#leadership

Sad to see a real pep+ leader like RB retiring. She led with passion and knew the business cold. She actually knew her stuff and cared about doing good.

What’s worse is watching her responsibilities go to a complete sycophant of a lady who hasn’t earned it. Giving more power to rotten leadership isn’t just tone-deaf, it shows JA is delusional and has no clue what good leadership looks like.

JA posted on LinkedIn that Exploration is Back! Tell me how because I don’t see it from where I work wells in the upstream…..

Is he still selling pipe dreams so he can retire? Did he ever find anythind?

Saw the note about another sr leaders leaving in service enablement. Kinda makes me think those leaders have a sense of what's to come and are getting out early. Idk, I never was much of a fan of ZK, but kinda makes me nervous all of the people leaving.

head of growth and generosity leaving company, not being replaced. a bunch of people promoted from VP to SVP. in same email, layoffs announced. said this was done in the name of cost reduction yet with all the big title promotions, were there any real dollars saved? it's so tasteless to be rah rah let's celebrate promotions and then tell people they lost their jobs all in the same day.

we can build products, but can execs manage the business?

DW is a problem and needless firings will always be on the table so long as she's the one making creative decisions.

where did RM (Global Head of Technology Infrastructure) went?

I am guessing Brad got tired of three stooges and pulte. I wonder what other senior leader is leaving…

A TL just transferred to my store - dude has been with the company for 13 years and has been in 12 different stores. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is. In his last store he went out on "stress leave" for three months because he said he couldn't "handle the job". If he couldn't handle it there then what makes store leadership think he can handle it here? He's currently on a PIP. He sits in the office on his phone all day. Pals around with his ATL, who also sits in the office with him and they watch Tiktoks together. Why do they keep these kind of people and oust the hard workers by changing their schedules and putting the teams entire work on those people that actually work instead of holding failed leadership accountable?

I think we’ve seen enough.

If that is even true. I know you people don't want a two class society at USBank but leadership caused this mess. If remote employees can be grandfathered then past employees should have been given a route to become remote too.

This feels like a textbook example of people believing their own narrative. Instead of meaningful transparency or honest discussion, it’s filled with self-congratulation and carefully crafted talking points.

There’s very little substantive information here. It’s just selective framing, unsupported claims, and messaging that doesn’t align with what many people are actually experiencing. Rather than acknowledging legitimate concerns or difficult realities, the focus seems to be on celebrating themselves and controlling the narrative.

Real leadership is measured by results and accountability, not by how enthusiastically you praise your own performance. At some point, the applause for yourselves has to give way to honest conversations backed by facts.

Me to Claude: should all these people lose their jobs?

Claude: “Thanks for the question. It would appear so.”

Why are these execs so delusional? The message could not be more clear: pump all your data into our systems so our AI and India teams can cut your jobs. Also, get your a-s in an office even if that means you're staring at a wall.

Cut the execs, watch us perform better without them.

BNY leadership loves talking about “virtue” the way marketing teams love talking about “transformation” — loudly, frequently, and with zero connection to reality.

Our CEO reminds LinkedIn followers that he’s a proud New Yorker of 25+ years, as if residency somehow translates into leadership credibility.

Our Global Head of Wealth and Investments performs the humble‑origins monologue while pocketing compensation that could fund a small college like his alma mater.

And the COO? He champions mentoring interns while spending most of his career perfecting the art of shuttering facilities and escorting experienced employees out the door.

It’s remarkable how consistently these executives wrap themselves in altruistic, philanthropic language while employees experience the exact opposite.

If this is “leadership by example,” then the example seems to be: say one thing publicly, do the opposite internally, and hope no one notices.

But employees do notice — hence the monthly mutinies on this forum.

The workforce isn’t rejecting their virtues; it’s rejecting the performance. Because nothing erodes culture faster than leaders who preach stewardship while actively dismantling and failing to communicate honestly and transparently with the very people they claim to serve.

Wonder if DO is bringing any more people that Frontier wanted to can. He brings over these people that sit there and say Hi to a team one time. Be like im going to be engaged once a month and then you never see them again. Oh look another meeting with leadership turnover. Guess someone exceeded their KPI on word salads. DO should focus more on the actual employees instead of not understanding sales and long winded speeches.

It’s interesting to see hiring leaders into high-level roles with fully remote. Is this acceptable?

