#bureaucracy

Negative employee reviews for Ameriprise Financial on platforms like Indeed focus on high work stress, heavy bureaucracy, and inconsistent local team cultures.

Leadership keeps treating employees like cr-p, and we're just supposed to be okay with it. We have two CEOs, endless bureaucracy, bloated management, and a company direction that makes no sense - but somehow the problem is never with those above us.

A union would finally put a stop to treating employees like pawns, and force leadership to make real strategic decisions instead of hiding behind short-term tactical ones.

Too much bureaucracy and inefficiency. Management to employees ratios are off the charts for support roles.

If you take a look at the org chart, 6 EVPs reporting into Chief HR Officer with countless VPs underneath them. Seems very excessive for a corporate function? Corporate Relations doesn’t seem to have anywhere near as much bloat

Every failed system in this organization has at least two architects attached to it.

Somehow, the more architects we add, the more legacy we create, the more bureaucracy we invent, and the slower engineering moves.

At this point, "Architect" feels less like a role and more like a witness to the crime.

They’ve hired another PayPal leader, and I’m honestly very happy about it. At this point, anyone would be an improvement over Tanya J. and Nancy C.

I just hope the new leader recognizes how much of the old leadership culture is still holding us back—and how slowly some teams in the digital space move.

I also hope they take a hard look at the ridiculous structure we have today, where it takes 5–6 stakeholders just to get a single button added to a digital page.

I’m really hoping this brings a meaningful cultural shift, with more accountability, faster decision-making, and a lot less bureaucracy.

OK, so I have sympathy for everyone who's impacted, and nobody deserves this. They don't need to get rid of all the directors and VPs because some of them actually know what they're doing. But seriously, and objectively, they should get rid of the ones who have no understanding of the ins and outs of the team. Their biggest contributions are taking credit for their managers' and ICs' work, creating unnecessary bureaucracy, and dragging everyone into endless, pointless meetings. The team/org would honestly run much better without them.

Dan talked about eliminating bureaucracy and said communication below Band 5 isn’t flowing effectively.

The reality is that nothing will change unless the organization is truly flattened. My organization just went through a massive reorg, and I still have two layers of Band 6 management above me—even though I’m also a Band 6 employee.

If leadership is serious about reducing bureaucracy, the conversation can’t stop at messaging. It has to include eliminating the excessive layers between individual contributors and the executive team.

Also I want to know what AD will do differently than D and Sr. Director.

Innovation doesn’t die because people run out of ideas.

It dies when meetings replace making.

When every experiment needs five approvals.

When PowerPoint or Keynote become more valuable than prototypes.

When politics outrank curiosity.

When protecting careers matters more than questioning assumptions.

When “alignment” becomes code for “don’t rock the boat.”

The irony is that the companies famous for disrupting industries often become experts at preserving the status quo.

You can hire the world’s best designers, engineers, and creatives, but if they’re rewarded for managing risk instead of creating value, don’t be surprised when innovation turns into theater.

Real innovation is messy. It creates tension. It challenges leaders. It makes some people uncomfortable.

If everyone in the room agrees, you’re probably not innovating—you’re just documenting consensus.

The biggest threat to innovation isn’t a lack of talent.

It’s bureaucracy wearing an innovation badge.

#Innovation #Leadership #ProductDevelopment #DesignThinking #CorporateCulture #Engineering #Creativity

We instead surplus CO and outside workforces to be replaced with made up titles that just send us emails of no value. Nonsense over and over.

The company is so top-heavy that management layers seem to outnumber the people doing actual engineering. Many of the best engineers—the ones who lived and breathed problem-solving—have long since left. What remains is an army of title-holders more interested in PowerPoint presentations, meetings, and career advancement than engineering.

The result is predictable: a growing shortage of genuine technical expertise and an organization that often struggles with problems that competent engineers should be able to solve routinely. Too many of today's so-called engineers couldn't design a simple cardboard box without forming a committee, scheduling a dozen meetings, and asking management for approval.

@j3+1kxyr77bx said it perfectly.

I can't help but wonder what most of the people in management positions actually do. They check in, they attend meetings, they send emails... What else? What do they actually produce? What value do they add? We have so many unnecessary layers that just slow things down and create more work for everyone else. It seems like we'd be so much more efficient with fewer managers.

