#leadership

I submitted my internal survey feedback, and I did not hold back about how broken matrix teams really are. I want my leader to be someone I am in the trenches with every day. Instead, I get loaned out to separate teams while my formal manager sits on the sidelines, sending endless check-in messages asking what I am working on, whether things are moving forward, what my accomplishments were last week, or what my upcoming goals are.

Having spent my last two roles trapped in matrix management, neither of my leaders ever truly knew what I did/do on a day-to-day basis. When your direct manager has zero visibility into your routine output, your evaluation turns into a game of telephone rather than an accurate reflection of your work. It is long overdue to return to reporting lines where employees actually answer to the people they work alongside.

To make matters worse, these managers lack any actual authority to solve the real operational problems coming at us. I bring up persistent issues and concerns, complete with fully formed solutions and ways to resolve them, and absolutely nothing changes. Nothing happens. Our supposed leaders do not have the power or backbone to address friction with cross-functional partners, especially when General Partners are involved. The culture treats GPs like corporate royalty, expecting everyone to bow down and cater to them at all costs while real workflow issues get swept under the rug.
Beyond the constant administrative check-ins and powerlessness, matrix structures create major operational headaches. Reporting to multiple leaders leaves employees to navigate conflicting demands and split focus. Accountability completely dissolves when leadership is scattered across dotted lines, meaning no single person owns the final results and finger-pointing takes over when issues arise. Performance metrics also get misaligned, forcing workers to satisfy two completely different sets of expectations. Half the workweek ends up consumed by status updates to keep disengaged managers informed instead of driving actual results.

Worst of all, career growth hits a wall because a leader who does not see your daily contributions cannot effectively advocate for your promotions or raises. If you have ever spent nearly an hour explaining your actual job to the person who writes your yearly performance review, you know exactly how frustrating this structural setup is.

Is anyone else exhausted by matrix management, or has anyone actually seen a this sh---y company execute this structure well in a department burning people out?

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

Do not ignore the opportunity to tell it like you see it. So many are beyond disappointed and talk about it offline, well now write it out. Someone suggested not participating. That doesn’t move the metrics at all. Participate and tell it like you are when you think leadership isn’t listening. Don’t be a coward!!!!

I am already hearing leaders whisper about another WPE review being done and an update in the talks about more back in office days. Is this just gossip at my site or can anyone confirm they may be right??

Sacrificed his people’s best interests for Exxon’s money, then charging them for a book where he tries to explain that he’s just a poor victim like them!

I shouldn't be coming to an anonymous forum to learn there were more cuts today. We should know things like that. Good leadership wouldn't be so scared to tell us what's going on, even if it's negative. We're being run by a bunch of incompetent cowards.

New CTO coming in, Al Tara being demoted back to ciso. Definitely more cuts coming in tech, would bet money on it. Best case he just replaces a few MDs with his own friends, worst case he realizes what a complete sh*t show Citi tech infrastructure is currently and gets rid of the entire tech dinosaur ecosystem

Ok when will the board fire Clay for his incompetency?

When will Larry step back in and slap him around a bit?

Or will we just have a fire sale and be bought by the likes of Nvidia or OpenAi? We need some form of stock shocker ! May be a hostile take over.

We need something and not more orange builder jackets or layoffs

First, they let go of the very people who were delivering things. Teams and leaders who were delivering agentic solutions were let go.
The worst part is that they retained bootlicker SDs who wouldn’t deliver a single feature but were good at playing politics.

Those SDs retained their useless teams, many of whom have little to no exposure to technology beyond community college, and they are now responsible for designing some of the worst customer experiences. We are expecting to be AI first company with these kind of people.

But hey, thanks, Tanya and Nancy, for this brilliant display of leadership.

• Failed to produce any meaningful outcomes in 30 yrs at bank.
• Repeateatedly alienated employees while failing to achieve objectives leading to mass defections and low morale.
• Failed to design and execute key risk strategies causing Wells Fargo to fall further behind competitors.
• Lacks credible leadership skills, communication skills, and risk management experience.
• Failed to consistently meet RTO requirements and rarely worked a full 40 hr work week.
• Failed to hire competent subordinates to execute risk programs leading to numerous executive terminations.
• On the plus side, your leaving will have a significant positive impact on WF risk management. As with all senior executives, you are expendable, easily replaced, and AI will make your role redundant anyway.

Please enjoy your "retirement". Unfortunately, due to a tanking stock price, massive severence costs, and litigation expense, we cannot give you a good riddance, I mean, going away party.

Perfectly summarized, @a6+1m3801rc6.

Heard it went over like a lead balloon.

