Citigroup has been in the new recently, since they announced that they’ll eliminate another 52,000 jobs, on top of a previously announced 22,000. Citigroup had a peak employment of 375,000 in 2007 so 1 out of 5 Citigroup emloyees have been affected. According to news reports about 1/2 the reductions will come from business sales. I suspect the acquiring business will then shed some/most/all of those employees.

How can such a massive failure be anything other than the failure of upper management and the CEO Vikram Pandit? I don’t see the economic meltdown as an escuse in this case. Citigroup helped cause the meltdown through lax oversight. Yet they remain in place and despite announcing massive layoffs they might still receive their bonuses. From the article announcing the layoffs:

Mr. Pandit, however, has not decided on whether to share the pain by turning down an annual bonus. “Citi’s board of directors will make the decisions about the structure and level of compensation after the end of the year,” the bank said in a statement.

Sure, let the board decide. Hopefully the board will decide to make Mr. Pandit’s compensation zero and make the latest job reduction total 52,001. How can the board live up to their fiduciary responisbility and give that guy even a dime?

In theory the board is supposed to represent shareholders and act in their interests. Perhaps if the Citigroup rescue plan wipes out shareholder value shareholders in other companies will take more interest in the way their business is run. Citigroup may be too big to fail (open to debate) but even if it is, that doesn’t mean bad management shouldn’t have consequences. Especially for the managers.