#culture

RTO so I can join teams calls all day. This sure makes a lot of sense.

If you feel someone is in a higher position who is not qualified. Speak up . Never do someone else’s job for them. Don’t bust your butt so the store manager can get paid a ton of $$$. Enough is enough.

lol all they do is have “meetings” about work other people do and then eat expensive food on the company dime and fly around

Why is it that the people that complain tend to be the worst performing?
Why is it the people that bash the company they work for are also adding the least value?

Honeywell success starts with each one of you. Be happy. Move the needle. Love the game. Rewire your mind.

And also - people in this forum need to stop being racially charged.

When are heads going to roll for the ev fiasco??

If 2024 and 2025 proved anything, it’s that forcing people into offices five days a week didn’t fix culture, didn’t improve performance, and didn’t magically make the stock take off. What it did do was burn people out, drain morale, and push good talent out the door.

As we head into the new year, leadership has a choice. Keep doubling down on a policy everyone knows isn’t working, or finally admit that flexibility, trust, and results matter more than badge swipes and presence reports.

People want to do good work. They want balance. They want to feel respected. That’s not radical, that’s the modern workforce. Companies that get this are winning. Companies that don’t are watching their best people leave.

If 2026 is just another year of pretending RTO equals culture, nothing will change. If leadership actually listens and resets to a realistic hybrid model, there’s still a chance to rebuild trust.

New year. New opportunity. Same question.

Are we going to keep repeating the mistake, or finally learn from it?

It’s honestly wild watching some of the loudest RTO cheerleaders and management bootlickers act like loyalty is going to save them. These are the same folks who defend every decision no matter how destructive, as if leadership is going to knight them for “service.”

Here’s the reality they don’t want to hear:

The company doesn’t love you back.
Being the loudest “yes” person has never saved anyone from a layoff here. If anything, history shows the opposite: the people who blindly go along with everything are usually the first considered “nonessential” because they bring nothing unique to the table.

And let’s be honest… a lot of the hardcore bootlickers aren’t exactly the strongest performers. They survive by attaching themselves to leadership and hoping that being overly obedient somehow equals value.

Spoiler: It doesn’t.

While they’re out here glazing every leadership move like it’s divine strategy, the rest of us have actual skills and can see the writing on the wall.

Bootlicking isn’t job security.
Competence is.
Flexibility is.
Retaining real talent is.

And none of that is reflected in the current path this company is on.

So maybe instead of worshipping the people who would cut them in a heartbeat, they should start advocating for the changes that would actually help everyone… including themselves.

There is a growing need to rebuild the IT organization from the ground up. The current structure appears unsustainable, largely due to internal dynamics that prioritize personal networks over objective talent evaluation. When hiring and project assignments are influenced by informal relationships rather than skill, capability, and proven performance, the long‑term stability of the organization is put at risk.
A core issue is the communication gap that arises when teams lack strong, shared comprehension of requirements in English, documentation, and escalation details. Even when individuals speak clearly, English comprehension and interpretation of complex technical or business requirements must be precise. When this breaks down (not clearly communicated), issues are not reported accurately, root causes are misunderstood, and projects drift off course. (This is occurring a lot and people are tired of reporting it)
This is especially critical for AI and advanced technology initiatives. (Ask Google and MS why they laid off AI team sets it is because of comprehension failures) These projects require highly specialized skill sets, rigorous communication, and a culture of accountability. Without the right mix of talent and leadership, these initiatives are likely to struggle or fail.
To succeed, the organization must ensure that:
• Roles are filled based on capability, not personal networks. (Not friends trying to get Greencards or needing a job for H1B placements)
• Project teams are diverse in skill, background, and perspective.
• Communication standards are enforced consistently across all teams. (Half the time most team members are not communicating issues in English to everyone this is where the breakdown is)
• Internal “clubs” or closed circles are dismantled in favor of transparent, merit‑based structures. (This needs to be done)
These observations are not directed at any specific group—they reflect systemic issues that can affect any organization. My goal is simple: I want to see Fiserv succeed, and that requires a strong, well‑structured, and talent‑aligned IT foundation.

