FIS has developed a structure where the ratio of management roles far outweighs the size of the actual technical teams. Over time, this has led to many highly skilled technical contributors leaving the organization, while a significant number of non-technical leaders have been added at the SVP, VP, Sr. Director, Director, and Sr. Development Manager levels. Much of this work could be more effectively coordinated under a strong, technically proficient project manager. In its current state, even senior leaders such as Stephanie may not have full visibility into which teams are truly driving delivery and creating measurable value for the company.
26 replies (most recent on top)
Too many senior folks here are more focused on managing up than actually delivering results. You can practically see the feet dangling out of leaders’ rear ends.
FIS has turned into a Brian the Inflated Advisor, Bob the Empty Suit and Sharon the Brown-Noser show, the OP is from one of these m***ns, Stephanie’s puppets. The executive leadership has zero real understanding of what it takes to run and implement technology platforms or design programs that actually create value. The obsession with optics over execution is ki-ling credibility and momentum.
@t5 completely get where you’re coming from. But her bonus metrics are public knowledge, can be found in the SEC filings. No joke, she got a bonus partially because they hit the FCF and “future forward” targets. All those layoffs resulted in a higher bonus for her. And will do so in 2025 as well.
Why can’t the “true value delivery” start with cutting cost by reducing or eliminating salary & bonuses to Stefanie Farris & her direct reports?
Stefanie Farris made $1.2 million base salary, a $2.3 million bonus, and about $17.57 million in stock awards in 2024 compared to 15.83 million in 2023. $2.3M bonus for what?
@pv yeah, like the $~20M Digital initiative that was approved last year, most of which went to funding $250k+ VP salaries. All while pushing out legacy FIS employees who have been with the company for decades. They spun up the Digital program, brought in Carson, filled roles with legacy FIS folks, got this new approval to fill new roles, and laid off the legacy folks.
@a3 SO many SVP roles being hired or hired recently. Those salaries in the US are over $300k - just the salaries. Current leadership abhors legacy FIS folks and wants to see us all gone. The flaunting of money at the top for their favorites - people, pet projects, travel, etc. is insane while people are losing their jobs. “Rules for thee but not for me” in full action.
@j4 agree! Unfortunately its gotten around she just blames her team like an emotionally immature child and tells them to fire more people. Takes zero accountability. The board needs to stop this. The market has made it clear every quarter this year that they DO NOT LIKE what she is doing.
in its current state?
she's not just walking in the door. She has been CEO for 3 years!
She picked her team! She picked the strategy! she directed investment into atelio. She brought in mckinsey
She owns this disaster
Hi Bob or one of his puppets that know nothing about this company or our clients - this will be the RIF business case from TPO
@aw Kelly’s position exists purely due to nepotism. Stephanie and Kelly worked together in Cincinnati at WP and Kelly has followed Stephanie upward. Her role is a joke and shouldn’t exist.
The original poster is deluded they are either part of McKinsey team, Stephanie herself or the leadership that report to her!
Well, McKinsey have finally found the layoff!
"even senior leaders such as Stephanie may not have full visibility into which teams are truly driving delivery"
This is a complete failure on Stephanie then. She picked the senior leaders directly under her. Great leaders bring on great subordinates, give them clear goals, and hold them accountable.
Bad leaders create confusing, overlapping responsibilty orgs, and try to micromanage with top down diktats about how things should be done, what the teams should look like, the number of this title or that title teams way down the food chain should have.
There can be a harvard business case someday about how micromanagement destroyed this viability of this company and forced it to sell to someone else after the CEO was fired
@aw are vps or directors under Kelly going to be dropped at some extent or are you saying all the teams under her down to the associates should go?
Right sizing leadership should start with Kelly Beatty's role. why does this even exist? no one can really explain why her org exists separate from the divisions
It’s clear that leadership has lost sight of what FIS once represented and what our clients truly expect. Technical project managers are not the solution. Our clients want to engage with business-minded professionals they can relate to, not technical managers who lack that connection. Unfortunately, the executive team, along with McKinsey, is out of touch with this reality and just looking for the next pay check. What FIS needs now is new executive leadership immediately! I sincerely hope the board recognizes this and takes decisive action to correct course, removing the blinders that have been in place since the decision to remove Gary.
Hello Brian Pike from McKinsey.
This is def McKinsey trying to ‘manage’ this thread. Too late.
FIS did not “develop” a structure, it forced the structure over time in response to a lack of strategic vision and effective management of the acquisitions and mergers. From a technical perspective the environments were simply placed on life support with the administration and management requirements being forced onto an ever decreasing number of technical support personnel. As resources (RIFs and departures) were reduced replacements were not provided. Over time the ratios of management became skewed as the number of resources to support the environments were no longer being replaced or moved to “high value” locations. This creates the spreadsheet view that the manager to troop ratios are lower than optimal. … On the technical support sides at no time were SVP, VP, Sr. Director, Director levels simply added. OF key importance is that the level of work and number of systems to support are not reduced. Your PM comment indicates that you are not familiar with project management and the actual level of work required for execution under the operational conditions in place.
I wonder how much we're paying McKinsey per hour to stalk message boards and write sh-t like this
"True value delivery"
Who talks like this? This is management consulting speak
Shill post
The originating post is horse sh-t.
That's because Stephanie can't see through the McKinsey cocoon
You are correct. Stephanie has lost a handle on this company
How many new hires at the ceo minus one or minus two level have been created and announced this year?
you're right this company is bloated, at the very top.
PM are always worthless, they can be replaced by a recurring reminder.
This seems like a planted post, either from Stephanie's team or Mckinsey