/quote]
In technology, this is the case. When the new titles are released soon, they will show a path to evolve to the next level of title if you choose to pursue it. For example Apps Engineer can move to Architect and then Principal without having to manage people.
The other issue noone else is talking about is IC access to the manager. WF managers have been trained to think their only job is to manage UP. This leads to a vacuum between the DRs and their manager. We experienced this on our team until a sub-manager was assigned. It helped a bit, but that manager was just delegated many of the higher manager's responsibilities.
WF needs to get its act together on manager expectations. Probably won't.
Managers are suppose to manage up AND DOWN. That's why they make a higher salary. Sorry (not sorry) if that means you work longer hours. That's your job.
For years I (and others) managed teams that way at other companies and it was expected. We had 360 reviews – which obviously includes employees rating their managers. What a concept! Managing without 360 measurement is worthless.
WF's concept of leadership is completely one way in my experience (I've been in several different groups). This is part of the reason why employees don't care.
No one listens to them or cares about them. Not whining, just pointing out that ICs have great ideas and a lot to share, but it never rises up or gets socialized because managers are too busy managing up.
Agile isn't the magic wand everyone wants it to be either.
I have not heard that this is implemented yet at least in legacy Wholesale. The thought is the Move the Line will move people into their proper LOB then once that is done the SPOC work begins. Until they know what a person / team will be doing they really are unable to determine IC vs Manager.
Honestly I know of one team where the person has 5 managers and 2 IC - none of the managers have anyone working for them. I assume the plan is to either add a ton of people to the group OR move them to new titles.
The bigger issue is - do they assume the old manager will still handler their old direct reports or will the new manager handle all of that. If it is a true 7 + then fine but if you just change titles and expect the manager to continue to manage that is BS. Then again managing a team of two should not need a manager so who knows.
The bigger issue is the bank needs to have a path for IC to NOT manage but still have the ability to progress up the food chain. Not holding my breath.
The only retitling I've seen so far is for managers who didn't have 7 direct reports and therefore can no longer be managers in the new structure. They were given individual contributor titles. The pay range is the same but the target bonuses are 5% less.
In general, I have no issue with that. Anyone with two direct reports would not be a manager at the peer banks. I know this because I came from one. It's not cost or operationally efficient. You can't have nearly as many people managing the work as those doing it. It's a headache for anyone who is a direct report in that structure, because tagging a manager title to a job that is intended to be an individual contributor role doesn't make the IC work go away... it just gets pushed down as the "manager" sees fit, to direct reports that have their own responsibilities.
Yeah, it limits upward mobility to an extent, but it's about the greater good.
In our division, that is how it is working. A few other managers were hoping there would be some re-tooling based on job duties, but that doesn’t seem to be the case (yet).