Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

"My position on this board is to always come out against those who blindly support Charlie and WFC management to get themselves ahead and at the cost of those most vulnerable. That is the very definition of a yes-man."

Serious question, how exactly would you know the difference between someone that has posted here supporting a specific decision leadership has made vs. 'blindly supporting' Charlie? How do you know it's not very well informed and well-reasoned support? How do you know they aren't more well informed than you are? Is it just anyone that disagrees with you is 'blindly supporting' Charlie?

For the record, I never said anything about Charlie or any specific decision. My only point is that while it's a statistical near-certainty that out of 266k people there are some 'yes men', most people aren't in a position to know one way or another who said people might be, and blind accusations serve no purpose. Has nothing to do with Charlie. He didn't invent 'yes men', he's so new that it's pretty clear that if there's a bunch of them at WF, most were here before him.

I think we all want strong advocates above us on the chain of command. At the same time, previous leadership clearly failed when it comes to improving efficiency. In the decade between the Wachovia merger and now we should have trimmed the fat slowly but surely over time via attrition and the timely sale of assets. Instead we often had a 'maintain the status quo' mindset, and now that's coming back to bite us and the reduction in staff will be less ideal than it could have been. It's unfortunate but we can't change the past. My group has been significantly impacted already and that will continue. My job isn't safe and neither is my reports, and contrary to what some people seem to think, lower/mid-level managers rarely decide or have any input into whether these things happen. There's no debate about it. There's no opportunity for a valiant stand against the plan. You're told well after the decisions have already been made. Was someone 4 levels up a 'yes man'? I have no idea, and never will. Most won't, unless they just happen to be personal friends with the decision maker.

Far left San Fran Sicko should just love having their ideological soul mate for a leader. You vote them in for he country, you should enjoy working for one.

Have fun in self reflection if you’re capable of that.

Absolutely, YES... no doubt about it. I enthusiastically say “YES” and have always been respected for it.

Just try it for once... don’t carp and say “No”. Be like me and say YES and mean It.

Trust me it works.

• Conor J. T.

Post ID: @2vdx+193R7tDx

I am not as gracious as the OP.

I am the one who posted 6 WAYS YES MEN WILL DESTROY YOUR BUSINESS below. And I am also the person who posted the story of the Merrill executive who was let go after laying off all the employees who followed him to Merrill from his acquired firm. I know him personally and he deeply regrets his part in the process. He wishes he had shown strength of character and fought for the employees who had contributed greatly to the success of the transition and had put their trust in him. And he realizes he allowed himself to be played the fool by Merrill.

You make a good point, which we should keep in mind. Having said that, your reply is not written as professionally and objectively as I would hope a manager would write. So I think you are making assumptions yourself, just from the opposite side. I don’t think you have any insight in to conversations taking place between managers and their bosses either.

My position on this board is to always come out against those who blindly support Charlie and WFC management to get themselves ahead and at the cost of those most vulnerable. That is the very definition of a yes-man.

I have the utmost reverence for those who are standing up for employees in the foreground and the background. And I have the utmost disdain for those who will step on others or sell out others to save themselves. Don’t pretend like it’s not happening. For every employee who is laid off, there is someone in the organization who is letting it happen and benefiting from that process in some way.

I think the weak and the greedy and the self-serving eventually hang themselves when given enough rope. So, my point is always to encourage people to rise above the fray and make a name for yourself by being one of the good guys.

And no, Charlie does not get a pass for “doing what he was hired to do”. I don’t support him in any way and I think anyone who does is making a deal with the devil.

I think they do. If you have the right leaders in place then they need people to believe in and execute their vision.

Post ID: @2vdx+193R7tDx

OP here:

I hear what you are saying. In other words, some managers could be fighting tooth and nail to stand up for their employees in the background, but trying to keep it professional in front of their employees. If that is the case, my post was never meant to be aimed towards you.

@2yb it's an on-going theme across the forum, not just this thread, that all/most/nany managers in the company are "yes men". It's based on either extremely limited, or non-existent, evidence and yet that doesn't stop people from constantly making the accusation or suggestion that it's true. It's ridiculous and tiresome. The fact of the matter is that no one outside of the manager / manager's boss relationship has a full understanding of exactly what has / hasn't been discussed between the two. You may THINK your boss is a "yes man", but he may be fighting every decision tooth and nail–you have no idea, and a position of ignorance is no place to launch an attack on someone else's character from. Yeah yeah, 'no one said that...', but they clearly suggested it. If they aren't suggesting it, it shouldn't have been posted on the WF layoff forum, it's "off topic" and should be removed.

