#ceo

Posts mentioning hashtag #ceo

Below are all the posts — topics as well as replies — that mention the hashtag #ceo.

Mention #ceo in your post to continue the discussion!

Target's Weekend of Cruelty: Incoming CEO Commits First Unforced Error

“Making employees stew over the weekend is an unforced error by incoming CEO Michael Fiddelke. Forcing employees to spend five days in agonizing uncertainty is inexcusably cruel. This first major decision by Fiddelke is a case study in corporate tone-deafness.

Under current CEO Brian ‘Brand Ki-ler’ Cornell, Target's inexplicable pandering to the Trump regime—including the rollback of Target's exemplary diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives last January—has already sent TGT stock plummeting 33%, wiping out over $20 billion in shareholder value by mid-September.

Fiddelke, Cornell's hand-picked successor, has immediately embraced the same cluelessness that further damages the Target brand. The effort to secure $600 million by eliminating 1,800 jobs is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Executing these cuts in such an unnecessarily cruel manner does absolutely nothing to dig the Target Brand out of the hole Brian Cornell put it in. It also does nothing to revitalize and cultivate the cultural and creative energy that is essential for long-term growth.”

Bob M. via LinkedIn


Ryan “poorly tailored suits” Lance, stated "We probably plateau later this decade? What’s your opinion?

Ryan “poorly tailored suits” Lance, CEO of ConocoPhilllips, stated

"We probably plateau later this decade," Lance said. "It's going to be slow decline beyond that, because there's a lot of resource."

What’s your technical perspective or intuition on production declines and soaring OPEX now that Ryan is viewed with contempt by field personnel particularly Marathon and Concho Honchos


Fiddelke

Resorting to low attacks bc why not, but did we think we’d be safe when the incoming CEO can’t even tell the abomination that is his horrible balding pattern? Targets doomed if the incoming CEO can’t even see the problems directly in front of him.


Don’t worry about layoffs, Cornell will still get paid

Here’s a summary of total annual compensation for Brian Cornell in his role as CEO of Target Corporation (since his start in August 2014) as available via proxy/SEC filings and media reporting:

Fiscal year Approximate total compensation
2015 ~$16.9 m (reported for 2015) 
2016 ~$11.3 m 
2018 ~$22.6 m 
2020 ~$19.8 m 
2023 ~$19.2 m 
2024 ~$20.4 m 


Sound Familiar: Pennies for Profits

Richard Greedmore, CEO of MegaCorp Unlimited, had one guiding principle: the dividend must go up. It didn’t matter if the company was selling actual products or just the illusion of productivity—shareholders needed their quarterly dopamine hit.

One crisp morning, as Richard strutted out of his 97th-floor office (which had a view of the poor, for motivational purposes), he spotted a homeless man outside the building fumbling with a cup of change. A nickel rolled away, followed by a rogue dime. Richard’s eyes widened.

“Loose capital!” he gasped.

Without hesitation, he dove from the steps like a linebacker chasing a bonus. He snatched the nickel mid-roll and tackled the dime just before it hit the gutter. Passersby watched in horror and confusion as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company wrestled a penny from a pigeon.

“Every cent counts!” he shouted, holding the coins aloft like trophies. “This is shareholder value!”

He rushed back inside, burst into the finance department, and slammed the coins on the table.

“Add this to the dividend pool. We’re going up 0.0000000003% this quarter!”

The CFO blinked. “Sir, that’s... less than the cost of the paper we’d need to announce it.”

“Then announce it digitally!” Richard barked. “We’ll save on toner!”

From that day forward, MegaCorp instituted the “Street Sweep Initiative,” where interns were deployed to scour sidewalks for spare change. The company’s stock rose 0.0001%, and Richard was hailed as a visionary.

Meanwhile, the homeless man was hired as Chief Revenue Scout, earning minimum wage and stock options—vested over 97 years.


According to Gemini

Using only my reasoning capabilities based on the scenario described—a company hiring a CEO with a track record of selling off companies, followed by mass layoffs and a company-wide voluntary layoff—it is a strong indication that the company may be preparing for a significant reduction in size, restructuring, or even an exit strategy through a sale or winding down of operations.

Here is a breakdown of why these actions collectively suggest an exit or major strategic shift:


## 1. CEO with a Track Record of Selling Companies
Hiring a CEO known for divesting or selling companies (often referred to as a "turnaround" or "special situations" CEO) suggests the board or ownership has a specific mandate:

  • Preparation for Sale: The CEO's expertise might be used to make the company more attractive and "lean" for potential buyers.
  • Divestiture of Assets: They might be brought in to sell off non-core or underperforming parts of the business.
  • Maximizing Short-Term Value: Their focus is often on streamlining operations and finances to maximize shareholder return in a shorter timeframe, often leading to an eventual sale.

