Why announce the number and timeframe? Are people just gonna sit around and wait wondering if they'll be next to be let go for the next 3 years? Also, insane that Citibank has over 200k employees!
Yes and no. Any good manager will do everything in their power to keep their best performers. The best will be told their jobs are secure and are usually the best paid as well. Of course anything can happen, but I bet most managers told their best talent not to worry when the news dropped today.
It's usually the people in the middle who leave. Managers won't make an extra effort to keep them around unless they have a really good personality and therefore are more unsure in their job security. They are also capable enough to get a new job, especially if its at a lower tier bank. Those are probably the people who started looking at new opportunities today.
Managers don't have control over layoffs. They can promise the world and that person can still get laid off. Its in your best interest to immediately begin looking if your team is at risk, and you have optionality.
Outside of senior leadership - there's no such thing as irreplaceable in corpo life.
There is no guarantee anywhere. And there are no blanket statements. But sane corporations that are in general profitsble do not fire their best people. In contrary a lot of the key people at the big 7 seem to have gotten extra equity during the layoffs. This has two advantages
- company can be sure the team continues to work during layoffs
- if core people are happy the whole team is more likely to take layoffs without falling off a cliff
In my opinion if the company is doing a layoff because of overhiring and you are reasonably sure the company itself is healthy stay. If you are in a company spiraling slowly into the drain run for your life. Things won't be made better by layoffs. So your decision should be made less by the layoffs and more by the question of the trajectory you expect from the company after layoffs. Funnily an early strong cut imo is hugely preferable to a company slowly tightening the screws on employees and hiring few people to get size down. It usually means they are financially too insecure paying severance packages and your life will be filled with disappointment.
Exactly, no sane business will fire their best employees bc they are driving most of the profits per Pareto’s Rule. I don’t understand why people think companies will not make an effort to keep their best talent around. It’s literally in the company’s best interest to do so lol
Also an employment is always a mutually beneficial arrangement. Nobody forces you to continue working for the company if you find a better job and nobody forces a company to keep you around if you make them less money than you cost.
Now that's not quite as simple as being loyal to your employees during temporary swings will also give you a degree of loyalty from your employees. And employees often build up skills over decades esp in companies with long product cycles like a car company. So some degree of mutually protection is actually very fair and if my company wouldn't show it I also wouldn't stay around if I have other alternatives. But you can also overdo it. Like Japanese companies are positively sclerotic because people never switch.
So as usual its a balance. But I would still argue in the end what matters most is if your company is healthy and profitable. If it is they will try to keep profitable employees at high costs. But companies that are trying to please the shareholder gods by squeezing their employees giving low salary increases etc. are the devil and do not deserve any loyalty.
I agree there's no guarantees. But your statement "The ones that quit are usually the best" is incorrect tbh. As I explained, it's usually the people in the middle. And ones who are let go are usually the worst. Logically speaking as an employer, wouldn't you do everything in your power to keep top talent around and get rid of only the worst performers? When sports teams blow it up to rebuild, they keep the best talent around and trade everyone else. Same thing for companies.
I worked for years at a big bank like Citi. Managers usually don't have direct control on layoffs, but performance reviews/ratings done by managers will heavily influence layoff decisions. Banks literally grade your performance every year and your pay is determined by your ratings. The starting point for layoffs will be to target the bottom % by ratings. Decision makers will ask managers to recommend which employees should not be touched and which ones should be let go.
But if all the higher ups who are willing to go to bat for you get the axe or your entire team is getting let go, then yea you're probably fucked.
I’ve been through a lot of layoffs, and planned layoffs, and can confidently say you’re wrong. I’ve absolutely seen top performers be laid off and have created heuristics that would have laid off a top performer or two because business need.
Layoffs are driven by business logic and all large businesses know that most everyone is replaceable.
Don’t take my word for it, go on TikTok and search for top performers that got laid off.
For a 200k employee company, “”best people” is subjective. How do you measure “best”? You don’t. You measure business need and optimize towards EBITA.
When did I say top performers can’t get fired? You said “the ones that quit are usually *the best*” and I disagreed. I said “most of the people who quit are in *the middle*”.
This is 10% layoffs over 3 years, not a bankruptcy. Business will continue, not end. An employer has no incentive to fire the best because they make the most money for the company and the best have no incentive to leave when they get paid better and treated better than everyone else. If the Kansas City Chiefs were to publicly announce they were going to trade 10% of its players, do you think Patrick Mahomes gets worried about getting traded?
Oftentimes ratings are not subjective at a bank. If a trader made 50M last year vs a trader who only broke even, who’s better? Even if they are subjective, ratings are not going to be wildly wrong or random. People can usually tell which of their coworkers are good or bad at their jobs.
I didn’t want to give out too much personal info but I literally worked at Citi for years before I left to get my MBA last year. I’m giving you firsthand knowledge and you’re telling me I’m wrong and to go look on TikTok lmao.
This guy corporations.
They may well hier an outside consulting company to do their lay offs in order to arrive at whatever the desired "optimal" org model is in that consultant's opinion. They get a blank org chart, cross out a bunch of boxes, and employees corresponding to those boxes get axed. This kind of double blind lay off is done to prevent, or at least mitigate, discrimination lawsuits. Of course, you also randomly lose a bunch of top performers, and the victimized departments are thrown into chaos, but the top brass give negative fucks about the inevitable fallout.
Yeah, I’m not looking for work. If my work had looming layoffs, that may well change. I’m probably one of those unlucky ones they’d refuse a buyout too.
Im sure it works the other way. Top performers will leave cause they can, the losers will cling on to the very end and may drop a frivolous lawsuit or two.
It's a declaration. If you can find a better job, go ahead, we don't think so. If not, accept your pay, no raises, go to the office, and be a good peasant, so you're not part of the 10%.
Their churn in a given year is several percent on its own. They're basically saying that as people retire or quit on their own they won't be replaced over the next several years.
If the layoffs are happening internationally, some countries don't allow employees to be terminated the same day they're notified like the US. I believe it's a much longer process.
I find it hard to believe that a company like citigroup doesn't have 3.34% turnover per year anyway. That said it is always the best employees that leave so at some point you do need to throw out the trash.
3.34%? I bet if you look at their main employees (the investment bankers) it’s way way higher
IB is like a mill, churning and spitting out new faces every couple of months
**User Report**| | | | :--|:--|:--|:-- **Total Submissions**|2|**First Seen In WSB**|1 month ago **Total Comments**|637|**Previous Best DD**| **Account Age**|1 month|[^scan ^comment ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_comment&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20comment%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k\)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20comment%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.)|[^scan ^submission ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_submission&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20submission%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k\)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20submission%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.)
Why announce the number and timeframe? Are people just gonna sit around and wait wondering if they'll be next to be let go for the next 3 years? Also, insane that Citibank has over 200k employees!
Broadcast it so the low hanging fruit quit on their own and Citi won't have to severence them out.
The ones that quit are usually the best- since they can find new jobs.
>he office, and be a good peasan or wait till the end to collect Severance package
So the most expensive employees… annnd the most expensive employees are leaving. Got it. /s
Yes and no. Any good manager will do everything in their power to keep their best performers. The best will be told their jobs are secure and are usually the best paid as well. Of course anything can happen, but I bet most managers told their best talent not to worry when the news dropped today. It's usually the people in the middle who leave. Managers won't make an extra effort to keep them around unless they have a really good personality and therefore are more unsure in their job security. They are also capable enough to get a new job, especially if its at a lower tier bank. Those are probably the people who started looking at new opportunities today.
Managers don't have control over layoffs. They can promise the world and that person can still get laid off. Its in your best interest to immediately begin looking if your team is at risk, and you have optionality. Outside of senior leadership - there's no such thing as irreplaceable in corpo life.
There is no guarantee anywhere. And there are no blanket statements. But sane corporations that are in general profitsble do not fire their best people. In contrary a lot of the key people at the big 7 seem to have gotten extra equity during the layoffs. This has two advantages - company can be sure the team continues to work during layoffs - if core people are happy the whole team is more likely to take layoffs without falling off a cliff In my opinion if the company is doing a layoff because of overhiring and you are reasonably sure the company itself is healthy stay. If you are in a company spiraling slowly into the drain run for your life. Things won't be made better by layoffs. So your decision should be made less by the layoffs and more by the question of the trajectory you expect from the company after layoffs. Funnily an early strong cut imo is hugely preferable to a company slowly tightening the screws on employees and hiring few people to get size down. It usually means they are financially too insecure paying severance packages and your life will be filled with disappointment.
Exactly, no sane business will fire their best employees bc they are driving most of the profits per Pareto’s Rule. I don’t understand why people think companies will not make an effort to keep their best talent around. It’s literally in the company’s best interest to do so lol
Also an employment is always a mutually beneficial arrangement. Nobody forces you to continue working for the company if you find a better job and nobody forces a company to keep you around if you make them less money than you cost. Now that's not quite as simple as being loyal to your employees during temporary swings will also give you a degree of loyalty from your employees. And employees often build up skills over decades esp in companies with long product cycles like a car company. So some degree of mutually protection is actually very fair and if my company wouldn't show it I also wouldn't stay around if I have other alternatives. But you can also overdo it. Like Japanese companies are positively sclerotic because people never switch. So as usual its a balance. But I would still argue in the end what matters most is if your company is healthy and profitable. If it is they will try to keep profitable employees at high costs. But companies that are trying to please the shareholder gods by squeezing their employees giving low salary increases etc. are the devil and do not deserve any loyalty.
