#leadership

Who is was better?

Well, the time has come. It’s the last night of the Crown Castle nightmare that has been the lives of those of us in the perimeter. I’ve lived through Covid, several RIFs, the lineup of C-suiters that have exited (one took her broom with her), the forced move and then backtrack, offices shuttered, and now a 2.5 year long divestiture process. Heck, I’m beat.

I’m under no illusions that the new company will be perfect…far from, but I’m not going to troll this page anymore. I’m sure I’ll hear about it over drinks with my old Crown friends, but I won’t be active on here anymore.

I’m proud of the work that my friends (maybe even some of you) and I accomplished, despite the mismanagement, craziness, and fear of what’s next. We still did a fantastic job with what we were given. I’m going to miss a lot of people, but I’m sure everyone will be just fine wherever they end up.

For those going to Arium, good luck on starting over with the dedicated company focus that you always deserved.

Zayoites, good luck on an established organization that has pet insurance!

For my Crown 2.0 generation, when the Colonel sends out his email tomorrow, announcing the dawning of the new Crown, hang in there. You’ve outlived how many CEOs? I’m sure many of you will outlive this one…unless he sells the company, which is entirely possible.

John Stankey built his entire career on exactly the kind of institutional loyalty he now tells 130,000 people is dead.

He joined Pacific Bell in 1985 straight out of college. He has never meaningfully worked anywhere else — Pacific Bell became SBC, SBC acquired AT&T, and he climbed every rung of the same organizational ladder for 40 years without ever having to compete in an open market for a job.

He didn't get to CEO by being market-based. He got there by being loyal, patient, politically savvy, and present for four decades in the same building. He is the living embodiment of boomer corporate loyalty — and he abolished it the moment he reached the top.

That is not irony.

That is a specific kind of moral corruption that comes from people who pull the ladder up behind them.

I am afraid that laying off people here and there won't cut it.

Sh-t started going down on last years of MP
And 3 or 4 years of JD's sh-t
And 18 months of EH feeble efforts.
That means that Nike has been on downward slide for 7 to 9 years.

And pandemic's boost made d-mb JD a distorted view of reality, leading or not leading to cliff that we are experiencing.

EH's small scale effort will not change anything. He can layoff until he is the last one left. We might as have same or better result praying and knocking on the woods!!!

Bring back the wolves!

The sheep in place have ki-led this company. All yes people focused on managing up, not results.

I’m gonna say this plain and simple — this company is rotten at the core.

I’m telling you, the experience was beyond frustrating. It’s the kind of disappointment that sticks with you, not because of what happened, but because of how it all went down.

What really gets me is the lack of integrity in leadership. The SC leader — all flash, no follow-through — will tell his team one thing, turn right around and tell senior leadership something else, and somehow still walk away taking credit for work that ain’t his. That doesn’t happen by accident. That’s a culture that allows it.

I sat through that Appian World presentation and just thought… “this is what we’re backing?” It wasn’t just weak — it was a clear case of style over substance. And the fact that nothing changes after something like that? That tells you exactly what this company values — and what it doesn’t.

Folks who put in the work, who show up and deliver, they’re the ones getting pushed out. No fairness, no honesty. And yeah, that leaves a bad taste. Not because of the outcome — I’ll land on my feet — but because of the way it was handled. When there’s no transparency and no accountability, trust doesn’t stand a chance.

And if you want proof beyond the inside story, just look at the market. Ten years public, and the stock’s barely moved. That ain’t bad luck — that’s a signal.

This isn’t a company hitting a rough patch. This feels like one that’s lost its direction altogether.

If you’re on the SC side of the business, I’d take a long, hard look at where things are headed. Don’t sit around waiting for it to turn — by the time it’s obvious, you’re already in it.

No shade to the other CEO, but I really enjoy Rick’s meetings. Full of great confident and I love how he takes all the questions on without having to reach out to his team. He is prepared and knows his stuff. It is a lot of info too… he must have a photogenic mind to retain all that! I can hardly remember what I ate for lunch yesterday.

