Why do we keep managers who don’t lead or offer anything of value? It’s frustrating to see how many so-called managers only check on people without contributing anything meaningful themselves. Imagine how much smoother things would run if we cut several of these unnecessary layers.
16 replies (most recent on top)
The scary part is any time you challenge the narrative you are labeled a s-xist or racist.
Sts here.
all leader,manager = male
Admin=female
Balance!
“My unit is filled with a bunch of women directors who were given the job because of DEI instead of talent. It’s sad that the best person can’t be hired and the pendulum has to swing so far in the opposite direction instead of any sense of equality. Hate me but you know it’s true“
Woah. For such a woke message board, this comment is frightening. Misogyny isn’t cute anymore, in case ino one has told you the latest.
Our management is overwhelmingly women
My unit is filled with a bunch of women directors who were given the job because of DEI instead of talent. It’s sad that the best person can’t be hired and the pendulum has to swing so far in the opposite direction instead of any sense of equality. Hate me but you know it’s true
DEI doesn't mean unqualified or lesser qualified.
It means that, give two comparable candidates, preference should be given to the one who is less represented.
This may seem unfair. It isn't. What's unfair is having one woman manager out of 50 when the population and workplace would nominally have 30-55. This is to adjust for decades of s-xism (or other BS).
As for your s-xist and outdated Mad Men views - well, please tell your wife, girlfriend or prospective dates about your misogyny.
From senior leadership’s perspective the useless managers are also most likely be gutless yes men that don’t rock the boat.
Anyone management with an opinion or a genuine desire to contribute is let go. Period.
If you reported into your Sr Mgr, or Director, or MD, I don't think you would have warmer feelings. I empathize with frustrations surrounding poor leadership, but to "cut several of these unnecessary levels" at the manager (PL) level, which is (in theory) attainable for many of us... I don't think that solves anything. I think it might make things worse to flatten the orgs at that level.
Understand that your experience is not everyone else's. I also think that you are coming from a place of bring exceptionally grateful to the powers that be for your quick ascent within the organization, which you have a right to be.
For all means, challenge poor leaders and report what should be reported, so the bad ones don't make it to the next level.
Very naive to think it's as easy as this at Schwab, laughably naive! I'm glad that you haven't experienced what most of us have, however.
In STS, too many managers and meetings to get anything done.
You didn't quite well for yourself. Call center rep is probably the lowest level grunt work you can do at Schwab - no offense. You have to be personable, but don't need a high degree skills to be sucessful. Moving up to PL, level 58 or 59 within a decade is a great accomplishment.
Not sure about particular leadership levels but. Schwab has major leadership issues due to scale and culture. Schwab is the kind of company that grows through acquiring other companies and their intellectual property. They're not great at designing and building anything unique, but reacting to market trends with VERY short term thinking (e.g., $0 commissions with no way to support self directed trading; fear of Robinhood led to buying TD but Schwab doesn't understand TDA streamlined business model and dilutes it completely).
There is success in that kind of leadership- they will react to business environment and consequentially chase profits or cost cuts. But they are not like leaders that communicate and connect associates to a purpose or achieve meaningful business objectives. For that reason our PLs exist to push associates through the next increment of change rather than support them to work effectively toward a purpose.
I think the greater issue in STS anyway you go into these scrum meetings and there will be 3 or 4 develops, a scrum master, a business person, a architect or 2 the manager and the team lead. 6 people directing 4 people to work. It's insane.
In the past 5 years in STS I have seen no real contribution or problem solving by any manager or director in my team both Schwab & TDA included. They are really useless. They know nothing about technology or people management. All I see is useless Thank You and Well Done Spam Emails when we push out a major release. They beg for positive feedback during Glint Surveys. No one has the ba--s to take constructive feedback at all.
Directors are way worse. They are the ones that don’t take any suggestions or negative feedback and retaliate
Cannot emphasize this enough. I was very surprised how immaturely my department's director responded towards constructive feedback. Extremely petty.
My unit is filled with a bunch of women directors who were given the job because of DEI instead of talent. It’s sad that the best person can’t be hired and the pendulum has to swing so far in the opposite direction instead of any sense of equality. Hate me but you know it’s true
Directors are way worse. They are the ones that don’t take any suggestions or negative feedback and retaliate
I was a team manager and PL ~6 years ago and was hired into that role at 75k base salary, with 20% ABO (Average Bonus Opportunity). So target pay at about 90k a year. I don't know what "trimming" PLs will do to make your life better, OP. It took me about a decade (actually well over 10 years) of working incredibly hard to go from call center rep (making $13 an hour as a temp) to manager, and I only attained a true "living wage" for my family at that manager level. If you reported into your Sr Mgr, or Director, or MD, I don't think you would have warmer feelings. I empathize with frustrations surrounding poor leadership, but to "cut several of these unnecessary levels" at the manager (PL) level, which is (in theory) attainable for many of us... I don't think that solves anything. I think it might make things worse to flatten the orgs at that level. For all means, challenge poor leaders and report what should be reported, so the bad ones don't make it to the next level. But poor leadership exists everywhere, in every company. Who hired the poor leaders? Who hired the people that hired the poor leaders? I think our ire should reside at those levels, personally.
Wishing you well,
SWSNBN