Thread regarding Fiserv Inc. layoffs

Corporate Defensiveness

Obviously senior leadership reads this page. What in the world makes you think the right course of action is to dislike posts and call people liars? Wouldn't it make more sense to try to understand why your employees are unhappy and to try to meet them on some kind of middle ground? Sure we get it there is a company to run and investors to pay but employees cannot be the last priority. I just don't understand why senior leadership backs up their corner over and over.

by
| 2171 views | | 29 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+1jKh5NEm

29 replies (most recent on top)

So what you are telling me is that if someone want to be laid off, they should complain to HR about anything and that will increase their chances? Good to know.

by
|
Post ID: @6cba+1jKh5NEm

Fiserv does use force ratings. I have had to debate my ratings with my peers with HR on the phone. Then next year they are trying to let people go on bogus ratings. Leaders like Frank and those he’s has in senior leaders don’t like anyone talking to HR. So once you go to them now you’re a problem child. Fiserv doesn’t really care about their clients. Any client that leaves they will just buy another company to pull them back.

by
|
Post ID: @6nql+1jKh5NEm

I’m just here to downvote all the HR bots and shill posts and to thank senior leadership for leading me to greener pastures. To all still there don’t waste any more time at a place where you are not appreciated or valued.

by
|
Post ID: @5uab+1jKh5NEm

Your fundamental error is in thinking sr management thinks of employees as people. They do not. Employees are 'human resources' to be hired or disposed of as necessary to meet the desired numbers.

Lower management, middle management? Workers are definitely people. Sr management? Numbers, meet spreadsheets.

A friend who survived the round that got me was on a call where a senior manager said (paraphrasing, I wasn't there) "It's not my job to improve morale. If you're not happy, leave."

The friend is now leaving.

by
|
Post ID: @3jdj+1jKh5NEm

Just yesterday I submitted ratings for my team. We are down nearly 50% in headcount. Many of the remaining really stepped it up to keep things running. They, based on HR’s own definition, are exceeding expectations. The ratings were immediately rejected and I was forced to drop ratings to ensure I had 80% meets or below. My team simply does not fit that forced ranking this year. The most disappointing part of this is that we do not get increased funding for raises based on ratings. So why push back on a number we assign…let the employees have at least a simple recognition for their efforts.

by
|
Post ID: @2ker+1jKh5NEm

I was a manager for a long time and left this year. There absolutely are forced rankings come review time. Tony and HR team can deny it all they want, but it has been all about forced ranking for many years.

by
|
Post ID: @2dxi+1jKh5NEm

I am the original poster.
I'm not mad about remote I was hired full time office and accepted the position based on that
I am probably close to 80 percent office on my own according. (What works for me may not work for others)
I just find it funny how defensive senior leadership is . Anytime they don't like someone's opinion it's "bad information"
Or "we are for our clients". You're clients are seeing that due to the unhappy employees leaving in droves. But by all means keep plugging your ears and ignoring the problems that stare you in the face.

by
|
Post ID: @1pro+1jKh5NEm

Hilarious that you say you lefty several years ago and still come back to this site to post. Wow your life must really be exciting!!

by
|
Post ID: @1pua+1jKh5NEm

2 yrs ago, I got exceeds most on 8 of 9 categories. I was rated overall as meets most, and therefore not eligible for a raise that year. I was in the process of moving into another department and the vp said to rate me down because of that. It doesnt add up. And I formally asked for an explanation, never got one. Within a couple of months I was at another company for better pay.

by
|
Post ID: @1nfn+1jKh5NEm

I have taken the someone takes the hit but only my overall rating was lowered and the individual categories were left at exceeds. Part of permanent record now so I can use in litigation. Can't be overall meets when sum of individual are above that.

by
|
Post ID: @qkm+1jKh5NEm

@leo+1jKh5NEm But isn't that the point of being a good manager and leader, is coaching and leading your team so they do exceed most? I would be p----d when my team works hard just to be told I had to mark someone down

by
|
Post ID: @ywx+1jKh5NEm

As former VP who left on own accord 6 months ago. There is absolutely forced ratings and has been for years. Thing is there are some questionable managers who try to make everyone Exceeds Many and causes the problem. Also, a manager should never tell employee they were put at Meets Most because it was their turn. That is not leading.

by
|
Post ID: @leo+1jKh5NEm

I was a manager under the combined company. I was 100% forced to reduce one of my employee rankings. I fought it and I was told by VP there was no choice other than to reduce it. I even quoted Tony to my VP. His response was there were only so many exceeds and far exceeds we could give out.

