It's not just seasoned employees who're walking away, new people are leaving within a year of joining. This is why I can't understand the talk about more layoffs. We're losing more than enough people, including those who make more and are usually targeted by layoffs. Adding cuts into the mix will just make a bad situation worse.
15 replies (most recent on top)
This is exactly the short-sightedness or lack of comprehension of the complexity of a too big to fail bank by the C-Suite when we, the employees, are viewed as a monetary statistic to be reduced. Their logic is to pay well, then sh! t on everyone and expect the deadwood to leave? And the not recognizing the Great Resignation (anyone remember when it was first brought up in a TH and Chuckles said he hasn't heard of it?) going on at the same time? I have heard in several conferences about "used to be a great place to work and not anymore", that is why new hires are reluctant to sign on. The constant attacks against employees is the new reputation for us as an employer. If the C-suite gave any sh! ts about employees, retention, or reputation as an employee, it is not something that can be resolved quickly, the damage is done. So instead they are doubling down on RTO, location strategy, outsourcing, and generally creating a toxic work environment. 70% outsourced is not going to cause any problems for the bank in the future /s. That 70% demonstrates lack of understanding of the complexities of the bank and is obviously artributary. The C-suite, guiding this bank, is clueless. Well, with the exception of lining their own pockets on the backs of its employees.
It came out in a meeting late last year that they did indeed meet their "numbers" regarding employees leaving, but they were also surprised by fewer than expected new people accepting positions. And that the turnover that they saw wasn't the "right" turnover. Simply meeting one metric ignored a bigger picture.
The net result was less total number of employees, with a higher proportion of those employees being "under-performers". The reaction now is to hire more from markets that are thought to contain more "potential high performers". For example, people in India.
The current thought is that they can hire (for example) 100 Indians, and if 80 of them don't work out that's still OK because they're cheap, easily replacable, and management still ends up with 20 good ones. Rinse and repeat.
The people who are leaving are not the people they want to be leaving.
People keep leaving for companies where they can work remotely.
Every day i pray for a severance package
What was it about the us empire that teammates could not standing working there?
The fact that its a bo-m and bust cycle would behoove WF keep employees in the downturn so there's experienced people when the bo-m cycle restarts.
Charlie can and should be a true leader and take charge of the employee situation. It should have all been done yesterday, and we should already be past it and moving forward.
A strong capable CEO would offer severance packages to those who need/want to go, and pay up for talent for the people we need to take the bank to the next level.
Instead - he keeps di-king around, spending dollars to save a dime, and we are no further ahead than when he started.
It is time for shareholders to start pressuring the BOD to get rid of this weak-kneed ineffective snake-oil salesman, and hire a CEO with vision, courage, and decisiveness.
can't keep anyone with an IQ>80
Out of our team of 7, 3 are left. And you know they are not the top 3.
I know two Senior Audit Manager external hires who recently quit. They lasted 7 months and 14 months respectively.
Attrition is two fold. One, Wells has a horrible reputation (that it earned) so being competitive with salary isn’t enough. Wells needs to up its compensation whether it’s monetary or through additional paid time off. There needs to be a sweetener otherwise why work here?
Second, the lack of backfilling has set off the attrition waterfall. I’m not surprised HR didn’t see this coming. Before, wells would backfill 1 to 1 generally. Meaning if Steve put in his two weeks they would already start looking for his replacement. HR about 4 years ago decided..hey…let’s see if we can just keep going without replacing Steve. That meant the team has to pick up his additional work. Hey the team is still operating never mind the fact people are working 5 additional hours a week.
Eventually people caught on to this so if one person left the team, others would leave because they knew more work was coming. Now productivity and morale is down as a result and HR literally can’t hire people fast enough to stop the bleeding.
Part of me marvels at how efficiently Charlie destroyed this company.
My manager is such an a-ho-e we’ve had contractors quit after a few weeks! One of them let it rip about him being a total tool on his way out.
Layoffs and employee retention are two separate things. Mortgage bo-m and bust are as normal as Spring and Fall, as same as it ever was. I think the employee retention problem is a combo of low unemployment and people having been much closer to family over the past couple years, tighter family bonds have given people the support they need to walk away from thing easier, they know they will always have their family as a backstop. Over the past couple years family and health and all its manifestations has proven a more powerful motivator than career and money.
It's never "the right people" leaving though, that's the problem. There's roles they want to cut / eliminate, but that's usually not where the voluntary turnover is taking place.