Industry sentiment increasingly suggests that more than 95% of product managers are simply not required. Founders and executives have openly stated that up to 90% of these jobs are redundant, as core coordination, user research, and execution tasks can easily be absorbed by engineers, designers, or business operations staff. This has triggered an internal crisis of faith, leading to the rise of "Frauduct Managers"—individuals who entered the profession expecting to make a significant impact but now feel like their roles are a scam, consisting of endless alignment meetings, drafting PRDs, and administrative overhead without any real authority.

The fundamental issue is that many tech structures are actually building projects, not products. The widespread "product mindset" has been pushed to a level of insanity, resulting in the placement of product managers in highly specialized technical areas like data/backend teams where they are completely unnecessary. This setup floods organizations with data while leaving teams no wiser, creating an information controlled hierarchy that suppresses technical talent. When engineering capacity is artificially bottlenecked by administrative layers, it merely introduces overhead, driving teams back to a state where Scrum Masters or even direct squad leads contribute more to actual team velocity and project success.

Too many layers and way too many people who think they're important but don't actually contribute anything. We spend our days in pointless meetings, dealing with endless back-and-forth, and watching people fight over territory instead of actually moving things forward. Nothing gets accomplished because everyone is too busy trying to look like they're in charge. Flatten the management structure and watch as things improve overnight.

We have too many people between a task's start and its finish. Too many people get in the way of completing anything in a timely manner. I swear, it's almost Kafkaesque at this point. Removing several layers of middle management would improve the workflow immensely. Sadly, I know it's not going to happen.

There are so many strategy teams doing the same thing and then doing the work of other groups too. Then we have the external strategy groups doing the same thing. What’s the point?

Pros (Potential Benefits for Employees)

Higher wages and better compensation: Union workers often earn a premium (historically ~10-17% higher median wages in comparable roles, though this varies and can narrow over time). In finance, this could address complaints about stagnant pay amid high living costs or performance pressure.

Improved benefits and job security: Unions typically secure stronger health insurance, retirement contributions, paid leave, and protections against arbitrary firing or mass layoffs (common in finance during downturns or cost-cutting). Better transparency in bonuses, promotions, and performance metrics is a frequent goal.
Better working conditions: Reduced burnout from long hours (especially relevant for analysts or high-pressure advisory roles), predictable schedules, safer reporting of unethical practices, and mechanisms to address high turnover. Collective voice can make it easier to raise issues without individual retaliation.

Voice and power in decisions: Employees gain input on policies affecting them (e.g., staffing, training, tech changes like AI impacting jobs). This can reduce feelings of powerlessness in large firms.

Cons (Potential Drawbacks)

Dues and costs: Members typically pay dues (often 1-2% of pay), which reduce take-home income. There may also be costs or lost wages during strikes or negotiations.
Reduced flexibility and individualism: Finance roles (especially in sales, advising, or management) often reward individual performance with commissions, bonuses, or rapid advancement. Unions can introduce standardized pay scales, seniority rules, or restrictions that limit top performers' upside or make it harder to differentiate rewards.

Potential for slower firm growth and job impacts: Higher labor costs can lead companies to cut investment, R&D, hiring, or automate more (e.g., shifting to robo-advisors or offshore roles). Studies link strong union power to slower employment growth and reduced firm profitability/equity value in some sectors. Discount brokerages compete aggressively on low costs and efficiency.

Adversarial relationships and bureaucracy: Negotiations can create tension with management. Grievance processes, work rules, and slower decision-making may reduce agility in a fast-moving industry. Strikes (rare but possible) disrupt operations and client service
Challenges specific to finance: Regulatory environments (FINRA, SEC), licensing, client-facing duties, and confidentiality could complicate bargaining. High-skill, high-pay roles (e.g., portfolio managers) have less incentive to unionize than lower-paid support or branch staff. Union experience in the sector is limited, raising risks of missteps.

Key Considerations for Discount Brokerages and Money ManagersClient impact:
Union actions (e.g., work slowdowns) could affect service quality, trading execution, or advisory relationships in a trust-based, competitive industry.
Firm response: Companies may resist strongly due to thin margins in discount brokerage or performance sensitivity in money management. Success stories are more common in retail banking than front-office or advisory roles.
Current landscape: Unionization remains rare but is seeing some NLRB-supported momentum in finance. Efforts often focus on customer-facing or back-office staff rather than highly compensated professionals.

Having worked for this company for many years, I can’t tell you enough about all the “fluff” six-figure upper leadership roles that are simply created to promote up, and aren’t even needed.

Wasted money. And here we are.

The department lead role feels poorly defined. Team leaders are still carrying most of the delivery pressure, people management, prioritization conversations, and stakeholder updates. Instead of shielding teams or helping resolve conflicts, the role sometimes feels like an added reporting layer between directors and the people actually doing the work.

