Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Correct, the goal is 10. IIRC the target for that was 2022?

Word is that it will get much higher than 7 minimum incrementally.

Our LOB was 5 prior to Charlie

Seems like this isn’t moving fast?

Prior to Charlie the minimum # was 3, not 7.

They just did a reorg in WFAS late summer/fall 2019 where every manager needed at least three direct reports. Not sure how this reconciles with the 7 number floated in here.

Well good maybe they will get rid of the 1000s of Product Manager "Managers" PMMs out there that have one or two people reporting to them. Marketing organizations are a joke here.

MO is within CIB but the point is made.

They won’t be able to do this in CIB, at least in the front office. Volcker and FRTB mandate a desk head and some trading desks are less than 7.

CIB support (Middle office/risk) also have this issue.

Is this plan company wide, and will it happen all at once? Seems so much better to just pull off the bandaid and let the survivors concentrate on their work rather than worry about layoffs, but it’s Wells Fargo so I can see them dragging out the uncertainty indefinitely.

If there are 8 layers between Charlie and the most junior manager, will one of the layers get cut to make it 7 layers?

Thanks. When do the staff functions need to be compliant by?

Anyone have any idea how consumer banking regional District Managers will be impacted ?

To answer several questions people have had on here (I’m involved in the spans and layers work ).......no, not all managers eliminated will just be out of a job. They may have the opportunity to be turned into an individual contributor to report to someone else to help them meet their quota of 7, IF that other manager has a need and If the role is approved. No, contractors and dotted line reports DO NOT count towards the 7. Must be absolute direct report employees. As to someone saying they heard 5 in Risk.....that is inaccurate. It is 7 across the board. Very few exceptions, if any will be granted and it won’t be granted on the basis of the organization (I.e. risk), it will be granted based upon the individual (if having 7 direct reports makes that individual span too large). And no, there is no maximum number. Only a minimum number. So people can have more than 7 direct reports, just not less than 7.

I know of 2 different people that had PIP and it was regular check-ins with one of them and one day her manager had enough and she was gone. The other person found another group-this of course we 10+ years ago. If they start to use that as an execuse for a lot of people I would think word would get around and they'd get called out in the media.

Worry less about the number. They will move people around to keep the managers they want to keep while maintaining the ratio. Some managers will go, even those that have the requisite number of reports currently. The bigger thing is carving down layers for a flatter structure. That’s where things can get weird and groups can end up with management that doesn’t have a clue what they do.

In Risk the number I heard was 5. There’s a lot of pretty high level managers w less than 7 I’m sure as usual exceptions will be made.

Are they also going to cut out a layer of management to that there are only 7 steps down from the CEO?

Does 7 people include contractors or only full time people

7 is the minimum. Not sure of max.

Does this apply to hmc reporting to a manager

Thanks. If someone is a manager with 3 direct reports, are they going to lay off the manager automatically, or can they make the manager an individual contributor and have them report to another manager? Also, is 7 direct reports a hard and fast number? I had heard 4 to 6 direct reports thrown out by mike roemer for compliance several months ago.

Spans and Layers is very much a real initiative and it is already in the planning stages. Plan for the plan due in June with final plan due in July. Staff groups must be in compliance of 7 direct reports per manager by end of 2020. LoBs must be in compliance by end of 2021. This is real and this is coming.

They won’t offer buyout packages because they want to be in control of who stays and who goes. If they were to do that the only ones left would be newbies and long-timers who hate change.

I fail to understand why they dont just offer a buy out package.
So many would jump (me included) for a buyout.

Pay me that 1 month per year worked and im tickled.

They wont do this because they are dumb and greedy.

Chuck's 550:1 pay ratio says so.

WF is weak and struggling, if anything releasing lots of staff will reduce the bloat and cheer investors. Risk has over 11000 people. That does not include so called Control Exec teams, which is front line risk management. That’s double what should be needed just reporting to Norton. What are those people doing? I don’t know, but whatever it is, it doesn’t seem to give regulators much confidence.

If that is true, than why ask managers to complete proposals to reduce spans and layers? Also, Charlie did the same thing at BNY Mellon, this the nickname “chainsaw Charlie”. Managers with less than 7 direct reports were laid off and BNY Mellon had constant layoffs when Charlie was running the place. I believe the poster who said they were asked to submit spans and layers reduction proposals in risk. Then, they will do a large rif based on the output of the proposals. It just a matter of when.

They won't do lay-offs because there is a public perception that lay-offs mean a company is weak or that it is struggling. A strong company adds workers because it is expanding. Cutting labor means contraction and poor corporate health. Lay-offs also hurt the stock price.
The preferred method will be PIP's that can't be met leading to employee will be termination. The loss won't be as dramatic. It won't appear on the company as a news item. No need to notify local governments about lay-offs.
Finally, the loss of personnel can be touted as stream-lining or cutting dead wood.
Hang on folks, it's about to get bumpy.

RIF is a Reduction in Force aka layoff

What is a RIF?

Thanks. What do you mean by proposal? Names of people who will be eliminated?

The SOC of 7 or more is absolutely true in the risk org. Proposals were due from lower level managers today. I'm not sure of the timeline to execute. Once that's in place, it's a matter of time before RIFs start.

Something has to be in the works. Think about it. Mandy mentioned that there are way too many people in risk on her last all hands call. She talked about eliminating duplication. First time she has publically stated that. Then, talked about the hub strategy to save money. They just released the head of testing and validation and operational risk. They are working their way done, restructuring. Mandy knows a lot more - it came across in her tone and her studdering in her last call - but she, of course, is not sharing the bloody details. It is an act of god to get a backfill approved in risk now whereas last year it easy.

SOC = Span Of Control = Corporate speak for number of direct reports.

@@evb+15jly0qk

Which groups will get the biggest cuts? what is SOC7 , and you are saying TM cuts or employee cuts??

Are they going to have people move to one of the 7 approved locations to live and use that layoff strategy?

How do you know these cuts are targeted for q3 2020? Do you think or do you know?

In marketing they would have to get rid of half of middle management to implement that.

No cuts related to the pandemic. Intentionally qualified it.

Most managers have SOC less than 5. Scharf is known for wanting 7 or higher and is implementing it at WF,

Once SOC 7 or more is in place, other TM cuts will he deep. Managers being asked to have lists ready, with bottom 20% identified.

Worst of all, PIP is preferred method so WF can avoid severance and unemployment payouts. Many "just cause" terminations being lined up for year end.

Scharf is using his prior playbook to the letter. That was the plan coming into the role and staff reductions will be widespread, deep, and relatively swift.

What's about to occur is awful for TMs, but WF is trying to stay afloat. If not viable on its own, then at least attractive enough to buyers.

Didn’t all leadership internally and public ally state no cuts in 2020. Q3 is still 2020

I’m not aware of too many managers with less than 7 managers currently in my line of business