#institutionalknowledge

One of the strangest things that I’ve experienced at State Farm is the complete. disregard for anyone who has experience knowledge or wisdom with respect to being at the company for an extended period of time. Instead, we put an inexperienced people in section manager leadership development opportunity over someone who has over two decades of experience because the person with over two decades of experience is a white male in their 50s. But we are a company of integrity right? Fu-k the fu-k off. People work their entire careers for opportunities, move to hubs to be ignored late in their careers. Disgusting

Here we go again...

Nothing says "strategic success" like shipping jobs overseas while clients complain louder every quarter.

Why does BNY leadership treat every role moved to Pune or Wroclaw like a championship victory?

-- Cheaper labor? Applause.
-- Lower payroll costs? Standing ovation.
-- Another "efficiency" milestone? Bravo! Release the trained harbor seals.

Meanwhile, service deteriorates, experienced employees leave, and decades of institutional knowledge disappear. Yet none of that seems to matter as long as this quarter's spreadsheet looks good and more legacy workers are shown the door.

The real irony is watching outsiders cheer it on. Investors get a short-term bump, executives collect bonuses, and consultants sell another transformation story.

Everyone celebrates the savings while ignoring the slow erosion of client trust, service quality, and workforce experience.

So here’s the question… Is BNY's future really built on the promise of AI, continued offshoring, and the ongoing practice of replacing legacy workers, particularly those over 40?

The answer has to consider the fact that a bank's greatest assets aren't cheap labor and PowerPoint slides. They're expertise, relationships, and reputation, right?!

The real tragedy isn't that RV and company can't see the iceberg. It's that they're still calling the collision a success and celebrating it over and over with the same haughty arrogance.

Xbox CEO Asha Sharma is implementing additional rounds of layoffs despite having already dismissed over 1800 developers. These upcoming workforce reductions are scheduled for later this month, followed by two more in November and January. The company aims to streamline its operations and achieve profitability targets by FY27. This restructuring risks the loss of significant institutional knowledge within the gaming division. Despite criticism, positive sentiment towards the Xbox brand has reportedly increased under Sharma's leadership.

Redmond, Washington

https://tech4gamers.com/asha-sharma-layoffs-xbox/

What’s going to happen to this health care facility if the providers and old employees who know their job in their sleep gets laid off? Are they saving money yet? How much money does healthcare corporation needs?

...anyone else worried about the institutionl knowledge being lost in these cuts???

A lot of senior folks (Content, Product, RCS,Sales etc) have spent 10 or 20 years understanding PA, Fundamentals, client workflows... data processes and all the weird dependencies that keep us running. you can move roles, consolidate teams and invest in AI Foundry, but that knowledge isn't sitting in a Confluence page somewhere.

Feels like we may not understand the real cost of these cuts until projects start breaking 6 mo from now.

On the layoffs (and the insatiable appetite for chaos that produced it)

There's a particular kind of chaos that only reveals itself once you've watched an organisation lay off people with a combined few hundred years of institutional knowledge, seemingly to save on their pension contributions. It's rather like watching someone empty the fire extinguishers to make room for more decorative candles — and then congratulating themselves on the redecoration. Takis, SS, great job... clowns.

The official line, such as it is, has been a masterclass in saying nothing at considerable length. No rationale. No roadmap. Just the occasional blank stare from a senior leader whose remit has changed three times this year and whose conviction hasn't changed once. Say what you like about the people shown the door — they at least knew what they were doing. The people who did the showing seem to have skipped that module entirely, and appear to have developed a genuine taste for the chaos that followed. One round evidently wasn't enough.

One does start to wonder whether "strategy" has quietly been redefined by the leadership team as "whatever avoids an uncomfortable conversation this quarter." It's a bold approach to running a scrutinised business — rather like a ship's captain steering by vibes and hoping nobody mentions the iceberg in the town hall, then wondering aloud why morale is "a bit off."

And do stop me if you've heard this one: the same roles being made redundant are, delightfully, still live on LinkedIn. Nothing says "considered restructuring" quite like advertising for the exact job you just eliminated, three floors down, at a more agreeable salary band. It's less a talent strategy and more a magic trick, except everyone can see where the rabbit went — and increasingly, so can regulators.