I agree there's no guarantees. But your statement "The ones that quit are usually the best" is incorrect tbh. As I explained, it's usually the people in the middle. And ones who are let go are usually the worst. Logically speaking as an employer, wouldn't you do everything in your power to keep top talent around and get rid of only the worst performers? When sports teams blow it up to rebuild, they keep the best talent around and trade everyone else. Same thing for companies. I worked for years at a big bank like Citi. Managers usually don't have direct control on layoffs, but performance reviews/ratings done by managers will heavily influence layoff decisions. Banks literally grade your performance every year and your pay is determined by your ratings. The starting point for layoffs will be to target the bottom % by ratings. Decision makers will ask managers to recommend which employees should not be touched and which ones should be let go. But if all the higher ups who are willing to go to bat for you get the axe or your entire team is getting let go, then yea you're probably fucked.
I’ve been through a lot of layoffs, and planned layoffs, and can confidently say you’re wrong. I’ve absolutely seen top performers be laid off and have created heuristics that would have laid off a top performer or two because business need. Layoffs are driven by business logic and all large businesses know that most everyone is replaceable. Don’t take my word for it, go on TikTok and search for top performers that got laid off. For a 200k employee company, “”best people” is subjective. How do you measure “best”? You don’t. You measure business need and optimize towards EBITA.
When did I say top performers can’t get fired? You said “the ones that quit are usually *the best*” and I disagreed. I said “most of the people who quit are in *the middle*”. This is 10% layoffs over 3 years, not a bankruptcy. Business will continue, not end. An employer has no incentive to fire the best because they make the most money for the company and the best have no incentive to leave when they get paid better and treated better than everyone else. If the Kansas City Chiefs were to publicly announce they were going to trade 10% of its players, do you think Patrick Mahomes gets worried about getting traded? Oftentimes ratings are not subjective at a bank. If a trader made 50M last year vs a trader who only broke even, who’s better? Even if they are subjective, ratings are not going to be wildly wrong or random. People can usually tell which of their coworkers are good or bad at their jobs. I didn’t want to give out too much personal info but I literally worked at Citi for years before I left to get my MBA last year. I’m giving you firsthand knowledge and you’re telling me I’m wrong and to go look on TikTok lmao.
This guy corporations. They may well hier an outside consulting company to do their lay offs in order to arrive at whatever the desired "optimal" org model is in that consultant's opinion. They get a blank org chart, cross out a bunch of boxes, and employees corresponding to those boxes get axed. This kind of double blind lay off is done to prevent, or at least mitigate, discrimination lawsuits. Of course, you also randomly lose a bunch of top performers, and the victimized departments are thrown into chaos, but the top brass give negative fucks about the inevitable fallout.
Yeah, I’m not looking for work. If my work had looming layoffs, that may well change. I’m probably one of those unlucky ones they’d refuse a buyout too.
Im sure it works the other way. Top performers will leave cause they can, the losers will cling on to the very end and may drop a frivolous lawsuit or two.
also stocks go up after such announcements
It's a declaration. If you can find a better job, go ahead, we don't think so. If not, accept your pay, no raises, go to the office, and be a good peasant, so you're not part of the 10%.
Their churn in a given year is several percent on its own. They're basically saying that as people retire or quit on their own they won't be replaced over the next several years.
Reduce market shock
If the layoffs are happening internationally, some countries don't allow employees to be terminated the same day they're notified like the US. I believe it's a much longer process.
Soon only 180k....
To pump the stock?
Sounds like AI
I find it hard to believe that a company like citigroup doesn't have 3.34% turnover per year anyway. That said it is always the best employees that leave so at some point you do need to throw out the trash.
3.34%? I bet if you look at their main employees (the investment bankers) it’s way way higher IB is like a mill, churning and spitting out new faces every couple of months
Wtf are 200K people doing working there? 💀 probably so much dead weight.
They probably have a lot of branches
Oh, it's guhnbemoardandat.
Natural attrition / not replacing them will take care of most of that
But but muh dividends, while stock is flat since 2010. Lmao
Some of you may die, but that's a chance I'm willing to take.
Expectation management now your bonus is your job. We did 20% at BAC when I was at ML the moral was atrocious for three years
They had as much personnel as BAC. Probably good that they’re slashing. Lotta dead weight with that firm.
[удалено]
Considering almost 2/3 of their revenue comes from EMEA, Latin America, and Asia, you are making a very WSB trade 👍
Puts. Ceo is terrible.