These leaders are "Yes Men" they do what they are told to do and say Yes!!!!! True leaders live by a code.

Post ID: @2ybf+193R7tDx

I think your response is very amusing. Are you on the right thread? Because I’m not seeing where multiple individual contributors are suggesting “they are intimately familiar with all of the comm between their manager and their manager's boss.”

I guess you can read the same words I’m reading but put your own spin on them based on your own biases? Amusing indeed.

It's amazing how many individual contributors are intimately familiar with all of the comm between their manager and their manager's boss. Are you clairvoyant or spying? How do you know with certainty that your manager ISN'T routinely questioning / proposing / 'thinking strategically' etc.? Don't bother responding, I think we all know the answer.

why company is failing!!

Yes men. No men. Yes/no men. Lay them all off. Still way too much bloat.

Wells needs to keep cutting expenses aggressively

My boss is old Wells Fargo... he has failed at everything he has done but always told his boss she was a genius... they failed together all the up to senior leadership.... So just keep saying yes and move up that corporate ladder!

6 WAYS YES-PEOPLE WILL DESTROY YOUR BUSINESS

Yes people don’t tell the truth. They only tell leaders what they want to hear. This doesn't help a leader, who needs the whole story, good and bad, to operate a business. It only serves to increase your vulnerability.

Yes people execute blindly. They only do what they're told to do—never thinking strategically for themselves, never thinking about how to advance the company or how to do something better. This inevitably puts more pressure on leaders to do and think of everything. Why are you paying them, again?

Yes people aren't really listening. Yes people are so wrapped up in themselves that they're deaf to the concerns of employees and customers, disregarding the satisfaction of the customer and the profitability of the company. These people get ahead by s—ing up to the boss and only worry about their own future.

Yes people don't really care about the company. Being a team player is tough for the yes person because they're so focused on their personal cause and on pleasing the leaders to advance their own career.

Yes people never take responsibility. Since they never risk their own original ideas for fear of looking bad, they always place blame in the event of failure on others. They point fingers at everyone around them, blaming someone’s bad idea or poor execution.

Yes people get resentful over time. The irony of yes people is that they inevitably will begin to dislike and resent the leader—secretly, of course. They expect grand promotions and big raises, and when they don't get them, they start gossiping behind the leader’s back. This can become a permanent distraction and spread distrust through the organization.

Do any of these sound familiar? Once these yes men and women are identified, they need to be turned into real leaders—or fired.

It’s pretty obvious to me that a Yes-Man/Yes-Woman is feeling threatened by OP’s post. Otherwise, you wouldn’t feel the need to respond with a slew of childish insults. All you are doing is confirming OP’s (and now my) assessment of those who don’t have much to offer other than carrying out orders.

order takers are waste of money

Post ID: @1aek+193R7tDx

You're not kidding. Some of the nonsense that gets posted here really defies belief.

Charlie Derangement Syndrome

Charlie derangement syndrome is a pejorative term usually for criticism or negative reactions to CEO Charlie Scharf that are perceived to be irrational, and have little regard towards Scharf's actual policy positions, or actions undertaken by his administration

This forum has way too much CDS

The company could prevent their unethical "Rank and Yank" approach by simply offering voluntary packages. That is what ethical companies with would do. They would pay them severance for their years of service and be happy to do so. However, Just like everything else, WF doesn't do the right thing. They'd rather spend more time and money figuring out how to get out of all of their messes versus applying the funds to do what is right in the first place. Wells Fargo has taught me everything NOT to do as a Leader.

A true leader wouldn’t be on a layoff forum preaching about what a true leader would be doing lol clown

Is this where the underperformers meet to pretend they are, or ever will be, leaders of anything and that everyone else is a bunch of "yes-men"? Looks like it. lol. Amazing how willing people are too embarrass themselves on an 'anonymous' forum.

My manager runs a tight ship. We have never been overstaffed. He works with lower performing employees to get them on the right track. He gives them plenty of time to get up to his expectations. If they don’t, he encourages them to find another job for which they might be better suited, He has previously let a few people go who were what people would classify as a 1 or a 2. He has been managing our team and the work all along. He is that great manager that everyone hopes to have.