Have faith clover will save us and even outsiders are now starting to see that. Yes fb was bad. And ML went back to banking. This is potentially the time to create generational wealth

https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/diversified-financials/nasdaq-fisv/fiserv/news/fiserv-fisv-could-be-62-undervalued-following-its-clover-ven/amp

September 23, 2026

Simply Wall St
Fiserv (FISV) is back in focus after the Winnipeg Blue Bo----s selected its Clover platform to run venue-wide commerce, a fresh data point for investors watching the payments technology group.

That fresh CFL win for Clover comes as Fiserv’s share price has retreated, with the stock down about 13% over the past month and almost 30% year to date, while the 1-year total shareholder return has fallen nearly 65%. This pattern signals fading momentum even as product wins and a recent leadership change reshape the story.

Scan how Fiserv’s pullback compares to other payment and financial technology players by reviewing the hand picked 30 high quality undervalued stocks that combine solid balance sheets with meaningful cash generation.

The drop in Fiserv to about US$45.95 has already reset expectations for many holders. The key question now is whether that reset is sufficient, or whether it still makes more sense to wait for a cheaper entry point.

Most Popular Narrative: 62% Undervalued
On Simply Wall St, the most widely followed narrative on Fiserv now pegs fair value at about $119.99, a steep gap to the recent $45.95 close that frames the current sell off less as a minor wobble and more as a full reset in expectations.

We believe FISV is valued at basement levels due to value-destructive decisions of the former management team, credibility issues due to the recent reset of guidance by the new management teams, and unfounded fears that their merchant and financial business units are in decline.

As the new management team continues to execute in stabilizing top-line growth and making the necessary investments to strengthen FISV’s competitive standing as well as profit margins, we believe the stock will re-rate to our base case of $120 per share, which implies a modest P/E ratio of 10x on management guidance for 2029 earnings.

See why 47 investors see Fiserv as 62% undervalued.

Result: Fair Value of $119.99 (UNDERVALUED)

Still, Fiserv’s sharp share price decline and ongoing competitive pressure around Clover could keep sentiment fragile if execution or guidance disappoints again.

Find out about the key risks to this Fiserv narrative.

Next Steps
If this mix of concern and optimism around Fiserv feels familiar, consider acting while the debate is active and weigh the 3 key rewards and 1 important warning sign.

Looking for more Fiserv alternative ideas?
Do not stop your research with Fiserv alone. Fresh opportunities often sit just outside the headlines, and a quick screen can surface them before others react.

Target resilient payouts by scanning companies that match the 7 dividend fortresses and see which income plays still line up with your risk tolerance.
Zero in on financial strength using the list of solid balance sheet and fundamentals (23 results) to focus on businesses that pair healthier leverage with steadier fundamentals.
Hunt for overlooked potential through the 16 high quality undiscovered gems that combine stronger quality markers with limited current attention from the broader market.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

How to bad leaders get power? how do they protect the teacher's pet? They use skip levels to collect gossip. your skip level leader asks you to tattle on people by asking questions like tell me something good and bad about everyone you work with (a good leader would not do this). then they take the information they collect from all skip levels, and manipulate it as they please. is there a trend of people reporting the teacher's pet? skip level leaders discredit these people immediately.

this approach doesnt improve the team, foster trust, or create camaraderie. Its purposely done so they can pull strings and manipulate situations they normally would not have power over.

if you have a leader like this, slam them as hard as you can in the Pulse survey to get them laid off, and then find a new job. if you get laid off, that's better. collect a severance check and get out of this place.

How is the calculus now that Roshan will have Scott Hallworth reporting to him? Will that end overspend on gen ai or could it accelerate the burn beyond? Is there a purging of Peter's yesmen happening?

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.

In a meeting about three weeks ago the president said ways of working was paused and said restructuring will start back up for phase 3 but there will be no layoffs. Well guess what happened today? If they could only be honest.

Was anyone else listening in on the Leadership Development call on Tuesday? Things were going as expected, until the final comments when the male leader suggested that the way to increase our revenue per employee is to encourage people to leave voluntarily. Did anyone else catch that? Seemed like they said the quiet part out loud

Looks like a lot of senior/executive leaders are coming for visits and/or scheduling meetings with several teams next week. Would fit the pattern the last few years of delivering awful news shortly after the engagement survey is closed.

There is a question worth asking about the recent RIFs affecting Customer Success Managers across Oracle Consumer Industries:

Why does it appear that Hospitality CSMs are carrying a disproportionate share of the reductions compared with Food & Beverage?

The question becomes more interesting when you consider the nature of the two businesses.

Hotel technology particularly at the enterprise level is incredibly complex. A Hospitality CSM may be dealing with global hotel companies operating hundreds or thousands of properties, OPERA Cloud deployments, integrations, payments, distribution, loyalty, partners, escalations and major transformation programs.

These aren't simply account-management roles. The best Hospitality CSMs often become the connective tissue between the customer, Support, Development, Consulting, Sales, Product and executive leadership.

