#retention

Are you staying @VZ because you believe in the company or because you don't have another option?

Ask around and you'll hear real frustration. With Gunjan/leadership, with direction, with a culture that's betting worse, high workloads, burnout.... But turnover is basically nothing. People stay for years, sometimes decades.

That's a weird combo. Usually when people are this unhappy, they leave. So what's actually keeping everyone here?

My guesses:

Golden handcuffs. Pension, benefits, tenure perks that are hard to walk away from
Grass isn't greener thinking. Assuming other places have the same problems anyway
Complaining isn't the same as job hunting. Sometimes it's just how people vent
Not a lot of comparable roles nearby to jump to

Anyone who's been here a while, what's actually kept you?

Wellsfargo is annoying employees and so they are taking money to other banks, I am doing it too, Laid off , retired employees doing it too.
Wells should come up with some plan to retain good employees and keep them happy.

People are leaving in droves. I'm wondering if there's anything that could actually convince you to stay, or are you just done?

Our best people are leaving and nobody seems to care. The average tenure is dropping fast. How do they think this will end?

What’s keeping GB gainfully employed? Is he special or actually a great leader?

If Stinky’s goal was to convince younger employees to stay, publicly taking shots at Gen Z over wanting flexibility wasn’t exactly the way to do it. His comments came across as dismissive, disrespectful and completely out of touch.

Here’s what this pre-computer dinosaur fails to understand. We grew up online, made friends online, had relationships online. We learned online, collaborated online, and even went to school and got degrees online. We don’t need a five-day RTO mandate to know how to be connected and productive.

Nobody is asking to never come into an office. People are asking for flexibility. Instead of trying to understand that, leadership keeps acting like it’s a work ethic problem.

Then they wonder why younger employees don’t stick around.

Maybe stop blaming the workforce and start asking why the workforce isn’t buying what your so called “leadership” is selling.

IMO. These days, the company pays no importance to retention. The majority of XOM employees in the US will likely have a maximum of 5 years at the company before they finally realize that they are better off somewhere else. 10 years maximum if they are a glutten for punishment and think they are going to make it to retirement eligibility. Considering RE being 55 with 15 years of experience. Who in HR has the statistics of the last 5 years of attrition with the why they were separated, for Campus hires and Experienced hires? What are the breakdowns of left on own will versus MLRP?
My prediction for the future employment longevity in the US for MPT for someone based upon when hired is the following:
Age of hire: 22 - 25, probability of lasting 30+ PA cycles 3-5%.
Age of hire: 25 - 30, probablity of lasting 25 - 30 PA cycles 5-7%.
Age of hire: 30 - 35, probability of lasting 20 - 25 PA cycles 2%
Age of hire: 35 - 40, probability of lasting 15 - 20 PA cycles 0.5%
Age of hire: 40+, probability of lasting 15+ PA cycles 0%

HR does not care about retention. People are a commodity to them and they have sources of cheap labor outside of the US that are going to run the company.

Coming over from Oxy board to check here..

People claim that you’re giving technical staff a bonus for retention. Is this true?

A lot of people are reading Xerox’s retention plan as if it were a secret bankruptcy announcement.

It is not.

What it actually says is simple: "Xerox is under pressure". No surprise there.

"Xerox is going through transformation, restructuring, Lexmark integration and balance-sheet work". Also not news.

"Xerox wants selected critical people to stay for the next two years while that work gets done".

That is the point.

The plan is cash-based and paid in 8 quarterly instalments. So nobody gets a giant cheque on day one.

If someone leaves, they generally lose the unpaid part. That is why it is called a retention plan :-)

Note: the 8-K says the CEO and CFO are not expected to participate. So the “top two are cashing out before collapse” theory is weak.

Does this mean Xerox is financially healthy? No.

Does it prove Chapter 11 is imminent? Also no.

Does it prove delisting? No.

The serious interpretation is much simpler: Xerox is in a high-risk execution period and is paying selected people to stay long enough to help get through it.

Fair questions: Who gets it? How much? Are they the right people?

Bad questions:
“Is this proof of bankruptcy?”
“Is this proof the stock is going to zero?”
“Is this SLT stealing bonuses before the end?”

Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the one closest to the truth.

So here it goes: Xerox is buying continuity during an extremely difficult transformation (with no guarantee that it will be completed).

No conspiracy required.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001770450/000119312526294480/d111689d8k.htm

I look around and I see so many talented people putting up with so much nonsense. We all deserve so much better than what we're getting here and what we've been getting for years. It actually surprises me that more people haven't already decided to leave and find something better.

I think it's very possible that more people applied than what they anticipated.

imagine if the target was 8,000 eliminations and they received 12,000 applications... but of those 12,000 applications, only 3,000 were on the elimination list. they still need to cut the 5,000... so what do they do? maybe accept 1,000 of the VSPs and still have to cut 4,000...

now for those 8,000 VSP applications they have to reject? that's a LOT of pi---d off people who will probably be looking to leave. now they have to figure out how to retain those employees.

and for those 4,000 being cut... they will be upset too.

that is probably the clusterf*ck they have gotten themselves into.

July is about to be a headache for everyone.

Nintendo announced a 10% increase in employee base salaries. Company President Shuntaro Furukawa confirmed this decision. The move aims to maintain competitive working conditions. It also seeks to retain valuable specialists within the company. This strategy contrasts with widespread layoffs across the gaming industry.

https://ixbt.games/en/news/2026/06/27/419575-nintendo-podniala-zarplaty-na-fone-uvolnenii-v-igrovoi-industrii.html

Why are there so many Sirius sellers leaving, or left, the company? CDW is hemorrhaging all the 20 year customer relationships? As a CDW seller, I was assigned a lot of these accounts, that came with very high quotas and they don't want to do business with me. My management said these all would be easy accounts to farm and my income would double. I am starting to realize CDW management doesn't understand why customers buy from who they do and most of them that I know of never had a job selling directly.

If leadership is reading this, I encourage you to take an honest look at P. Di-kerson's track record since she joined. Consider the number of people who have left the team, the overall level of dissatisfaction, and the noticeable decline in morale.

I would challenge leadership to run a truly anonymous team survey. I believe the results would highlight concerns that many people are currently reluctant to raise openly.

Her management style creates an environment of fear rather than trust. Public criticism is common, feedback is often delivered in front of others, and people become more focused on avoiding blame than on doing their best work. Instead of encouraging ownership and collaboration, it drives people to protect themselves.

There is also very little visible self-reflection or willingness to acknowledge when her own approach may be contributing to problems. Accountability appears to be expected from everyone else, but rarely from herself.

I hope leadership takes these concerns seriously, as I believe the current environment is having a significant negative impact on employee wellbeing, engagement, and retention.

Executives and their narcissistic egos still can’t accept that the world changed.

Five years after the pandemic, employees have overwhelmingly shown they value flexibility. The data keeps showing hybrid work isn’t going away. Yet some leaders remain obsessed with attendance, visibility, and control instead of results. That’s exactly what we’re seeing at AT&T.

Instead of focusing on performance, productivity, innovation, talent retention, or competitiveness, leadership is focused on presence reports, badge swipes, and making sure people are physically sitting in a building.

The irony is that the people making these decisions are often the same people wondering why morale is collapsing, why experienced employees are leaving, and why younger talent isn’t interested in coming here.

Employees adapted, the workforce adapted, the job market adapted, but this leadership didn’t.

The future of work is flexibility. Every major survey and labor trend points in that direction. Younger companies and younger leaders are embracing hybrid work while companies clinging to rigid mandates are increasingly fighting yesterday’s battle.

AT&T’s leadership continues to act like forcing people into an office five days a week is some competitive advantage. It isn’t, It’s a recruiting and retention disadvantage and a morale disaster

And the longer leadership refuses to acknowledge that reality, the further behind the company falls.

You can force people into a building but you can’t force talented people and the people you want, to stay.

I've been here long enough to remember the old days. When someone with real knowledge gave notice, management would scramble, make a counteroffer, promise to make necessary changes. They'd do whatever it took to keep them.

