Thread regarding State Farm Insurance layoffs

Our Execs have no outside experience.

Would you get on a flight with a pilot that had no other training? Just gonna wing it?

Also, to add: While it's true that there are those of us who have seen this coming for months, re-skilling was not always a viable solution.

You have to understand, I am part of a group that has been on the chopping block every couple of months for six or seven years, not because my skill was not needed (it's actually on the grow list), but because I was remote. The only way I could have secured my future with State Farm was to move to a hub, which I simply was not willing to do.

So I decided to simply ride the wave, and I kept my skills fresh so I could obtain employment at another company when the time came. The time has come, and I am moving on.

I certainly don't feel State Farm owes me anything more than what I've already obtained. This is just how the cookie crumbles.

The comments I'm making are not about my particular situation. I'm speaking from an organizational perspective. In a downsizing as large as this one, it's not just the chaff that's being burned -- it's both the wheat and the chaff. They are using the crude chops of an ax rather than the precision slices of a scalpel.

An organized approach to maintaining a workforce with the appropriate skills is generally considered to be an important part of recovering from such ministrations.

From what I've seen and heard from my manager...they are allowing 'reskilling', but not 'upskilling'. For example, a programmer will be able to go to another language, but they won't allow a business analyst to become a programmer if they don't already have the skill. BA's are in real danger in this new setup. A LOT of the overstaffed skills are for BAs, particularly if you're not specialized.

The fact that our training is all online videos/courses from 3rd parties along with 'mentorship' could fill up a whole other thread

We are cogs in the machine now, seen as liabilities and not assets. They would rather hire external or off the street people that embellish their resume. Doesn't matter to them because they save a few bucks on the next balance sheet

To the last post: No, your assumption is not correct. I do not think an insurance credential and an MBA make one a thought leader. I'm talking about relevant job training. For example, an oracle java certification, or db2 certification, or TOGAF certification, or something Systems related that has a direct bearing on one's marketability as a Systems employee and a State Farm asset.

And my point (I will repeat) is that even though an organization's best employees will engage in this sort of self-improvement voluntarily as part of their own career advancement path, it is certainly within the best interest of the enterprise to manage it from a top down perspective, for all the reasons mentioned previously.

As far as people being able to train themselves out of a lay off, so far I've seen no indication that the selection process is anything more than a dog and pony show based on the time honored tradition of who you know being more important than what you know.

I agree that the best employees are in a constant cycle of re-training themselves. However an organization with a vested interest in retaining its best people experiences a marked advantage by sponsoring their own training versus relying on the educational whims of the rank and file.

Citation needed. I’m guessing, given your word choice, you’re one of the people who thought Insurance training and an MBA made you a thought leader with upper management potential written all over him.

We are pointing out the folly of ejecting established employees with reliable track records (IE known quantities) when it would be cheaper in SOME circumstances to help them retool than it would be to replace them.

If the quantities were known, and the goods were good, they wouldn’t be in a position that is being eliminated. Good employees saw this coming months ago when the cuts started getting announced at a leadership level. It didn’t take much to pro-actively train up.

To add to the last post:

I agree that the best employees are in a constant cycle of re-training themselves. However an organization with a vested interest in retaining its best people experiences a marked advantage by sponsoring their own training versus relying on the educational whims of the rank and file.

When an organization sponsors its own training, it picks the curriculum. It picks which employees are offered the training. It picks the ways in which advancement and promotion opportunities are tied to the completion of the training. All of these things give the organization a leg-up in realizing a strategy-based vision for the evolving needs of their human resources.

When an organization leaves this entirely up to individuals, the pieces don't always fit as well. The organization may not even be able to tell the difference between the educational/organizational benefits of different educational tracks, or how to choose which candidate has undergone the more rigorous and/or applicable training.

It makes the whole thing a bit of a crap shoot.

And when it's coupled with a strategy of jettisoning established employees and bringing in new ones to fill those perceived gaps, the gaps are merely being moved into a different area: organization specific gaps vs. industry skills gaps.

State Farm used to take this stuff way more seriously. Most big companies do.

Again, nobody is whining about not getting free training.

We are pointing out the folly of ejecting established employees with reliable track records (IE known quantities) when it would be cheaper in SOME circumstances to help them retool than it would be to replace them.

This is a question of organizational human resources strategy, not one about ethical responsibilities or free handouts.

Leadership has decided that re-tooling is not in their best interests. They will have to live with that decision.