If Hospitality is also delivering stronger profitability and margins than F&B, as some believe, the disparity becomes even more difficult to understand. It would be useful to see the actual numbers.

And there is another question that probably needs to be asked:

Does the background of the current Consumer Industries leadership play any role in how Customer Success resources are being allocated?

With leadership experience coming from the F&B side of the business, could there naturally be greater familiarity with or a different view of the F&B Customer Success model and its staffing requirements?

That doesn't mean anyone is deliberately protecting one organization at the expense of another. Nor is this an argument that F&B CSMs should be losing their jobs instead.

It's a question about whether the two businesses are being evaluated using the right criteria.

If Hospitality has greater customer complexity, larger enterprise transformations, significant integration requirements and attractive margins, what is the business rationale for deeper reductions in Hospitality Customer Success?

Maybe there is a good answer.

But employees and customers deserve to understand the strategy.

What metrics are actually determining where the CSM reductions occur and are Hospitality and F&B truly being evaluated on an equivalent basis?

So many Cengage openings being posted, and so many people posting their farewells. Cengage is looking bleak. ET freaking out about salesforce and the lack of pipeline. NK still thinks things are steady and stable and is in disbelief- that’s what you get for firing everyone who are not yes people and are living in reality telling you that reality.

Is our leadership aware that we offer Toastmasters? Or continuing education? My blue university???

Their speaking skills are appalling.

…sent to their entire team, thanking them for participating in the survey, and urging those who haven’t yet to do so before it closes next week. Stated team was already at 73%.

So at least 73% of you will never learn.

Enjoy the additional calls and “brainstorming” sessions to “fix” everything you complained about,

Dimwits.

My 31st service anniversary was 7 months ago. I've never heard a rude word directed toward me from my L3 until this year, and today was the the 3rd time since January. It made me angry and I interrupted him without thinking and told him to stop talking to me as if I was one of his ignorant children. I have 31 years of service, blah, blah, blah. Is this the new style of leadership with RTO? Anyone else seeing an increase in rude behavior from our leadership?

I was genuinely happy to see that we are finally building a GCC for a bank—something we have all been looking forward to. However, as we have moved into execution, it increasingly feels like a single-person agenda. It no longer feels like a Truist GCC; it feels like a “T-GCC.”
The leadership style has been non-collaborative, with a lack of maturity and, at times, an abrasive communication style. There seems to be a strong personal agenda to maintain 100% control, creating significant friction and politics very early in what should be a long-term strategic capability.
I have always had great respect for SA, but I feel he has placed too much control with T. I am not sure whether he—or others involved—fully recognize how much friction and a negative culture have already been created.
We are already behind on this initiative, and I am concerned the current direction is taking us further away from where we need to be. I am becoming skeptical about moving my function into the GCC because I genuinely question whether it will help us achieve what we intended.
It is also surprising that HR, Risk, GSD… are allowing this to continue. what is our GCC partner doing about it ?
What we seed today will grow within the GCC. If we continue to seed friction, politics, and a lack of collaboration, that is the culture we will ultimately build.

Is this the market stating they have zero confidence in the executive leadership at FIS? When will the Ferris wheel stop? Will she get booted at $35, $30, $25? She’s not even a good PR person for the company. SMH.

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.

Been here a long time and honestly getting pretty fed up.

I know I’m one of the stronger people on my team. I’ve consistently done the work, taken on more responsibility, and when I’ve asked what I need to do to get promoted, I actually did those things. I’ve also told my manager directly that I’m interested in the next-level role and see it as an important career opportunity.

Yet somehow people who have been here less than a year are getting promoted while I keep getting passed over.

At some point you have to wonder what the point is. If you do the work, meet expectations, take the feedback seriously and still get ignored, what exactly are you supposed to do?

My manager seems to have their favorites, and it’s becoming pretty obvious that hard work and performance aren't necessarily what gets rewarded. Maybe I’m just naive, but I thought doing a good job was supposed to matter.

I’m getting tired of feeling like I have to kiss up to management just to get basic career opportunities. And yes, at this point I’m seriously questioning whether I even want to keep putting in the extra effort.

For those who have been in the same situation at Truist, what did you do? Leave? Transfer to another team? Stop going above and beyond and just collect the paycheck? Retaliate and make your manager's life at work a living he.l.l?

Curious what others have experienced.

No M&A possible until after 2027 but why should that stop the cutting to hire this position

Remember what employees were told when this started?

“When our membership shifts, we need to shift our organization accordingly.”

That was the story.

Membership changed. The healthcare environment changed. Centene had to respond. The VSP was presented as part of adapting to those realities and positioning the company for the future.

For the people actually living through it, that meant deciding whether to take a separation package, watching friends and coworkers disappear, wondering whether layoffs were next, and being told over and over about transformation, simplification, and the mission.