Do you think they can ever bring back to me once great family sport of State Farm?

i was part of the old EMC Corp before it merged with DELL. It had nasty culture of its own so I do not think DELL is some unusual company in that regard. At EMC there was a distinct bro and ol' boys club culture + substantial bias emanating mainly from one very specific ethnic group which is well known for its intolerance of those who are not one of their own kind and lacked powerful connections. As soon as I moved from EMC Corp I saw a different world out there especially after i moved to a different industry. Feel very happy now, these nothing but distant memories - relics from a past I do not miss in the slightest.

Lets use a system that slows down the entire sales process. Lets use outdated software that a monkey manages. We now know the reason why we use salesforce. To slow you down. To create failure - where it did not exist. If you want to hinder a sales channel and further failure - introduce an operating system that runs like cr-p. Salesforce. Look, I get it, you want COR to fail, so you can turn it into AR. That's fine, it is what it is. Comp plan, bend over, promo's here today , gone tomorrow, brought back a month later, then gone again, oh wait bring it back again. Really. Really. Why in the world would you do that, unless you want failure. This was all thought out, tin hat and all. Just top it off with some HTP and sugar on top.

I am really going to miss those town halls with Charlie ‘Sharp as a Marble’. He was so inspirational when he took the canned questions from the Indians in the audience and answered them with utmost poise and professionalism. He and his big boys club will surely get a big bonus this year because of all the people they let down. Way to go Charlie, give yourself a pat on the back.

Has anyone had experience with having a meeting with the compliance investigation unit that can give me insight? We’ve had several on our team go through these meetings and end up fired due to our previous manager and it is making our region very nervous. A lot of it is due to changes in leadership and different preferences for documentation. The previous manager that has now left was…. special to say the least. Should those of us with these meetings be worried and start job searching?

Smart companies & their HR departments use Glassdoor to improve $ It doesn't appear Mutual actively uses the Glassdoor to improve $ Top companies can drive great results using Glassdoor the right way $ memo to our HR, implement this and watch MOA dramatically improve $ Check this out.

Glassdoor Team
Glassdoor Team | Author & Career Expert at Glassdoor | Jul 21, 2025

The best companies know that employer branding is make-or-break. The right approach can help you attract top talent, combat industry stereotypes, and build a workplace culture that actually retains people. The wrong approach? It makes you invisible to the candidates you want most. 

Leading companies are turning to Glassdoor not just for employee reviews, but as a strategic platform with real-time feedback and authentic talent engagement. Here's how three organizations are using the platform to transform their employer brand and attract the right people.

1. Closing the gap between perception and reality
   Capgemini, a global leader in consulting and technology services, wanted its Glassdoor presence to reflect the company’s positive employee experience more accurately. With a large volume of reviews across global locations, they saw an opportunity to better align internal culture with external perception and use that feedback to inform their long-term talent strategy. Key focus areas included increasing review response rates, strengthening the connection between the employee value proposition and day-to-day experience, and using data to identify areas for improvement.
   The company rolled out a required training program to ensure leaders could thoughtfully respond to reviews, with monthly check-ins to share best practices. They encouraged employees to leave reviews at key milestones like promotions or project completions, helping to surface a more representative view of life at Capgemini. Using Review Intelligence™, they analyzed sentiment across departments, locations, and roles on key topics like culture and DEI, and benchmarked those results against competitors. They also launched enhanced branding through the Employer Branding Hub for each global location, sharing localized employee stories, EVP content, and branding campaigns. 
   As a result, Capgemini’s global Glassdoor rating climbed from 3.2 to 4.0. Reviews began reflecting the impact of internal efforts, and the company strengthened its position as a talent destination — improving both hiring outcomes and employee engagement.

2. Building transparencyto overcome hiring hurdles 
   Equans UK, with nearly 15,000 employees in energy and services, faced serious skills shortages and high turnover in engineering. They needed to show they were a progressive employer that valued diversity and growth, particularly to retain apprentices and achieve gender balance in senior and operational roles.
   The company implemented a comprehensive employer branding strategy centered on their Glassdoor profile. They revamped their "Why Work With Us" section and featured their #ProudtoMakeitReal campaign spotlighting actual employees. Crucially, Equans increased its review response rate and acted on employee feedback, demonstrating genuine commitment to transparency and improvement. They paired this engagement with targeted Employer Branding Ads for their key demographics, including skilled trades and engineering.
   This multi-pronged approach delivered massive results, including 84% more unique visitors and 53% more page views across their Glassdoor and Indeed profiles. They also saw their overall Glassdoor rating jump by 0.6 points, solidifying their reputation as an employer of choice.