I think he could and would stand up for how we are staffed. And I don’t believe he could be encouraged to shift a few employees down a rating to make the higher ups happy.

Who are the managers who haven’t already dealt with their low performers? And who are the managers who have hired too many people that they can now agree to let some of them go? (Unless their business changed,) I think it is those managers who should also be let go. They weren’t doing their job. They are getting paid to manage.

I know it’s not always that simple, but shouldn’t someone be asking these managers what they’ve been doing all this time? Why should employees be made to pay for poor management decisions, and their managers get to stay? Additionally, it is those poor performing managers who are then allowed to rate and rank their employees. Something stinks on the stagecoach.

I think this has been, for the most part, a good thread. I’ve enjoyed it and have gotten some good ideas.

It’s certainly better than No Review = Laid Off (sorry).

Best idea here is to document your reasons for disagreeing with a bad project/policy/system change and send it to your boss in an e-mail, then file a copy. PROTECT YOURSELVES. I knew a newly hired high-ranking woman at the company who was let go for following her boss’s instructions to put through a strategic change which she strongly disagreed with. She disagreed at every level, but was also trying to not alienate her new bosses. The policy was a complete failure. Her manager fired her for “not trying hard enough to talk him out of it.”

I have been around for a while and I do know there are narcissistic bosses who will fire you for looking at them the wrong way. I know, because I’ve worked for them nearly my entire life. One directly, and the other is 2 layers up from me right now. You have to lay low in certain situations that don’t really matter either way. Then there are other situations, that are important and are your distinct area of expertise, and you know for certain you are right. That is when you rise up and shine and separate yourself from the pack.

The thing to remember with bullies and narcissists is that they are ALWAYS coming from a place of low self -esteem. But they still need people they can trust who will tell them the truth. You can be a little bit of a charmer but be strong in your own convictions at the same time. I can tell the difference between someone who is earnest and genuine vs someone who is s—ing up to me. I don’t know too many people who really want an Eddie Haskell working for them.

I don’t listen to any of the corporate bs. I look out for myself and those who are more vulnerable than me. The point is, hopefully, to keep your integrity in tact if you can. There are some things I will do to get along, but I do not need to or want to turn on others to get ahead. If I get axed for working hard and doing the right thing, but not s—ing up, I am ok with that.

It’s not about respect. For the kind of leader who insists on surrounding himself with yes-people, and my marketing group is a prime example, respect goes one way.

We are there to cater to his ego, and we are judged not on the work we do, but on how we make him feel. We do not ask questions. We do not push back. We agree with him, we praise him, we thank him and we execute his ideas without question.

Or we are persona non grata.

That is the hand we were dealt, and there’s only one way to play it. His way.

Does he respect us? He doesn’t even see us as people. We’re simply props, there to make him feel good about himself. That is our job, and we don’t get respect for doing what we are there to do.

Post ID: @gxx+193R7tDx

OP sounds perfectly capable of defending himself/herself.

Having said that, OP does not say anywhere in their post that they have a problem with Charlie.

To me, it sounds like OP is calling out the weak yes-men who s— up to leaders to get themselves ahead. In the end, you can’t bring anything of real value to the organization when you’re down on your knees polishing Charlie’s shoes. It is actually good advice. You will go further and higher by bringing something unique to the table.

I think Charlie would agree with that.

The only person on this entire thread who is throwing a tantrum or mocking, ridiculing and attacking for having a different opinion is you.

Everyone else here is having respectful and intelligent conversation.

Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are well documented to fire people on the spot because they couldn't justify their projects, in Jobs' case, on a literal elevator ride. Larry Ellison and young Bill Gates' tyranny speak for themselves. They can say whatever they want, they ousted senior people because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day. Sociopaths become successful CEOs because they don't care about things like touchy feelies. Chainsaw Charlie is the same way, otherwise he wouldn't be hired as a hatchet man over and over and over again, and then get out when the job is done so the next CEO can work with a lower cost base and Debbie Downer cruft. It's like the Army where 4 out of 5 stars is a fail. If you don't make your superiors and your charges think you're the best thing since sliced bread, you ain't going nowhere.

Leaders?? Sycophants bow to Rulers...