The “first of many” associate all-hands left a bad taste in my mouth, for more reasons than I can fully articulate. The shift to the Harbor Point studio was the first jarring departure from the cozy, informal town halls we had grown used to before this latest regime change. The broadcast felt more like a morning news segment than a company conversation - cold, staged, and impersonal. One thing was abundantly clear: the C-suite is not part of “us.” They operate separately, and we’re meant to feel that distance.

What followed were prewritten speeches, read from teleprompters, filled with buzzwords but lacking substance. The central message seemed to be that TRP is poised to capitalize on the next economic opportunity - but what that opportunity actually is remains unclear. And apparently, we’re not meant to ask. If the goal was to model an “AI-first” approach by delivering generated, impersonal messaging, then mission accomplished.

The most disheartening realization, however, was the unmistakable confirmation that the legacy TRP “people-first” culture is gone. I’ve watched this erosion over the past decade, but never has leadership been so transparent in its lack of consideration for employees and clients alike.

We sat through an hour of “new strategy” with barely any discussion about improving outcomes for clients or associates. The AI-focused approach, poorly thought through, centers on doing the same work with fewer people, relying on efficiency gains that feel more aspirational than realistic. Questions raised in Meeting Pulse about costs, risks, and whether our existing infrastructure can even support this strategy were noticeably ignored.

Most striking, though, were the repeated references to our “thriving culture.” The disconnect was hard to miss. The culture is speaking loudly - through Meeting Pulse, through forums like The Layoff - and the message is clear: employees are struggling. We’re dealing with internal friction, outdated technology, and a lack of focus after years of layoffs and reorganizations. Incentives to perform have eroded.

Compensation cycles have been consistently disappointing, with market conditions and outflows cited as justification, even as executive compensation continues to rise. Investments are being funneled into a new headquarters and high-profile marketing partnerships, while associates are quietly laid off and replaced with offshore labor. This isn’t “doing more with less” it’s being asked to do less, with less, and somehow maintain the same standards of quality.

At this point, our ability to deliver meaningful work is being undermined, and the prevailing message from leadership seems to be that we should feel fortunate just to be employed.

Today’s all-hands felt disingenuous and, at times, insulting. But more importantly, it made one thing clear: what leadership values is not aligned with the people doing the work. The culture is speaking, but it stands in direct opposition to the narrative coming from the TRP ivory tower.

reminds me Scully saying "can we be serious now?"

guys talks for 15 Minutes , call for experts .... TS... Alfonso .....

what a joke

#AI-mad Verizon to continue with cuts after CEO's jobs warning
Verizon CEO Dan Schulman has now completed the 13,000 layoffs he promised last November, but more could lie ahead. [ Lightreading 📰].

Iain Morris,International Editor,Light Reading — April 30, 2026

Company bosses occasionally praise their employees in public and note the importance of talent. That doesn't quite ring true when they are cutting thousands of jobs, as many are, which might partly explain why lauding AI is now much more fashionable. Attributing job cuts to the solid efforts of the new AI recruit, which bosses have anthropomorphized by saying it is an "agent" or does "reasoning," is even trendier.

It's quite a turnaround from a few years ago, when linking #automation, let alone AI, to job losses was as taboo as nudity in the workplace. No, no, managers frowned, new tech will merely liberate workers from drudgery and provide time for more satisfying pursuits. This was obviously before generative #AI (GenAI) threatened to liberate content creators from creating content so they could spend more time cleaning laptop screens or making tea – until GenAI turned out to be a duff substitute prone to mendacity.

Regardless, investors, if not employees, like the sound of a super-lean and highly profitable company run by AI rather than people. Fearful of missing out on a new tech bonanza, authorities have stopped worrying about the risks and jumped. Suddenly, the hallucinating software developed by a strange cult of effective altruists is being foisted on the world's population by governments and companies of all types. No longer taboo, the linkage between #AI and #joblessness has been normalized in that process.

Into this maelstrom stepped Dan Schulman on October 6 last year, when he was appointed CEO of Verizon, one of the biggest telecom operators in the US (and, therefore, the world). It has been a major US employer, with more than 180,000 members of staff back in 2012. Yet by the time Schulman joined, just 100,000 were left after multiple rounds of restructuring and #layoffs.