3. Attracting mission-driven talentwith targeted messaging
   Thomas J. Henry Law, one of the nation’s leading personal injury firms, needed more than just good attorneys — they wanted lawyers with integrity and determination who truly believed in their mission. Their existing methods weren't attracting this caliber of talent, so the firm took a different approach.
   They analyzed what their current employees loved most about working there, then crafted targeted messaging around DEI initiatives and career development. This refined content was integrated into their Employer Branding Hub and, crucially, their advertising strategy. The firm used custom messaging in "always on" Employer Branding Ads across Glassdoor, Indeed, and other sites in their candidates’ online journey, ensuring they stayed top-of-mind with qualified job seekers who shared their values.
   This strategic and sustained effort delivered impressive results: application rates more than doubled in three months, while cost per application dropped 37%. Their targeted approach showed that precise messaging attracted better-aligned talent more efficiently than broad recruitment tactics.
   The common thread: Authenticity drives results
   Candidates can spot inauthentic employer branding from miles away. These three companies crafted credible narratives that resonated with the right talent — and backed them up with real action. This solid foundation, built on genuine transparency and strategic consistency, led to results that speak for themselves: better candidates, lower costs, and stronger company cultures that actually retain top talent.
   Your next great hire is already researching employers online. Make sure they find the real you.

Heard that Chevron might be going Exxon way and implement Stack Ranking. How does it work? Does it mean bottom 10% or people they don't like are let go every year?

How can a company genuinely expect employees to be happy, productive, or incintivised to do a good job when nobody feels safe from having their job taken away at a moments notice? Or when promotions are MIA and raises are comical?

Regarding the current leadership structure and task delegation within CRT.

At present, many (though not all) Team Leads appear to spend the majority of their time performing minimal administrative tasks, such as returning scorecards, while routinely delegating their more complex and time-consuming responsibilities to senior reviewers. These senior reviewers are expected to take on duties that align more closely with Team Lead responsibilities, yet they receive no increase in compensation, for this additional workload.

This practice has created an imbalance where experienced reviewers are effectively performing leadership-level tasks while being paid significantly less. It has also contributed to frustration and decreased morale among those who are consistently relied upon to carry the workload without support or acknowledgment.

Additionally, CRT appears to be significantly overstaffed with both Team Leads and reviewers. As a result, meaningful work has diminished, and employees are increasingly being assigned tasks that offer little value to production goals. This inefficiency not only wastes company resources but also undermines productivity and engagement.

These issues suggest a need to reevaluate staffing levels, role expectations, and compensation alignment within CRT. Addressing these concerns would help restore fairness, accountability, and operational effectiveness.

It’s crazy to see that someone who knows the company inside and out and has years of experience can be let go just like a newbie. How did we get to a place where tenure and expertise don’t matter at all?

I came across this article this morning that leads with, "Why Is CDW Not Exciting?
Despite the more favorable entry price, we don't have much confidence in CDW."

They cite three reasons: 1) Sales growth over the last 3 years; 2) Sales growth projections are slim; and 3) EPS growth has stalled.

Over the last two years, the stock price is down over $85 per share, with $48 of that over the last 6 months.

While certainly the market is tough, but CDW was always able outperform the market. That ended in early '23 when our run of 8-10 declining quarters started.

We've laid off about 1,500 people over the last 2+ years and the decline in coworker count has had no positive impact on our trajectory.

There has to be a new plan implemented and soon, because what we are doing is clearly not working.

If you were asked, what would be your recommendation to get things back on track?

https://stockstory.org/us/stocks/nasdaq/cdw/news/buy-or-sell/3-reasons-to-sell-cdw-and-1-stock-to-buy-instead-2

Phillips 66 is in serious trouble, and it’s no longer honest to pretend otherwise. Over the past four years, not a single major initiative has produced a durable, repeatable positive outcome. Some have shown short-term gains on paper, but none have proven sustainable.

The acquisition of DCP Midstream itself was not inherently the problem. The mistake was allowing leadership and operating philosophies from a joint-venture culture where compromises, exceptions, and optics were often tolerated to take control of a legacy enterprise built on accountability, discipline, and execution.

