Next step is for all managers to have 10 directs. The numbers do not add up for many. Span of Control 10. They will need to demote and displace more managers. Second problem, I believe there is also a cap on the number of directs. I foresee a consolidation soon and bet you 10 bucks HR is working it.
24 replies (most recent on top)
@arx+1cuJGyJ9 Step into my office! LMAO
Wells Fargo's health plans don't even cover ED pills.
Wells Fargo leadership doesn't care if its employees can get it up or not.
No one can afford to buy Wells Fargo, and wouldn't want the behemoth dinosaur to forever manage.
Please. Our managers on my team in technology have an exception in place, and because of their level they get to keep it. If they try to go down that road, they’ll only enforce it for the lowest level managers.
If this is the real strategy to keep going up, 7 to 10 to 15 it’s just a matter of time until the regulators question and we have no good answer on why it makes sense other than dollars. 7 or 10 or 15 might make sense in some groups, for some functions, but there is no one size fits all approach. To pretend there is will just have some managers twiddling their thumbs, while others only have time to do performance reviews, access reviews, and respond to the occasional email.
All of this is just shuffling deck chairs.
CS and the BOD are preparing to
sell WF. Period.
Clear as day.
It should be 10 instead of 7.
Only a lamer would struggle to manage 7 people.
Don't forget to wear your mask all day!
cuJGyJ9
That is correct
My 2-up only has 4 direct reports and it’s been that way for several months now. Doesn’t seem to be any rush to hit the 7 mark in my group, so maybe spans and layers is just a recommendation and not a requirement for all LOBs.
I, literally, despise everything about Charlie. But a manager having 7 or more direct reports doesn’t seem all that unreasonable. In our department, we had “managers” with 2 or 3 reports and even they thought that was ridiculous. But I am not a manager, so what am I missing?
Does this pertain to retail banking?
while there may be no one left to do the jobs of those laid off, one has to ask onesself if this jobs need to be done in the first place. End of the day they want managers to be managers and workers to be workers.
7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea.
are they going to check is these lines are real or imaginary? Tired of the lying...
My husband is a manager and he has 10 people under him!!! This is very much true, he had 7 and they shifted him to 10
They got rid of so many managers in my old unit that my last manager had 40 or so people under him. But they laid off a whole bunch of people since I left so he has much less now to worry about. The problem now is no one left has a clue how to do the jobs of those laid off. You reap what you see but I’m sure the upper management making those terrible decisions will be gone before it implodes…as usual. After all, they all did that at Chase!
risk can't even get to 7 so I don't know how anyone will get to 10 unless you are in a call center
Fake News
In our department, we made the decisions months ago as to how to move people around to achieve 7 under each manager. None of it has become official, though, because HR is so far behind in processing paperwork.
I have never worked at a firm where HR is such a mess. To me, our HR department speaks to how terribly the whole bank is managed. They’ve cut staff to the point where they can’t or won’t perform their most basic functions. The HR phone tree is an ineffective maze. They must have high turnover because you get different answers from different people. And they’ve outsourced large portions of HR so often you’re not even talking to a WFC employee.
The Manager that I currently work for has had very many internal employees under her leadership leave the team to take other Wells Fargo jobs, or jobs with other companies. It is a "pattern" for that Manager, employees under her leadership leave her control and find other jobs more satisfying and rewarding. There is a definite, consistent reason they all leave the job under said Manager.
We lost a good manager in a shuffle the last time around with this at least 10 (or close to it, I don't exactly remember the number) situation. But it is for real. It has been with us for a while.
Is the goal to eliminate enough of the previous management that we "forget" how Wells previously operated?
I would expect some level of management reduction as line level employees are laid off, but this would seem like a move to accelerate that outcome.
Who gave you this nonsense ? They said in the tech townhall that many managers already are at 11.x. The HR partner further said 7 is currently considered optimal. The figure of 10 was quoted in 2019 but has long been dropped . We do not have the ability to manage staff on such a large scale . You will need to get rid of more managers than staff to do a 1:10 universally and that defeats the point of trying to get headcount down. We need to cut staff, thousands of them to get anywhere close to parity with other banks on the efficiently front .