## 2. Mass Layoffs and Voluntary Layoffs
Layoffs are a key tool for cost reduction and operational streamlining, but the combination described is particularly telling:

  • Mass Layoffs (Involuntary): This is a quick way to drastically cut the largest operational expense (salaries and benefits). It signals a severe need for cost savings and often a reduced scope of future operations.
  • Voluntary Layoffs (Buyouts/Early Retirement): This is a softer, but still expensive, way to further reduce headcount and often targets long-tenured, higher-salaried employees. It confirms the company needs to shed staff beyond what the initial mass layoffs achieved.

## Conclusion
While the company's stated goal might be "restructuring" or "achieving profitability," the pattern of actions—bringing in a specialized CEO and implementing aggressive, two-phased workforce reductions—is a textbook sign of a company significantly shrinking its footprint or actively moving toward an acquisition or complete exit from the market as an independent entity.

It is less about mere optimization and more about surgical preparation for a change in ownership or a drastic simplification of the business structure.


According to Claude

You're identifying a pattern that often does signal a wind-down or exit strategy. Let me think through what these elements typically indicate:

CEO with M&A/divestiture background - When boards bring in executives known for selling companies or business units, it's usually deliberate. They're hiring for a specific skill set.

Mass layoffs followed by voluntary programs - This sequence is particularly telling. Aggressive cost-cutting followed by voluntary programs suggests they're trying to get as lean as possible, often to make the company more attractive for sale or to preserve whatever cash remains.

The combination - When you see these together, it often means:

  • Preparing for sale (buyer wants low cost structure)
  • Maximizing short-term profitability before exit
  • Managing decline while extracting remaining value
  • Positioning for bankruptcy/restructuring

However, there are some scenarios where this isn't an exit:

  • Severe turnaround attempts (though success rates are low)
  • Private equity "right-sizing" before trying to grow again
  • Desperate survival mode with no clear plan

But you're right to be skeptical. The pattern you're describing - especially the CEO's background combined with aggressive workforce reductions - is textbook pre-sale or wind-down behavior. Companies in genuine growth or innovation mode don't typically hire "sell-off specialists" and then hollow out their workforce.

The voluntary layoff following mandatory ones is particularly concerning. That often means either the first cuts weren't enough, or they're trying to reduce severance costs by encouraging people to leave on their own terms.

Is this hitting close to home for you or someone you know?


According to GROK

I wouldn't necessarily agree that such actions definitively mean a company is "exiting" (e.g., being sold off, liquidated, or shutting down entirely), but they do often signal a strategic pivot toward some form of exit or major restructuring. Let me break down my reasoning step by step, based on common business patterns I've observed in corporate turnarounds and private equity plays.

### 1. Hiring a CEO with a Track Record of Selling Companies

  • CEOs like this are frequently brought in as "turnaround specialists" or "exit architects." Their expertise lies in optimizing a business for acquisition, merger, or IPO rather than long-term organic growth. For instance, they might focus on short-term value extraction, such as divesting non-core assets, streamlining operations, or improving profitability metrics to appeal to buyers.
  • This doesn't always lead to an immediate exit—it could be part of a genuine effort to stabilize a struggling company. However, in mature or distressed firms (e.g., in tech, telecom, or manufacturing sectors), it's a red flag for potential sale. Private equity firms or activist investors often install such leaders precisely because their playbook involves preparing for a flip.

### 2. Mass Layoffs Followed by Voluntary Layoffs

  • Mass layoffs are typically cost-cutting measures to reduce burn rate, improve margins, and make the company leaner. In the context of a new CEO with an exit-oriented background, this can be about "rightsizing" the workforce to boost EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), which is a key metric buyers scrutinize.
  • Voluntary layoffs (often called voluntary separation or buyout programs) are a softer approach: offering severance, benefits continuation, or incentives to encourage employees to leave. This minimizes legal risks, preserves morale among remaining staff, and achieves headcount reduction without the optics of forced terminations. It's common in pre-sale cleanups because it sheds "excess" personnel while avoiding wrongful termination lawsuits.
  • Together, these steps can indicate distress (e.g., cash flow issues or declining market share) but also deliberate preparation for an exit. By lowering ongoing expenses, the company becomes more attractive to acquirers who want a plug-and-play operation without immediate overhaul costs.