The sad thing is that I highly doubt they will understand or appreciate the organizational impact of what they've done to themselves, even after it's too late.

If I want to be a Corporate pilot, should SF pay for my flight training?

All CDE and ICP really taught us was that dividing a problem space into 3 parts and farming it out to three consulting companies via Result Based bids results in a trainwreck.

The best employees are already re-skilling themselves at EdX, Pluralight, SkillShare, and the numerous free / cheap options online.

The ones who are whining about lack of training are just self selecting themselves out of the organization.

Absolutely. They only add value if you are on the insurance side of the business. There is no value for the CPCU, AIC, etc if you are on the bank side of the business. Other relevant training would be more valuable.

I was an SFer for a little bit then I quit. I saw the mindset of not paying to train anyone unless they brought measurable value to the organization first. The issue I had was being hired into a position that management didn't understand what they wanted for direction. It was near impossible to show value to leadership so I left. I would imagine if you are doing a job that doesn't have many ambiguities, you should have an opportunity for the org to foster your growth. SF might be one of the greatest regrets of my life but through that fiasco I found another job that I love going into everyday with a set of leadership that foster your relevant training initiatives while at work, which is awesome. And I say "relevant" training because I'm not required to get CPCU or any of those other garbage certifications first.

You know, back in the day we were re skilled ALL THE TIME! But they had a different word for it. They called it cross trained. You would learn other jobs within the company for as many different positions as they had. The only exception might have been upper management. When you got promoted you already had shown how you could be cross trained/re skilled. Almost Every manager, and certainly every supervisor knew what was going on and how to do the jobs. Yes, not everyone can work in coding, but the same can be said for not everyone should work in a call center. If someone has worked for you for a few years, you already know what type of person they are, and how good of a worker they are. That right there is more than half the battle. I agree, re skill your own as much as possible, it is in the company and customers best interest. I also agree purge the employee that is not worth the time or trouble, and you already know who they are.

I think its more about precendence... SF has made set some long time precedence around billing themselves as a family organization... Billing themselves as “we hope people that value our “good neighbor mindset” want to come and work for us their entire career. This is not the 1st time there jas been some course corrections in State Farm history, but it is the first time under Adolf Tipsord and his band of SS troopers Petit and Fawad... The point that the poster was trying to make and a huge reason why CDE fell on its face is there is tremendous value in having history in understanding of the journey. CDE taught us at a very costly tuition mind you, that simply bringing in new blood cannot fix things. Its too big if a highly complex ship steeped in lots of legal, cross product and lets face it, interdepartmental politics. They spew rethoric about how we are going to embrace change and only deliver what has the highest business outcome. This is no new idea, any time we try to streamline, take the “old toys to good will”... Some chairmans circles agent complained, Claims screamed, etc... and we go back what we do best.. Kiss a-- and beg for forgiveness... I have yet to see any cultural change in the business... Other then Adolf Tipsord beating his fist while he executes the largest employee fire sale in the company’s history.. Single handling cannabolisng our ability to actual improve ourselves..: Pyrific victory comes to mind.. I wonder if gyco or progresive is hiring lol

The argument being made in the OP isn't that the company owes anyone re-skilling. The argument is that it's in their own best interest to do so, and this yet another example of the company flushing its future right down the toilet.

Why should the company pay to re-skill anyone?! Thats your reaponsibility to do on your own time. Understand the market and plan accordingly. It’s obviously a nice perk, but not required for a company to pay for. Complain less and study.

You make an excellent point, and it's one that has occurred to me as well. When the company re-organizes like this, they can choose to have one of two types of gaps

1) technical skills gaps

2) State Farm organizational skills gaps

While it may not be in State Farm's best interest to try to retrain ISD BA's to be Java developers, it certainly would be worth choosing the most productive employees and helping them learn new skills so they could be useful because, as you correctly point out, the cost of replacing a seasoned employee is tremendous.

Perhaps they are admitting they have no real way to tell the good employees from the bad, especially now that they've canned many of the people who would have been able to tell the difference.

Or maybe they simply don't care and are working toward a specific outcome on a balance sheet so they can sell the company to the highest bidder.

I don't really know.

The only thing I know for sure is that no work is going to get done in Systems for at least the next year. Which no one up top will notice, because Systems has been messed up since CDE.

And does anyone here really think the executives have any clue was success really looks like in the real world? I think they are completely detached from reality.