It sounded like Centene was reacting to circumstances.

Now listen to the story Sarah London told investors. Centene chose not to “hunker down. Instead, leadership decided to “redesign and transform the company.”

They are asking:

“What are the capabilities that we need and what talent do we need?” And the destination?An “industry-leading cost structure.”

That's not quite the same effin’ story, is it?

One story sounds like: Membership changed, so unfortunately the organization has to change with it.

The other sounds like: We are deliberately redesigning the company, deciding which capabilities and people we need, exiting business that doesn't produce sufficient returns, and engineering a lower cost structure.

And here's what really pi---s me off. While employees were living through all of this uncertainty, Centene's financial condition was improving.

Q2 net earnings: $1.09 BILLION.
Operating cash flow: $3.59 BILLION.
Adjusted EPS guidance: raised to more than $4.80.

Marketplace strategy: margin over membership. Businesses that can't produce sustainable economics? Leave them.

People and capabilities that don't fit the redesigned company? Well, now we know the question leadership says it has been asking.

What happened to our membership?
What talent do we need?
How do we get through this difficult period together?
What capabilities do we need?
How do we protect the people carrying out the mission?
How do we achieve an “industry-leading cost structure”?

And THAT is the part every Centene employee who survived should understand. This wasn't necessarily a storm you survived. It was a company being redesigned around you.

And if reducing the cost structure is part of the strategy, better financial results don't necessarily mean the danger has passed. They may mean the strategy is working.

So when another town hall rolls around and you're told about the mission, transformation, simplification, resilience, or whatever this week's vocabulary is, remember the vocabulary leadership uses when the audience changes.

Employees got the story about circumstances. Investors got the story about strategy. Employees heard why change was necessary. Wall Street heard what Centene was building.

Same CEO.
Same company.
Same transformation.
Very different effin story.

And the people left behind now get to carry that mission with fewer coworkers, less institutional knowledge, more work, and absolutely no reason to believe leadership has finished asking:

“What talent do we need?”

NoCenteam free advice: You’re being fed false truths. Run as fast as you can. There’s life after these charlatans.

What do you think about today's USET Connect or townhall themed "Lead to One" : Work Faster, smarter with less.

"On September 16, 2026, Adam L. Rosman resigned as Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Legal Officer of Fiserv, Inc. (the “Company”), effective September 30, 2026. Eric C. Nelson, the Company’s current General Counsel and Secretary, will succeed Mr. Rosman as Chief Legal Officer on October 1, 2026."

The gambling network VSiN is experiencing significant staff reductions, with multiple on-air personalities and programming staff departing. These layoffs follow a recent buyback of the company by Musburger Media. Rumors suggest a potential change in ownership is imminent, with speculation pointing to Circa Owner Derek Stevens. The exact identity of the new owner remains undisclosed, but leadership changes are anticipated. These developments indicate a period of transition for the sports betting network.

Oakland Park, Florida

https://www.gambling911.com/more-layoffs-anticipated-at-vsin-as-rumors-swirl-over-possible-new-ownership

Saw on LinkedIn that Mike Lyons liked this post from Gary V.

HOW TO CREATE TEAM CULTURE...
I fire every single person that is not a good human being, regardless of how much money she or he makes for me.

Why is it appropriate in any situation, for somebody to aggressively yell at an employee, in front of others in any circumstance?

If you're a leader, that pain and stress you're taking, go take that, put it in a shelf then come back and be constructive.

The problem is we accept it in business...

The person comes back and is like, "sorry, it's a tough day with the client." and the other person goes "it's ok, Karl."

F*ck Karl!

You better audit every single employee you have, and you better figure out which employee makes the other employees miserable.

I don't give a sh*t if it's your number one salesperson, your best developer or co-founder. Cancer spreads.

There is no quicker way to fck everything up than to look the other way at someone who's talented and contributing but is a piece of sht human.

If you tell your people that you care about them, but you "look the other way" when certain employees are mean to everyone else, you're sending a very clear message that you don't value company culture. Culture is the core of an organization, and if the core is ruined, nothing else matters

It's reasonably safe to assume that if you are on this site you are concerned about the possibility of losing your job in a layoff and judging by many of the comments you are also dissatisfied with working at NetApp. One thing I would offer is to send a message to the leaders of the company by NOT completing the employee survey. That sends the message that you are disenfranchised and don't care - which is a bigger concern than complaints around "barriers to execution" or the Thrive Together policy. BTW - has anything really ever changed as a result of these surveys?? F'em.

Seems everyone I talk to that has worked with them comments that it's an absolute train wreck over there. Their news letters mention so many "accomplishments" but no one actually seems to know what they produce. What a mess!!!

Do not say that you are a good leader if everyone is in therapy because of you.