Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Can anyone explain to me why the old head of wholesale testing was rehired in the testing organization after she left and had been replaced?

Who is PD? Also, QA position is getting eliminated soon and for now moving that group under Dev minus QA managers. I am guessing Developers will soon Unit test plus QA test their code. Sounds like a great setup for more failures down the pipe.

no wonder they have to bring people from JPM to fix these problems.

MN hired PD because she was impressed with him after he helped with the COVID related activities. He has no experience with testing or running a large testing organization, and will be fired (like every other leader) in less than 2 years after failing to fix the problems.

Testing is not going to the front line. Front line will have to setup so called self-assurance activities, which under COSO framework is monitoring (of the control activities). It is similar to what the COSO team does for the processes in scope of SOX (financial reporting). I wonder how these guys are doing lol (talk work duplication?). The aim is to find control exceptions timely and by the front line. Long overdue. There is a push for it because front line has just not done what was needed despite the thousands of staff hired to do so over the years. Somebody must have noticed that WF doesn't have a control framework. Meeta must have been too busy leading the leaders to notice.
Not sure what will be left out of testing. It is supposed to be an independent risk function to provide credible challenge. Testing needs solid, backed by evidence approach and documentation, in order to provide a credible challenge to the business. The problem is QC/QA is incompetent and led by people without experience. General principles of Testing for documentation should be similar to those in audit. Evidence based conclusions, end result being a report and a file that is clean, makes sense and can be understood by a 3rd party.
Some of the testing currently done supports what needs to be done for compliance and remediation activities. To me it would make sense to split testing for compliance and the actual risk management component, which is what targeted testing is aiming to deliver. And which is being cut out by the top - based on what I am hearing.
Testers are not only harassed by front line. When they find real issues they're also harassed by their management. Documentation is attacked so that it could be deemed not acceptable and as a result, portions of testing and their outcome swept under a rag.
It seems that schedule management and deferrals are now going to be managed by a centralized team, which I guess is aiming to cut out the useless layers of middle management.
Testing methodology is terrible - documentation is all over the place, policies and procedures refer to so many source documents and attachments that it is very difficult for a tester to figure out how to do the job well. This could have been done on purpose, to justify the need for the layers of management. Vicious cycle.

This is really insightful. Let me make sure I get this right:

1) PD is the new leader with no direct experience in the area. Meetha was the same and same with Oden who hired her and same with Laughlin who hired him.

2) The work was done in the front line until 2017, centralized in the second line in 2018, now going back to the front line in 2021.

3) Too much focus on appearance versus content

4) Testers are harassed by front line if they find real issues but are considered “good business partners” if their reviews are deferred year after year.

5) Vague and incomplete testing methodology and standard subject to interpretations, preference, bias or just politics.

6) Redundant layers of QA / QC testing the tester

7) Redundant layers of management approving those deferrals to “build relationships”

And you wonder why corruption wins at Wells Fargo?

There is a full scale QA team and training group that do nothing but provide high level scripted guidance. They spent big $$$ building this QA team to "test the tester " who are like IA just looking to find some small "finding" against the testing team who conducted the review. Then they'll turn that into something bigger than it really is and put it in a report to try and justify themselves. It's like a warm and fuzzy, you didn't fully dot this I or cross this T and not something that was an actual risk or true negligence in the work paper documentation. It takes them months to complete their QA review too.

ET also has a large team that monitors this EMT tool. The senior directors and directors in the control testing teams couldn't manage their test plans and got nothing done, so they have a huge team sending weekly reminders on EMT now. In addition, some of the teams have "support" staffs who do nothing but QA on top of what the larger QA team referenced above is dong and help with SHRP guidance and are nazis on SharePoint. That's all they do.

You have piles of Senior Managers and Directors with way less than 7 people and lots with 6 or under total staff. These senior managers or directors each have 2-3 or more managers under them and then those managers have 2-3 people. So these senior managers and directors spend all day in meetings and just run stuff downhill to the ET managers and staff under them who do the actual work.

That sums up ET in a nutshell.

Wow, I'm in FCRM but it's astounding how many of the problems listed here share. What a disaster of a company.

The comments below about all the talent being at the top and the inefficiencies coming from the different standards and clueless senior management are absolutely true in my experience as an ex-tester. Most of the people providing commentary and standards couldn’t test themselves out of a wet paper bag and risk identification was often shoved aside in favor of window dressing.

There was also a lot of troubling inconsistency in promotions within that group - it seemed like the most talented testers were held in place while others with no demonstrated expertise were shunted into management roles to add to the pileon. I recall hearing scheduling meetings every week that went 1-2 hours and yet testing was continuously deferred or not performed. Just a bunch of middle management personalities that wouldn’t survive a week actually testing or in the compliance departments across the table doing a bunch of empire building. Best career choice I made was moving out of that dump.

And let’s not even get started on management’s lack of support for their testers when issues were found, making everyone’s lives that much harder.