The result has been a leadership model that prioritizes messaging over outcomes and reaction over strategy. Propaganda and internal campaigns may shape narratives, but markets, performance, and attrition do not lie. A company with world-class people and assets is being managed like a short-term experiment rather than a long-term enterprise.

What makes this especially concerning is the pattern: frequent pivots, walk-backs, and directional changes that signal a lack of conviction and operational understanding. This is not innovation, it is instability. Accountability is routinely deferred, while experienced people and institutional knowledge leave at a startling pace.

At some point, shareholders and long-tenured employees alike have to confront reality. Talent loss, cultural erosion, and repeated course corrections are not coincidences; they are symptoms. Cynicism is not the problem here, it is a rational response to sustained underperformance.

Phillips 66 does not have a people problem or an asset problem. It has a leadership problem. Until that is acknowledged, the unraveling will continue, regardless of how polished the messaging becomes.

“When the story feels good enough, evidence becomes optional.”

It’s become rather clear what’s happening. The company is deliberately creating a hostile and miserable environment to pressure people into quitting on their own. Between impossible workloads and a culture of constant fear, people are breaking. If you’re feeling this pressure, know that it’s a tactic, and you’re not alone.

I'm still not convinced Dan is a bad thing for this place. I think it'll just take some time and pain to get where he needs to be to see the positives. I could be wrong, but I'd rather wait to make my judgement than make it right away and proceed to stress over things I can't change.

I never thought I’d feel this way, but when the next round comes, I’ll be happy to step forward if given an opportunity. That’s how worn down Cisco has made me.

If so, how??

The Working better, together Amplify article has been out for three weeks and has 6 total likes. I wonder if anyone making these decisions takes note of how wildly unpopular the new policies are. Does anyone know who really pushed for this policy? Anybody part of those meetings?

Crazy thing is it didn't used to be this way. In the days of yore when we were all happily remote little worker bees, we were content if not happy. Dell felt like a people-focused organization, at the very least. We were given latitude to do our own thing, expectations were normal and not overly ambitious, and the individual contributors had a certain degree of confidence in leadership.

Sure, Dell had the very-normal corporate issue of constant change, but the change was navigable. Then suddenly, everything began to change and the water began to boil. It started slowly-people being "encouraged" to use the office. The remote activities quietly disappeared. Does anybody remember the May the 4th Zoom AHOD in 2021 where a bunch of leadership dressed up as Star Wars characters? Stuff like that was objectively fun, and made work feel a bit less like work. That sort of fun just up and disappeared to be replaced with increased unreasonable expectations like suddenly everybody had to commute 10 hours a week to sit on zoom calls that they were perfectly content with and capable of sitting on at home.

Then, the layoffs began, as did a constant state of employment anxiety that has persisted to this day. Then we all received a total of 24 business-hours notice that hybrid was going away and we were all full-time onsite, or face the consequences. Except, there were none really. The layoffs continued to be completely random across the board, if anything affecting the in-office folks more than those that persisted with staying remote.

The result? Everybody who is left (and smart) has quiet quite HARD. I'm personally remote, and work maybe 2 hours a day and still get everything done. The rest of my workday is spent at the gym or with my laptop open while I play video games. And my numbers have never been better.

The thing that objectively takes the most of the time out of my day is trying to come up with 5 stupid questions to ask this stupid chat bot we're training to take over our jobs eventually, because if I don't that's the only thing that actually gets me in trouble with leadership. It's not my Teams' status being yellow for 5 hours a day, or my quote output, or my lack of desire to pursue cUlTuRe and CoLlAbOrAtIoN by driving 15 hours per week, it's my lack of desire to justify Dell's stupid investment into incompetent AI tools that add no objective value to anybody.

I know it sounds like hyperbole when you hear about folks talking about "Dell has changed." Though in reality, Dell actually has changed in a lot of ways, and every, single, one of those changes have been for the worse. And they get away with it because we flipped from an employee's market to an employer's market with the post-Covid tech crash in 2022ish that we still haven't recovered from.

It just really su-ks.

This needed a thread of its own. The OP is @ez+1kdne2h4c.

Why? No one is masochist forever, right?

