Given the massive wave of VP-to-Director demotions and VP layoffs over the last two years, how are there still VPs in Wealth and Brokerage managing micro-teams? It feels like we have highly paid executives whose only job is to turn their team's hard work into slide decks and showcase it to upper management. Is there a strategic reason for this, or is it just leftover org bloat? What is the actual business justification for keeping this top-heavy structure?
8 replies (most recent on top)
Incompetent Indians.
what is a micro team?
where are you guys finding "dei hires" at fid? are we working at the same company??? I would love to have less qualified women, black people or hispanics in my org chart compared to the current very ethnically homogeneous south indian reporting chain, especially since even a DEI hire American is still probably more competent than a foreign nepohire
Over the last decade, VP and Director spots have been filled and filled and filled again with hopeless id--ts. It's all been D&E&I placements. I have not seen a single qualified promotion to VP or Director over the last five years.
Just a few years ago, one of the VPs in my org was a grade 4 in a processing job not very long ago. She contributes by giving speeches about working well together. I'll give you one guess as to her melanin-level.
VP dinosaurs are indestructible, there are no coments/asteroids in the horizon for a collision course for these dinosaurs. Their job is 100% stable, sc--w you G4's and G5's.
Someone has to play the corporate politic game to keep your job from getting sent to India.
And remind you to do your 1000 DEI trainings each year.
Someone has to remind you to get your trainings done.
Org bloat. VPs and slides not needed