Below are all the posts — topics as well as replies — that mention the hashtag #accountability.
Mention #accountability in your post to continue the discussion!
I hope once all the dust settles this week, someone in board axes Ramon, Athina and all the ineffective C-Suite at top.
It’s about time they taste their own medicine and strategy. The icing would be if it happens right before holidays so they also feel the same pain as 1000s who have been axes due to their mistakes at top.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/nov/07/israel-intelligence-cisco-gaza-palestine
Work from home is a total joke!
HRBP, GVP, RVP, asset protection, and any other executive positions need to get back into stores 5 days a week ! Put offices in the stores so we can see for ourselves what these folks actually do! Most are making six figures working from home! That’s a disgrace !
This work from home nonsense is driving the company straight into the ground!
Belk has HRBP’s, GvPs, and RVP’S appearing to work full days with the occasional conference call, zoom meeting. when in reality they are at home running errands, watching television, doing yard work, and napping while the rest of us are actually managing the stores!! This is disgraceful and needs to stop!
Are the leaders behind the FIFA going to be held accountable?
Program was such a waste of money. But it sure looked nice on their linked in posts.
What is this thing of departments having a revolving door of people coming in and going out in a matter of weeks.
Why nobody holds them accountable of poor judgement, biased hiring and dragging everyone down with their poor decisions.
What is this sh*t of "people's person" over technical skills too. Wasn't this hellhole supposed to be an engineering and science hub.
Stupid people with pseudo degrees in everything but oil and gas, I'd guess.
Tech is so jacked. Hiding incidents from leadership.
Order performance issues, biz screaming, azure f’ed, no experts left. You get what you pay for.
So brutal….
Accenture clueless, ITC lazy with no accountability, JH team burying head in sand and avoiding all issues.
Good times…
Are we in the upside down world?
While the US. is on fire with loses in CA greater than total revenue in all of Europe, NK decides to take a trip? We have no T&E to close business and not enough time to visit customers. However, he chose to use money and time to send himself and 10+ others to deliver a message of FY27 being a reset and ask open ended questions to customers?
What is even happening anymore? Maybe NK needs to start logging his activities Salesforce.
Oracle is going in Downward spiral. It has to break before rebuilding itself in certain areas. Some of the top management is ruthless as they are packed with their targets to meet.
But as a leader how much you tried to save your team ? or just accept the numbers proposed by your manager ? You guys know Oracle pays very less to team and you are not affecting one single person but a family.
I know there are lots of politics inside Oracle but tell from your heart how many individual's life you sc--wed up for your own ego and benefits and then felt for your mistakes ?
Karma will back-fire
Amazing with all the RIFs the top surviving re--rds somehow stay in positions in while adding no value whatsoever to the company. Maybe they should replace the board with AI. Ever think about how truly fu--ing useless leadership is vs the workers that get sh-t done?
What the he-l happened to Service Costing, Marketplace vendors, VMO, AI Competitions and all the other BS they used to subject us to?
We have the same EMT but suddenly they realized all those things don’t matter? WTF did we waste so much time on them? All that time could have been better spent preventing MI’s.
Who is accountable for the lack of judgment?
Ive worked for this company for longer than a decade and every single management team Ive worked under has been dysfunctional. State Street does not promote internally, they always go to the market for the latest shiny people and they come in clueless and cause chaos being parachuted down on people already in their roles. The diversity initiatives have also given the company many seriously incompetent female leaders. Seriously, if you are an average working male you are sc--wed in here. SVPs are made redundant leaving whole teams leaderless for months. These teams fumble on and no one takes any accountability. There is a culture of ¨denial¨ at the top as they all try and survive the chaos in the place. Communications are awful. They destroy careers in here, they leave people on the scrap-head internally but still in a job (day after day of awful, mindless purgatory!). No one cares! The place will make you ill and a nervous wreck from looking over your shoulder.
Put your opinions below, I wonder what you think.
So no one in Abby’s board has the guts to tell her, “Everyone’s miserable right now…your decision is damaging the company?”
Stankey seems to have decided that the only person worth listening to is himself. Everybody and everything else is to be ignored. And how did that work for us in the past years?
So tired of these town halls being a repurposed stockholders meetings. Never seems like any real information or solutions are ever really addressed. How many times are we going to hear about "in this together" or you own this project that an entire team is already paid to do
What exactly are these Strategic Partner management team doing in TS&EP? Are they strategic partner management or just coordinators? How is an L10 role justified for attending meetings, collecting information and sending emails about work done by others? And then their leaders appreciate them saying great job. What a joke.
And what is happening with the Salesforce lead? Why is she trying to take ownership of all platforms? Is she planning to take over Priya’s role?
Too many senior roles, overlapping responsibilities and no clarity on who is actually doing the work. How are all these roles justified?
North Carolina's economic development agency has secured incentive deals promising nearly 120,000 jobs over a decade. However, a significant number of these promised jobs have not materialized. The state's top recruiter faces scrutiny over the effectiveness of these deals. It often takes years for jobs to appear, and some never do. This raises questions about the success metrics for economic development initiatives.
Raleigh, North Carolina
https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2026/10/29/edpnc-jdig-awards-jobs-results-analysis-funding.html
I'm tired of seeing employees blame each other based on age while the executives keep getting away with everything. We're not the problem here, the people running this company are.
Feels like more and more people are focused on keeping their jobs rather than actually delivering results. There's so much internal politics going on, and it seems like managing perceptions has become more important than making real progress.
Too many talkers, not enough doers. Instead of finding ways to grow the business, people seem more interested in managing expectations and coming up with excuses for underperformance.
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if next year's financial results look pretty ugly.
The real issue isn't India, Poland, or visa holders. The real issue is transparency from elected politicians, government agencies (EEOC, Dept of Labor) and corporate accountability.
Companies like BNY can move work to lower-cost locations and call it "transformation," "modernization," or "talent strategy." Employees see something different: jobs moving offshore, more visa hires coming onshore, experienced workers disappearing, and very little public reporting that shows the true impact on the U.S. workforce.
Politics matters, but this isn't a Democrat-versus-Republican issue. Both parties have supported globalization, visa programs, and economic policies that help large employers stay competitive. Neither seems particularly interested in requiring companies to disclose how many U.S. jobs are being moved overseas versus how many are actually being created here.
BNY, like many large banks, benefits from visa pipelines. The company gains access to reasonably skilled resources, lower turnover, and workers whose immigration status is often tied to employer sponsorship. In some cases, recent F‑1/OPT and other visa-program participants may also offer payroll or tax advantages compared to hiring experienced domestic workers.
At the same time, state and local governments hand out tax credits and incentives for job creation. On paper, it looks like growth and investment. To many employees, it looks like experienced workers being replaced with lower-cost alternatives. Look at US sites in Pittsburgh, Jersey City, NYC, and Lake Mary.
That's why people keep asking the same questions and with good reason:
How many U.S. jobs were offshored?
How many experienced workers were replaced?
How many positions were filled through visa programs?
What tax incentives were received?
What is the long-term plan for U.S. careers?
Until government entities and companies like BNY start answering those questions honestly, employees will continue assuming the worst. From their perspective, the jobs keep disappearing while leadership keeps saying everything is going according to plan.
We're read the riot act even for the smallest mistake, even when it has no real consequences, yet leadership can mess up so badly that we lose KFC and all we get is crickets. What needs to happen for somebody at the top to finally be held accountable?
Doesn't change your reputation when you keep all of your VPs having a pact with the devil. You ripped off suppliers and shareholders, had accidents in the field by not following established company policies, promoted those that least deserved it. Good luck trying to find anyone with morality to work for your company. I blame Lawler and Nick for establishing this culture. Yet they both landed on their feet in spite of destruction. And their VPs carry on the tradition.
The disconnect between leadership and the actual work being done has become unbelievable. There was a time when conversations with management centered around collaboration, navigating difficult cases, problem-solving, and ultimately improving outcomes. Now it feels like every conversation revolves around which metric is off, what deadline wasn’t met, or which box wasn’t checked quickly enough.
At what point did we lose sight of what actually matters?
We are clinicians, not data entry machines. Our work requires critical thinking, clinical judgment, collaboration, and sometimes navigating situations that don’t fit neatly into a predetermined timeframe or dashboard.
Metrics have their place, but the constant hyper-scrutiny of every little data point is not improving the quality of care. It’s creating an environment where people are more concerned about satisfying a metric than focusing on the actual work in front of them.
Leadership needs to seriously ask themselves what they’re trying to accomplish. Are we improving patient outcomes, or are we just getting better at measuring how quickly someone checks a box?
Because those are two very different things.
I’ve been gone a while, couple of rounds ago. I had to get this out after many former colleagues reaching out after impact, or scared that they’re next. Nike’s leadership is completely tone-deaf, we know this without saying again and again but my goodness, what on the actual h*ll?!
Another round of layoffs announced just weeks ago. Employees terrified they’re next. Former employees still trying to recover. And what’s happening on LinkedIn? Leaders celebrating promotions and advertising senior leadership openings like everything is just wonderful.
How tone-deaf can you possibly be? The complete lack of awareness, judgment, and consideration for the people whose lives have been turned upside down is disgusting. Read the d*mn room.
People who actually gave a sh*t about this company, its customers, and the work they did have been tossed aside. Others are waiting for the next shoe to drop while leadership continues patting itself on the back.
And somehow, there’s money and opportunity for more senior leadership? Fascinating.
Why are you recruiting externally when you have incredibly talented, experienced employees sitting inside your own organization, wondering whether their name is on some bullsh*t, arbitrary layoff spreadsheet? People who have delivered results, know the business, and could very well be qualified for the positions you’re advertising. But instead of giving them an opportunity to stay employed, they’re reduced to a number on a spreadsheet while you go shopping for talent elsewhere. How about giving the people who are STILL THERE an opportunity NOT to lose their jobs? Disgusting.
And to former Nike employees considering reapplying? Don’t bother. Almost guaranteed you will find yourself automatically rejected. Don’t believe me? Ask around.
How many rounds of layoffs and leadership shakeups does it take before someone admits the problem starts at the top?
And when will Nike realize this goes far beyond the quiet, carefully managed conversations they have with the people they’re laying off?
Those conversations don’t stay behind closed doors. People talk. Families talk. Former employees talk. The public sees it. YOUR CONSUMERS SEE IT.
Speaking from personal experience, it’s sickening to watch. I’ve witnessed serious misconduct concerns involving people who reported to me while watching other employees lose their livelihoods. I have serious concerns about whether accountability was applied consistently and whether race improperly influenced who was protected and who was pushed out. Don’t come after me here, I’m not the only one. Check the post layoff rosters friends.
So spare everyone the corporate messaging about integrity, values, and doing the right thing until you’re willing to demonstrate those things internally.
And those glowing LinkedIn comments? Let’s not confuse public congratulations with universal approval. Some employees are too afraid to speak up, and people outside the organization are desperate for opportunities. That doesn’t mean everyone is buying what you’re selling.
Here’s what Nike’s leadership seems to forget. Your employees ARE your consumers. So are their spouses, children, friends, and families. Every person you’ve pushed out has a story, and every employee still living in fear has one too.
You can spend billions marketing a brand, but you can’t market your way out of treating people like sh*t.
Keep celebrating yourselves. Keep posting about your exciting new chapters while the people who helped build this company are left picking up the pieces while they watch your tasteless parading.
The damage to Nike’s reputation doesn’t end when an employee’s access badge stops working.
The people you discard don’t disappear. They become part of the story consumers tell about your brand.
Elad, if you’re reading this, looks like you’ve officially been voted off the sinking ship too.
Pack up your ego, your arrogance, Janus, FDX and the rest of those multimillion dollar projects that never seemed to deliver on their promises. The company has spent enough money funding your grand visions and self promotion.
Here’s what you seem to be missing. Employees have lost confidence in your leadership. People are tired of being dragged into another expensive project with big promises and little to show for it. Respect isn’t something you get because of your title. You earn it by actually delivering.
At some point, read the room. Pack your sh-t, leave the ego behind, and make room for someone people actually want to follow.
Welcome to the new Comcast, where employees are done waiting for leadership to hold itself accountable. If the executives won’t do it, we will. Publicly. Your title doesn’t protect you from your track record anymore.
Lehitraot, Elad. Don't let the door hit your ego on the way out.
Wells Fargo's Team Member Code of Ethics says your personal finances are private — but because you represent the bank, you have to manage them "properly and in a prudent manner."
What that means in practice:
So: an honest mistake, no. A habit of writing checks on empty accounts, yes — the Code treats it as an integrity issue, not a private one.
Source: Wells Fargo Team Member Code of Ethics and Business Conduct (SEC filing)
Once again as I drive into the garage today I see the signs are all broken. Why can’t they keep the signs working? I’ve never seen this problem at other parking garages. It is a constant issue. Why can’t they fix it? Don’t we have instrumentation and controls engineers? If this is any indication of our ability no wonder SBM is operating everything in Guyana while we watch.
Well, I've seen it all now. The customer had the rights to the code, so the account is losing it up to their Git host.
Now, the real shenanigans will start. I can't believe this was allowed to happen. I miss my EDS days, customer owned the data, EDS owned the code.
The State is going to use this against us. I don't like this at all. What special flower allowed this to happen? Probably one of those new banker managers. I'm just shaking my head & rolling my eyes.
You should dr-g test all employees. Lots if twitchy tweekers in b1
Late night, hot off the press information from your favorite “pompous windbag!” This absolutely could not wait until tomorrow. Here’s some news sure to get some opinions… please share yours!
Well, this is certainly interesting!
On October 27, thirteen U.S. senators, led by Ron Wyden and Bernie Sanders, launched a formal inquiry into ten major health insurers, including Centene, over their participation in a federal initiative that canceled approximately 315,000 ACA Marketplace enrollments covering more than 760,000 people.
CMS says the enrollments were unauthorized and estimates approximately $2.2 BILLION in recovered premium tax credits.
You might say, “Hey, this sounds like a victory against fraud, right?” But WAIT… Not so fast. According to the senators' inquiry, insurers cooperated with CMS by contacting members and requesting additional personal information, sometimes including Social Security numbers. Members who failed to respond were allegedly included in lists used to terminate coverage.
The senators question whether those actions complied with federal requirements governing midyear eligibility determinations.
And here's the particularly interesting part. CMS didn't update the relevant guidance until October 1. The coverage cancellations were effective August 31. The senators want to know what legal authority the insurers relied upon when they participated.
Now, fraud in the ACA Marketplace is a legitimate concern. Nobody should be defending fraudulent enrollments.
But here's a question:
Since when does not answering an unsolicited communication constitute proof of fraud?
No medical claims? Maybe the person was healthy. Zero-dollar premium? That's how subsidies work. Didn't respond to a request for personal information? Perhaps they thought it was a scam. None of those circumstances, by themselves, establishes that someone fraudulently obtained coverage.
And this is where Centene enters the picture.
Centene operates one of the nation's largest ACA Marketplace businesses.
Its own October 27 earnings release shows Marketplace membership declining from 5.83 million to 3.40 million year over year, a roughly 42% reduction.
To be clear, there's no evidence establishing how many of those departures resulted from this federal initiative. The 760,000 figure covers multiple insurers, not just Centene.
But that makes the next questions even more important.
Congress is asking insurers to explain:
What evidence was used to identify supposedly unauthorized enrollments?
Did insurers consider whether legitimate members might be wrongly terminated?
How many affected members subsequently sought reinstatement or submitted medical claims?
Were children included in the termination lists?
Did the companies evaluate the legal basis for CMS's requests before cooperating?
Are they participating in another round of terminations?
Centene has until November 6 to respond to the inquiry.
And here's what I'd really like to know. Centene requires its employees to complete annual Compliance, Ethics, and Fraud, Waste & Abuse training.
We were taught to recognize suspicious activity, follow established procedures, document decisions, and escalate concerns. So what did Centene's own Compliance and Legal teams conclude about the evidence and procedures behind these cancellations? Did they independently evaluate the risk of terminating legitimate members? Or did they simply rely on CMS's assurances?
We don't know. That's why Congress is asking. And no, a congressional inquiry isn't proof that Centene broke the law. But the distinction between suspected fraud and proven fraud matters enormously when the consequence is losing health insurance… talk about “changing lives” amirite? But hey… margin.
Here's the bottom line.
If an insurer can help remove someone from coverage based on questionable indicators, who is responsible for proving the decision was justified? CMS? The insurance company? The broker? Or does the burden somehow fall on the person who just discovered they no longer have health insurance?
Fraud prevention requires evidence. So does accountability.
And if we're going to terminate someone's healthcare coverage in the name of protecting taxpayers, perhaps demonstrating that the person actually did something wrong shouldn't be an optional step. But hey, at least somebody is asking the questions!
SOURCES:
U.S. Senate — October 27, 2026
Wyden, Sanders and 11 Senate colleagues announce inquiry into ten insurers, including Centene:
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-sanders-senate-democrats-call-out-insurance-company-collusion-with-trump-administration-to-kick-thousands-of-americans-off-health-insurance
CMS — September 22, 2026
Federal Marketplace Anti-Fraud Actions:
https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/federal-marketplace-ffe-sbe-fp-anti-fraud-actions
Centene — October 27, 2026
Q3 2026 earnings and Marketplace membership:
https://investors.centene.com/2026-10-27-CENTENE-CORPORATION-REPORTS-THIRD-QUARTER-2026-RESULTS
Fierce Healthcare — October 27, 2026
Democratic senators probe insurers' role in canceling ACA coverage for 760K:
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/democratic-senators-probe-insurers-role-canceling-aca-coverage-760k
I must say that the CPO being demoted - not fired or retired - is accountability. Gonna have to clean up that huge pile of po-p and not gonna drag anyone down anymore. Big ball of mud! We are all watching!!!
Better together was such a childish idea for our divisive culture. I'm glad the baby talk is over. For years the CPO failed to bring together Comcast and Sky. Failed to bring together Entertainment and Connectivity. Failed to bring together Product and Technology. Wasted our investments chasing delusions. He and his SLT always so insecure about the size of their scopes. Always tapping each other on the back, congratulating themselves for their minor achievements. All they ever delivered was beautiful power point presentations. Let's see how much longer the legacy X1 bros will survive together.
Thank you SC for letting him know he is na--d! It was about time someone told him the truth.
What a show!!!
I thought this content deserved to stand on its own. I've compiled it from the other posts and added some bolding using copilot. Of course there is nothing to suggest this feedback is actually coming from GE as might have been suggested.
MH — EVP & President, Gas Distribution & Storage
You have strong judgment and an admirable capacity to make decisions quickly.
More often than not, that decisiveness serves the organization well.
The corresponding risk is acting before enough contrary information has reached you.
Decisiveness loses some of its value when people conclude that bringing forward uncertainty, mistakes or an opposing perspective carries more personal risk than remaining silent.
The strongest decision-makers deliberately create conditions in which people can tell them something they may not want to hear.
Your leadership opportunity is to protect that space.
Encourage dissent before the decision. Reward candour when something goes wrong. Give people genuine permission to admit uncertainty.
**Before major decisions, deliberately invite the strongest contrary view and make it safe for people to surface uncertainty, mistakes or opposing evidence.**
A leader does not become less decisive by listening longer when the stakes warrant it.
Better information will not weaken your judgment.
It will make it stronger.
⸻
CG — EVP & President, Liquids Pipelines
You are a strong champion of the organization and of the people who make it successful. That loyalty is a strength.
The corresponding leadership challenge is ensuring that harmony never becomes a substitute for accountability.
Every large institution develops entrenched interests, concentrations of influence, capability gaps and functions whose size or complexity can outgrow the value they create. Senior leadership must be willing to confront those realities, particularly when doing so is uncomfortable.
Relationships, history and organizational politics cannot be permitted to make legitimate questions harder to ask.
Your opportunity is not to become less supportive of your leaders. It is to demand more from them.
**Create an environment in which constructive challenge is expected, value must be demonstrated, and difficult questions are welcomed rather than managed around.**
The organization already knows you will stand behind it. It should also know that you will challenge it to become better.
⸻
MA — EVP & President, Gas Transmission
Your leadership style has brought a welcome degree of openness and accessibility.
There is real value in creating an environment where capable people can contribute without feeling that every discussion is a test of survival.
There is also value, however, in a culture where weak analysis, unnecessary complexity and poorly supported positions are expected to withstand serious scrutiny before they reach the decision table.
Some of that discipline can be lost when openness becomes too comfortable.
**Your leadership opportunity is to preserve the accessibility while raising the standard of challenge.**
Good leadership should create psychological safety, but it should not create intellectual complacency. People should expect to defend their assumptions, demonstrate the value they are creating and answer plainly when something is not working.
The goal is not a return to a harsher culture.
It is something better: high trust and high standards at the same time.
⸻
PM — EVP & Chief Financial Officer
You articulate a compelling view of how central functions should serve the enterprise.
Your leadership opportunity is to make that operating philosophy unmistakably clear in practice.
There is a fundamental question that requires resolution: are central functions primarily expected to enable the businesses, or are they also expected to provide an independent check when business decisions create enterprise risk?
Either model can work. A deliberate hybrid can work.
Ambiguity cannot.
If leaders in central functions are expected to challenge the business, they need the authority, information and executive sponsorship to do so. If their primary role is to enable business decisions, accountability for those decisions must remain with the business.
People should not be held responsible for outcomes they were never empowered to influence.
**Your challenge is to establish that compact clearly and enforce it consistently.**
Ask whether your leaders genuinely possess both the responsibility and the authority required to prevent a materially poor decision.
If they do not, either give them that authority or place the accountability where it actually belongs.
That clarity would strengthen both the business and the functions meant to support it.
⸻
AC — SVP, Corporate Strategy & President, Power
It is encouraging to see real attention and leadership capacity being directed toward diversification, power and renewables.
The challenge now is to convert more of that attention into momentum.
Emerging businesses can spend too much time evaluating possibilities, refining analysis and attempting to remove uncertainty before acting. In markets that are changing quickly, waiting for certainty can itself become the greater risk.
**Your opportunity is to create greater permission to move.**
Make smaller bets. Learn faster. Allow intelligent failure. Adjust as evidence emerges. Give capable teams room to act before every variable has been resolved.
Not every opportunity needs to be perfected before the organization participates. Sometimes six months of doing will teach more than another year of analysis.
The organization has considerable capacity to think.
Your leadership challenge is to make it equally confident in acting.
⸻
MW — SVP & Chief Commercial Officer, Liquids Pipelines
You bring energy, ambition and a valuable instinct to challenge the status quo.
The organization needs leaders who create momentum.
**Your leadership opportunity is to put more discipline between an idea and an instruction to act.**
At your level, even a relatively casual request can mobilize significant effort. Before launching work, it is worth understanding the problem being solved, the scale of effort required, what existing priorities will be displaced and whether the likely value justifies that disruption.
Not every interesting idea needs to become organizational work.
Your challenge is not to reduce the energy. It is to focus it.
Fewer initiatives. Better understood. Properly sponsored. Adequately resourced. Driven through to completion.
The organization will benefit most when your ability to catalyze change is matched by equal discipline in deciding which changes deserve its finite attention.
⸻
MC — SVP, Operations & Engineering, Liquids Pipelines
You bring exceptional capability and considerable intellectual strength to the organization.
Your leadership opportunity is humility.
An enterprise of this scale contains many highly capable people. Senior leadership becomes more powerful when personal capability creates room for the expertise of others rather than inadvertently diminishing it.
**Listen with genuine curiosity.**
Invite challenge from people who may know something you do not. Demonstrate that seniority, confidence and intelligence do not automatically confer the best answer.
You do not need to diminish your own strengths.
The challenge is to use them in a way that makes the people around you bigger as well.
The strongest leaders are not remembered simply for being impressive themselves. They are remembered for making an entire organization more capable.
⸻
ML — SVP & Chief Accounting Officer
Your leadership opportunity is to create greater clarity around how financial discipline should enable the enterprise rather than inadvertently constrain its ability to perform.
The fundamental question is whether Finance and Accounting exist principally to establish the framework and information within which the business exercises judgment, or whether they are expected to exert more direct control over those judgments.
Either model can work. Ambiguity cannot.
This matters particularly when resources are constrained. Broad reductions made without a sufficiently deep understanding of the underlying work, accountabilities and cost drivers can create very different levels of organizational capability without any deliberate decision that those differences should exist.
Financial discipline must be rigorous. But rigour is not the same as indiscriminate restraint.
**Your leadership challenge is to understand the economics of the work deeply enough to distinguish true efficiency from the simple transfer of cost, risk or unfinished work somewhere less visible.**
If the business is expected to exercise autonomy, give it clear boundaries and let it lead. If Finance chooses to exercise greater control, it must also accept greater accountability for the consequences.
Clarity on that compact would materially improve both performance and trust.
⸻
MM — SVP & Chief Human Resources & Inclusion Officer
HR cannot credibly ask an organization to live by standards that its own leadership does not visibly model.
Your most important leadership challenge is therefore consistency between what the function expects from others and what its own leadership demonstrates.
Where expectations around spending, policy or organizational discipline are applied strictly across the enterprise, exercising visibly greater latitude within the function creates a credibility problem regardless of how individual decisions might be explained.
At this level, perception matters because senior leaders establish the behavioural standard for everyone below them.
For the head of Human Resources, that standard should be higher, not lower.
HR asks employees to respect policy, leaders to exercise discipline, and the organization to accept difficult decisions in the interests of fairness and consistency. Those messages lose legitimacy if people believe the function operates under different rules.
Leadership by example is foundational to trust.
**Your challenge is to hold yourself and your organization conspicuously to the standards you expect from others: disciplined judgment, transparent exceptions, personal accountability and visible respect for the rules the institution asks everyone else to follow.**
If HR is to champion fairness and integrity, those qualities must be unmistakable at the top of HR.
⸻
MF — SVP & Chief Communications Officer
Your leadership opportunity is to ensure that Communications creates more value than complexity.
Every central function has to decide when it is enabling the business and when legitimate enterprise risk requires it to exercise greater control.
Some governance is necessary. But governance should always be proportionate to risk.
Not every communication warrants the same degree of central intervention, review or ownership. Consistency should not become an argument for inserting the function into work where the value of doing so is marginal.
The important question is whether Communications is materially improving clarity, trust and effectiveness relative to the time and organizational friction its processes create.
**Your challenge is to simplify the model.**
Be rigorous where reputation or material risk genuinely requires it. Everywhere else, trust capable leaders and allow the organization to move.
A high-performing Communications function should make the enterprise clearer, faster and more credible—not merely more controlled.
⸻
MGeo — SVP, The Next 75 & Chief Transition Officer
The ambition behind the transformation agenda is important.
The harder question is whether that ambition has translated into durable change in how the organization actually works.
Are processes materially clearer? Are accountabilities better understood? Is the organization genuinely better prepared for AI and technology-enabled work? Or has the pursuit of the future sometimes moved faster than the discipline required to understand the present?
Transformation can easily become a contest over future ownership and organizational control instead of a disciplined examination of how work is performed, where value is created, where waste exists and what the future process genuinely requires.
Urgency matters.
But urgency cannot substitute for method.
**Your opportunity is to bring greater discipline to transformation: rigorous current-state analysis, measurable problems, clear process ownership, evidence-based future-state design and an honest assessment of whether change has actually produced better outcomes.**
The standard should not be the volume of transformation activity.
It should be whether the organization works materially better because of it.
⸻
SA — SVP & Chief Information Officer
Your central leadership opportunity is conviction: knowing what you stand for, being prepared to defend it, and communicating clearly when legitimate reasons cause your position to change.
The concern is not that you change your mind. Good leaders should change their minds when facts, risks or circumstances warrant it. The concern is establishing a direction, giving people confidence that they have your support, and then allowing that direction to change under pressure without adequately resetting the organization.
That creates real consequences.
In a large organization, people exercise judgment based upon the principles and direction established by their leaders. When those principles move without clear communication, capable people can find themselves working against a position they did not know had changed and later being questioned for decisions that were entirely reasonable when they made them.
TIS depends upon hundreds of people exercising judgment every day. They need to know what their leader believes, which principles are durable, where they can rely on executive support and when circumstances genuinely require a different course.
**Your challenge is to become more resolute about the things that matter and more transparent when your thinking evolves.**
Leadership at this level is not simply making decisions. It is establishing enough consistency of principle that other people can make good decisions when you are not in the room.
Your people need to know what you stand for. Give them that certainty.
⸻
CW — VP, ERP Lead & Sustainment
An ERP transformation of this scale requires leadership that people can see, hear and experience.
Employees should not simply know that executive leadership exists somewhere above the governance structure.
They should experience regular engagement from the leader accountable for the transformation: listening to the people doing the work, understanding the obstacles they face, resolving difficult issues and being personally present when consequential decisions are required.
Programs can be managed through governance structures.
Transformations cannot be led exclusively through them.
**Your opportunity is to become significantly more visible to the people expected to make the ERP transformation succeed.**
Visibility is not ceremonial. It creates alignment, builds confidence, surfaces problems sooner and signals that the transformation matters enough for its senior leaders to remain personally engaged.
If the organization is being asked to change fundamentally, its leaders need to be present in that change.
⸻
LP — VP, Human Resources & Development
Your leadership opportunity is to spend less energy explaining the culture the organization already has and more energy creating the culture it says it wants.
HR can easily become the institutional interpreter: explaining why a decision was reasonable, why a process technically worked, or why an employee experience is consistent with established policy.
Some of that work is necessary. It cannot become the default response to legitimate concern.
The more important question is whether the organization is becoming better.
When employees identify inconsistency, unnecessary bureaucracy, weak leadership behaviour or a gap between stated values and lived experience, HR’s first instinct should be curiosity rather than justification.
Listen before explaining.
Seek direct exposure to perspectives that may not travel comfortably through the hierarchy. Distinguish understanding a decision from defending it.
**Your leadership opportunity is to make HR a stronger agent of cultural change: acknowledge where the organization falls short and use the influence of the function to help leaders close those gaps.**
Culture is not something HR should merely interpret. It is something HR has a responsibility to help create.
⸻
LW — VP & Chief Compliance Officer
An organization should be willing to hold itself to the standards it sets for others and to the standards it sets for itself.
Those commitments matter most when honouring them is inconvenient, uncomfortable or requires challenging people with significant authority.
That is where Compliance should carry particular gravity.
The function cannot allow itself to become merely an institutional advocate whose role is to rationalize an outcome, defend a preferred interpretation or explain why what has already happened should be accepted.
If Compliance becomes primarily the function that constructs the best defence of an existing position, it risks surrendering the independence and moral authority that give it value.
**Your leadership opportunity is to decide what Compliance is prepared to stand for.**
There will be moments when that requires telling colleagues at the most senior levels that the organization should do better—not because a technical rule compels it, but because the standard the institution has chosen for itself demands more.
That is not disloyalty. It is stewardship.
The strongest Compliance leader does more than protect the institution from wrongdoing. They help the institution become worthy of its own commitments.
⸻
MP — VP, TIS USUI, ERP & Central Functions
You bring deep experience, strong judgment and considerable credibility with your peers. You know what good can look like and are well positioned to recognize where TIS needs to improve.
**Your opportunity is to use that influence more assertively.**
There can be a tendency to conclude that an issue is not sufficiently consequential to warrant a difficult disagreement. But leadership is not reserved for crises.
Institutions are shaped just as much by the accumulation of smaller compromises, weak decisions and missed opportunities that capable people chose not to challenge.
When you have a clear conviction about what needs to change, state it. Advocate for it. Use the experience and credibility you have earned to influence the outcome, even when doing so introduces some discomfort.
You do not need to become confrontational. You do need to become more deliberate and visible in exercising your influence.
TIS would benefit from hearing more clearly what you believe, why it matters and what better looks like.
You have earned a platform. The leadership challenge now is to use it.
⸻
MGla — VP, Utility Public Affairs & Communications
**Your leadership opportunity is to consider more carefully how your presence affects the willingness of others to contribute, challenge and disagree.**
Strong executive presence does not require being the dominant force in every discussion.
Some of the strongest leaders demonstrate confidence by creating space for others, responding proportionately to disagreement and allowing the quality of an argument—not organizational rank or force of personality—to determine its weight.
When leadership presence becomes too dominant, capable people begin to edit themselves.
The organization then receives less challenge, less creativity and ultimately less value from the talent in the room.
Your opportunity is not to become less forceful.
It is to use that force with greater proportion and judgment.
Create more room for other people to be heard. Invite disagreement. Demonstrate that challenge is welcome rather than something that has to be survived.
The measure of executive presence is not how much space a leader occupies.
It is how much capability they unlock in everyone else.
⸻
RH — VP & General Manager, Enbridge Gas North Carolina
You bring substantial experience into an organization that is now operating within a different company and a different culture.
That gives you an important opportunity.
Integration should not mean conformity. Acquisitions create value partly because incoming organizations bring practices, experience and perspectives that the parent company did not already possess.
You have credibility. Use it.
Where your experience points to a better way, say so. Where established approaches deserve to be challenged, challenge them constructively. Where Enbridge can learn from what you have seen work elsewhere, bring those lessons forward with confidence.
**Your leadership opportunity is to become a more visible voice in shaping the combined organization rather than simply adapting to it.**
Leadership at this level requires more than fitting in. It requires helping the institution become better because you became part of it.
⸻
TS — VP & Chief Supply Chain Officer
Supply Chain has carried a demanding workload through significant organizational change.
Your people need visible leadership and clarity about the mandate they are being asked to fulfill.
The fundamental question is whether Supply Chain is principally an enabling function, a control function, or deliberately both.
The answer needs to be clear to your teams and equally clear to the businesses they support.
Once that mandate is established, people need to know that leadership will stand behind them when they exercise it properly.
Employees cannot reasonably be asked to enforce enterprise standards and then be left exposed when those standards become inconvenient to others.
**Your leadership opportunity is therefore threefold: clarify the mandate, remain close enough to the people doing the work to understand what they face, and visibly support them when they make difficult decisions consistent with that mandate.**
Clarity without sponsorship is not enough.
⸻
TL — VP, Technology & Information Services, LP/GTM
Your leadership challenge is fundamentally about trust, accountability and follow-through.
People need to know they can rely on their leader, particularly when decisions become difficult, attract criticism or produce uncomfortable outcomes.
When leadership support recedes as pressure rises, people learn very quickly. They become more cautious. They protect themselves. They take fewer reasonable risks. Eventually, they begin asking whether their leader will stand beside them when it matters.
You should ask yourself some difficult questions.
Can your people count on you? Do you consistently follow through on what you say you will do? When an outcome is poor, do you first examine your own role before assigning accountability downward? Have you committed to more than you can realistically deliver?
Accountability begins at the top.
Leadership requires ambition, but credibility also requires restraint. Sometimes the stronger decision is to say no, narrow the agenda, make fewer promises and deliver them relentlessly.
**Your opportunity is to rebuild trust through predictability: be clear about what you support, follow through on what you commit to, and stand beside people who have exercised reasonable judgment based on your direction.**
Your people do not need protection from accountability. They need a leader who shares it.
⸻
AS — Director, TIS Strategy, Policy & Programs
Your leadership opportunity is to close the gap between intention and execution.
Strategy, policy and governance functions inevitably generate discussion, frameworks and commitments.
Their credibility ultimately depends upon whether the business experiences a meaningful result.
When a commitment is made, it needs ownership, a date and closure. When circumstances prevent delivery, that needs to be communicated directly rather than allowed to drift.
Repeatedly articulating the right intention without producing the expected outcome eventually becomes a credibility problem.
The standard should be straightforward: people across the business should be able to rely on what you and your function say you will do.
Build that reputation deliberately.
Make fewer ambiguous commitments. Establish clear ownership. Follow through. Communicate early when something changes.
**Make fewer commitments, assign clear ownership and dates, follow through, and communicate early when circumstances change.**
Reliability is not administrative discipline.
It is leadership.
⸻
HT — Director, People & Performance
You have capable people around you.
**Your leadership opportunity is to give them more voice, more room and stronger sponsorship.**
A People & Performance function should model the very behaviours it seeks to encourage across the organization: listening, constructive challenge, empowerment and a willingness to improve established ways of working.
When talented people identify something that should change, leadership should help them sharpen the idea, test it and, when it has merit, champion it through the organization.
Your role is not simply to manage capable people. It is to amplify them.
Create an environment in which thoughtful challenge travels upward, good ideas can become action, and people know that leadership will stand behind them when they are trying constructively to make the institution better.
⸻
SS — Director, Financial Planning & Analysis
Analysis creates value when it helps an organization make better decisions.
It creates less value when the pursuit of certainty prevents a decision from being made.
Leadership sometimes requires reaching a conclusion with imperfect information, being explicit about the assumptions behind it, and remaining prepared to adjust as better evidence emerges.
Your opportunity is to become more comfortable exercising that judgment.
People do not expect certainty where certainty does not exist. They do expect leaders to synthesize the available evidence, state a position and help the organization move forward.
Disciplined conviction is often preferable to prolonged ambiguity.
**Develop the confidence to take a position when the evidence is sufficient, even when it is not complete.**
Been holding off on this post. How did this group come about. How do you get to live off others work in such a manner. No communications no plans nothing. Here we are, we run the show but not really.
Good morning, team. 😊
First of all, I want to thank everyone for being here today, especially those of you who managed to arrive without turning a minor scheduling conflict into a full-blown emotional support emergency.
Truly inspiring.
Today, I want to talk about leadership. Specifically, how we lead a team of people who apparently believe that every task is unreasonable, every change is a personal attack, and every expectation is something that should have been discussed in a committee.
Because here’s the thing: leadership is not the art of making sure nobody is ever uncomfortable. It’s the art of getting things done while everyone involved develops the resilience to survive an email.
I know change is hard. I know accountability can feel uncomfortable. And I fully understand that sometimes, things don’t go exactly the way we wanted.
But at some point, we have to ask ourselves: are we facing a genuine obstacle, or are we simply experiencing the consequences of being asked to do our jobs?
Because those are two very different things.
Imagine if, instead of responding to every new responsibility with a 14-part explanation of why it’s inconvenient, we simply assessed the situation and figured out what needed to happen.
And imagine if we could receive constructive feedback without behaving like someone had just revoked our streaming subscriptions and canceled our three day weekend.
I am not asking anyone to be perfect. We all make mistakes. We all get frustrated. We all have days when the last thing we want to do is deal with another person’s nonsense.
The difference is that SOME people manage their frustration, while OTHERS apparently believe it is a team-building exercise to make sure everyone else experiences it with them.
And respectfully, we ARE going to GET TO WORK on that.
I realize that may be a difficult message to receive. Please take whatever time you need to process it. I’ll give you a moment.
Because I know that complaining is easy. Criticizing is easy. Name calling is easy. Let's stop confusing resistance with constant negativity.
Until then, I remain committed to supporting your growth.
Because apparently, we still have some growing to do.
Thank you. Let's get to work. 🙂
Managers / Directors over here collecting big pay checks. While their workforce is doing all the work. They sit in a meeting with uppers, but can’t help their own team out. Why do we even need them, when the team relies on each other and the Next level above them for help? Come on Comcast get your spy googles out and dig deeper. Some of the frontline need their jobs. While these higher paid are sitting at home or traveling with their families acting like they taking care of their teams. All the frontline is watching them do this. They have even worked their way to skew the RTO. Wish I had that type job. Some even are using Sedgwick excuses. Sad to watch the folks that are on chopping block, while these others out here learned to skirt the system.
This company is the perfect example of mediocrity from its management to financial results. Over 5 years of straight shareholder losses but yet the hold its employees to this super high level of performance and productivity. Makes no sense and in no way aligns with PayPals company actions.
Centene beat Wall Street's Q3 earnings expectations. Management raised guidance. Everybody celebrate! 🎉
Except there's some interesting math buried in those results.
• ~61,000~ 53,900 employees. Down 7,000 in a year.
• 2.3 MILLION fewer managed-care members.
• GAAP administrative expenses actually INCREASED.
• $480 MILLION in expected restructuring costs excluded from adjusted earnings.
• GAAP EPS: −$0.14. Adjusted EPS: +$0.58.
During the earnings call, Barclays analyst Andrew Mok asked a pretty reasonable question:
Management couldn't quantify them. Just promises of improvement in 2027. Meanwhile, Sarah London talked about AI, automation, and investments in the company's data and context layer.
Oh, excellent! So where's the ROI?
What actually got more efficient? How much work shifted to vendors? What happened to service quality? And how much of the improving expense ratio comes from actual productivity versus simply having fewer members?
Because Centene acknowledged that changing business mix contributed to the improvement. That's not necessarily transformation. That's math.
You can eliminate thousands of jobs, shrink the business, outsource operations, and call it AI-enabled efficiency. But until you demonstrate better outcomes at a sustainably lower total cost, you've demonstrated cost cutting. Not transformation.
And if you eliminated the people who actually understood how the business worked? Don't worry. I'm sure the consultants can figure it out. 😂 Maybe they can even explain why the analysts didn't ask for the actual ROI before celebrating it.
And here's another question Wall Street should've asked:
The reality??? Go back in time and show us the original projections, the revisions, the actual results, and the explanations for the misses. Quarter by quarter. Because eventually, "trust us, next year will be better" stops being guidance and starts being a question about accountability. 🤔 Seriously though… go back and look at them. I did before writing this.
As we move through a horrible week for our employees, there is little reason to believe our most senior executives will change course.
As Rome burns, the meetings continue. Sam S. and Jon G., our strategic development and chief growth officer, hold court on AI companies, trips to California, and the latest voice bot. There are endless slides and metrics, but little scrutiny of what those numbers mean—or what any of it is doing for our customers.
Meanwhile, Verizon signs a $2 billion connectivity deal with AWS - isnt that a strategic development ? Or is a white paper on AI a strategic development ?
Aren’t we a connectivity company? Our customers keep leaving, and the business keeps cycling through its familiar approach: a thousand dartboard approach to yet another offer strategy, another plan, endless complexities that are introduced and ZERO impact to our customer or shareholders (lets celebrate a negative NPS)
The same finance and business leaders —MH, JG, JW, KK, and others—who directed millions of dollars toward a sprawling portfolio of roughly hundreds plan-of-record projects per quarter, year after year, remain in place. Where are the results on churn? Where is the sustained benefit to the stock? Where is the accountability?
Instead, employees who did their best to execute those strategies are paying the price this week. The people who set the direction are still here.
Shiny objects offer a convenient distraction from the operational problems our customers experience every day: broken customer experiences, constantly changing offers, inconsistent execution, and pet projects that consume resources without delivering meaningful results. One moment - Charter knows better, follow them ... wait, I just had lunch with ATT, follow ATT, wait magenta is my favorite color, lets follow T-Mobile.
So much for Angelakis and Croney’s “year of hard truths.”
The meetings are the same. Too few decisions. Too little follow-through. Too few hard conversations. We get lost in slides and EBI metrics that are too often questionable, while discussions about technology stacks and the AI promise of the day provide an easy escape from accountability and the hard truth about any outcomes.
At some point, the ELT has to own the responsibilities of its roles. AI, a deluge of EBI dashboards, and executive opinions about yet another AI company to test, to get the 'I am an innovator badge' - innovation cannot compensate for a failure to address the basic problems frustrating our customers, none of which requires AI to fix. Instead, meetings with 50-plus minions become prolonged debates over yet another pricing strategy, simple content changes that take weeks to decide. The same pattern repeats across countless lack of decisions, meetings, and initiatives, while customers and employees absorb the consequences.
And now we have a transformation office... there is hope .. maybe not
But it is led by the same HR and finance leadership that helped shape the organization we are supposedly transforming. The same functions that hammered the technology teams, didn't bat an eye on the broken business strategy and shenanigans, the bullying and the approved the allocation of millions of $$ behind the pet projects and POR (that had ZERO impact on the growth of the company) are now being asked to lead a transformation LOL.
What, specifically, will be different this time? What demonstrated record of delivery supports that confidence? What authority, expectations, and consequences will change?
A new office does not establish accountability. Another presentation does not demonstrate progress. And another round of employee cuts does not answer the central question:
Why are the people responsible for setting the direction still insulated from the consequences, while the people tasked with executing it lose their jobs
Reward the people who climb the ladder and make a difference, handsomely. But when a decision at the top fails spectacularly, boards should be able to claw back the bonuses on behalf of the customers and employees who pay for it.
The summit this week to reset the E&I Department is less of a strategic breakthrough and more of a desperate exercise in corporate CYA. After twelve long months of toxic management, ignored warnings, and immense personal strain placed on frontline staff, leadership is attempting to sweep a year of chaos under the rug with a single meeting. But true ethical leadership isn't about deflecting blame when things collapse, it requires genuine responsibility. You cannot hold an honest reset while refusing to acknowledge how we got here, who enabled the crisis, or who is still sitting at the table.
Hosting a reset meeting is a farce when leadership ignores the actual timeline of events. For an entire year, investigators were pushed to their absolute limits under unrealistic deadlines, while HR took months of internal and external reviews just to conclude what everyone on the ground already knew: CJM was a terrible fit. To add insult to injury, every employee who bravely raised a concern was met with zero follow-up and total silence.
How does it make any sense to host a reset summit when the very leaders who enabled and drove this toxic environment (SV, LW, MZ) are sitting right there in attendance? While frontline team members faced retaliation and targeted pressure for speaking up, CJM, SV, LW, MZ operated with full protection. You simply cannot repair a broken culture alongside the people who broke it.
What happened here is every company’s worst-case scenario: employees crying out for help while leadership turns a blind eye. Team members endured horrific psychological strain, spending sleepless nights wondering if they would even have a job tomorrow. Meanwhile, executives sat back protected, collected their paychecks, and cashed out their stock options while money and a full year of progress went down the drain.
This was an executive leadership failure from the top down, starting with CK. If leadership actually wants to heal this department then CK must open the summit with a real apology, admit he protected a so-called expert at the expense of the team, and step aside if he can't fix it. The new interim E&I Officer must be given unfiltered access to every complaint directly, bypassing executive summaries.
Ultimately, an institutional "reset" cannot be considered credible when it refuses to address the root causes of the crisis, the leadership failures that enabled it, or the continued presence of those responsible at the decision-making table. True organizational restoration requires more than performative gestures; it demands full transparency, decisive corrective action, and executive-level accountability. Until leadership moves beyond empty rhetoric and confronts these systemic failures directly, this summit remains a superficial exercise in damage control rather than a genuine path toward structural reform.