That doesn't happen anymore. I can't recall the last time someone stayed because they got a better deal from us. People give notice and management just says okay, good luck. That's not smart at all, in my opinion. It'll cost us in the end.

July is for sales only, I've heard around 20-30 layoffs

Company retaining most of it's talent , and growing

I have a fairly uncommon skillset, and I'm worried they might block me from leaving. If they do, I guess I could ask for a raise, but that would probably just get me laid off anyway LOL.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZnNlmlOeKo/

The company took immediate steps to retain other top executives. Suryadevara was promoted to president on Monday, according to an analyst report from TD Cowen. A Fiserv spokesperson declined to comment on that information.

Also, Chief Financial Officer Paul Todd received a stock grant equal to $5 million, according to the SEC filing, amounting to a measure designed to retain him.

https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/fiservs-new-ceo-retains-team/823029/?utm_campaign=Yahoo-Licensed-Content&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral

I'm not happy here. But I also know my friends at other companies have it worse. So I'm staying for now. But I'm curious about people who are ready to leave. What would it take? What would be the final straw that makes you quit?

People are leaving for competitors every single week. And the company isn't offering them better pay or any incentive to stay. Not even a conversation. With others being kicked out through layoffs, where does leadership think that will leave us in a few years?

CRM here. We are overwhelmed. Supporting 70 plans is way too much. My friend at Voya who is in a similar role has 36 plans. Plus, they have a CRM assistant. We have nothing like that & need it. No wonder the company can't retain clients. Many of us are fed up. Our leadership is out of touch & checked out. Leaders only pay lip service to our needs.

A friend of mine who is a corporate attorney has been inside a few companies like NM. He put it in pretty plain terms, As a US only wealth management and life insurance company their entire revenue base and regulatory footprint sits inside American expectations yet a big chunk of the actual work, both onshore and offshore, runs through large numbers of foreign nationals brought in on visas, heavily skewed toward younger men from developing jurisdictions and emerging market talent pools. In a smaller city that concentration is obvious to everyone. People see who is filling the professional roles while the local white collar market tightens. It reads as a deliberate choice to source outside the domestic pipeline rather than supplement it.
The offshore “body shop” vendors follow the standard high volume model. They pull from regions that still carry documented issues around worker leverage and labor standards (aka these countries literally allow slavery). That keeps the cost structure attractive on paper, but it also imports the downstream exposures around consistency, knowledge continuity, and supply-chain scrutiny. When the client only serves US customers, the optics of routing core functions through those channels start to look like a mismatch.
Trust is the real product they sell. Customers hand over retirement assets and life insurance details expecting the institution to operate inside familiar norms around data handling and professional conduct. Large inflows from jurisdictions with different baseline assumptions on gender dynamics and workplace hierarchy create friction inside the building. Multiple women in affected teams have described patterns of interaction that feel off from standard US professional boundaries. It is not every individual, but the volume makes it recurring. From a culture standpoint it is material but more importantly a risk exposure standpoint it is something that needs documentation and consistent handling rather than being treated as background noise.
Data security sits on the same fault line. These are sensitive financial and personal records. Jurisdictions in parts of the emerging markets do not run the same privacy or enforcement frameworks the US requires. Concentration in a narrow set of sourcing channels turns any incident into a bigger governance and reputational event. Cognizant, one of the larger global services firms with heavy reliance on similar delivery models already flagged negative perceptions around outsourcing to developing regions in its recent 10k regulatory filings, including concerns over domestic job effects and data stewardship. That is not theoretical anymore. It is showing up in formal risk disclosures.
Visa structure adds another layer. People whose continued presence depends on employment have limited room to raise issues in control or compliance functions. That dynamic has shown up in research on financial reporting irregularities where reliance on such workers is heavier. It is a governance concern that sits quietly until something goes wrong.
The client needs to treat this as a single set of connected risks rather than separate HR and vendor issues. Workforce composition, conduct patterns, third-party concentration, and data posture all reinforce each other. A clean diagnostic on where the actual friction lives, followed by deliberate rebalancing toward domestic talent in anything that touches customers or sensitive information, would reduce the accumulated exposure. Stronger, evenly applied conduct standards help, but they become harder to maintain when the sourcing model itself keeps introducing the same patterns at scale.
The cost advantage looks different once you factor in retention drag on female employees, customer perception risk, and the concentration that turns routine operational problems into brand events. They need to address this before one of those threads pulls loose.

