Thread regarding Fiserv Inc. layoffs

As just another employee I emailed him directly and he replied to me, never made a big deal about it, never heard about it from my boss, and was ready to talk to.

@mg yo! He was blessed with $70M . Think about that for a second?

I wish we still had ML here at Fiserv. He was honest with us. Yiuvare blessed to get him at Truist.

I think Mike will be fine at Truist. He’s a banker and he’s going to be leading a bank. Different than running a fintech.

The scope of the dumpster fire at Fiserv was probably too much for Mike to handle, especially not having the fintech background. And really it would be difficult for a single person to really take care of anyway. I have more faith in Takis because of his experience and background but again this company is just so rotten to the core it’s not going to be easy.

An improvement on his predecessor, who was a tyrant and you only have to look at who that guy’s boss is now to know what kind of a man he is.

But ML really wasn’t around long enough to form an opinion. He inherited an absolute dumpster fire and made some positive moves, notably getting shot of the two useless heads of the two business segments and the batshit crazy Chief marketing Officer.

But the company wasn’t showing signs of recovery and he did nothing to fix a broken culture. He could have rowed back all his predecessor’s paranoid “I don’t trust my employees” mandates but his changes were window dressing. We are still living under the shadow of FB in many ways and some of his stooges are still around. Mike should have got rid of them all.

He did seem nervous speaking to associates too. Not a commanding presence. I think he could be good depending on what he inherits at Truist. The main feeling was surprise he talked big about fixing this place and then bailed so fast.

@c0 spot on

He has a full head of hair and a great smile that’s about all you’re getting. Best of luck to you.

Proven to be a lightweight. All presentation, absolutely no substance.

@fh Sounds like you’re a manager, and I see the same old thinking that’s drilled into corporate. This whole performance review process feels completely orchestrated, it really just comes down to who managers personally want to keep and who they want out. I’ve watched people with no real skills get promoted to director level, while the people actually doing the work often covering for 5 other roles on top of their own get stuck with a “meets expectations” rating. Go figure.

Let’s see, Mike oversaw a 70% decrease in share value in his short tenure, blamed his predecessor, gave himself raises and bonuses while freezing comp for the rank and file, never had a clear plan to tight the ship, focused on layoffs and cutting costs coupled with the idea that AI will fix the rest. When it came time to do the hard work, he quit, so….overall rating, C, at least he wasn’t big on tracking badge swipes and counting keystrokes, so wasn’t all bad. If i were holding Truist stock i would definitely hedge it or sell the position entirely and go away for a little bit because he’ll want a low basis for his equity awards and doesn’t care how much shareholder value he destroys.

Needs improvement or meets most has been the main way they have done layoffs for 10+ years. If you were not included in a RIF you either got lucky with timing or a leader above fought very hard to keep you and probably had to find someone else to go in your place.

To the person mentioning people with mental health issues, please expand on that. If you are out on FMLA your job is protected. Did the mental health issues impact their ability to work and perform their job?

Layoffs are an easy way to get rid of the under performers. At Fiserv as managers we would keep around the under performers as long as we can. Because you wouldn't get a backfill, so even someone only doing 25% of a good employee was better than zero. You could also use their merit to bump up the higher performers. Then when layoffs came around you had someone for the list.

@f4 the board hires based off the CEO recommendation. If you think Frank had no say then you’re living under a rock. The company is the way it is because it started with Frank. Then Mike came in and was blamed for everything. I am not a fan of Mike due to his really bad hires (that now walk away with millions) and the layoffs but he was a pawn. Idk what to make of Takis yet. I am annoyed about the rumors of selling STAR and he has said nothing at all leaving everyone wondering about the state of the company.

@f4 Guess you didn't know Frankserv was the Chairman of the Board.... duhhhhhhhhh

@f3 The Board hires the CEO - never the CEO himself. Your conspiracy theory doesn’t work here.

@ag that was 100% Frank’s doing. He hired ML to literally be the fall guy and to get Takis in. ML didn’t have a chance.

@cs 👋 Mike, are you admiring yourself? If only your personality were half as impressive as your looks.

ML is the most decent C-suite executive you will ever encounter. Smart as a whip. A truly good person. He inherited a nightmare and he put the company in a good path. Honestly, in his 18 months, I never admired an executive more than him. Everyone has their quirks, but he is a really good guy.

I’m no fan of ML as I was impacted by his layoffs sprees but I think these attacks are getting a little too personal now. We should be sticking to reviewing his performance. Where are the layoffs.com moderators when we need them?. I guess they only wake up when some random executives are named.

He was swinging his legs while sitting in the first town hall he did and to be honest his aura never recovered after that one

@be this country produces some fine “leaders” doesn’t it?

Think about these two facts:

He laid out One Fiserv in front of investors with full commitment. Just one month before he jumped ship.
He was fully engaged in a town hall meeting with us. Just one week before he jumped ship.

He is a selfish human. And a bad leader.

@af agreeeeeeeddddddd

If you enjoy watching someone who bites his nails, scratches all parts of his body incessantly, swings his legs in a townhall like a little kid, and has many other non-CEO type qualities, he’s your man. Good luck.

Fiserv was just a place holder for Mike. He had a 12 month non-compete contract with PNC, so he spent a year at Fiserv before getting back into banking.

He was hired by one of the most moral less and soulless people on the planet. I think he quickly figured out he was a patsy and decided to exit.

@az don’t forget to add people with mental illness we’re also on the chopping block. Talk about going low.

If you land on needs improvement for your performance review, you will be laid off

Seemed to be a good person, empty suit

Presided over a 70% decline in enterprise value. That’s all you need to know.

What can we say? We never really knew him. Just a pretty boy who looked the part but most of us didn’t see any strategy or turnaround. Where we stand, he bolted soon as he got his shot. Maybe he will be better at a bank. As for his tenure at Fiserv, I would rate it F!

In my opinion, Mike Lyons is a decent person. We’d hoped for more flexibility on RTO, but that didn’t really come through.

What I noticed at Fiserv was a pattern: he moved slowly when it came to removing executives and SVPs who were actually hurting the company, but showed much more urgency when it came to layoffs at the bottom of the org chart. If he was reluctant to shake things up at the top but quick to do so lower down, that tells me a lot about what to expect from any reorg. Most of the real corporate dysfunction originates at the senior levels, while employees are just trying to keep their heads down and get through it. On top of that, several recent hiring decisions turned out badly, some of the people brought in ended up being ineffective and walked away with significant amounts of money.
Hopefully he’s learned some hard lessons from this and doesn’t repeat the same mistakes at Truist.