### 3. Does This Always Mean an Exit?

  • Not necessarily. Some companies use this playbook for survival and rebirth. For example, a firm might hire such a CEO to execute a "Chapter 11-style" restructuring (even outside bankruptcy) to emerge stronger and independent. Layoffs could be part of adapting to market shifts, like automation or economic downturns, without any sale in mind.
  • But often, yes—it leans toward exit. In many cases, especially with private equity-backed companies, this sequence is a precursor to a sale. The CEO's track record acts as a signal to investors and potential buyers that the company is in "harvest mode." Historical examples (without naming specifics) include telecom or software firms where similar patterns preceded acquisitions by larger players or asset stripping.
  • Key factors influencing the outcome:
    • Company stage: Mature companies with legacy products are more likely to be exiting via sale than startups.
    • Market conditions: In a buyer's market (e.g., during economic booms), this setup facilitates quick flips. In recessions, it might just be belt-tightening.
    • Board/investor dynamics: If the board includes PE firms or activists pushing for returns, an exit is probable.

In summary, while I don't fully agree it's a guaranteed exit—business is full of exceptions—these moves collectively suggest a high likelihood of positioning for one. It's a pragmatic strategy to maximize value before handing over the keys, rather than a death knell. If this is about a hypothetical scenario, watching for further signs like asset sales or debt refinancing would clarify intent.


Q4 Pulse Survey Targeting Leadership

Did anyone notice a difference in the Q4 pulse survey? It looks like the question are geared toward leadership. The last comment box directly asks what action has been taken since the last survey. Maybe the new CEO is looking to make some changes for all levels of leadership? I’ve been with Verizon 10 years and every rif they only target below ADs. Everyone AD and above are always safe. It’s time to start snipping from the top and not the people who actually do the work.


Loss of Confidence in CEO

We are hearing inside whispers that some on the board, executive committee, and rank and file are starting to lose confidence in "T" Brown Duckett. She came in 2021 on a DEI high with lots of fanfare to replace Roger Ferguson who was snake bit at the end by mounting scandals and lawsuits. Now, with outflows at record highs, massive over spend by the Frisco experiment, and mounting legal and PR challenges, some are contending that Duckett step aside so that a turnaround artist can take charge of the helmless sinking ship to right it's course. We are hearing decisions will be made in the next 18 months on a possible sea change of direction.


Chief Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements

On October 6, 2025, Verizon filed a Current Report on Form 8-K disclosing, among other things, the appointment of Daniel H. Schulman as Chief Executive Officer, effective as of October 4, 2025. Verizon is filing this Amendment No. 1 to such Current Report to provide information regarding Mr. Schulman’s compensation arrangements that were entered into after such Current Report was filed.

On October 13, 2025, Verizon entered into a letter agreement with Mr. Schulman, which provides for his continued role as Chief Executive Officer through December 31, 2027. Mr. Schulman will continue serving as a member of the Board of Directors of Verizon (the “Board”) and will be nominated for reelection to the Board at each annual meeting of Verizon’s shareholders during the term. In consideration of his employment as Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Schulman will be paid an annualized base salary of $1,500,000 and will be eligible to participate in the Verizon Short Term Incentive Plan with a target incentive opportunity equal to 250% of his base salary, prorated for fiscal year 2025. Mr. Schulman will also receive the following Verizon equity awards in the form of Verizon restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and Verizon performance stock units (“PSUs”), which collectively represent Mr. Schulman’s exclusive long-term incentive compensation during the term:

(i) 

an RSU grant with a target value equal to $9.5 million to compensate Mr. Schulman for incentive compensation that he forfeited upon resignation from his service relationship with an investment firm in connection with his appointment as Chief Executive Officer, which will be granted on October 17, 2025 and will vest on December 31, 2026, generally subject to his continued employment through such date;
an RSU grant with a target value equal to $20 million, which will be granted on October 17, 2025 and will vest on December 31, 2027, generally subject to his continued employment through such date;

(iii)   

a PSU grant with a target value equal to $30 million, which will be granted during 2026 and prior to January 15, 2026 and will vest, to the extent earned, on December 31, 2027, generally subject to his continued employment through such date. This PSU grant is divided into two tranches, each corresponding to 50% of the award. Each tranche may be earned at a range of 0-200% of the target number of PSUs granted, based on the level of achievement of Verizon’s total shareholder return relative to a comparator group to be determined by the Human Resources Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board at the time of grant in 2026. For the first tranche, such achievement is measured over a performance period beginning October 17, 2025 and ending December 31, 2026 and for the second tranche, such achievement is measured over a performance period beginning October 17, 2025 and ending December 31, 2027; and

