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.