I used to be the person who volunteered for extra assignments, who looked for ways to cut waste, who stayed late to get things across the finish line. Then I noticed that the people who did those things either burned out and left, or they got managed out by leaders who felt threatened by anyone who seemed too competent. Meanwhile, the people who just showed up, did exactly what they were told, and never rocked the boat were the ones who stuck around. This place doesn't want people who think or try. It wants people who nod and comply.

Employees with a meets expectations or higher on the year end scorecard were offered a retention bonus if they are still employed by December of this year. 1.5 % of your annual salary is hardly a reason to stay until December. What an out of touch and insulting incentive.

How many of you will stay (or leave) if the eliminated the pension plan?

Costs are on the rise and there is plenty of work in West Texas. What will
Devon do to retain their talent? News of Houston and OKC retention bonuses will only further ruin field morale.

:(

I feel so bad for these people they worked so hard to get to where they were and we’re all very high performing branch managers. Hopefully a lot can find a spot and be retained.

The role just wasn’t deemed to be profitable from an ROI standpoint seems like which isn’t shocking.

Well well well looks like Devon bit off more than they could chew. 1 year salaries being offered to select groups in Houston to stay on in the Houston office because OKC can’t absorb it.

People are leaving. Retention bonuses timeline expired, so many are leaving.

Anyone hear anything on when we will get the retention bonus now that the sale is through?

Anything longer is just pouring energy into a dead end. Looks good on a resume, but don't expect a career or any real payoff.

I understand why longtime employees stay because routine and stability can trap you after enough years, but I genuinely don’t understand what newer hires are seeing in this place now. Most of the things that once made it attractive disappeared a long time ago, yet people still keep coming in the door somehow.

Now that Pioneer employees have received the last of their retention bonus money the resignations are rolling in.

But by now I know the systems, I know the people, and leaving feels like starting over. So I stay. It's stupid but it's honest. I think there are many stuck at IBM with a similar mindset.

Belden is acquiring Ruckus from Vistance for about $1.85B. Expected to close in the second half of 2026, pending regulatory approval.

Between now and close, they will keep operating as separate companies — that’s a legal requirement, not a formality. No joint planning, pricing, or customer data sharing with Belden. Integration planning happens, but only through controlled “clean teams.” If they have people they can’t afford to lose, they will flag them now. Retention conversations are starting.

Most people won’t feel much change at first. The Ruckus brand stays. Product roadmaps, customer contracts, and sales teams keep moving. Customers and partners shouldn’t see disruption.
What’s happening as this is being written: the consolidation has started. A few functions will move over to Belden — HR, Finance, Legal, Tax, Treasury, Audit, Procurement, Corporate Comms, IR, and eventually IT. Real estate gets looked at wherever there’s overlap.

This may change, but what stays at Ruckus, at least for now: engineering, product management, sales, channel ops and partner programs, customer support, and the go-to-market teams. These are the reasons Belden bought Ruckus, and disrupting them would undercut the whole deal.

Now, the bridge period: Vistance will keep providing back-office services through a Transition Services Agreement for a while. IT separation alone usually takes 12–18 months, and in my experience it always costs more and takes longer than the first plan suggests.

1 to 1.5 year outlook: expect channel programs, partner tiers, and sales comp to get harmonized. Product lines that overlap with Belden’s will get rationalized.
Please ask any questions.

Is your area experiencing attrition because of people quitting in favor of other companies that are more flexible? I’m curious if Dimon’s stance on 5 days in office is hurting Chase’s ability to retain and recruit talent.

Changing MGR review to 100% multiplier BUT still staying 25% payout based on individual multiplier. The jokes wrote themselves.

Love the additional info where managers can't quit on Sept 1 beginning of fiscal and and still collect bonus in November.

This proves they KNOW everyone hates this job and this company so they change the rules to force management to stay longer.