(iv)    

a supplemental PSU grant relating to 222,222 PSUs at target, which will be granted on October 17, 2025 and may be earned at a range of 0-300% of the target number of PSUs granted based on the achievement of average share price goals ranging from $55.00 to $75.00 per share of Verizon common stock over a performance period commencing on October 17, 2025 and ending December 31, 2028. The earned PSUs will generally vest on December 31, 2027 or such later date during the performance period on which the applicable share price performance goal is achieved, generally subject to Mr. Schulman’s continued employment with Verizon through December 31, 2027. This PSU grant is divided into nine tranches, each of which corresponds to an average share price goal. An average share price goal will be treated as achieved (resulting in the corresponding tranche of the grant being deemed to be earned) on the last day of a measurement period (defined as any period of 20 consecutive trading days of Verizon common stock on the New York Stock Exchange that both begins and ends during the performance period) if, as of each trading day during the measurement period, the average closing price of a share of Verizon common stock on the New York Stock Exchange for the trailing period of 20 consecutive trading days ending on and including such day exceeds the applicable average share price goal.

The number of shares of Verizon common stock underlying the equity grants described in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) above will be determined by dividing the target dollar value of the grant by a reference price that is calculated as the average closing price of Verizon common stock over the 20 consecutive trading days ending on and including October 17, 2025 and rounding up to the nearest whole number of shares. Mr. Schulman is entitled to certain termination vesting protections with respect to his RSUs and PSUs upon a qualifying termination of employment, including that upon Mr. Schulman’s termination of employment due to a succession event (generally defined as circumstances where a successor Chief Executive Officer of Verizon has been appointed and Mr. Schulman has facilitated an orderly transition of his duties), the time-based vesting conditions will be deemed satisfied for all of Mr. Schulman’s equity grants described above. In addition, if prior to December 31, 2027, Mr. Schulman’s employment terminates due to a succession event, he will be entitled to receive the remaining base salary and short-term incentive compensation that he would have received had he remained employed with Verizon as Chief Executive Officer through December 31, 2027 (with short-term incentive compensation determined based on actual performance for the fiscal year in which the termination occurs and target performance for fiscal years that have not yet commenced as of the termination date).

Named Executive Officer Retention Awards

On October 13, 2025, the Committee approved a one-time retention RSU award with a target value of $4,000,000 for each of Sowmyanarayan Sampath, Executive Vice President and Group CEO - Verizon Consumer, and Anthony Skiadas, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The number of shares of Verizon common stock underlying each award will be determined by dividing the target dollar value by the closing price of a share of Verizon common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the grant date and rounding up to the nearest whole number of shares. Each award will be granted on October 17, 2025 and will vest on December 31, 2027, generally subject to the continued employment of Mr. Sampath or Mr. Skiadas, as applicable, through such date. Each of Mr. Sampath and Mr. Skiadas is entitled to certain termination vesting protections with respect to his RSUs upon a qualifying termination of employment.


Why Vz replaced Hans

Hans did not have the experience or knowledge to lead Verizon - smoke and mirrors and everyone else paid the price(especially employees with vz stock). Sampath is not the right leader either.

Stratton is the best fit to turn the company and stock around. Only met him once.
Good article below.
https://www.mobileworldlive.com/verizon/analysis-why-verizon-needed-a-ceo-shift-change/


Why Vz needed a new CEO

Hans did not have the experience or knowledge to lead Verizon - smoke and mirrors and everyone else pays the price. Sampath is not the right leader either. Stratton is the best fit to turn the company and stock around. Only met him once.

https://www.mobileworldlive.com/verizon/analysis-why-verizon-needed-a-ceo-shift-change/


Annual Fall Layoffs

iHeart has begun its annual fall layoffs amid a broader push for profitability, with speculation of hundreds of cuts nationwide. In Los Angeles, KFI 640 AM let go evening host Morris W. O’Kelly minus Mo’Kelly minus his producer Tawala Sharp, imaging director Clay Roe, and Real 92.3’s overnight host Chuck Dizzle. The moves come as KFI’s ratings have softened and the station adapts after leadership changes and newsroom cuts, though KFI still tied for 14th in the market in September.

CEO Bob Pittman’s 2024 compensation drew criticism in the piece, alongside a noted 46 percent staff reduction over 10 years across the company. Separate from the layoffs, a lawsuit filed by former Alt 98.7 morning co host Renae Ravey alleges age discrimination against show host Jeff Fife minus Woody minus which iHeart and Fife have not commented on.

iHeartMedia - Los Angeles CA -

https://www.ocregister.com/2025/10/13/radio-station-layoffs-add-to-the-chill-in-the-autumn-air/


"IBM’s CEO is all about cutting out the things IBM used to be good at in favor pumping up the stock price."

"IBM’s CEO is all about cutting out the things IBM used to be good at in favor pumping up the stock price. It’s a matter of time until he does the same to Red Hat"

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1o40uvk/red_hat_will_begin_to_integrate_even_further_into/