Asking for a few thousand friends.
7 replies (most recent on top)
To the person defending these loser deadweight managers, it sounds like you’re a defensive deadweight loser manager yourself posting on here trying to defend your position of not doing anything but still collecting a paycheck.
I'm a java developer -- not that it matter because what I said stands on its own merits. Managers are hired to manage, but they are NOT always hired to manage people.
Also, I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply not willing to dismiss every manager at state farm based upon this one criteria when there are literally dozens of others we could talk about.
Perhaps YOUR the manager here. Maybe you have lots of direct reports but are otherwise a useless bag of skin. Don't we all know managers at State Farm who fit this bill EXACTLY?
See how that sort of ill-informed argumentative style works both ways? The truth is it doesn't work at all. It just makes for a petty, stupid conversation that yields nothing of value.
If you’re a manager with few or no direct reports, start packing your desk. It’s been in the works for about a year to “mark” all managers they want out by removing their span of control as a strategic move for their elimination. The number I heard was 5 direct reports or more, you’re fine. 4 or less, you’re out.
What if she’s had no direct reports for 6 months?
The OP said “first” to go, not “only” to go, so I agree with the OP. Start with the deadweight leadership and then move to analysts. By definition, a manager was hired to MANAGE, so if a manager has no direct reports and isn’t managing anyone, then wouldn’t that mean they’re literally not doing their job? To the person defending these loser deadweight managers, it sounds like you’re a defensive deadweight loser manager yourself posting on here trying to defend your position of not doing anything but still collecting a paycheck. Nice try but it’s not going to save you when the hammer comes down. When you’re asked to fill out your form and they ask for the skills you’ve used in the last few years, good luck tying to find even one box to check.
Just because a manager currently has no direct reports doesn't mean he's dead weight. Maybe he/she doesn't have direct reports because the company is using him/her incorrectly.
And the six figure thing is ridiculous. In Systems, lots and lots of people make 6 figures. This is typical for the IT industry.
The problem with this reorganization, as another poster mentioned, is that they're cutting the wheat and the chaff in equal amounts with no concern for the employees performance. So when this is over, you'll still have the same brain-dead leadership and the same ole State Farm, only smaller and less nice.
Thousands of Professional/Technical making six figures, should they be fired too??? LOL
The problem with what I have seen at Corporate so far is strong/poor leadership have made the cut to stay.....and both strong/poor have left due to qtd.
I assume we will see the same in professional/technical. Next year you will see some example of "dead weight" that managed to stay employed while some strong performers will be MIA.
It's just a numbers game. For those outside Corp and the hubs, it's way, way more brutal.
Guessing the goal is to drop from 70,000 to 45,000 by 2020.
yes and also upper leadership who let these incompetent managers with no direct reports bleed sf of six figure incomes
an easy way to get rid of a large group of non-producers (and also save you lots of money, michael) is to do a quick ms outlook check and see who has no direct reports and fire them on the spot with no severance