Everything at my location has slowed down so much that tasks which took an hour now take two. To make it worse, the new hires we're getting don't seem to want to learn how things are done. I'm not trying to blame anyone, but I'm curious if this is a general problem across the company or if my store was just unlucky. Is this what it's like everywhere?

Everything here is dictated by how leadership thinks analysts will react. We’re always responding, never setting a direction of our own, and it shows in every rushed decision. Instead of building something solid long term, we just keep sprinting after the next headline to keep Wall Street happy.

New year but same old stuff
Hope everyone has a wonderful year
And the sun shines again on all of us

Anyone else feeling super anxious to see how this RTO will play out? I almost feel nauseous with it all

With the push for FAs to share office space, there are FA teams merging to combine AUM into one-book partnerships. All of the "book" will be evenly divided among each FA.

What will the success rate be of these partnerships?

Does EJ have all of the partnership arrangements worked out (legalities) or have these situations been patched together (which is a possibility because management is discombobulated, to say the least)?

I've heard of one branch that has 4 "partners."
2 veteran FAs, an AFA and a brand new college graduate that hasn't passed testing yet (already considered a partner and included in talks).

Curious what the success rate of a set up like this might be? Family members sharing a book sounds like it could be successful, but with 4 distinct unrelated individuals (friends) sharing a book......I am skeptical on the success rate.

Curious what your opinions are on this new EJ drive to "share one book" equally among FAs."

Would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this matter.

Happy New Year. Kraft Heinz is a case study in what happens when cost discipline outpaces reinvestment. Years of cost-cutting and leadership churn weakened execution and blurred ownership, opening the door for faster, nimbler competitors.

For Nike, the lesson is simple: efficiency matters, but without sustained investment in product, talent, and clear accountability, competitive advantage slowly erodes. Stop the random reorgs.

This feels uncomfortably close to home. The WSJ’s “ How Kraft Heinz Lost Its Lock on Mac and Cheese—and American Shoppers” is worth reading.
--Kraft Heinz and the Mac-and-Cheese Reckoning

Kraft Heinz has all but owned the supermarket macaroni-and-cheese aisle for decades. So when the first boxes of an upscale brand called Goodles landed on store shelves in 2022, the company wasn’t especially worried.

A call went out in the Chicago headquarters to try it out. Employees bought a few boxes, cooked up the gooey meals in a corporate kitchen and dug in. The verdict: Goodles “Cheddy Mac” tasted good. Other flavors, the testers decided, needed work. The noodle texture was a bit iffy.

Kraft Heinz employees said the market-leading product was due for an upgrade, but with $1 billion worth of it selling every year, executives weren’t in a hurry. Deliberations stretched on for years: More protein? New flavors? More cheese? Goodles has now gobbled up 6% of the U.S. mac-and-cheese market, while Kraft Mac & Cheese is down to 39%, from 45% in 2022, according to data from market-research firm Circana.

When Kraft and Heinz, two of the biggest names in American food, merged in 2015, the combined company was supposed to breathe new life into old brands. Instead, years of cost cutting, underinvestment and corporate chaos left Kraft Heinz’s $26 billion food empire — home to bedrock brands like Heinz’s Tomato Ketchup, Philadelphia Cream Cheese and Kool-Aid — vulnerable to both buzzier premium ones and cheaper supermarket knockoffs.

Kraft Heinz sales have dropped for eight straight quarters. In September, the company said it would split in two, undoing the 2015 deal. Tensions flared in the company’s upper ranks. Many employees were uncertain who was calling the shots and which company they would end up working for, sowing further chaos. On Jan. 1, the company replaced its chief executive, Carlos Abrams-Rivera, with veteran food-company executive Steve Cahillane.

Big food companies are under siege, buffeted in recent years by heightened scrutiny of processed foods, consumer anger over soaring grocery bills and the growing popularity of weight-loss dr-gs.

Kraft Heinz executives overseeing a sprawling portfolio of cheese, cold cuts, lunch kits and boxed dinners face a dilemma shared by other legacy food companies: Fiddle with flagship products and risk losing the loyal customers who made them category killers, or stick with old formulas that don’t interest younger shoppers.

Cahillane, the new CEO, said in mid-December that the industry “is clearly in a challenging moment,” and that Kraft Heinz “has to meet the moment.”

