From what I can see, attrition has never been worse. We don't have time to backfill positions before more people walk away. I only have anecdotal evidence, but it's hard to believe that my team and location are for some reason different than the rest of the company. Despite this, I don't see the leadership doing anything to slow down the brain drain. This is bound to affect WFC adversely, so you'd think they'd at least try. Them not giving a damn is bizarre.
18 replies (most recent on top)
Take a look at the minimum requirements for the new Descriptions in the Job Architecture....all mins have been reduced, with the goal of backfilling with less experienced and cheaper schlubs than the ones who were driven out.
This was actually one of the questions raised by one of the analysts during the recent earnings call, if WF is worried about attrition. Charlie's answer basically was we have a lot of people at WF, if somebody leaves we can always find somebody to fill their shoes. Of course he didn't use those exact words and said it diplomatically, but that's what he meant.
Because Chuckles is about ready to check out now that he has artificially inflated the stock price.
Front line managers may know your worth but they are not making the decisions. You can and will be replaced without blinking. Not sure i believe it but some people said their managers found out the same time they did.
Wells Fargo does not take rocket scientists. We have lost really good people in engineering and development. It is good for them they found better jobs. The people that stay are the ones that can’t for whatever reason. Easier to stay then go, don’t like change, lack the motivation to look and their skills are valuable to WF but tailored to the company. Everyone can be replaced including Charlie. Wells Fargo will survive and guess what you won’t be missed. It is the sad reality. People that have 20 to 30 years with the company may be seen as “coasters”. They know that job but how willing are they to learn new things and adapt
Why is leadership not worried? Because attrition is the goal. They want to create a hostile work environment so everyone hates working here.
the problem is with good people leaving and if deemed and necessary position and gets approved to backfill it takes months until you can even think to start interviewing; multiple weeks to get the backfill approval, multiple weeks to get a recruiter assigned, more weeks to get the actual requisition posted, then getting the interview packet approved. then interviewing, then offer, etc. it's a mess. in India it's even worse, you have to deal with a 60-90 day notice period and pray that's they aren't a no-show on their expected start date because of you are you have to start all over again.
Why should "leadership" worry?
They're behind the legal firewall of a corporation.
They get paid regardless of the outcome.
They don't feel the pain of anything other than a share price drop.
If the bank fails, they blame us for it while getting paid millions for running it into the ground. What's to worry about? They have the safest jobs in the bank.
@tyx+1eSqDt1A "Everyone can be replaced - often for cheaper than the employee that left."
Not true, working in mandated siloed areas of the bank, you develop points of contact that are dealmakers AND you develop folks that are dealbreakers.
New folks also don't have the historical context on why things are OR what policies direct specific areas of the business, nor the points of contact in order to get things done.
So while a manager can think he can replace cheaper, the replacement won't be up to capacity for at least 2 years.
Time is money, and wasting two years is jumping over dollars for dimes.
"Wells Fargo still employs enough people to invade and overthrow a small country"
Sure, if it involves faulty calculations in spreadsheets.
Uhm. They want people to leave. They don't care about who leaves. They're concerned about all of the headcount. How many times did I hear, "Look. There are just too many people working here. "?
Corporate Risk is only hiring testers in India, none in the US. This is their ultimate goal to have all jobs moved there.
The departure of resources lends WF organizations the opportunity to re-evaluate their operating model to build a leaner organization. If someone leaves they might not fund a replacement, but instead shift teams around to operate more efficiently. I am starting to think that most people are willing to just deal with returning to the office. We expect a few more people to leave, but a mass exodus doesn't appear to be in the cards.
I heard a good analogy recently. It went something on the lines of: "if you have 5 children you nurse them, bath them, and care for them with the upmost attention. If you have 5000 children you won't even know their names."
I think there is a different outlook for client-facing employees (profit centers in management's eyes) which are around 20% of FTE headcount and all other ops/support/IT (cost centers). Although all FTE's are a line item expense, it seems most HUB and RTO stategy is aimed at making people in support roles leave.
Leadership eliminated a bunch of sales/RM roles in 2020 and then had attrition wildly exceed acceptable thresholds and is struggling mightily to backfill with little success. My role has had massive attrition the past two years and when we can backfill we hire the best of the worst. WF reputation is so sullied no REAL talent wants to jump on the stagecoach and sell WF as a value proposition to clients.
It’s simply not as bad as you think it is. Everyone can be replaced - often for cheaper than the employee that left. Sure people are leaving, but it’s still not enough people leaving and if they have to delay or postpone things they will, until they hit those attrition numbers. Offshoring is another alternative. In a global economy there is no shortage of workers.
One reason is that every one of those criminals has an 8 figure portfolio, if not more.
I don't begrudge anyone's success, but I can certainly understand how they are at a point where they simply don't have a care in the world if this ship sinks.
The impact to them is nil, no matter what happens.
They realize that they don’t need them. Everyone is replaceable. And there is no brain drain as I can guarantee whatever they know there are others in the department or elsewhere that also “know” said thing.
You've just been ignoring all those town halls and and executive communications where leadership has openly stated they're intentionally driving voluntary attrition as a cost savings measure and to avoid involuntarily layoffs?
They have said over the past few months they had been hoping for MORE attrition, and didn't see the kind of numbers they anticipated and are likely to start more rounds of layoffs to make up the difference.
This isn't a big secret, this is the stated strategy. Pay attention.