Thread regarding Charles Schwab Corp. layoffs

Surveys are anonymous but technically if you are the only onshore for your team your manager will be able to identify you.. Thanks schwab your surveys put people in danger.

It's funny our leaders were sharing the results of these surveys in the past with the team. I feel like this round was so bad for them they don't even want to look at it to fix the problem. PL's and managers just sliding the survey results under the carpet to pretend it does not exist. Like wow is that how our leaders solve problems? They just pretend it doesn't exist.

The surveys are worded very purposefully, and any low-ranking points are glossed over or ignored altogether. At best it's an excuse to do some pointless feel-good exercise that supposedly addressed the deficiency but in reality does nothing. People see that and just disengage.

As for anonymity, I don't think anyone here would believe it even if it was offered. There's zero trust in 'senior leadership' in general, so why would we trust them to be truthful if they offered anonymity?

@1wfv+1rpjBHT1 not to mention AMAs allowed completely anonymous questions at TDA. Guess what? Hard questions that people cared about were asked and answered. Here at Blue they forbid anonymous questions and everyone is too afraid to ask the questions on everyone's mind for fear of retaliation. Leadership is too scared to face the questions so they answer softballs.

Speaking from experience as a senior leader. There is tremendous pressure on people leaders from the Director level to the manager level for good engagement results. Gallup and Glint are used to punish leaders on their performance and bonus despite it being a toxic workplace environment. I highly doubt the person who started this thread is a MD.

1500. They are used to punish if targeted. They are ignored, excused or justified if not.

A peer let go in October had fair numbers; better than their department. Gone. Another was sub and fine. Even their review was fine. The most they experienced to date was "why do you think" and they focused on a single staff member. Good enough to protect them. It isn't the single staff member.

But, critically, the results aren't driving KPIs, are too vague, and many are afraid to offer honest feedback. Some of this is RTO and recent issues including comp. But lots is systemic and there's zero interest in fixing. Staff knows that.

@1lyq+1rpjBHT1

Maybe a little of column A, a little of column B. I'm guessing different leadership chains across the company place different levels of emphasis on the feedback and level of effort towards addressing.

But it all starts at the top.

On Green side the CEO used to personally read every free form response to Glint surveys. Action was strong and visible. Problems got solved. Here in Blue land of course there is no opportunity for anonymous free form responses in Glint and you know damn well if there was, Walt wouldn't read them.

It all starts at the top! I blame the board.

Speaking from experience as a senior leader. There is tremendous pressure on people leaders from the Director level to the manager level for good engagement results. Gallup and Glint are used to punish leaders on their performance and bonus despite it being a toxic workplace environment. I highly doubt the person who started this thread is a MD.

I find it a bit comical that they want 100% response rates on the surveys when they don't care about the results.

Garbage leadership .... garbage surveys. Surprise, surprise.

Glint surveys are simply an illusion of giving people “a voice”. A completely hollow exercise to placate the masses.
When Chuck stepped back, we lost the soul of the firm, and are no different than your local McDonald’s. No one cares about people, just the client’s money. (Heck, McDonald’s have more advanced automation than we’ve got; so I apologize to Micky D’s!)

Something does come from the bad survey scores - more nonsense work to try and appear as if they can be fixed.

Nothing has ever come from the surveys, Glint or otherwise. Nothing.

Any glimmer of good feedback is hyped. Any negatives ignored. And the questions developed to provide positives or confusion.

Thinking things will change or improve? Yeah. Inability to learn is in the DSM.