Has there been a single day in the past 12 months that we didn't have to worry about cuts? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Even after the cuts are freshly over, we immediately start thinking about the next round, because we all know it's coming. How come we all allowed for this to become the new normal?
11 replies (most recent on top)
@ab that is because the leader are a lot of people who came from Citibank which is a heartless bank and they are applying the same methods
@e4, you are right. There used to be strategic imperatives and a well-defined 1-to-n priority list. Now those are gone with the wind. We have digressed into one dimension: operations, which is the easy button. Where I agree with @dz , AI-generated or not , it means anyone can cut costs to make the bottom line look good. In fact, you could pay almost anyone in the country $150,000 a year; he-l, you could even hire a monkey and yield the same results.
Since you mentioned AI, with AI and a trusty spreadsheet, we could automate the entire leadership team out of existence if they are all one-dimensional. The most expensive people in the company are executives. If they cannot form a strategy, AI and a spreadsheet just eliminated them. Imagine the savings. If we love our members, cutting leaders will streamline operational costs more than cutting frontline employees.
Thia has been traumatic 6 months...
@dz thanks AI, but no thank you. We have had metrics but current leaders removed them. All they see now is the total operational cost. sad.
The anxiety you're describing may relate to challenges in measurement that can appear to be cultural issues. As Peter Drucker said: "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it."
Building on this point, when employees can't see the strategic metrics, what success looks like, how the company defines it, or how close or far we are, the only signal they have is the last round of cuts. As a result, everyone naturally assumes the next one is coming, because nothing has told them otherwise. This connection between visibility of metrics and employee sentiment is crucial.
To better understand why this cycle persists, consider that the scenarios that lead to this pattern often fall into three broad categories: earnings misses that drive headcount decisions; the company experiencing financial difficulties that may not be fully disclosed; or a lack of a clearly defined strategy. These situations can, understandably, feel unsettling, especially the third scenario, which is particularly complex. A noticeable pattern appears when several leaders cycle through in a single year, each introducing changes to leave a mark, even if the results are mixed. This context informs the daily experiences employees face.
What you're observing at the tactical level,metrics that change day to day, may relate to any of these scenarios. When the strategic layer is unclear, tactical measurements can feel more confusing than helpful. For example, in my department, even the simplest measurements prompt discussion and sometimes disagreement, making the process feel challenging rather than straightforward. In such contexts, I find myself working to stay visible rather than always focusing on outcomes. This doesn't fully align with my ideal approach, but I have responsibilities to consider, so I do my best to adapt.
Given all this, the solution may not be more town halls, but rather leadership committed to transparent, stable measurements that connect daily work to visible goals. To start, leaders should define key success metrics, communicate them company-wide, and regularly update employees on progress toward these targets. Leadership should also invite team feedback to ensure these metrics remain relevant and understood. This approach addresses both the root causes and the resulting anxieties discussed earlier.
And on a wider scale, the current system can sometimes allow for leadership tenures of three to five years, with executives receiving significant compensation, regardless of the company's direction afterward. If it were up to me, I might suggest deferring a portion of executive pay for five years after their last day, based on the company's status. I believe this kind of measurement could better align incentives over time.
Come on, we have Risk your wits to play tomorrow!
Fun times! Yea! Free chic fil a!
🙄🙄🙄
Last 12 mos? This has been going on in the Bank sine 2021. It’s a living nightmare and the job market is terrible. There is nowhere to go. You’re stuck and all you can do is wait for the axe to fall on your neck. Maybe it’s this quarter, maybe it’s the next, or the first cuts next year, or the second….talk about trauma.
I've been with this company for years and I've not seen the lowest employee morale as now. Something has really gone wrong this time with the new leaders. People are on the edge of their seats and just waiting for the axe to fall. This is the most terrifying time in the history of the company.
Who did Dan fire? He now has 142 directs.
How come we all allowed for this to become the new normal?
Is there anything any of us could have done? Executives are going to executive. Consultants are going to recommend layoffs, and brain-dead EMG lemmings are going to take their recommendations as gospel. It's all about what's best for the next quarter or fiscal year, not what's best for the long term.
And there's not a single thing any of us can do about it if we're being honest. Even people who were "invaluable" or "irreplaceable" have been let go. People who lived and breathed the mission (aka drank the Kool-Aid) were cut, so there's no sense telling people to just "do the best work you can" because even that won't protect you in many cases. Sometimes managers have a say in who gets cut, but they often don't.
It unfortunately comes down to:
- Are you currently in a position/job/role that the company doesn't deem valuable anymore? If so, you're in danger. And you won't know that the company no longer wants/needs that position until it's too late. Doesn't matter your history, tenure, reputation, or contribution to the company; what matters is where your butt is currently sitting.
- Are you in a position/job/role that either a) directly helps the company generate revenue, or b) directly helps the company save money? If not, you're in danger.
- Do you have a good relationship with your manager? That could, potentially, maybe help you, but is by no means a guarantee, especially if entire teams are canned.
Fully agree. This place is becoming crazier every single day. Ruthless, empathy less management, toxic & passive aggressive team mates. Unfortunately Job market is not helping. No other options other then hang in there. Dont know how we are serving members with such a low morale staff.