Breaking Down Wall Street’s Response to Overwork Outcry
By Matt Harrison, Managing Director and Gloria Han, Associate
Managing Director
Associate
Tragedy at Bank of America
In May, the sudden death of Leo Lukenas – an investment banking associate at Bank of America who died suddenly of a blood clot while working 100-hour weeks and searching for a job with a more manageable workload – reignited scrutiny of Wall Street banks’ treatment of junior employees.
In the days following Lukenas’ death, Bank of America issued the following statement to media outlets:
“We are devastated by the loss of our teammate. We continue to focus on doing whatever we can to support the family and our team especially those who worked closely with him.”
Notably, this statement – which was attributed to an unnamed spokeswoman – did not communicate the bank’s values or priorities with respect to its employees. Bank of America also declined to answer questions about Lukenas’ workload or working conditions that many believed may have contributed to Lukenas’ death, prompting one junior banker to tell Business Insider that employees felt the bank had not acknowledged the situation and had dismissed the possibility of Lukenas’ death being work-related.
Bank of America employee dissatisfaction was on display again a month later when two trainees disclosed to Bloomberg News that senior bankers often told juniors to underreport their hours to avoid attention from HR. In response, a Bank of America spokesperson issued another statement to the media, stating that the bank’s “practices are clear and [it] expects all employees including managers to follow them.”
It wasn’t until after a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that Bank of America systemically ignores rules meant to prevent dangerous workloads that the bank communicated directly with junior employees and instructed them to report if they are pressured to misreport hours.
JP Morgan’s response
Although the bank was not the subject of direct scrutiny, JP Morgan took the opportunity to reflect on the situation, with CEO Jamie Dimon publicly stating in May that the bank was asking “what can we learn” from the tragedy. Then, in September, JP Morgan sent memos to its employees announcing a series of proactive steps it was taking to address these relevant industry-wide issues, including capping hours for junior bankers at 80 per week, appointing longtime executive Ryland McClendon to oversee junior staff, and pledging to hire more junior bankers to spread the workload. The memos made clear that the purpose of these actions was to support the “well-being and success” of its junior bankers.
Much of JP Morgan’s employee-centric approach can be attributed to Jamie Dimon, who has been outspoken about the issue since Lukenas’ death and has consistently shown empathy toward employees. At a Georgetown University conference in September, Dimon made clear his position on giving junior bankers weekend work simply because of tradition or inefficiencies, stating, “It’s just not right,” and promised to hold senior bankers accountable for violating policies designed to protect junior staff.
Assessing the responses
When a crisis arises that directly impacts employee health and well-being, the stakes for effective communications are significantly heightened. In these situations, employees will look to their leaders to openly address the issue, alleviate their concerns, and show that they care. When leaders are absent from the conversation or a company fails to address its team directly, employees take note.
Bank of America performed poorly in its response to the crisis. Its messaging was reactive, defensive, impersonal, and largely handled by a spokesperson through the media. Initially, the bank did not communicate directly with its junior employees and missed an opportunity to let them know it acknowledges the situation and cares about their well-being. Bank of America’s lacking response led junior employees to say they felt “dismissed” by their employer.
Mounting criticism pressured Bank of America to respond to investigative findings rather than address the underlying situation and how it would do better. While Bank of America’s managers and HR personnel eventually addressed junior employees about cultural reforms and indicated that the mandates “came from the top,” it would have been more effective for the bank’s top leaders to address employees in the first instance.
In contrast, JP Morgan handled its response to the tragedy very well. The bank’s public comments on the situation and proactive communication highlighted its understanding that investment banking culture is not only Bank of America’s problem, but also is an industry-wide issue. Additionally, Jamie Dimon’s personal ownership of – and role as a spokesperson on – the issue makes JP Morgan’s rhetoric and efforts come across as genuine and transparent. Similarly, the bank’s pledge to hold senior bankers accountable for cultural shifts, as well as its use of language directly connecting its initiatives to the “well-being and success” of its employees, lends credibility to JP Morgan’s messages. Instead of ignoring a tragedy that could have easily been dismissed as someone else’s problem, JP Morgan used this industry-wide crisis as an opportunity to put its values into action and build trust with employees.
Takeaways
Employee tragedies connected to working conditions can quickly spiral out of control and constitute a crisis for employers. Corporate leaders should communicate proactively and empathetically with employees in these situations.
They also should be visible to their employee base (i.e., not relying on an unnamed spokesperson or shying away from addressing employees in person), and their communications should outline actionable steps the company is taking to address the situation.