Bankable Brand

Kraft mac and cheese, first sold in 1937 for 19 cents a box, was the creation of Chicago cheese monger James L. Kraft, who got his start selling cheese from a horse-drawn wagon. Marketed as a meal for four, it caught on during World War II, eventually finding broad success as a quick and convenient dinner for families.

For decades, it was one of the most bankable brands in food. After Warren Buffett and Brazilian private-equity firm 3G teamed up to buy ketchup heavyweight Heinz in 2013, they orchestrated a merger with Kraft, creating the world’s fifth-largest food company.

Though Kraft mac and cheese still ruled store shelves, and the company’s Velveeta Shells & Cheese also was a top seller, consumer tastes were shifting away from such processed foods toward fresher, healthier fare. Competition was mounting, with General Mills in 2014 acquiring Annie’s, which made an organic mac and cheese.

In an earnings call after the merger, Kraft Heinz executives called mac and cheese a turnaround opportunity. The company revamped the recipe in 2016, replacing artificial dyes with colors derived from natural sources.

Kraft Heinz executives, many of them from 3G, used an aggressive cost-cutting measure called zero-based budgeting, under which all expenses had to be justified anew each year. The company closed plants and laid off thousands of workers, reducing annual spending by nearly $2 billion. It said greater efficiency would free up resources to reinvest in its brands.

Dividends to stockholders jumped to $3.6 billion in 2016, from $1.3 billion the year before. Kraft Heinz boasted the highest operating profit margin among food companies.

But former employees and Wall Street analysts said the company lost experienced leaders and marketing, research and sales prowess. “On multiple levels, they depleted the organization,” said Rob Moskow, an analyst at TD Cowen.

Kraft Heinz struggled to shift from cost-cutting to growth mode. Executives who excelled at trimming costs faltered when it came to building brands, according to former executives and other employees, often leaving junior employees to increase sales of struggling products on slim budgets. In 2019, poor sales and accounting errors prompted the company to write down the value of its assets by $17 billion.

The company brought in a new CEO, Miguel Patricio, who pledged to reinvest in areas like marketing. Less than a year into his tenure, the pandemic hit, and homebound consumers flocked to familiar brands like Kraft mac and cheese. The company expanded manufacturing capacity to pump out more blue-and-orange containers of its signature product and other key offerings.

Kraft Heinz sales climbed by 5% in 2020, boosted by booming online orders. “We have sold nearly 90 million pounds of mac and cheese alone this year, which is equal to the weight of 41 Statues of Liberty,” said Abrams-Rivera, then Kraft Heinz’s president of its U.S. business, during a presentation to investors.

Mac-and-Cheese Challenge

A year earlier, Paul Earle had been walking the aisles of Chicago grocery stores with a notebook and pen when he stopped in front of the familiar blue wall of Kraft boxes.

The veteran consumer-goods entrepreneur had been assistant brand manager for Kraft mac and cheese during a short stint at the food giant starting in the late 1990s. At the time, Earle recalled, he thought the product could be made more nutritious to satisfy Americans’ growing appetite for healthy fare.

Earle had left Kraft and later launched several companies, including ones selling whisk-y and shampoo. At the time of his Chicago store visit, he was hunting for a new project.

He purchased several brands of mac and cheese, brought them home and cooked them. His 10-year-old son, Earle said, spat out a healthier variety from a Kraft competitor. Kraft’s classic version still tasted good and brought back fond memories, Earle said, but it didn’t appear much healthier than it was when he worked there. “I knew there was a way to do it better,” he said.

Earle approached Jen Zeszut, who had run baby food startup Cerebelly. They agreed Kraft Heinz had left the door wide open for a mac-and-cheese challenge.

Goodles, led by Zeszut, pitched itself as a fun, healthier take on an old classic. The company infused its noodles with protein and nutrients from spinach, pumpkin and kale, and said its ingredients and flavors warrant a price that is more than twice what Kraft’s sells for.

While Kraft Heinz and General Mills tried to appeal to children with noodles shaped like SpongeBob and Disney characters, Goodles targeted a different group. Earle and Zeszut believed many young adults were secretly eating mac and cheese, and others would too if it could shed its dorm-food vibe.

