Thread regarding Edward Jones layoffs

@196+1jvdpnbgx

Former Jones PM here. They do use SAFe, but abandoned training everyone in SAFe shortly after they abandoned talent matching into roles.

The weight of the 26 layers of hierarchy is crushing DPM. PMs don’t actually act like PMs, they delegate their responsibilities to POs who delegate their responsibilities to BAs. There is at least 2 layers in most “ARTs” (which were also structured incorrectly) that don’t do any actual work.

The hierarchy allows the industrial management style of managing for efficiency overshadow how knowledge workers should actually be led - by giving them autonomy, space, and clear objectives agreed to in PI planning.

Of course, none of this is happening. Training was abandoned on favor of hiring a billion people who “know agile” but don’t understand the delicate but powerful culture of Edward Jones.

So instead of upskilling the talented people that were already there in tech, operations, and CSG; they overhired external associates, leaders, and GPs. So, here we are. A bloated enterprise with several bloated orgs, handing out VSPs like a shotg-n blast instead of carefully upskilling and growing in the beginning.

RIP Edward Jones. You were the best and worst parts of my career. Sad to watch.

Agree with, DPO needs an overhaul. I have observed three different product teams build slightly different versions of the same thing due to their fiefdom mentality. Also, EJ does not use SAFe Agile. Like many other things, we decided to put our own spin on Agile instead of using industry best practices.

At least 80% of the digital owner orgs are total bloat and bureaucracy. This isn’t about whether or not agile was implemented properly (it wasn’t). These folks are just getting in the way of what the business is requesting, while also ensuring no meaningful progress is allowed on the tech side all while tying to maintain the facade of “doing something” or “adding value”. They will tell you they are “here to help” but the opposite is actually true. Slow as EJ has been about quick decision making and forward progress, the DPO orgs have made it far worse. It has been a major step back that needs to be rectified. This org is way more than just a few tweaks away from adding value.

I really hope that leadership from the digital and change management areas are seeing this thread because it's the honest feedback you haven't been getting (either through your own incompetence or willful blindness).
Yes, there were bad patterns before digital. Yes, those continued with the implementation of product.
The first head of product knew nothing about product but plenty about EJ politics.
Enterprise change has been a hot mess of leadership changes and bloat for 10 years.
Both areas had complete failures of leadership and refused to take on the hard work.
For example, people found out about product related changes when the controlling and dismissive behavior of product leaders (at all levels) was used as a cudgel to drive petty priorities while continuing to not deliver on expectations for the business. There was much talk about the customer but truly the only customer was leadership in digital (basically trying to look good for FLQ and RR). Anyone expressing concerns or frustration were made a pariah and attacked for their "mindset." The surest way to be successful in that division was to spout bs about value and spend hours in useless ceremonies.
This is the right time to point out that we hired Maryville consulting who were absolutely useless, unless you wanted to hear about how bad waterfall development is, was, and always will be. They were a financial parasite that delivered no value and prevented associates from growing and performing at their best.
Enterprise change can't seem to find anyone competent in delivering change. It's a bloated area with outside hires but when was the last time you saw anyone from that division do anything besides meet with themselves? A hundred people, supposedly all working on Salesforce and Money Guide yet somehow those both flopped with the field. At the same time, critical initiatives (ahem, product) couldn't be supported by our change area and, like always, some poor leader from the business also became the lead for the change initiative in addition to their regular job.
Not to mention the constant fight between digital and change. Digital just flat refusing to think about change management because they move too fast and all that planning would delay value into the hands of the user. ECM (or FCE or BCDEF or whatever acronym they change to next year) couldn't come up with any new approach to fit with product and just hid behind one or two people, who weren't empowered to drive change. These poor associates were simply the ones delivering bad news about the lack of help to the rest of the firm.
So who had to fill this gap? The PMO. Project leaders trying to serve as change leaders, while getting attacked for not being agile enough. Another area that couldn't provide needed support when the firm asked for it, and the PL was always the one thrown under the bus by digital, who despite their agile zealotry still need entire teams to run their operations. How about the program leaders who just curried favor wit GPs instead of leading their work? How many people have abandoned that ship in the past year?
Truly, ELT, if you want to make a difference just look at all the directors and GPs in these areas, give associates a voice - without fear of retaliation - and you'll find the cause of our inability to execute.
I suppose this post will be the most negatively rated post on the board, but that's how truth has been received at Jones since Penny took over.

@k9+1jvdpnbgx

I am saying that the problems that exist today were around before product was in the picture.
I worked at two Fortune 500 as they started their product journey. One nailed it, and it was largely due to bringing the rest of the business along for the journey. The other didn't do so well, and ended up abandoning their plans. We shot ourselves in the foot early on with the rollout and lack of communication/education that was shared with teams outside of product.

Let's say we get rid/trim down the product org. What do you think the next step should be?

Complex Simplicity (Post ID: @h8+1jvdpnbgx)

You are blaming Business for Product’s shortcomings? That’s rich. I have worked in other firms and know how a good Product team executes.

Let’s take an honest look at our shortcomings and fix them.

I'm pretty sure processes, projects, etc was slow at EJ before product came into the picture (which is why they wanted to try something different). The problem is that EJ tried to implement SAFe without socializing the change to the teams it would affect (to someones point about change management). It's interesting that people think product just randomly rejects requests for work. Those conversations often happen with the business leaders, who have the final say in what gets prioritized for their teams. Based on some of the responses here, it seems that actual issue is that your business leaders aren't cascading down their decisions on prioritization. That's what happens when you have 5 layers of GPs before it actually makes it to a team for work.

It’s hilarious……OP called out that we can expect Product people to downvote his post. That is exactly what we are seeing. Deep down, Product folks know they are a huge part of the reason it takes us so long to execute and deliver.
Major house cleaning needed in Digital Product.

Literally every company that goes Agile has this problem in the beginning. The secret is that Agile is supposed to be different for each company. It doesn’t make sense to employ features of the methodology that aren’t adding value to your org. However, Agile is dangerous in the hands of the pedantic. Achieving outcomes is impossible when the people leading have spent years waiting for escalations, supervising manual processes and avoiding the risk associated with meaningful changes. That’s why change management is consistently one of the lowest rated areas of the survey. Leaders aren’t prepared to lead change. They have no experience in it and don’t really want it anyway. They’d rather engage in the busy work of Agile while they wait to retire. The VSP will give those folks an out. Sounds like a win for them and the company.

It is a ba----dized version of agile. I find it entertaining when people debate about MVP.

In my opinion, it isn't the PO role. Edward Jones implemented Agile and attempted to train existing employees that aren't capable of doing the job.

You're not wrong. I've had leaders in digital straight up reject tickets despite the fact they are associated with a firm priority.

Jones doesn’t practice actual agility. It’s waterfall with agile meetings/ceremonies. Top down direction. It’s a mess.

Careful anon, they'll sic an agile coach on you.