I have my theories about the why. Leadership with a seemingly insatiable appetite for risk or anything so inconvenient as ethics. A marked allergy to bad news, delivered by people who've made an art form of not wanting to hear it. And, above all, a reluctance to pay for the kind of expertise that quietly prevents disasters — right up until it's gone, at which point everyone's terribly surprised when the disasters arrive precisely on schedule. Funny, that.

I'm not writing this from a place of panic. Professionally I'm in better shape than most and not remotely desperate...yet. But I've been looking for a few months now, and I've no intention of stopping. If all goes to plan, by the time the weather turns, I'll have finally stepped off what has become a very slow, very avoidable train wreck — one that, judging by the appetite upstairs, still has quite a lot of track left to run. I'd recommend the view from outside to anyone still deciding whether to stay aboard.

The Executives continue to underperform and the middle managers get the bullet. They are firing the subject matter experts with legacy knowledge. Meanwhile, new VPs are brought in and are creating chaos. Where is this going? How is this company going to continue to function? Also, who is going to train the entry level staff? Someone needs to turn this around before it's too late. Can we take a vote on replacing Mark K?

Denver has released new details regarding employee layoffs that occurred last August. This information was previously withheld but was disclosed after legal threats were made. The records identify specific employees, their departments, and their years of service. An analysis revealed a significant loss of institutional experience across critical city agencies. These cuts could impact the delivery of essential services and the city's ability to meet future goals.

Denver, Colorado

https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2026/01/30/scoop-denver-releases-new-layoff-details-legal-pressure

We let go of people who carried decades of institutional knowledge. Now we're competing against those same people who took their expertise elsewhere, and we're losing. Make it make sense, please.

AI is being implementd offshore by teams that dont have the necessary AI expertise and struggle with English communication and comprehension. What could possibly go wrong? It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. This company is in serious trouble. They keep laying off experienced, highly skilled employees in the US, and at some point you have to ask: who is left with the knowledge and experience to actually take care of the customer?

A significant number of leaders now regret decisions to lay off employees due to AI implementation. Data indicates that 55% of employers who reduced staff for AI reasons now express regret. This is largely due to the realization that institutional knowledge cannot be fully automated. Companies like Ford have already rehired hundreds of engineers to address quality gaps. This trend suggests a broader corporate reevaluation of workforce strategies following initial AI-driven cuts.

United States

https://www.gadgetreview.com/55-percent-of-leaders-regret-ai-layoffs-and-a-major-hiring-reversal-is-here

It seems like they've systematically removed anyone who actually knew what they were doing. The decent managers are all gone now.

Source: https://seekingalpha.com/news/4612389-medicare-advantage-bonus-payments-exceed-13b

There’s a difference between cutting costs and building capability. Lay off enough institutional knowledge and eventually the people who know how to improve quality, member experience, and operational execution are gone too.

The consequences don’t show up in the next town hall. They show up later on the scorecard.

Sarah said it loud and clear: ”When the market changes, we change.”

CMS had a different way of measuring change and just released its annual performance review.

UnitedHealth: $3.9B in Medicare Advantage quality bonuses. CVS: $2.0B. Humana: $1.5B. Kaiser: $1.2B, with virtually 100% of Medicare Advantage members in bonus-eligible plans.

Centene: $21.5M (yes MILLION) Just 6% of Medicare Advantage members are enrolled in bonus-eligible plans. Approximately 882,000 members are not.

Industry average: 68%
Kaiser: 100%
Centene: 6%

Overall Rating: Needs Improvement.
Performance Improvement Plan: Recommended.

Free advice to management: Organizations get exactly what they optimize for. If every decision favors short-term margins over long-term capability, don’t be surprised when competitors outperform you on the metrics that actually matter. You can’t outsource institutional knowledge or lay off your way to operational excellence. Institutional knowledge isn’t overhead. It’s the capability that drives quality, operational excellence, and sustainable results.