This is right out of Ginni's tired playbook " One quarter does not define a company. Progress is never perfect or linear. But the future is ours to win"

Arvind, read your own headline back. “Company culture was too slow to change.” Not “I set a strategy that leaned on debt-funded acquisitions for five years.” Not “I ki-led a working deployment focus six months ago and had to rebuild it under pressure.” Not “I chased a stock price number instead of asking whether the growth underneath it was real.” Culture. As if the culture is some ambient weather system that happens to a company, instead of the direct, measurable output of what leadership rewards, funds, and tolerates.
Here’s what “culture” actually means when a CEO says it out loud: it means employees. It means the people three, four, five levels below you, absorbing blame for decisions they didn’t make and couldn’t have stopped. You don’t get to spend years building a strategy on acquisitions and mainframe timing, watch the props come due at the same time, and then, when the market notices, hand the bill to “culture.” Culture doesn’t sign off on M&A. Culture doesn’t set the incentive plan. Culture doesn’t decide which function gets ki-led in January and rebuilt in July. You do.
And the board’s own language makes this worse, not better: confident in the strategy, but will “hold leadership accountable for execution.” Read that twice. The strategy stays untouchable. Execution is the only thing on the table, and execution is exactly the layer where the people with the least power to change the strategy live. That’s not accountability. That’s a firewall, built to make sure the decisions at the top never have to answer for the results at the top.
So here’s the honest question, asked directly, not through a euphemism about culture: why is it always easier to say “we faltered” as a company than to say “I got this wrong” as the person who ran it? Why is the sentence “culture was too slow” acceptable in a headline, while the sentence “I ki-led a function I should have left alone” never makes it into one? If you were confident enough to reshuffle the entire org on a six-month clock, be confident enough to put your own name on the outcome instead of a word that conveniently has no face and no bonus attached to it.
Own it, you said. So own it. Not the culture. You

University of South Florida President Moez Limayem has initiated significant leadership changes. This marks his first major organizational overhaul since taking office this year. The article mentions layoffs and a shakeup at Cyber Florida, indicating a broader restructuring effort. These changes are part of Limayem's strategic vision for the university.

Tampa, Florida

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2026/07/20/usf-restructuring.html

The mess we're in is because of incompetent leaders. They got their positions through connections, not skill. And it shows.

Micromanagement and fear tactics will continue... the main goal is to push people out and force them to quit. It is no secret what the management is doing, change people's roles to unrealistic expectations in order to save money and to make the company look profitable on paper so they could off load it to another buyer. For years they have refused to provide employees with a clear Job Description while they shout at every meeting that the role and expectations have changed. They are waiting for people to adjust into their new and force upon role so that they could use the legal claws to bypass liability for changing employee roles without their consent. This is unlawful and unethical. No wonder why people are not performing their best because nor only they dont have capable leaders, they feel like they are being conned by their leaders...

Well said, @x0+1kvzddfk0.

It's been a few weeks, but I've finally calmed down. When I first heard the news my body felt weak, I couldn't sleep because this visionary was gone.

To have these indefinite rolling layoffs going on already for a year and probably continuing for few more years. What a morally bankrupt leadership void of any care for their employees. Also notice how this repugnant disgusting selfish behavior has been normalized and everyone has accepted it as common and ordinary. But it's nothing like it.

Not sure I understand how this happened. I’ve only been here 5 years, but the Sport Research Lab seems to have crazy low morale. A lot of people are abusing the workplace complaints system to attack bosses and colleagues. It didn’t always seem like this. Now leadership is doing these silly culture exercises to try and solve this huge problem because everyone is afraid of being targeted by their own co-workers.

Is it like this in other departments? Because it’s really bad over here in NSRL.

In John’s Q2 results email he said, “We’ll need to embrace a market-based culture and continue executing against our 2026 priorities.”

That got me thinking… what exactly does “market-based” mean?

A market-based system generally means rewards and consequences are tied to performance. High performers create more value and are rewarded accordingly. Poor decisions and poor performance have consequences. Resources flow to what works, and what doesn’t work gets changed or terminated… That’s not how this place feels.

For employees, compensation isn’t meaningfully tied to individual performance. Top performers and average performers often receive very similar outcomes, while broad policies apply to everyone regardless of results.

And if we’re truly going to talk about a market-based culture, shouldn’t that standard apply at every level of the organization, including leadership?

A market-based culture shouldn’t just measure employees. It should measure strategies, capital allocation, recruiting, retention, culture, innovation, and long-term shareholder value.

The phrase “market-based” only has meaning if accountability flows both ways. Otherwise, it’s just another slogan.

Stankey seemed awfully confident during today’s ATG Live. After one solid quarter in a six-year tenure, the tone came across as more smug than self-aware, and the comments about employees didn’t exactly help.