The pair sought help from Wonder Woman. Several years earlier, Zeszut had discussed a different business venture with Gal Gadot, an Israeli movie star who has played the superheroine on screen. The actress had passed on the earlier investment, but signed on when Zeszut pitched Goodles.

Gadot became a Goodles ambassador, posting videos of herself cooking and tasting the product for her more than 100 million Instagram followers. She said mac and cheese was her favorite comfort food in childhood, but that established brands weren’t healthy enough for her own four children.

Goodles caught on with consumers. Zeszut said retailers earned a higher profit on Goodles, turning them into fans, too. “It’s a higher-income consumer, it’s a younger demographic,” she said. “It’s exactly who they are trying to lure back to the center store.”

Slow Reaction

Goodles hit store shelves during Kraft Heinz’s pandemic bo-m, when its sales grew for many consecutive quarters. Kraft Heinz executives weren’t overly concerned about the new competition at first, former employees said. Kraft mac and cheese was the category’s leading brand by far, selling more than a million boxes a day.

There were other problems demanding attention. Mac and cheese was losing shoppers to other quick foods such as ramen, and many Kraft mac and cheese buyers were turning to less expensive store brands like Walmart’s Great Value.

Market-share shift, 2022–2025 (through Nov. 2):

Kraft Macaroni & Cheese: –6 percentage points

Goodles: +5 percentage points

Velveeta Shells & Cheese, Private Label, Annie’s: remainder

In 2022, a Kraft Heinz team proposed grabbing shoppers’ attention with more promotions, new flavors and a high-protein variety. Employees put together a proposal for new mac-and-cheese products, including ones using premium cheeses like Gruyere, Gouda and Parmesan, and herbs and spices.

Under a “design to value” approach the company had adopted, those employees needed to find corresponding cost cuts. They experimented internally with reducing the amount of cheese, mac and cheese’s costliest component, checking the effect on taste, texture, mouthfeel, cheesiness and “cling.”

A year later, another team made similar recommendations to executives, presenting sales data and retailer intelligence about Gen Z and millennial shoppers, many of whom were springing for premium versions. Health-focused options and new flavors like truffle and cacio e pepe, they said, could help coax back younger shoppers.

Executives faced other big troubles. Frequent restructuring and churn among employees led to shifting priorities, stalled projects and frustration among retailers. Brands such as Oscar Mayer and Maxwell House posed even bigger challenges than macaroni and cheese.

Kraft Heinz sales started dropping in late 2023. Consumers were fed up with inflation and hunting for deals. Patricio stepped down as CEO, turning over the job to Abrams-Rivera.

Executives were frustrated with Kraft mac and cheese, which continued to lose market share. Unhappy retailers wanted a growth strategy from Kraft, their biggest mac-and-cheese supplier. Costco wanted healthier products. Kraft Heinz’s sales employees were frustrated too, believing their suggestions had fallen on deaf ears.

Abrams-Rivera acknowledged the mac-and-cheese challenges in an October 2024 earnings call. “We have quite a bit of work to do, and meaningful improvement will take some time,” he told investors.

Employees drew up plans for new flavors, box sizes and store promotions. Internally, they declared 2025 the “year of mac and cheese.”

The company launched limited-edition flavors such as pizza, garlic Parmesan and, recently, apple pie, and jalapeño and ranch as permanent additions.

As part of a major initiative to boost its brands, Kraft Heinz ran more mac-and-cheese taste tests with consumers. Some results were disappointing, and executives told employees to fix it.

Diana Frost, the company’s chief growth officer for North America, said one conclusion was that the product billed in the 1990s as “the cheesiest” could use more cheese.

The company dialed up the cheese. It also introduced a bigger box that it says can feed a family of five for $2, and it updated its packaging to note the product doesn’t contain artificial flavors, preservatives or dyes.

In the 40 weeks ended Nov. 2, Kraft mac and cheese sales declined 4% from the year-earlier period, according to Circana data shared by industry analysts.

Abrams-Rivera said in October that mac and cheese was partly to blame for a 4% sales decline in the largest division of Kraft Heinz’s North America grocery unit. More recently, the company said Kraft mac and cheese sales in the four weeks ended Nov. 16 were up 4% from the year-earlier period.

“We know our brands better than we’ve ever known them,” Frost said. “We are not happy with where results are, but we’re seeing progress.”

