I am confused on how and why they are laying off employees when teams are bloated with managers that have only 4 direct reports. If they are gonna lose employees who will they manage? Shouldn't they cut costs by cutting middle managers first? Clearly they (mid managers) are unnecessary and cost the company more money pretending to be useful. And honestly, some of these awful managers are costing the company with unethical actions and behaviors leading to employee lawsuits.
11 replies (most recent on top)
@er this is accurate. I can share this now since I was laid off last year and have moved on to better opportunities but we used to call someone in compliance "Commanda"
@f6 Exactly! The issue is that regulatory guidance isn't being interpreted as black and white and as they should be. There is not an appropriate balance between mitigating risks reasonably while still meeting business goals. It has become about control, egos and FEELINGS!!! There are examples which are in the appropriate hands to review.
@e9 Do you have any examples? Sounds like you are referencing black and white requirements....which, ahem, are black and white, not feelings.
Most of these mid managers are operating on egos and insecurity. They feel they are of greater importance than what we all really should be working towards....managing risk while creating new opportunities for revenue through services and products. Instead they focus on what they want to fuel their egos and validate their self worth and imagined relevancy.
As a manager of 5 I do more actual work than all the others combined. I work more hours. I’m on first and out last. Cut the dead weight regardless of position or role.
@c7 I wonder if you’re talking about the same group that has BL’s opening issues and tagging regs left and right as “out of compliance” based on their feelings related to the black and white regulatory requirements. To your point, creating risk where there isn’t true risk…. #scrolling
I've seen managers laid off and whole team is orphaned and moved into another group.
The MC should really take a look at risk and compliance managers and how much their decisions and forced "guidance" costs the company. They are not saving the company money managing risk, they are creating it and costing the company lost revenue and remediation.
It is like asking our Congress to pass a law putting an age ceiling in place to serve in Congress. Conflict of their interest (which isn't the same as an interest towards the country they serve). So we end up with a bunch of old farts running the country.
Because the decision-makers are/were middle managers, and they would be admitting that they themselves are bloated and unnecessary if they choose to cut their subordinate middle managers.
It's a tale as old as time. Workers vs. Managers. By definition in the system, the managers are given the ultimate say of the checkbook. If they were truly honest, logical, rational, they would trim their pay first.
You see things like that in small businesses sometimes, but never in large corporate.
Stop thinking of layoffs as a logical arrangement. They are not. Logically it would make sense to get rid of the middle layer, but that same layer are the people licking the boots of the MC. Whoever has the least social capital gets the ax. Every time.