The bureaucracy is insane. You can't get anything done without jumping through fifteen pointless hoops. Pay is below average, which is insulting given what they put us through. Job security is a complete joke now. I'm spending most my free time applying to be able to get away.

error codes on every link, using multiple browsers to load things, password change failure, support tickets unanswered, HR unresponsive, expenses rejected / declined. what the fu-k is going on here. the monday morning bog down is so brutal EVERY week

with most of the layers doing nothing but making reports celebrating that the chocolate rations have been increased from 2.4% to 2.7% this quarter. Meanwhile back in the garages and CO's it's now BYOTP (toilet paper) time.

Verizon’s side of the house seriously needs to adapt some of the ways Frontier operates because, frankly, Frontier has always done certain things better. Faster execution, scrappier teams, less bureaucracy, and way less unnecessary process wrapped around every tiny initiative.

If I get added to one more Slack channel for something that could’ve been a two-sentence message, I’m going to scream. The amount of overcomplication is exactly why work slows down.

And leadership needs to be realistic about the culture issue. There are people on both sides who clearly don’t even want to be here anymore. Fine — give those people strong packages and let them move on. But keep the people who actually care, execute, innovate, and know how to get things done without turning every task into a 40-slide deck and six approvals.

Not everything has to be “the Verizon way.” Sometimes the better answer is already sitting right in front of you.

Any offer must be approved personally by Paul Gallagher, I thought he was meant to remove layers of approval...?

I'm leaving, and I can tell you right away I won't miss the endless approvals, the ancient systems that break daily, or watching my coworkers lose their minds. I was hired to build new things and spent four years keeping old junk running. This place broke me.

Oracle is still buried under layers of bureaucracy...............

The joke is we reach for Java even when a simple Bash script would do the job.
We build heavy frameworks for what should be lightweight data pipelines.
We take open-source software, wrap it, rename it, and present it as innovation
(Preact → OJet, Apache HTTP Server → OHS, and the pattern continues).
We talk about Java 26 to the outside world, while internally we’re still anchored to Java 8, maybe Java 17 at best.
We have 10 people maintaining a basic Makefile or CI/CD pipeline, but only 2 actually writing the code that matters.
We accepted JIRA but never promoted BugDB to external world. I remember BugDB team was sleeping without even REST API or changes for years.
We write thousands of test cases, yet the final validation still depends on manual checks. I remember same testcases ran every day in pipeline for 3-5 years continuously always passing.
We spend 1000's of lines writing CICD code, QA code for a Product code of just 10 lines. ( I remember for auditing a SQL file, we had 2 teams writing a new microservice)
We value people who gossip and go as a team rather than a game changer.

Jokes apart. when was the last time an executive actually sat with the team to rethink technology direction or for a futuristic directions. All they ask is document your ideas to Confluence and we will review. They take their favorites to meetings and show their faces.
The Outside world is changing a lot. The Talents are simply wasted without proper directions. There is a need of heavy change in top management layers specially reducing VP, Senior VP's and Directors who are not providing clear directions below and simply playing games.

For me, it's the procurement team. A $1000 payment can go over 6 months without any update. And they always direct me to another team A, and team a pointed me to team B and C. And finally it’s all of these 3 teams. Then they told me the payment is controlled by SHI. When I called SHI, they told me the vendor should have access to the link they provided.
Vendor provided invoice, then PO went to procurement again, one week before the deadline.

I escalated to VP, then they started to chase me down with PO.

What ridiculous

that started with JD about 3 years ago.

EH is just overrated Nike bureaucrat that people that he had talent.

bruhhhh EH if you still didn't get to spot what exactly the cancer here, you are not fit to lead - both intel and nike undergone bloodbaths at the same time and were done and dusted... the turn around you keeps on saying - bruhhh intel achieved it by rallying from 17$ a share to 50$ a share, his first decision was engineering first , he changed the entire culture of the company by going ruthless over rotten & bloated bureaucracy, one of my friend told what exactly the contents of the email - "at present we are the company of managers managing managers and you don't write code / design chips / sell the end product then your job is under review"... innovation blended with engineering is the silver bullet, i swear if the 1400 lay offs you are doing right now doesn't weigh in the lionshare of bureaucracy, then this layoffs are putting lipstick on a pig, where each year that pig is bloating exponentially

it is too big. Too bloated. Too bureaucratic.

I don't think EH can turn this big ship without grounding it.
Not even his Grandma can turn Nike around.