Let’s see what next week brings after Verizon and T-Mobile report. One quarter doesn’t erase years of mixed results or settle the competitive picture.

If I were in his position, I’d spend less time taking victory laps and more time rebuilding trust with the employees who helped deliver the quarter in the first place.

All of you gloating over the 2% increase in stock price today, just keep in mind that the stock is still 33% lower than it was 15 years ago and pays out only 70% of the dividend. The stock has grown $1.50 since Stank became CEO and dividend has gone down. Certainly nothing to crow about. RTO destroyed a once great American company.

INVESTORS DUMP YOUR STOCK BUD. YOU NEED A NEW APPROACH.

I think the biggest surprise will be how many of the PL's everyone has been talking about on here are taking this themselves. I have gotten wind of names of people that have been approved and lots of VP's and Directors that have been around awhile are taking this as an opportunity to leave.

Something I had not considered.

Robin Vince announcing his appointment to the OpenAI board reads like peak corporate satire: the CEO of a bank whose employees publicly describe leadership as opaque, dismissive, and allergic to accountability is now helping steer the future of “responsible AI.”

Sadly, it’s almost poetic. At BNY, Vince champions AI as a “capacity creator,” which is a polite way of saying it helps leadership know more, move faster, and replace people more efficiently — a theme not lost on the thousands of workers and former workers posting their experiences on this forum.

His statement about deploying AI “responsibly, securely, and with strong governance” lands awkwardly when employees can’t even get responsible communication about layoffs, offshoring, or the never‑ending transformation cycle. And the part about AI benefiting “all of humanity”? BNY staff might settle for it benefiting even just a fraction of its workforce.

The real comedy is the humility act — Vince describing himself as “humbled and grateful” while employees describe him as absent, evasive, and increasingly disconnected from the reality inside his own institution.

If OpenAI truly wants to understand how AI impacts people, they’ve now got a board member whose own employees already feel like failed test cases.

How can someone who is so out of touch possibly guide humanity’s future while BNY employees can’t get straight answers during his entire tenure with the firm?

Eliza? . . . Eliza? . . . Can we get a little help here?!?!

Are we submitting questions or assuming that even with the format pivot we aren’t going to get real, honest answers to questions.

Personally, I hope people submit their toughest questions and demand accountability from MKW. It’s been a sh*t couple of years and that’s largely on him and the rest of leadership.

No rhyme or reason for the chosen: some long term tenured, some newer, but good at their jobs. That department was being hammered by senior leadership about meeting SLAs. They will regret it later when the staffing is needed later in the year. Why, Lord, oh why?

Just my opinion, but after the last organizational shake-up, I wouldn’t be surprised if history repeats itself.

One question I keep coming back to: A.C. championed the “ways of working” in the previous CXO organization. Has anyone objectively looked at whether those same approaches may have contributed to some of the challenges the organization faced?

Hopefully the new organization has a different outcome—but time will tell. 🍿

Matt Carr had an all hands yesterday. He said we need to move on from the laid off employees, was laughing the entire time and came off as an arrogant fat man. Not to mention, was complimenting women for looking good, super weird. There was a tornado warning alarm that went off and he dismissed it and kept the call going. He’s not fit for that job. What makes him a psychopath more than anything is that he promised no more lay offs but we all know that lay offs will continue. These “leaders” are clueless.

You should not feel disrespected. You should be grateful and eager to work hard with a song in your heart!

We are evolving our structure and operating model by aligning leadership and decision-making more directly to the needs of each business, while centralizing select capabilities that create value across the organization.

In a previous town hall, the senior executive who will not be named listened to the frustration of senior directors (plural) under him, as well as chat entries of attendees, on Teamworks which made them lose valuable talent.

The feedback is in unison: Teamworks is not worth the negative impact to employee's welfare and retention. In the end, this senior executive said "Don't worry about teamworks. So long as we don't see an average of five hours of work per day, it's fine."

Well his other cohort, another senior executive, has been going around in staff meetings pressuring managers to get tighter on Teamworks or else they themselves will get in trouble.

Same company (Hughes), two senior executives, two different perspectives on Teamworks.

Sr. leaders: why are you still here? Cash comp at the 66th percentile, equity that hasn't moved since 2020. You're being paid below market and told the difference is in the stock — the same stock that just spent six years proving it isn't. Anyone with an equal offer should already be gone. And if you're lucky enough to catch a severance package? Take it. It's the best-performing asset this company has issued in a decade.