PD may not have direct testing experience but I can’t imagine he’d do worse than management currently in place.

@2mfd+17dQMG61, I totally agree. The fact of the matter is, the truth hurts but what hurts even more is when leadership is fully aware of all these and do jack about it. They leave it up to the testers to cope and deal with the chaos and nonsense that they have created. Wake up leadership and listen to your team and for heaven sakes act and make some positive change for your team and the firm!!! Quit it with the all the templates after templates, trainings for the training, meetings for the sake of hearing yourself talk. Do something that actually makes an impact.

Wow! I hope PD is reading this. The truth documented here is a good input into whatever “current state” assessment he is supposedly doing.

Time and energy spent trying to appease QC in documentation with each step of the reviews is nauseating. There are layers and layers of approvals that are needed for the simplest of matter. Oh here’s the fun part, standards, testers have to cater to all the different standards for each review. There’s the QC, Enterprise Testing and manager standards; the kicker is, testers have to cater to all of the different standards within each review. You would think it ends there? Nope, standards change day to day despite what’s written, reviews to reviews and based on QC and managers mood of the day with zero notice but yet testers are supposed to work seamlessly and effectively within this environment. The above and among other reasons not mentioned are what contributes to delays, zero efficiency, tester and stakeholder frustration, confusion, negative morale and oversight of what should be this groups key focus, identifying RISK.

The group has great testers with incredible backgrounds and experiences that could help the firm identify risks and gaps in controls but yet they are not allowed to do their work efficiently and effectively because of lack of guidance and support from senior management. I’m sure all this holds true with a lot of groups within Wells. It’s a shame how talents are not being utilized the way it should because lack of direction from senior management. Wells is just pure chaos...

PD was another hire like the old WF where they hire people with no direct experience in the area. Meetha was the same and same with Oden who hired her and same with Laughlin who hired him. MN had a open check book to go find a industry testing leader and pulled in a compliance lawyer instead. Disgrace

I hope it’s a bloodbath or they repurpose to FL functions. The volume of separate tests that go on simultaneously for the same biz and topics for 6+ months. There are certainly some sharp testers, but the methodology is awful like many have said, and unfortunately there are some awful testers as well who are happy to just create more paper and go through the motions.

Someone said it’s a thankless job, and I’m sure it is. But it’s also worthless the way it runs now more often than not, so why should they be thanked?

The testing group is in dire need of better leadership. IRM and front line have done squat to establish a well documented control inventory. The guidance on shared controls is a disgrace. You have enterprise functions who provide controls to all businesses that don’t even have their controls in SHRP. And product groups same thing so channels are SOL. Then you have controls in MR that are out of sync with RCSA. I could go on all night, it’s a disaster

ET methodology is horrible, inadequate and almost impossible to apply. But the new Head of ET, senior leader PD wouldn't know, him being a lawyer and probably not having executed a single test in his life.

Testing documentation needs quality indeed, but that is not defined in the testing methodology, resulting in discussions lasting sometimes for moths over 'verbiage' - subject to interpretations, preference, bias or just politics. Oh let's not forget that QC/QA leads also lack similar, relevant experience in testing/audit. Yet, they have a final say as to what's in the workpapers.

Spans and layers can't come fast enough. HR should start collecting 360 feedback for the managers. In my org people at the bottom are talented and skilled but are not allowed to do their job properly.

It is hard to effect change, as the business use politics and personal smear campaigns against testers when real issues are found. It is a thankless job.

According to LinkedIn she landed at google

Thanks goodness- that is literally one of the most poorly run and inefficient areas I have seen in my 15 years at Wells Fargo. That and talk about leading by fear, I’m sure many are glad meetha was shown the door. Hopefully her reputation precedes her so she doesn’t do the same thing elsewhere.

So there are some managers that will become Officers reporting to the same Sr Manager.. There is one team that will become an Oversight to Front line testers.. as we move to RCSA testing model. and agree way to much forcus on documentation via identifying risk.. they are hoping the new EMT tool will help with that.

@ stn+17dQMG61 Your point about too much focus on format/appearance versus content is very valid ! I see it every day!

However, per the [mediocre] risk framework, in theory, risk identification is done outside of Enterprise Testing and precedes all control testing activity. I say in theory because it’s pretty obvious that risk identification isn’t being done correctly at all regardless of where the accountability resides.

It’s a broken organization, only hope is the new front line control executive control evaluation team will absorb these people

Mehta get that Tolkin money while you can!

To much focus on documentation and not enough focus on identifying risk.

Those who will be cut has already been decided. They (Charlie and his WASP) are stretching this out in the hopes of resignations. Expect the screws to tighten to force people quitting or to be displaced (they don't want to displace).

It seems the majority of that function will move to the front line to do what is being called "evidence-based control evaluations", which is a funny way to say that the "control evaluations" currently done are not evidence-based (i.e. they are BS). ... This place is a circus!

Seems like management in that group are process driving and admin focus. Doubt they know what true risks are.