Thread regarding Bank of New York Mellon Corp. layoffs

Perhaps you "protested" or "fought back", but I've seen first hand what little that effort actually looks like by management when they are looking out for their own self interest. I notice you didn't state you were successful in retaining your onshore position and the other instances were negated by circumstances. You can also protest and fight the comments in your upward feedback survey.

There is one manager who stood ground refusing to force rank the staff. This manager was met at the office door on the Monday morning of the first day of layoffs and now has VVV next to their name.

This manager has many an employee highest admiration - we know who you are and what you did, thank you. This manager will undoubtedly be employed with a much more highly regarded company soon. We need more people like you. Had more managers stood strongly for DOING WHATS RIGHT, perhaps we would still have you here with us and senior leadership would be doing their job to discuss the right approach to staff reduction without impacting clients or force ranking employees undeservedly.

I am a manager, and I fought back on the arbitrary forced ranking since I just rebuilt my team after underperformers left (they were managed out in the sense that they weren't meeting expectations and were told so by me, and saw the writing on the wall and left before they were fired--and I got no credit for the proper management style). Fast forward, new world, I have to BE rank to meet 10% even though no one deserved it. I protested and didn't have to in the end someone else left and got branded. Then I am told I need to offshore positions. Again, I fought back with sound logic. So then I am told one of my employees is being terminated and I can rehire in India or Poland.

So the moral is that not every manager is bad or has control over how this is being handled.

a 10% staff reduction would be just over 5k people. a 40% reduction in one year would be extreme. Citigroup currently has 214k employees, which is 150k fewer than before the financial crisis. That was a 40% cut over multiple years. BoA did a 100k reduction (about 30%) over 8 years. State Street is laying off 7k (20%) over 2 years and is targeting 15% of senior mgmt to flatten the org. The key difference is that these companies implemented tech changes to support the reduction in staff before they eliminated the staff. BNYM is doing this bass ackwards

Managers can be as incompetent as employees. Please help weed them from our ranks.

@iutb 1,000? The final global target numbers I'm hearing are closer to 20,000. Citi laid off over 70k in 2008, and BoA laid off over 30k. Even Goldman shed 10% that year and they reported their most profitable year ever. State Street just announced they're cutting 7k. BNYM never went through that kind of housecleaning.

The Prisoner's Dilemma playing out right in front of our eyes

Agree with @1lzi - it's an opening act. I am forecasting another 1000+ cut in 2019 and probably two more in 2020. P&Ls are shifting and it's always rocky during such times. I need my job and will be hunkering down, with a bit of luck I may make it through 2024 when I expect to retire. Good luck to all.

@1iho Right? Survivor? We're barely into the opening act!

It's cute that you think you have an understanding of Charlie year 2.

Several managers hopping on this thread trying to save their own skin. Your time is coming soon...bye, bye, bye. BTW, I'm still here...I'm a survivor and not even close to being considered for liquidation. Simply trying to do the morally right thing and offer advice to the average workers unfairly having their reputation tarnished...what goes around, comes around.

A low ranking from a poor performer who was let go can actually help. Things are taken in context.

My direct manager was given a bad feedback review two years in a row and how was he rewarded - Promoted to Director right before Layoffs.... Explain that logic......So don't waste your time in participating in the upward feedback.

It's anonymous in the sense you didn't sign your name to it. Unless your manager is a complete buffoon she'll know exactly who it is.

Please take the opportunity to be completely candid in your reviews of your direct reports.

they say that it is anonymous but it isn’t true. i gave my honest feedback, my manager gave me a hard time and was given a below expectations to relatiate. spoke with HR, useless. was let go last week.

Hah. Your funeral. You can hang together or hang separately. I'm a JPM vet. I know how it goes.

ivy - nice try. Typical manager trying to use scare tactics so you don't receive the same fate you're bestowing on others. The I'll equipped manager would be eliminated, not an entire team. The entire team would only be eliminated if the team truly serves no purpose, otherwise the team would be consolidated under another manager.

If the manager gets enough bad ratings, the whole team will get let go. It won't get any more granular than that.

anz-- same could be said of the reverse. An ineffective employee should be seen as having an ineffective manager. This should be noted on the manager's review when she or he has more than one employee in their tenure that was underperforming.

Bad management with self serving mentality is rampant. Manager's, especially lackluster ones, have no problem sacrificing your job.

Charlie doesn't want anyone to have a management title unless you have at least 10 direct reports.

Managers with the smaller teams are easily falling in line to eliminate their staff with false performance rationale all so they are able to become a team member when they do lose their management title.

They will still keep their management salary but will become the person to replace you. Biased decision making at best.

Since the goal is to get rid of ineffective managers and their entire teams, OP is really giving Charlie Tuna a helping hand.

Circular firing squad

The punchline here is that ineffective managers will also be seen as having ineffective teams.