MP just rode the ride and let it get big.
JD drove this 18 wheeler to the ditch.
EH cannot pull it out the ditch nor has ability to pull it out.

Since you cannot turn around HMS Titanic in this harbor, the only solution is to cut the company into different pieces and run it separately and make it more aggressive.

The E&Y people are well trained to implant bureautic procedures and redundant controls so they can bill Citi for over-time meetings

Getting anything approved these days requires jumping through five layers of management. By the time someone finally signs off, the situation has already changed. Progress moves at a snail's pace because of all this red tape. When did we go from efficient to a red tape nightmare?

A simple policy clarification and ended up in a 6-week loop of "alignment calls" and "deep dives" with multiple teams. It felt like explaining basic math to people determined to make it calculus. After 45 days of overcomplicating the simplest request, they finally came back and said it’s "trivial and not applicable."

The level of incompetence and the obsession with making everything a project is exhausting. We’re not innovating; we’re just spinning tires and calling it progress.

I was hired out of college in 2019 as an Account Manager. It was a great job up until 2023 when the red tape and processes put in place made it too hard to sell solutions our customers were requesting. Imagine having a customer asking for something and not delivering when you’re a technology reseller? Bad look. So much bureaucracy and middle managers making 6 figures to slow processes down. All in the name of “risk aversion”. I’m excited to announce I’m selling all of my CDW stock and I’ve enjoyed the fact that i jumped ship while watching it burn and sink. My brothers and sisters still working there, you gotta save yourself they aren’t gonna save you!

It's all meetings about meetings and reports about reports. It slows everything down. Not that anybody among leadership cares, mind you. It's just the new way of doing things.

I've noticed a significant shift lately. There's a huge focus on tracking work instead of doing it. We spend hours building decks to show productivity while actual tasks sit waiting. Meanwhile, there's a push to reduce small benefits that made the place at least tolerable. Sadly, the people who suffer most are the newer hires. They're thrown into projects without any real guidance because the seasoned leaders are too buried in administrative work to mentor anyone. It's a frustrating way to run things.

Fire the tech mod and other creatures that only increase bureaucracy and create the appearance of savings.

Is anyone else watching the administrative bloat at UCR and wondering how these people survive budget cuts? It’s a profound medical mystery: a senior director making six figures to navigate complex university politics suddenly loses all cognitive function the moment they are asked to process a routine purchase order.

They stare at the campus website like it’s a glowing alien artifact, sighing, “I’m just not a systems person.” It’s pure psychological torture to read their LinkedIn profiles boasting about "agile operational leadership" while watching them lose a battle of wits against a standard PDF.

Let’s be honest—this isn’t a lack of training. It’s a highly evolved corporate survival tactic. It is we-ponized incompetence, masterfully executed to ensure their job duties slide off their mahogany desks onto the plates of the underpaid staff actually keeping the lights on.

The Three Pillars of the "I Don't Know How" Defense:

Software Paralysis:
Feigning total technological illiteracy when confronted with any system updated after 2014. The unspoken message: My brain is reserved for high-level strategy; do not pollute it with your dropdown menus.

Delegation by Confusion:
"I tried to fill out that compliance form, but it's just so confusing. Could you take care of it?" Translation: I didn't even open the email, and my refusal to read is now your problem.

The Forwarding Reflex:
The superhuman ability to immediately forward actionable tasks to a subordinate with the devastating message: "Please handle. I don't know the process."

If you play the helpless, bumbling executive long enough, the university ecosystem simply adapts and punishes the competent with your work. Whatever you do, never let them see you successfully format an Excel spreadsheet, or you'll be doing theirs until you get laid off.

People are just maintaining status quo. No one willing to contribute out of box in fear of No recognition, No salary hikes or promotions.

1. Skilled people were exploited until they stopped innovating. No one is motivated to contribute extra.
2. Management is begging Developers and leaders to bring change with AI , hackathons, and study more on AI concepts. Even if I learn AI, why should I contribute if no recognition ? I will use my learning to jump for more salary.
3. Oracle is the low payer , even less than Asian service / body shopping companies.
4. Lots of bureaucracy in Oracle.
   Throw out all Directors, Senior Directors and VP's who doesn't add value and improve salary structure for real working employees. Things might change.

Are they only on meeting surveillance and maybe PowerPoint deck duty? I've never seen them do anything more than be surveillance on Teams meetings, and fly into other offices to be surveillance in person. Why do we need so many levels of surveillance? Can someone observe their teams and find out if they are doing something more than just sitting there?