I've been here for for over a decade. Our people have knowledge and experience that can't be replaced. But leadership doesn't care. They've gotten rid of good people for stupid reasons.

They tossed out long term employees like garbage. Decades of service gone just like that. Loyalty doesn't count for anything here anymore. They cut the people who actually know how things work. Now all that knowledge is walking out the door. Management only cares about slashing costs, not about who they're losing. It's disgusting.

Do they really think AI can make up for that? Are they really that stupid? (that's a rhetorical question)

I was trying to keep track of friends and colleagues leaving IOL. But, recently it has blown up so much that I had to stop. Sad, but it is the reality.

Imperial will probably show a large net cash positive position next quarter, but the knowledge and experience lost will never be quantified. The cost of development these talents is staggering, and now they being purged out. So very very sad.

https://www.thelayoff.com/h/institutionalknowledge --- You can pull comments that are tagged with whatever hashtag you find. The last line of each post lists the company the post is under. You will see A LOT of large company names under the #institutionalknowledge hashtag. Same idea with this: https://www.thelayoff.com/h/badleadership

Just wait until the AI bubble bursts and companies realize it can’t do half the things they expected it to do, and that in a lot of cases it’s actually slowing people down instead of helping. I don’t know if this leadership is capable of that kind of reflection, but maybe then they’ll think about all the talent and institutional knowledge they pushed out in the rush to chase AI.

A new study investigated the financial impact of AI-driven layoffs. Eighty percent of surveyed executives admitted to reducing staff for AI investments. These companies saw no greater financial gains than those retaining employees. Many sacrificed institutional knowledge and goodwill without detectable returns. Companies using AI to amplify employee efficiency achieved the most significant gains.

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/layoffs-ai-automation-backfire

Remember Elop ? Here is the sequel.

How do you like deliberate ki-ling of mobile networks business by Justin ?
They don’t even pretend it makes sense, just babble about AI hypercycle ignoring all the institutional knowledge how to build RAN products, while middle mangers jumping like monkeys around Justin amplifying the bs hoping they will be spared.
In a year Nokia will end up with no 6G product and no prospect to even regain ability to do one.
Don’t wait, it is going to get worse from here.

It came out in a manager's meeting, and a lot of names were brought up. Many had been with the bank for years and knew how things were "glued" together and were well regarded. There was mild panic about all of the knowledge they took with them, not that executive leadership cares.

"...they've confused efficiency with purpose, growth with meaning, and the elimination of people with progress." - Eric Markowitz

You are so easy to spot... 20+ years in. Has seen every reorg... Uses "back in the day" all the time.. Defend pensions. And institutional memory. Oh, yeah, let's attack consultants and outsiders... And... Always disgusted but not never ever surprised at all.

I'm not an employee, but I do have some experience in slowing down situations many of you are facing at FIS. Please consider passing the following petition around and send it to leadership.

Petition Regarding Outsourcing and reading.Risks at FIS

Purpose
This petition is submitted by concerned employees to request a pause and reassessment of the current plan to transition internal roles to Cognizant through a rebadging arrangement. The intent is to highlight significant operational, financial, and strategic risks that have not been adequately addressed and that may materially impact FIS’s long‑term stability, service quality, and shareholder value.

1. Operational Risk and Service Continuity

Critical knowledge concentration
Many of the impacted employees hold deep, specialized knowledge of FIS platforms, legacy systems, client configurations, and regulatory requirements. This knowledge is not easily transferable, and in many cases is undocumented or context‑dependent.

Vendor turnover risk
Cognizant’s staffing model relies heavily on offshore labor and short‑tenure project rotations. This creates:

• Higher turnover rates
• Frequent handoffs
• Loss of continuity
• Increased onboarding and retraining cycles

These factors directly increase the likelihood of service disruptions.

Client‑facing exposure
FIS operates in a highly regulated financial environment. Any instability in support, development, or incident response increases:

• SLA breach risk
• Regulatory exposure
• Client dissatisfaction and churn

The outsourcing model introduces new layers of dependency that may not meet the responsiveness or expertise levels clients expect.

