Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

It is happening and it su-ks as a manager. We’ve eliminated 25% of our workforce. In theory they were the low performers. But leadership wants to apply the same “guided distribution “ to the remaining population.

Besides the cultural impact, the primary problem with applying a “curve” to a performance scale is, as alluded to below, it’s not a normal distribution if you can’t measure the differences between ratings. Everyone has bias in rating performance-it’s not like someone’s age that is quantifiable.

are they calibrating us workers with all the offshore folks who mess up 5 times? or just sc--wing the americans. the whole biz should uniomize.

That mo--n posting without his little chatbot sure clears up why he needs its help to think.

@ef, I said agile ... when implemented correctly. Obviously you can, Wells can, game the system. In agile, again when implemented correctly, has strong peer review (the retrospectives) and less management review. Of course in "wagile", the management takes over the retrospectives and turn them into micro management sessions. The psychological abuse continues and you end up like @ds. Anyway thanks for reading cause dip sh...t @ds certainly didn't.

@dp Everything gets 8 points! And the smart dev picks the truly smaller items to stack up those dank story points their id--tic manager will think is truly higher productivity.

leadbrained boomers are addicted to slop, no wonder it's such a big hit on here

Congrats, you wasted your own time on a wall of trash saying nothing, that no one will read, all because you’re a nothing with no thoughts of your own. We’ve been owned.

@ai Hey buddy here is some more AI slop. Enjoy...
The ethical problem with Wells Fargo’s current ranking approach isn’t new — it reflects the same cultural logic that led to the account scandal: extreme internal pressure, artificial competition, and leadership systems that reward survival over doing the right thing for customers and colleagues. When performance systems push people into zero-sum outcomes, behavior predictably shifts from collaboration and integrity toward self-protection.

Stack ranking by itself isn’t automatically abusive — but stack ranking without an objective measurement framework is. Welch’s GE model at least attempted to anchor rankings in structured KPIs and Six Sigma-style metrics. If you are going to force relative differentiation, the inputs must be transparent, measurable, and consistent across teams. Otherwise ratings become subjective, political, and manager-dependent.

That’s where Wells Fargo’s situation becomes problematic. Agile — when implemented correctly — can provide a more objective performance baseline through visible work, delivery outcomes, and team accountability. Instead of using Agile data as one input into fair evaluation, the bank appears to have abandoned the discipline while keeping subjective ranking pressure. The result is the worst of both worlds: forced differentiation without credible measurement.

If leadership wants a relative ranking system, it needs:
Clear, standardized, and auditable performance criteria
Objective delivery and outcome metrics
Psychological safety and collaborative incentives
Consistent application across orgs

Without these, it stops being performance management and starts becoming organizational Darwinism.

Hey kids it’s been going on since you were born

Pioneered by General Electric's CEO Jack Welch in the 1980s, stack ranking, also known as forced distribution, is an approach to talent management where employees are ranked on a bell curve as exemplary, meeting expectations, or in need of improvement.

Stacked ranking is a discredited management approach that leaves long-term scars on a company’s culture, disincentives collaboration, and incentivizes self-dealing survival behavior that doesn’t translate into teamwork. It’s a possible tool in the toolbox for extremely bloated organizations that need to quickly slim down (possibly a government department under austerity measures) and has no business being a long-term strategy as it appears to be here (>6 years). WF has thrown red meat to its efficiency-hungry investors with this behavior, along with layoffs, but it won’t translate into long-term health for the firm.

In the meantime, if you work at WF and don’t like it, you don’t really have any rights unless you can prove landmark civil rights/discrimination legislation is being violated, which it probably isn’t. Companies have the right to hire, reasonably shape employment conditions; and fire “at will”. Wells Fargo could legally ban the color green in work clothing tomorrow and fire anyone violating it on the spot.

It’s important to know that “at will” employment cuts both ways. Remember that job you didn’t like and had the freedom to leave? If you’re unhappy at Wells Fargo you can put in notice anytime or if you’re really fu--ing done hang up mid-Teams call and walk out in the spot.

Long story short—disabuse yourself of the notion that there’s some recourse to be found for unfair working conditions (again, unless you have a good discrimination case). Wells Fargo’s management, as elected by its shareholder owners, has the right to pursue its preferred management strategy, right or wrong. There’s no arbiter of justice, just the labor market with its supply and demand. If you’re unhappy, work to arrange a better situation. At-will employment can be just as much your friend as it is to the soulless corporations who lean on it to make American workers miserable.

Walk away from Wells Fargo and never look back.

They copied it from capital one. 100%

The end of the AI answer says it all “… They are looking for a way to perform "quiet layoffs" without paying severance.”

One of my past senior managers used to brag about intentionally causing perpetual conflict on his greater team as an effective people management technique. This is an example of mental deficiency, bankrupt morality, and perverse psychological deviancy that drives egomaniacs in position of organizational power to adopt ill-devised schemes like stacked ranking. These are your leaders.

File a complaint with the EEOC if you think your rights have been neglected.

Otherwise, contact a journalist at one of the major outlets. Better yet, contact them all.

Why would the kind of person that needs a machine to write a shitpost for them be surprised to find themselves at the bottom of the stack?

Why would you post this? You don't actually have anything to say if you need to have a chatbot restate things we already know.

Cap One has used this performance system for decades and it has survived most legal challenges. By design, it causes a lot of turnover (10-20% per annum) but the billionaire CEO thinks it’s great. Most people don’t like it but Cap One pays well and has pretty decent severance packages for those who lose the Hunger Games.

Here is the answer from AI:

1. Is it legal for a publicly traded company?

Yes, "Forced Distribution" (stack ranking) is generally legal in the U.S., even for public companies. However, for a company like WF, it is a high-risk strategy because:

The "Disparate Impact" Risk: Public companies are under heavy scrutiny. If this ranking disproportionately affects protected groups (age, race, gender), it can trigger massive class-action lawsuits.

SEC/Shareholder Concerns: If the culture becomes so toxic that it leads to mass attrition or operational failure (like the "fake accounts" scandals of the past), shareholders may view it as a failure of corporate governance.

1. Where to Inquiry or File a Complaint

   Internal Ethics Office: Most large banks have a "Speak Up" line. Document that the "200% baseline" training makes it impossible for an employee to succeed based on their actual job description.

   The DOL (Department of Labor): If the system is being used to deny overtime or fair pay.

   The EEOC: If the rankings seem to target specific demographics.

   FINRA/Regulators: If the high-pressure ranking system is forcing employees to take unethical risks to stay in the "top tier," this can be reported as a regulatory risk.

2. The Culture Reality Check

You hit on the most important point: Culture. Stack ranking was popularized by GE in the 1980s and has since been abandoned by companies like Microsoft and Amazon because it destroyed innovation. If a company is moving backward to this model in 2026, it often suggests:

Management has lost trust in the workforce.

They are looking for a way to perform "quiet layoffs" without paying severance.

Thanks for more AI slop saying nothing