I'm not talking about the regular attrition that happens all the time in every company. There is a huge difference between losing 5 percent of your overall workforce and losing 5 percent of the company's top talent - and the latter one is exactly what's been going on. Now add to that the fact that anybody worth his or her salt won't even consider this place due to its reputation, and you have a recipe for disaster. When you replace your best with people who barely know what they're doing, don't be surprised when the results end up reflecting that change.
27 replies (most recent on top)
There's zero chance of WF breaking up. Some parts sold off, sure, but a complete break up is not happening...not with our size and balance sheet. Even with scandals and inefficiency, we make billions every quarter, with a lone exception. Once we get those issues under control, and we will, WF will continue on earning money. Now if we were losing billions every quarter, or the balance sheet was horrible, you'd be on to something. We're not the first bank to have a scandal and won't be the last. It happens and it's rarely 'the end of the company'.
The only attrition problem Wells Fargo has is that it’s not happening fast enough.
@fma+19FsVs3o, what is Lester doing? Seems like a loser to me
yea this company is without a doubt the WORST COMPANY I EVER WORKED FOR.
Glad got a new job, wont ever look back!
Absolutely! Wells Fargo properly broken up and going away tomorrow is the dream of the Federal Reserve, all regulators and all competitors. Nobody wants a giant toxic 500 pound meltdown in the industry. Great start with selling WFAM guys!
Greatest move by Charlie EVER!
Interesting, was just talking to Schart and chief strategist C.J.T. To sum up, they’re quite concerned about the attrition rate. Lester is now tasked with making operations hostile enough to move the attrition numbers up into the target range.
Totally agree with OP. People with solid resumes can find work elsewhere – and will when the screws get too tight. I'm seeing the smart ones moving on and that is leaving huge SME gaps.
Well the mandate is reduxe expenses. A review of talent across the bank mapped to the chaos that is the current org would cost a lot.
His contract with the board likely requieres a monetary target for expense reduction.
They will rebuild later
@crg+19FsVs3o, it’s the old conundrum of human thinking. Sample whatever size of people and ask them if they think they are a better driver than others on the road and 80% will answer in the affirmative that they believe they are good drivers and others drive worse than themselves.
Top Performer is in the eye of the beholder. Create a void and it will be filled. For me, I get paid well to hardly work. I’ll either be cut or get a larger work load later. I’m indifferent to either end result.
Someone I know who is top talent got displaced last week. I'm guessing their pay rate was too high because they were one of the best.
I'm not trying to make an assumption that it's always top talent that's getting displaced, I just know of one specific example.
I believe there are a lot of underperformers in the company. There's room for displacements without significant impacts to the health of the company. I'm just not fully convinced that the right people will be displaced. But, we are trying to cut costs, so some good performers are going to get axed.
I've know a group that got hammered last week with a few senior leaders. Most of those leaders were long in the tooth and folks say they were 10 years past their time. So I wouldn't put too much faith in just because they were here for 20-30 years that they still contribute at a high level.
Nobody knows anything until a few years has past to see the impact. This is a lot about change management and by nature people don't like change.
Wells Fargo will lose some talent but a lot of it will stay.
Let’s be honest, all these “Wells Fargo is in big trouble because...” posts are filled with a lot of dramatic hyperbole by scared employees lashing out
Nothing to see here really
Just curious OP, how did you come to the statistics in your post, and how did you determine who among the 260,000 are 'top talent' and who isn't? I have a sneaking suspicion that these numbers are completely made up, but I'm open to the possibility that you've got access to hard data.
My heart goes out to all employees. We’ve all got our own reasons for staying or leaving. If you decide to try staying, you just have to be prepared for anything at any time. Personally, based on what I see happening to people here - I would not recommend that anyone, I care about, hitch their star to Wells Fargo. But your experience might be different and you have to decide what’s best for you.
The thing is: there is nothing special about Wells Fargo. We do not do anything better than any other financial institution. We are not innovating and creating a better future for anyone. We are not improving people’s lives. If properly broken up, we could go away tomorrow and the world would be none the worse. The execs and the BOD are just fighting hard to keep milking the money train as long as possible.
It’s all about how you want to spend your time, who do you want to sell your time to. There is no right or wrong answer. No “good” and no “bad” employees. It’s you deciding what’s important to you and making the best decision for yourself.
@jue+19FsVs3o, I wouldnt say the bonuses are "rewarded handsomely", more like my sign on bonus 4 x as much; cheap pay and packages here!
Post ID: @qsg+19FsVs3o
Not sure what you're basing your comment on but as someone who's been around a while, I can say that we're not actually complaining (nobody that I know at least). This used to be a good job (technology) that you could take pride in but over time it's been diluted to the point that it's now all about filling out CR's and watching someone offshore screw them up.
I'm happy enough to bide my time until I get laid off, get the sixty days notice and then a year's worth of severance. It's called early retirement with benefits. You'd have to be crazy to leave that on the table.
So when you say "complaining instead of looking for an opportunity to move on to" I say it's called common sense and making the most of a situation that we have no control over anyhow. When you've put in your years, you might get to play as well.
To OP's point, talented people will move on to better jobs. Poor performers will not be hired outside of WF, and will stay. It's part of an organization's death spiral.
Some of the people who have been here 20 and 30 years are the ones who are complaining instead of looking for an opportunity to move on to.
a few millenials when we were in the office, just left all their stuff and never came back; they are not working a minute over 8.5 hours, 30 minutes for lunch
To the comment on bonus...ha! The smart people took that money and then resigned for better opportunities.
just look at the tech and risk deparments, what a disaster. Whoever is in those should all be fired and replaced with some skilled workers to prevent all these disasterous issues going forward.
They need leadership to start making the right decisions, but dont see that happening with unskilled workers at exec levels
Note that no one is indispensable. OP's theory is filled with flaws.
I can tell you their stance on WFH in normal times will cost them talent, especially millennials who expect that perk.
WF has already lost talent, whether leaving the company totally or moving internally and not being replaced, taking years of knowledge with them.
Yes, its clear they dont know what they are doing at all, pathetic. Think the exec and mgmt branches lack experience.
Thing is if they keep a top performer, then then dont need 10-15 of these useless low paid workers. In the end it is hugely cheaper. Not to mention the expected mistakes the unskilled workers will do, these will be imminent and inevitable. They are not saving money using their strategy, they are costing the company billions. They would save a ton of money keeping the highly skilled worker in their domain then get rid of these useless one, this is what all companies are doing today except here. Bunch of mo–ns.
They want attrition, however the results can be unpredictable.
People with skills or other options will have a higher motivation to leave. There are a lot of people I work with who have been there for over twenty or thirty years, most of them state plainly that they are not going to leave on their own. I just don’t know what this bank is trying to be, it’s mired in inefficiencies, and I am guessing that really drastic change won’t happen until after the asset cap is lifted, it’s going to be a long slog for those that choose to stay and also survive.
No it doesn’t. All the talent was rewarded handsomely with bonuses and RSRs recently.
The executives don’t care - it’s all about eliminating jobs.