1. Loss of Institutional Knowledge

Irreplaceable expertise
Many employees being rebadged have:

• 10–25+ years of experience
• Historical knowledge of system evolution
• Deep familiarity with client‑specific customizations
• Understanding of undocumented edge cases

Once transferred, this knowledge becomes fragmented or lost entirely if employees decline the offer or leave shortly after rebadging.

Knowledge drain after Year 1
Industry data shows that vendors often replace rebadged employees with lower‑cost offshore labor after the initial transition period. This creates a delayed but severe knowledge collapse that companies often underestimate.

Impact on innovation and modernization
Institutional knowledge is not just about maintenance—it is the foundation for:

• Modernization initiatives
• Technical debt reduction
• Platform stability
• Long‑term product strategy

Losing this expertise weakens FIS’s ability to innovate and remain competitive.

1. Morale, Retention, and Cultural Stability

Morale decline
The rebadging announcement has already created:

• Anxiety
• Distrust
• Reduced engagement
• Increased attrition risk

Employees who remain at FIS are questioning long‑term stability and career prospects.

Retention risk among critical staff
Even employees not directly impacted may begin seeking external opportunities due to:

• Fear of future outsourcing
• Loss of confidence in leadership
• Perceived devaluation of internal talent

This creates a cascading retention problem that extends far beyond the rebadged group.

Brand and talent pipeline damage
FIS’s ability to attract and retain top technical talent is directly tied to its reputation as a stable employer. Large‑scale outsourcing erodes that reputation and makes future hiring more difficult and more expensive.

1. Strategic and Shareholder Risk

Vendor dependency
Over‑reliance on a single vendor increases:

• Cost escalation risk
• Contractual lock‑in
• Reduced internal capability to evaluate vendor performance
• Vulnerability during renegotiations

Acquisition optics
While outsourcing may temporarily improve short‑term financial metrics, it can also:

• Signal instability
• Reduce internal capability
• Increase integration risk for potential buyers

This may harm long‑term valuation rather than improve it.

Long‑term cost vs. short‑term savings
Historical data across industries shows that outsourcing often:

• Reduces costs in the first 12–24 months
• Increases costs in years 3–5 due to vendor rate increases, turnover, and quality issues

Shareholders deserve transparency on these long‑term impacts.

Requested Actions

We respectfully request that FIS leadership:

• Pause the current rebadging process pending a full operational risk assessment.
• Provide a detailed impact analysis covering service continuity, client risk, and long‑term cost projections.
• Engage employees in a structured consultation process to identify alternative cost‑saving measures that preserve institutional knowledge.
• Commit to transparent communication regarding future outsourcing plans and workforce strategy.
• Evaluate hybrid models that retain critical internal expertise while leveraging vendor support where appropriate.

Closing Statement

We submit this petition in good faith, with the shared goal of protecting FIS’s operational integrity, client trust, and long‑term competitiveness. The employees who built and maintain these systems are not obstacles to efficiency—they are the foundation of FIS’s success. Decisions that affect the company’s future should fully account for the risks outlined above.

Why does the leadership keep doing this? What's being achieved? We lost two of our most valuable team members today. I've only been here for four years, they both had 15+ years with the company. I don't understand how you just decide to get rid of people who are so important for the future of the company.

Somebody should tell Mike institutional knowledge is a thing.

We spend decades learning how to do this work. Layoffs can erase all of that in a day. That's going to hurt us eventually.

We've been losing so many people for so long, especially the talented ones. If leadership came up with the perfect plan right now, we couldn't implement it. We're past the threshold. We've lost the capacity and the institutional knowledge to pull it off. That last big push was our final shot, in my opinion. And we blew it.

Experienced folks are leaving the company! Lots of retirements. We better hang on to these folks so we can leverage the learnings built up over time. Mentoring new employees is another reason. AI is NOT a substitute!!

Are they so stupid to think AI or somebody in India or wherever can replace that?