The problem with this entire post is that it is intended to be nothing but divisive

Op clearly has a major issue with the new CEO. And then makes it clear that anyway who doesn’t feel the same way is a worthless yes man. Intolerance at its finest!!

So everyone has to come here and bow to the OP’s tantrum or be mocked, ridiculed and attacked for having a different opinion

Op good luck with your life and career. I hope you find true happiness somewhere where there aren’t any big bad wolves to stoke your hate.

Post ID: @jmf+193R7tDx

You are so right. It wasn’t a full out apology, believe me. It was through my previous experiences with him that I decided to put it in writing and send it through company email. And then I saved that email to a file 😉.

Post ID: @yci+193R7tDx

Steve Jobs is famous for saying:

“ Smart people will, by default, never be yes-men. It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”

Bill Gates says employees should be able to define, with passion, how they stand out. Not how they fit in.

Elon Musk says he hires people with exceptional ability, and tries not to hire jerks. A yes-man would not impress Elon Musk.

Larry Ellison is known for hiring people he believed to be more driven and more capable than himself. He also preached about how ethics and integrity matter. Quality in, quality out.

The story about Merrill in this thread is the same everywhere else I have worked.

The person doing the lay offs almost ALWAYS get whacked in the end.

@odw good on your boss for not finding a way to hold that against you. Most do in this org because they can’t stand the fact their employees might have more knowledge than they do instead of seeing that as an advantage. I experienced the negative side of that myself here

3 people here

• Trolls from Other Banks
• Trolls who are here because they hate Banks
• Trolls who got laid off and they're angry about being let go

Post ID: @bpz+193R7tDx

Respectfully, I don’t agree with you.

Since when is offering a different opinion dragging the mood down? It doesn’t have to be an “I won’t.” It could be a “Here’s a better solution that will help you to achieve your goals.” Or “Here are the reasons why that idea doesn’t give the end results you think it will.” Or “I’ve done my research and you are creating a lot of risk to save a small amount of money.”

I personally would have more respect for the person who offers up ideas different to my own. I may not follow through, but it is the yes-men who are are a dime-a-dozen. It is the yes-men who are easily replaced. The person who mindlessly says “yes” and let’s me fail is of no value to me.

I work for a boss, who was trying to rush through a system change in order to meet a needless deadline from upstairs, without properly vetting it. I caught wind of it and strongly advised him not to rush it. He ignored me and so I typed up a long write-up with all the potential downstream negative effects and sent it to him. He brushed me aside and did it his way. He started cutting me out of any related meetings. Ultimately, that system change led to multiple very large errors. He got a lot of heat for it from his higher ups and had to back the change out. He “semi-apologized” for not listening to my feedback lol. But he asks for my opinion now, trusts me, and includes me in all his meetings. And he privately calls the guy, who told him everything would be okay, a mo–n.

Sounds like OP was a yes man for Stumpf and Sloan

Seems to miss them a lot

I don't know about that, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk are all famously a–holes who'd fire you if you couldn't convince them you should have your job during an elevator ride, even if they had no idea who you were.

Followers can be defined by their behavior—doing what others want them to do. They are low in the hierarchy and have less power, authority, and influence than their superiors. They generally go along to get along, particularly with those in higher positions. In the workplace, they may comply so as not to put money or stature at risk. They comply to preserve stability and security, or simply because it’s the easiest thing to do. Unfortunately, some are so eager to please and survive that they will step on others to get ahead.

Eventually, a good leader recognizes he can not fulfill his vision with an organization staffed with only followers. Such an organization of yes-men will fall short of collective intelligence, collective creativity and collective ability to innovate. Not much undermines a leader’s effectiveness than to be surrounded by yes-men who are not confident enough to express diverse and divergent thinking.

Leaders like people who say "I can" instead of "I won't". Isn't that obvious? No one wants to keep a person who drags the mood down if they can help it, if their job can be easily replaced, and absolutely no one is irreplaceable. The fact of the matter is that if you aren't cutting costs, increasing efficiency, or selling directly and effectively to clients, you're overhead, and the return is far greater hiring someone in Bangalore or Pune if they aren't customer facing, even if they're offered a ton of benefits.

@OP- I agree with you 100%

OP here. I did have more to say on the topic after submitting my reply on a previous OP’s post. But you’re out here enough that you caught both posts immediately, so maybe you are the one who needs fresh air.