There are many in leadership who don't seem ready for the positions they're holding. Simple questions turn into long explanations, basic decisions get pushed around, and then everyone underneath them has to compensate. I don't understand how this became normal.
10 replies (most recent on top)
@p0 What's silly and quite lame is people like you defending the incompetent leadership at this bank.
Get promoted by being a bad speaker. Listen to upper management. Most of them talk as though they just got off of the boat or as though they are valley girls.
This is silly. If it’s that bad, leave…
Many reasons. But mostly the people that get promoted above manager are people who are really good at corporate jargon, PowerPoints that look pretty to executive.
To go above director you have to make deals with consultants from Mackenzie like companies to feed them work in exchange for putting your name on a short list of candidates for hiring executives. This is where most of your external hires for executives comes in.
And then lately it's a lot of India people only hiring Indian people. That is a fact.
Instructions in the Madonna song “like a prayer”
Another long term issue is that for nearly all its history the bank itself is a “b” and a bank like that needs to have a deliberate strategy as to how to mitigate that over time and attract “a” people when possible. Instead they hired McKinsey consultants.
Be a good talker in meetings but know nothing on the technical side.
In all honesty - some of it is expense control. I know that sounds absurd at first, but the A's that got severed based on being an expensive hire, was replaced with a B - who most likely had less education, experience and qualifications. MM over all the contact centers now doesn't even has an Associates Degree?
It’s a well researched and documented fact that:
A’s promote A’s.
B’s promote C’s.
This bank used to be led by A’s like RD. Somehow a B like AC sneaked in which quickly led to a C like GK.
A's hire and promote A's while B's go with C's ...