With the implosion of the FIS contract handling the TA known as Project Condor, the take back of CS will be completed soon, date uncertain, due to the remaining Retirement and Shareholder skills being serviced at FIS until after the tax filing deadline. They are waiting to be notified by FT that they have the staffing trained up to take all calls. So far, they don't. The panic is spreading, hiring has been haphazard. Workday's AI tool has not been successful in capturing the applications of all tenured staff wanting to come back. Many have received rejections. Managers do not have the capability to retrieve their applications leaving many in limbo. The entire five year drama has cost FT highly experienced/knowledgeable staff to other companies. A TA that was operating efficiently was outsourced to save money. The whole thing is FUBAR.

I know it'll happen over three years, but getting rid of over 3k people is an overkill, in my opinion. This will affect the company in ways the leadership apparently is incapable of envisioning. I'm just wondering what'll happen when they realize that institutional knowledge is key in our work.

I've lost my best people consistently over the past two years. I understand that talent comes at a cost, but eliminating it is strategically unsound. We're not just watching institutional knowledge disappear, we're dismantling the very core that holds teams together. Leadership may see short-term savings, but this criterion for cuts will end up costing us far more.

AI can't compare to the lost institutional knowledge. I'll be here with popcorn the day everything starts going to he-l and leadership finally realizes that.

I’ve been here over ten years, and I’ve witnessed a growing carelessness in selecting people for layoffs. Whatever criteria they claim to use, the reality is they disproportionately target the people who hold the institutional knowledge, understand the work inside out, and are critical to their teams. The complete loss of any long-term perspective by leadership, who have been driven purely by short-term incentives, is a fascinating and depressing spectacle.

Verizon is about to find that out the hard way, when outages become the norm.

Cutting roles that deal directly with clients and partners is especially short-sighted, but it won’t stop there. Even the so-called “mundane” jobs carry institutional knowledge that doesn’t show up on a spreadsheet. The idea that AI can just step in and replace people is laughable. AI can barely function without constant babysitting, and it certainly can’t replicate judgment, context, or experience. Every role has its unwritten rules, workarounds, and hard-earned skills. Throwing all of that away and hoping to replace it with cheap offshore labor, half-baked automation, or nothing at all isn’t strategy but laziness and greed. And in the long run, it’s one of the most expensive mistakes a company can make.

Before, we were one team. Its true. When the rubber hits the road, just about everyone was concerned about pitching in and making the bank better.
When I was laid off, I can share, some of my coworkers reached out. They were concerned. It was touching. Seriously. Some I'd known for many years. And they are the ones I miss the most. I miss being in the midst of solving problems, fixing things, and making the bank more efficient. Frankly, many times I was working against the BS administrative overhead that was put in front of me. I was blessed with managers who cared, knew my name, and valued my work. The new regime? NO. They don't care. They don't know. They brought their buddies from Citi, JPM, (you fill in the blank). None of them care, and they never will. So, my personal feelings remain. I miss what we were building just 5 years ago. I miss my peers over the past decade. I miss giving value to an employer who, until recently, valued my skills.
I'm older and have excellent background and skills. And before anyone says, YEAH BUT I GUESS NOT! since I was laid off.....LOL you have no clue. Layoffs are not based on skill, longevity (ok that one maybe) and this board is full of stories with institutional knowledge holders being let go. Wells Fargo is simply getting rid of EVERYONE that is older, knowledgeable about the bank's systems....and hiring 20-25 year old's from other countries who have faked their education. Does it matter? NO. Because I, like others held hands and tried to teach them. Then I was discarded. Wells Fargo is not an American company any longer. Most of the major banks aren't either. They are multinationals who's only goal is to MAKE MONEY at whatever cost. Do I feel bad? You bet. Wells Fargo was part of a bank that got its start as Norwest Bank and First Union. These were good banks. They grew based on their service. Community involvement. Local employment. All that is gone now. I mourn the loss of what was once a great American institution.

Some people might see that as a positive, but anyone who understands how crucial institutional knowledge is knows it’s a huge mistake to wipe out an entire generation of employees who helped build this company from scratch. The experience and history they carried cannot just be replaced overnight.

As always. That’s why we’ve been shedding competence, experience, and institutional knowledge like there’s no tomorrow.