The company said it plans to spend more than $60 million to boost Kraft mac and cheese in 2026, including the rollout of a higher-protein, higher-fiber variety that it said will be more affordable than competitors’ versions. It is also working on a premium line featuring fancier cheeses and noodles and bolder flavors.

When Kraft Heinz announced its planned breakup in September, executives said the mac-and-cheese business would be part of the new company focused on sauces, spreads and seasonings, not the other one selling grocery staples such as sliced cheese and deli meat.

Wall Street analysts have questioned the plan for Kraft mac and cheese. Cahillane, the incoming CEO who is slated to lead the sauces business, has said he may reassess the plans for the brands, including mac and cheese.

You’re not going insane — you just spent years in a system that promotes the ones who break people, not the ones who build teams. Time to rate the “survivors.”

Toxic Manager Rating Scale — pick all that apply:

1. Credit Thief – Devoured your work, slapped their name on it, and got praised for “thought leadership.”
2. Ghost Boss – Vanished when real leadership was needed, magically appeared when there was credit to grab or heads to roll.
3. Micromanager Supreme – Controlled every detail of your day, yet somehow had no clue what your job actually was.
4. Backstabber Pro – “You’re doing great” to your face, “they’re not a team player” the second you leave the call.
5. Blame Shifter – Their mistake, your “development opportunity.” Somehow you were always the common denominator.
6. Teflon Titan – Nothing ever sticks. Reorg after reorg, layoff after layoff, and they’re still there, failing upward.
7. Mood Roulette – You never knew if you were getting fake-friendly or full meltdown. Outlook calendar by day, unstable by nature.
8. Gaslighter-in-Chief – Made you question your memory, your performance, and eventually your sanity.
9. Loyalty Leech – Demanded 110% loyalty and availability, but ghosted you the second you needed support.
10. Corporate Chameleon – Perfectly adapted to a toxic culture. Thrives in politics, allergic to accountability or empathy.

Add up your score and drop it below.
The higher the number, the more you earned your severance, your sanity, and your exit.

Finally get rid of leadership that practices favoritism, over buys when we don't have the sales (expects tms in prep rooms to salvage the rotten product) , they believe their far superior to everyone else on the planet.

There is a lot of internal chatter regarding the decision to have the CSTO lead LATAM Foods while maintaining the S&T lead. With a direct report structure of nearly 30 people already, many are asking how this serves the business rather than just consolidating power.

The Financial Questions

The S&T era under Athina’s direct leadership—along with Vikram and G-yatri—has seen a staggering level of spend.

• ROI Gap: Many within the org feel the billions spent on "transformation" haven't materialized into frontline efficiency.

• There is significant frustration over the lack of business justification for the heavy reliance on specific global tech and consulting partners.

The Offshore Oversight Issue

The "India and Mexico Hub" model - While local teams face budget freezes, we see:

• Lavish travel and spending from global hubs.

• A perceived lack of productivity, with local leads often picking up the slack for offshore teams working limited hours.

Culture & Leadership

Is the "PepsiCo Way" being applied at the top? The leadership style and treatment of partners during this spend-heavy era have been widely criticized internally. Instead of an audit into the financial results of S&T, we see a promotion to a CEO seat. How does this align with our goals of being a lean, accountable organization?

So we have someone new joining our team and ever since they joined they have been on my a$$ to know how I do what I do.

While I understand the enthusiasm, I feel my manager is purposely bringing such individuals in the team (the latest being the second person) who seem to be "teachers pets", more noise for less work kind of person.
And I can tell they're someone who just wants to "have their signature" in everything that happens around.

PS: These new members are in same region as my snake of a manager.

Should I be worried???

To all of those who are treated like cattle sitting in small stalls all day while the elites sit in their offices with their doors closed…emerging once a day to say hi to the little people while deciding who to layoff off (mainly based on politics) God Bless You.

To all of you who sit in those offices who have never been laid off thinking you’re better than the rest filled with entitlement, arrogance and ignorance for not knowing how your decisions hurt others and the smugness of thinking you’ll never be laid off because you are somehow so invaluable…may 2026 be the year you yourself experiences this for the first time.

A layoff damages and impacts people in ways you can only know if you experience it first hand. It’s your turn.