A friend of mine in another BU was told that same year he got a meets most. The reason, he was told by his manager she was forced to give him that rating because she was told someone had to be a meets most so it was his turn.

There might not be a policy, but shady stuff is still going on.

by
|
Post ID: @dtc+1jKh5NEm

If I call a cat a dog it does not make it a dog. They don't call them forced rankings but they stress to you that someone has obviously outperformed others and to change rankings. I know this first hand. it's happened every year over the past few years. Also, there was a comment two days ago about safety/fire concerns in BH and the next day and email came out about a fire drill. Someone is 100% monitoring what's being said here and trying to alter the narrative. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Sad because they only attack low hanging fruit and not the big problems. Everyone is probably afraid to tell FB no. That's understandable. He seems like a real PITA

by
|
Post ID: @kgp+1jKh5NEm

No one struck a nerve - just pointing out the bad information that is commonly spread here.

by
|
Post ID: @qga+1jKh5NEm

Three HR posts. Seems like you hit a nerve.

by
|
Post ID: @hmq+1jKh5NEm

I was on the management performance call today and we do not do force ratings. If you are being told that by a manager you should let HR know.

by
|
Post ID: @yky+1jKh5NEm

Large modern campus locations where people come to work and collaborate to take care of our clients, associates and shareholders. That is Fiserv's workforce strategy. In addition the company permits work from the "road" for sales people and work from home for contact center and sme's.

by
|
Post ID: @ohq+1jKh5NEm

I have worked at original First Data, now Fiserv, a long time and can confirm that no forced distribution is in fact a consistent practice for performance reviews. If your manager is telling you differently then that sounds like something you need to raise with your own management. I also was on the call on performance management and what he said was 100% correct.

by
|
Post ID: @kad+1jKh5NEm

I was on the call --- he was correct we don't have forced distribution (maybe something JY had in old ofsv) maybe you are just getting bad advice from your manager.

by
|
Post ID: @jdj+1jKh5NEm

Tony - "There are no forced employee ratings at Fiserv" - 2 months later... we need you to lower one of your employees from Exceeds to Meets. Attempt to fight it only to be forced to lower it. Either Tony isn't in control or he was full of it.

by
|
Post ID: @pdo+1jKh5NEm

Most companies are cutting real estate expenses, but Fiserv is investing in Milwaukee and BH. Tony, you call yourself head if HR, but your head is up Frank’s rear.

by
|
Post ID: @ose+1jKh5NEm

Management only cares what KKR wants.

by
|
Post ID: @zya+1jKh5NEm

Your view is so skewed because you work from home and know that isn’t the model.

by
|
Post ID: @jjo+1jKh5NEm

if they cared about their employees the people running the show wouldnt be as rich

by
|
Post ID: @jxw+1jKh5NEm

That would require empathy and actual caring about employees. This version of executive management doesn't possess either of those things. We are numbers on a spreadsheet. This is why they continually cut and expect other people to just "put it behind them" and pick up the slack.

You can go on for a while with this model but it's not sustainable. At some point it eats itself from the inside out. Most people I know have already checked out and are either looking or just coasting.

Eventually it collapses or gets sold off. This is where we are headed.

by
|
Post ID: @esp+1jKh5NEm

Absolutely. Solar panels are much more important than employees.

by
|
Post ID: @iln+1jKh5NEm

I agree all they do is gaslight their employees that nothing is wrong and everything is rosey which further leads to diminishing morale. Nothing positive has happened at Fiserv for employees in several years. I’m polishing up my resume as we speak…

by
|
Post ID: @cvb+1jKh5NEm

They don't care about employees. Actions speak louder than words and their actions are clear about this.

by
|
Post ID: @csw+1jKh5NEm

Post a reply

: