#accountability

More and more employees are coming to this site to share their experiences under current leadership. Leadership, starting with Ramon, needs to take ownership

A massive $7Million saving to DXC. They need to stop paying millions to useless Execs who can't deliver growth.

So many have gone through the DXC Exec ladder promising turnaround but were actually incapable 3rd raters.

DXC is known as "the milking company for useless EXECS."

I’m starting to think hiring incompetent people is just part of the Fossil business model. Hire someone who can’t handle the workload, then magically redistribute their responsibilities to the people who actually know what they’re doing. ✨

The hoops we jump through to accommodate people who are slowly dragging morale — and apparently the company — even further downhill are truly impressive.

And once they’re hired? They scurry under a rock so no one can ask the dangerous question: “So… what exactly do you do here?” Meanwhile, higher-ups quietly cover for them because admitting there’s a problem would probably require admitting who made the hiring decision in the first place. 😌

Truly, a fascinating organizational strategy.

The Letter to Leadership was good and their call to action, this is ours. Leadership and the Board absolutely need to get their sh-t together, stop the leader revolving-door with swag bags of cash and create stability, but as employees need to stop making things worse too. There’s a difference between calling out real problems and constantly telling the world Crown is dying (when we aren't), collapsing or broke when the facts don’t support that. That noise gets repeated, becomes a narrative and adds to the confidence problem we already have. Hold leadership accountable, challenge bad decisions and demand better, but stop creating new problems while everyone is trying to fix the existing ones. Help each other, stick to facts, protect the business and move forward. Enough is enough, we need to be the examples to the leaders because they need it.

Mr. Angelakis, here are a few places to start.

There is a tremendous amount on this board about leadership—specifically, about serious leadership behaviors that were allowed to continue for years. Employees have described HR complaints being swept under the rug, a culture in which leaders surround themselves with people they trust and then continue promoting those people to maintain loyalty, and questions about HR's role in allowing these patterns to persist.

As someone else pointed out, the fact that the 53rd floor has to come here to learn about what is wrong with the culture tells you exactly what you need to know. They need a mirror.

For you, Mr. Angelakis, I will spell out a few examples. Perhaps others can add to them.

Example #1:

Nester has a well-known reputation for berating employees, including in front of other colleagues. Multiple employees have experienced what they describe as extreme anger and verbal abuse. It is particularly troubling when someone who can appear composed and professional can suddenly become so angry that other professionals are reduced to tears. Yes, tears.

That is not a psychologically safe workplace.

It is especially troubling because psychological safety and respectful leadership are principles we routinely promote through our integrity and leadership training. Yet, according to employees who have raised concerns, HR has been aware of this behavior for years. The response, as described by multiple people, has essentially been: "Yes, he has an anger streak. We're working with him. He has been told to get it together."

But if the behavior continued, what exactly changed?

Despite years of complaints and concerns, Nester continued to be promoted, ultimately reaching the CFO role. That raises a fundamental question: What behavior does Comcast actually tolerate when the individual involved is considered valuable to the business?

It becomes even more troubling when you consider the impact on other employees.

Nester had the opportunity to fill the Controller role and selected a highly tenured, strong, well-regarded and well-liked woman for the position. After experiencing what employees describe as his repeated outbursts, she ultimately decided that she had had enough.

The timing is somewhat unclear to me, but she was in the role for only a relatively short period of time before an email went out to her colleagues saying she had decided to spend more time with her family and would be leaving—in just two weeks.

Employees knew there was more to the story. According to those familiar with the situation, she had approached Mr. Croney, who had the ability to intervene, but no meaningful action was taken. Nester remained in his position.

Let that sit for a minute.

A highly respected, 30-year veteran reaches a senior position in the company, experiences behavior she apparently finds unacceptable, and ultimately decides that leaving is preferable to remaining in that environment.

That is a remarkable statement about culture.

We talk about being a "family." We celebrate being a great place to work. We talk about integrity, respect and psychological safety. Yet if the accounts described by employees are accurate, what employees actually learned is that when someone is considered sufficiently valuable to leadership, others may be expected to tolerate his behavior—or leave.

And now, Nester has been removed from his CFO role as part of the broader business changes, not because he was held accountable for the behavior employees had been reporting for years. Even more strikingly, Comcast has apparently determined that he remains sufficiently valuable to retain and involve him in SpinCo.

So the questions become:

Where was Mr. Strahan throughout this?

Where were the SVPs of HR who knew about these concerns over the years?

If the solution was to give someone a coach and hope the behavior changed, what happened when it didn't?

At some point, coaching stops being accountability.

Example #2:

Another example is the Comcast Listens program.

Many people on this board have described their complaints as disappearing into a black hole. There is an additional issue worth examining: the program sat under the former head labor attorney, against whom employees had reportedly raised concerns.

The concerns described by employees included inappropriate s-xual comments or innuendos, flirting with junior employees, and an alleged relationship with someone on his team. If those reports are accurate, there is an obvious question:

How can an employee trust an integrity or complaint process when the person overseeing that process is himself the subject of serious employee concerns?

And again: where was HR leadership? Did Mr. Strahan ever review Comcast Listen complaints or get feedback from his SVPs of HR?

Where were the senior leaders responsible for ensuring that the person running an integrity program was held to the same standards the program demanded of everyone else?

The issue isn't simply whether one individual behaved badly. The larger issue is whether leadership consistently applies the same standards to people at the top that it expects from everyone else. Speaking of leadership "walking the talk..."

Jason spoke at the conference about compression, reducing layers and improving execution. Those of us in the business who are being asked to eliminate layers are paying very close attention to whether those principles are actually being applied consistently. Until roughly six+ months ago, there were three—yes, three—EVPs of HR reporting into one another: EVP to EVP to EVP. One has since left, but Mr. Strahan and Ms. Penna remain EVPs.

So, Mr. Angelakis, here is a very straightforward question:

Will the same standards being applied throughout the rest of the company also apply to senior HR leadership?

Will layers be eliminated based on organizational effectiveness, accountability and the needs of the business? Is splitting the head HR role over two EVPs not a severe duplication that actually reduces quick execution and increases cost complexity - the very things Jason said we're addressing?

Will we continue to see a culture in which relationships and loyalty protect certain people from the same scrutiny and accountability being applied to everyone else?

Because that is ultimately the issue being raised repeatedly on this board.

It isn't about one person.

It isn't about one incident.

It is about whether Comcast's stated values actually apply when the person involved is powerful, well-connected or considered valuable to the organization.

If leadership truly wants to understand the culture, don't just look at the people who stayed.

Look at the people who left.

Look at the complaints that were made repeatedly.

Look at who was promoted despite those complaints.

Look at who was protected.

And look at who ultimately decided that the only way to protect themselves was to walk away.

That is the mirror.

If you actually want to hold the “leaders” in this company accountable, consider not taking the survey at all.

Management is heavily pressured to drive survey participation, and leaders are held accountable for the overall participation rate. That means participation itself is a metric they care about.

We’ve taken these surveys before. We’ve provided honest, detailed feedback before. Ask yourself how much of that feedback resulted in meaningful change.

A low participation rate is different. It can’t be polished into a favorable engagement score or buried in a comment summary. If enough employees simply choose not to participate, the lack of participation becomes the message.

You can fill out another survey and hope this time the feedback gets heard.

Or you can decide that declining to participate is your feedback.

Tell a friend.

Just confirmed on C15 level in a meeting, so unless you guys want to be on a PIP better adhere to it because your manager will land in hot water for it, and there is nothing managers hate more than taking responsibility for their employees.

Please do your jobs and investigate this corporation. We want to see Executives held accountable. We want to see corrupt Executives in handcuffs!

I find it disgraceful how many leaders take credit for successful projects that they have nothing to do with. Good leaders highlight their team success, not su-kout all the credit.

If your slide deck slogan is ‘we are going to hold the Customer accountable’ then you probably need a box!

We talk constantly about management accountability, but what about the board?

After years of strategy changes, executive churn, restructurings and layoffs while approving significant executive compensation and crazy separation arrangements how should shareholders evaluate the board’s record? Why cutting huge amounts of staff many needed (some not), changing roles with our prep or training for the remaining staff to absorb your choices all while overpaying bad leaders you chose to leave?

Where does management accountability end and board accountability begin?

Having lost millions due to Accenture outsourcing not going as planned the management is now planning layoffs and even more offshore and outsourcing instead of taking responsibility.
Shitstry should be ashamed n be immediately fired!

Today when the bell rings. The final reckoning begins. Nike is going to reap what its owed. The years of woke advertisement, DEI, the coverups, the bad choices they kept making. It's all boomeranging back. The allainating of the man in the street, it's over.
Today it begins, and October 1 it ends.

What do relationships managers really do?? Because at this point I belive their job is to just redirect their responsibilities or even misdirect. Do your job and stop making others do the work of three depertments!!! Its infuriating!!

They are absolutely breaking their backs to keep major incidents from spiralling yet they get no acknowledgement from the customer or their own management.

Is this how it is across the entire business? Would it be feasible for us to get our own side hustle despite working on site five days a week?

Fire these azzholes involved in the cover up immediately. Name them and shame them.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/nike-staff-accused-trying-to-cover-up-teen-athletes-s-xual-as--ult/283-c10bc24d-7da8-49bf-94ec-c17ec19dc5cb?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KGW-TV&fbclid=IwdGRzaAUbihRjbGNrBRuJVXBkb2YBZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEePNDyBX_EiIz16nJAmm6W8UA225MLvyYZtaFD-FiI4c_JSBTGXhI_sV-9g4k_aem_Qb6FZrLlvcrEQYBnhypWhA

McClatchy Media has eliminated seven unionized journalism positions across four Washington state newspapers. This wave of layoffs also impacted at least 90 journalists at publications nationwide. The affected papers include outlets in Tacoma, Kennewick, and Olympia, in addition to the Bellingham Herald. Union representatives stated these cuts will significantly weaken the newspapers' ability to cover local and state issues. The guild also expressed concern that these reductions will hinder the press's role in holding powerful entities accountable.

https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2026/sep/18/bellingham-herald-reporters-cut-amid-layoffs-at-major-newspaper-chain/

I wanted to share a serious concern regarding the toxic work culture and ongoing mismanagement within our organization.
Over the past three years, we have been trapped in an unsustainable cycle. Leadership consistently chooses underperforming vendors who fail to deliver on their commitments. It is an open secret that these vendors are missing deadlines because they lack the capability, and many suspect that commissions are being funneled behind the scenes while the internal team is forced to pick up the slack.
Because of these poor strategic choices and mismanaged feature implementations, we are constantly being thrown under the bus. We are forced to work consecutive weekdays and weekends to cover for failing vendor deliverables. Specifically, leadership figures like sen*il, SD OMR, Rjt, SD Arn, and their directors foster an unreasonable environment where everything is expected immediately, with zero regard for employee burnout or the root causes of failure. It is the same cycle across the board—giving contracts to vendors who will later benefit them personally.
This mismanagement is now severely impacting our products. Visible is one of the best digital prepaid brands we have, but as part of the NSA migration, they are currently migrating the legacy Visible system to postpaid NSA. That system is fundamentally flawed; if it goes to production, heaven knows how many customers will face issues. Additionally, our VXP platform system is also flawed, and provisions are not even working.

I hope Dan see this post many because all of theses fat leadership our VZ brand losing the market share

I understand there have already been many posts about the VSP and involuntary separations (layoffs). Some posts provide information people need at the moment, while others are more focused on sharing opinions or experiences. Either way, there was a post some time ago about SIU suggesting that the changes there might only be the beginning, and that the broader Compliance & Ethics organization may need to be reevaluated, reorganized, and reassessed to ensure its policies, procedures, and processes are current and effective.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but recent departures within Compliance & Ethics caught my attention.

I understand that the Vice President overseeing the Conflict of Interest (COI) team and Compliance Investigations Unit (CIU) is no longer with the company. I also understand that certain management personnel within Special Investigations Unit (SIU) are no longer there, and that the former Chief Risk & Compliance Officer, is no longer with Centene.

Any one departure can happen for many different reasons, and I don't think it would be appropriate to speculate about why individuals have left. However, when there are multiple departures across different levels of a Compliance organization, I think it is reasonable to ask whether the organization itself should be taking a closer look at its structure, processes, and leadership.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for Centene to take a step back and conduct a comprehensive review of Compliance & Ethics before simply continuing with business as usual.

Some questions worth asking:
• Are the policies and procedures current, comprehensive, and consistently applied?
• Are there clear guidelines and quick-reference resources for investigators and management?
• Are investigations being conducted and closed using consistent and documented standards?
• Are employees given clear and consistent expectations for handling cases?
• Are investigators receiving the appropriate training and qualifications for the responsibilities they are performing?
• Are compliance standards being applied consistently within Compliance & Ethics itself?
• Are management decisions consistently supported by established policies and procedures?

If Compliance & Ethics is responsible for ensuring that other departments follow policies, regulations, and established standards, shouldn't the same level of scrutiny be applied internally?

This isn't about pointing fingers at individual employees. It's about asking whether the organization has the right structure, leadership, policies, procedures, training, and oversight in place to effectively perform one of the most important functions within the company.

When there are departures at different levels of Compliance & Ethics, perhaps the appropriate response isn't simply to fill the vacancies and move forward. Perhaps it's time to stop, look at the bigger picture, and ask whether there is something within the organization that needs to be addressed.

Before Compliance can effectively hold the rest of the organization accountable, Compliance should be willing to hold itself accountable as well.

It started with a letter from Elliott. Maybe it ends with a letter from the people still in the Tower.
From: The People Still in the Tower
Next stop: stability.

Removing two EMT members is not a cultural reset. What leadership does next determines whether this is actually one.

For years, employees have absorbed the consequences of strategy whiplash, expensive mistakes, consultant spending, restructurings, repeated cuts and leadership decisions they were directed to execute—even when the people closest to the work knew better.

The people making those decisions were compensated extraordinarily well. The people underneath them often paid the real price: jobs, careers, financial security, morale and trust.

That can’t simply be filed under “new leadership, moving forward.”

Leadership owns what leadership allowed.

The fiber chapter is over. The boardroom battles and proxy fights are behind us. The constant strategy pivots need to end. Crown Castle now has an opportunity to get back to basics: operate exceptionally well, generate sustainable organic growth, invest intelligently, execute consistently and rebuild the workforce that actually makes the company run.

And that means investing in people—not another round of cuts disguised as transformation.

Commit to a meaningful layoff freeze and give employees room to work without constantly wondering who’s next. Stop replacing institutional knowledge with consultants. Before launching another giant technology transformation, fix what is actually broken. Rebuild the expertise that repeated reductions stripped out. Invest heavily in cross-training and upskilling. Create career paths employees can actually see. Make mental wellness and psychological safety more than HR language.

And perhaps most importantly: stop treating people who identify problems as the problem.

Listen to them. Protect them. Thank them. Fix what they identified.

TA and KH are now part of the leadership team carrying this company forward. By many accounts, they are capable leaders. Now comes the harder part: demonstrate that the next chapter will be different. Acknowledge what employees have endured, establish clear expectations for how people will be treated, and rebuild trust through actions rather than another mission statement.

Crown Castle is an enormous enterprise supported by a remarkably small workforce. Its people should feel like an extraordinary asset—not an expense line perpetually waiting for another reduction.

Employees have survived the fiber bet, activist battles, reorganizations, leadership turnover, strategy reversals and repeated workforce reductions.

They’ve done their part.

Now it’s leadership’s turn.

Stability. Accountability. Respect. Career development. Operational discipline. Sustainable growth. No more whiplash.

And if the remaining EMT can’t commit to that, then on this casual ride we’ve apparently been taking for years, can someone please announce the new riders and the next stop?

—— And yes, AI helped mask the writers. We’re not d-mb, we’re survivalists. We’ve learned a few things around here.

Not OP of orginal post but that post maybe me realize:

IMAPS Corporation Award to IBM?

How? That department was completely destroyed and disbanded by the leadership of their last management chain. Their buffoonery bungled, fumbled, and mismanaged, driving the department straight into the ground by people who clearly had no idea what they were doing. In fact the only thing those guys were good at was destroying and ending other projects and programs. How can IBM win this when it literally no longer exists internally at IBM. How exactly does a team that's been wiped off the org chart win an award for work it can no longer even claim credit for?

With Barnerd & Kleber leaving, and some other random directors - are they being pushed out? Or leaving on their own?

And are all renewable companies this poorly ran? This company feels like a joke with lack of accountability, favoritism, nepotism, etc. The "leadership team" seems so amateur. It's very concerning to a rather new employee.

When does SF get held accountable

There are many examples of mis-management. Let’s list them out.

So the Anderon split from ibm has been announced for October 1st and new announcements and employee contracts are coming out.

Setting aside the painfully obvious point that this is a "quantum wafer foundry" with no real foundry that it owns or controls outright and that the Albany site itself can barely classify as a fully operational fab.

We need to ask ourselves honestly why?

• Why is IBM really splitting off 70-100 people to form this new company?
• Why create Anderon at all in the first place?
• Why not just keep it all internal to IBM?

The publicity stated comments and justification - that this is a way to attract customers who wouldn't work directly with IBM - doesn't hold up. Those same customers know Anderon is strongly affiliated, owned and controlled by IBM, so the same logic of avoid working with IBM would apply to Anderon as well.
Why would a competitor hand over its most sensitive fabrication data to an IBM-affiliated company when IBM is competing against them directly?

Flip it around: why would IBM let its competitive-advantage IP flow into Anderon, where it could end up supporting competitors' builds? Anderon is taking a capability that gives IBM an edge and potentially turning it into shared infrastructure. So basically the publicly stated purpose for creating Anderon is a bold face lie.

Is this really just cost savings. Getting 70-100 employees off IBM's books and payroll? As one past comment put it: "it's just a layoff with extra steps."

Call it a spinoff, a joint venture, or a strategic carve out - it still smells exactly like a layoff wearing a lab coat.

This isn't a spinoff, it's a witness protection program for headcount. It’s a glorified layoff from ibm hidden and tucked in in a way ibm doesn’t have to classify it as such

IBM didn't build a competitor. It built an alibi.

Somewhere a strategy consultant got paid seven figures to rename 'layoff' as 'ecosystem expansion.

Bottom line: the publicly stated rationale doesn't add up to a coherent business case.

IBM’s public statements regarding this are just simply ridiculous. Do they actually believe their own words coming out of their mouths. Those saying it should be remembered and held accountable for rest of their careers.

Our leaders are using their usual flimsy internal justifications publicly to explain this. And it appears many who are not indoctrinated in the Albany culture are seeing right through the thin veil and rolling holes into it.

Make it make sense!

So we have Smiles Week and looks like lots of effort going in to make this a good event, but wait who is actually doing work? The same folks that always are busy and those who have spare time ie no work are organizing. They are not admin staff they are university graduates being paid to make PepsiCo better. Come on Snr Leads open your eyes and get some work for these that have no work or get them out. You now want us these people in the office more so please monitor their output.

Who is running the ship here? The SVP is clueless on the day to day, the VP is the SVPs buddy, the directors are a majority of the SVPs pawns from his years moving up the chain. Account Managers are doing nothing but collecting orders and being paid $500K+ doing so. When you talk about doing a shake up, this leadership team needs to be separated, laid off or deployed to other parts of the business.

Nashville's Industrial Development Board expressed concerns regarding Starbucks' $30 million incentive package. Board members questioned the company's job creation promises and worker treatment. Starbucks plans to invest $100 million and create up to 2,000 corporate jobs in the city. The board's deliberations highlight potential hurdles for the coffee giant's expansion. Further discussions are expected on the terms of the incentive agreement.

Nashville, Tennessee

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/business/2026/09/09/nashville-incentive-starbucks-jobs-corporate-expansion/91674226007/

Athina repeatedly says she has PepsiCo’s best interests in mind. But at some point, employees should be able to ask whether the actions and results support that statement.

When she led Strategy & Transformation (legacy before IT was combined) , significant amounts of money were spent on transformation efforts that did not deliver the expected results, with accountability seemingly landing elsewhere. Millions more have been spent on McKinsey and other external consultant this year and last year/ sometimes with very junior consultants advising experienced PepsiCo leaders.

Now Athina appears not to trust her own leadership organization and wants visibility into virtually every contract and decision. Is that really about PepsiCo’s best interests, or has decision-making become too centralized around one leader’s view of what is best?

Having PepsiCo’s best interests in mind does not mean that every decision is automatically the right one. Strong leadership means trusting capable leaders, challenging decisions with facts, acknowledging when investments have not delivered, and holding yourself to the same accountability you expect from everyone else.

Power and good intentions are not substitutes for results.

Perfectly said, @ke+1m28zmvnw.

leaders who cant take feedback should be fired immediately. these are the AD and above who are scared of pulse and send pre-pulse surveys their entire team is afraid to fill out.

these leaders hire other leaders who cant take feedback which makes for a TOXIC culture.

most of these “people” (if you want to call them that), have smiling faces and dont hold bad workers accountable

Wife went into store for another problem. Rep talked her into trying Internet Air and gave her equipment to return if we didn’t like it. Told her our current provider was cheaper and met our needs. She returned per instructions. Got a notification this morning account was delinquent and would be turned into collections agency. This is 2 weeks after returning. Rep I spoke with this morning saw where the equipment was returned and it might take another 2 weeks to credit my account. Do they only have 2 people handling this process for the entire company.

