Thread regarding Fiserv Inc. layoffs

It’s quite common in HR, where do-nothings with 5 years’ experience get a VP title with 1 direct report and no real responsibility. Brand crew is following that model. There’s no real marketing going on, and the internal comms people are (grossly) overpaid secretaries. But they are good at hitting their diversity numbers and aren’t tied to any revenue targets, so they’re safe in their make believe orange world for the time being. Sorry you’re going through it. Market is great. Get out of there.

Inflated titles build a sense of credibility in sales relationships.

As others have said, "unlimited" doesn't mean "whatever you, as a professional, feel you need to be a productive employee", it means "the company owes you nothing". This is true of any company.

The only reason companies with salaried staff haven't run to it in droves is because, even though there's overwhelming evidence of how much less time most employees take, they're petrified of a small handful of employees who might dare to take a few more days than they would've had under the old system.

An unlimited PTO model puts the employee essentially in the position of begging for time off, like Oliver Twist asking for gruel. Remember, you are owed NOTHING. If the company gives you time off, you are supposed to feel grateful. How magnanimous! No thanks. I want an agreed-upon number of days.

Re "unlimited PTO".

It is one of the biggest scams perpetrated on us working slobs, ever.

You used to be entitled to it or to be compensated for it.

Now you are essentially entitled to nothing. You will have to bargain to take a few measly days off at the pleasure of a usually toxic manager.

NO company that implements unlimited truly wants you to take it.

even if the company implements it somewhat honestly, they still judge you on how much you take, when you take it and they keep track of the slackers.

IF you are the squeaky wheel and do so, then your manager probably "has to let you take it" but TRUST me, you will be dog eared for it and they will start looking for ways to discourage you or even get rid of you.

It is true that in finance, banking and some other industries, titles mean different things. For example, in banking, VPs are junior to Directors, with then EVPs or SVPs above them and Managing Directors above them.

In other industries, a more traditional hierarchy is individual contributor, Manager, Senior Manager, Director, Senior Director, VP and so on.

A LOT of title inflation is happening in the past few years. Fist, as they flatten organizations, senior people need something to mark their seniority even if they don't have direct reports.

As they want people to "lead by influence" in flat "team driven" organizations they have to make everyone a "leader" and a director of this or manager of that in order to have any credibility with the people who actually do have a meaningful title or leadership role.

A big determinant of what the role really is, is whether the person is working "in the business" (supervising the work of front line people or delivering stuff the business runs on or the boss runs on, day to day tactics and activities) or "ON the business" (creating either the strategies and vision, high level tactics, owning policies and procedures and products, and finding ways to streamline them and improve the performance and bottom line).

Job title inflation is a BIG problem and especially in recruiting. YOu can no longer go by a title to understand what a job level actually is.

And flat orgs by the way, are mostly disastrous and usually failures. It is just a way for the biggest big wigs to consolidate their power, have a bunch of minions, lower their bonuses, etc. It is usually NOT truly a way to empower teams or people.

I agree, always seemed strange to me that there were so many directors with no direct reports. Several directors left my team and I am now doing their job as an individual contributer, I won't hold my breath for a promotion. He-l I will be shocked if the annual raise is anywhere close to the inflation...

And regarding the PTO... Unlimited PTO is worse, companies push it because it actually results in less vacation than people that earn 3 weeks and need to use it or lose it.

@spu

I have noticed this too, especially within the ESF development teams. I have had to work with "Tech Lead" and "Advisory" individuals that can't troubleshoot the most basic issues.

In development, most of the overseas associates I have worked with have VERY inflated titles, far above their actual capabilities. Most of them can't even code a simple "hello world" program without using stackoverflow.

here at fiserv a title is necessary to qualify for a specific pay range, bonus and PTO as mentioned.

I think it's totally normal. Every company structure is different. I'm on the software development side and was interviewing a guy for a junior level position. His current title was "director". Titles mean nothing.

But let me ask you this, you said "based on the type of work I do, I feel like I took several steps back" what do you mean by back? Do you want more responsibility? I'm assuming you are making more money? Unless the work is harder it seems like a good thing, right?

I've seen this in my business unit as well -- a lot of director and VP roles being handed out to people who oversee only a handful of employees (especially now, after all of the attrition). Part of me wonders if some director roles are handed out in order to grant additional benefits to employees, like unlimited PTO or whatever else Level 10 (?) and above associates get that the rest of us do not. I actually had a friend who was applying to a role at Fiserv, and after the interview, he felt as though it would have been a step backward from his then-current job with the same title. So you're not alone in thinking this.