McClatchy has implemented significant layoffs, impacting over 90 employees across at least 13 newspapers in eight states. This round of job reductions has led to the elimination of key reporting roles, including data reporters, accountability journalists, and those covering local government beats. The cuts have raised concerns about the company's commitment to supporting comprehensive local news coverage. Journalists from The State newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina, were among those affected, losing reporters with specialized beats. These layoffs are seen as a blow to local journalism and the ability of these outlets to hold institutions accountable.

Columbia, South Carolina

https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/opinion/column-journalism-layoffs-the-state-columbia-sc/article_48dea507-cde2-4f2b-b9ad-2d83af3c0ea6.html

The biggest problem I've seen here is how much management avoids saying what they actually mean. The person who hired me back in 2008 was like that, and every team I moved to seemed to have another version of the same thing. It didn't matter who was running the group, the higher up you went, the more obvious it became. By the time you get to the VP level, it feels like nobody wants to take responsibility for anything.

I've finally realized that doing a good job doesn't protect you here at all. The worst part isn't even offshore teams, it's the local managers and coworkers who dump their mess on everyone else and somehow never get held responsible. They expect everyone underneath them to work themselves into the ground while they get to look good and collect their bonuses. I'm just tired of playing that game.

For working heads up even with all the uncertainty about future
All this with the unworthy and incompetent leaders

Anyone else area focused on having all employees fill in trackers for production and what is being worked on daily and what lines of business you support? Seems we have been sent a handful of report trackers to fill out over past month or two…..

There are several examples of people telling the board lies to further their career and then dumping it on other people to either try make it work or take the fall when the truth comes out. Sadly there is zero accountability for those who told the lies. The organization is currently tieing itself into knots to try make some things work that were big time oversold.

McClatchy Media has implemented significant layoffs across several of its Northwest newspapers. The Idaho Statesman is among the publications affected by these workforce reductions. The Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild reports that 33% of unionized employees at multiple papers will lose their jobs. These cuts will impact local news coverage and the ability to hold powerful entities accountable. The guild has criticized the company's decision, suggesting it prioritizes profit over community service.

https://www.kivitv.com/news/idaho-statesman-hit-by-mcclatchy-layoffs-10-idaho-journalists-affected

The Miami Herald has eliminated 30 positions, significantly impacting its editorial staff and local reporting capabilities. These layoffs are part of a broader downsizing by parent company McClatchy, which is also encouraging newsrooms to adopt artificial intelligence. Several other McClatchy-owned newspapers, including the Lexington Herald-Leader and Kansas City Star, have also experienced staff cuts. The affected journalists include those covering sports, city hall, and photography, as well as all staff from the Spanish-language paper El Nuevo Herald. Critics argue these reductions threaten the future of local journalism and accountability in Miami.

Miami, Florida

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/819430-devastating-miami-herald-eliminates-30-positions-in-latest-round-of-mcclatchy-layoffs/

Under the “able” leadership of Ben and YL, Shell appears to be setting in the West like the sun. Before Shell finally sets, it is worth taking a hard look at what Shell Bangalore has actually contributed to the company.

Beyond facilitating cross-postings for Indian employees, enabling some to eventually become naturalized Western citizens, and creating opportunities for a number of 35- to 40-year-old Indians to move into JG2 and JG1 positions, what tangible value has Bangalore delivered to Shell’s bottom line?

Supporting projects during the Assess and Select phases is hardly a unique or differentiating contribution. Other P&T hubs, at least, are tied to country-specific assets and operations. Bangalore has no comparable asset base.

There is also a legitimate question about the impact Bangalore has had on international talent mobility. Since its establishment, Western engineers appear to have had far fewer opportunities for cross-postings to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, while Bangalore has increasingly dominated these assignments.

If the primary beneficiaries of this model have been employees in India rather than Shell as a whole, then the fundamental question is straightforward: has the establishment and expansion of Bangalore actually created value for Shell, or has it primarily redistributed opportunities within the organization?

After two decades, Shell should be able to answer that question with hard numbers—not anecdotes, headcount, or internal career progression, but measurable impact on the company’s bottom line.