Schulman's Verizon shrank even more rapidly during his first three months in charge and already seems to feature more agents than The Matrix. It's "where we have agent-building capabilities," was how he described part of Verizon's AI tech stack to equity analysts on the company's earnings call this week. Another layer "is where we deploy agents," he continued. The cost cutting looks set to go on.

'Never send a human to do a machine's job'

In the last decade, most of the job losses at #Verizon have had very little to do with AI and almost nothing to do with its generative version, which did not even exist until around three-and-a-half years ago, when the company was already down to fewer than 120,000 employees. Even so, another 30,000 had disappeared by the end of last year, including about 10,000 since Schulman took over. In November, he had warned staff of plans to cut 13,000 jobs. All those now seem to have been cut. "We're running leaner with the 13,000 reduction behind us," said Tony Skiadas, Verizon's CFO, on the earnings call.

https://www.lightreading.com/ai-machine-learning/ai-mad-verizon-to-continue-with-cuts-after-ceo-s-jobs-warning

A recent blog post highlighted the practice of "ghostworking." This involves employees doing the bare minimum required for their jobs. Layoff anxiety and burnout are increasing among American workers. This environment makes ghostworking more appealing to disengaged employees. Empathetic leadership and strong company culture can help counter this trend.

https://hrexecutive.com/is-ghostworking-about-to-reemerge-amid-layoffs/

Why didn't JF use this global event to give DF a proper send off this morning?

I and all of Model e and Skunkworks are disappointed DF wasn't properly recognized. In fact, the only mention of DF was in the chat. Missed opportunity indeed.

Here is a new 41 minutes interview with Dan Schuman Interview posted 4 Hours ago on YouTube channel Semafor of you are interested. Link is at the bottom.

“If somebody’s going to punch me, I’m going to punch back,” Verizon CEO Dan Schulman says in this episode of The CEO Signal.

Schulman, who came out of retirement six months ago to lead the $200 billion telecoms company, reveals that he initially turned the job down — twice. But his mandate is blunt: stop losing customers to its rivals, regain Verizon’s “swagger,” and move it from a defensive posture to one that is “playing to win.”

That reset has come with hard choices. Schulman discusses Verizon’s major restructuring, why he chose to announce 13,000 job cuts all at once rather than “bleed it out over multiple quarters,” and why he thinks CEOs have responsibilities to employees who are leaving as well as those who remain.
Schulman describes the job of leadership as defining reality while inspiring hope — even when the reality is uncomfortable.

Schulman also looks ahead to the convergence of AI, quantum computing and robotics, and argues that CEOs need to be open-minded, humble and fast-moving. “A quick decision that is wrong and you self-correct,” he says, “is way better than spending months creating the perfect decision.”
About the show

The CEO Signal is Semafor’s interview platform for conversations with the global CEOs whose decisions are shaping the future of the new world economy. Hosted by Penny Pritzker and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, the show explores the moments of judgment that define leadership.

Penny Pritzker is the founder and chairman of PSP Partners and served as U.S. Secretary of Commerce from 2013 to 2017.

Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson is CEO Editor at Semafor and a former Financial Times journalist who has spent decades covering global companies and corporate leadership.

https://youtu.be/rIy0WpUHm_w

Story by agoh@businessinsider.com

(1) Skims cofounder Emma Grede says the downsides of working from home don't get enough attention.

(2) She said it's "so crazy" not to draw a link between remote work and growing social issues such as loneliness.

(3) "The key to a long and happy life is your close relationships," she said.

Emma Grede, a founding partner of Skims, says the real cost of working from home isn't being talked about enough.

Speaking on the "Leaders with Francine Lacqua" podcast episode released on Monday, Grede, 43, said that remote work could have broader social consequences that people are overlooking.

"Working from home is career su----e. And we only talk about the upside of working from home," Grede told podcast host Francine Lacqua.

The downsides aren't what people want to hear, but Grede says she believes the effects are already visible in everyday life.

"Think about what's happening in the world. Declining birth rates, declining marriage rates, and the loneliness epidemic. And we think that none of that is linked to the number of people that like, don't see people because they're doing Zoom calls from the living room?" Grede said.

Grede, who is also the CEO of Good American and the first Black female investor to appear on "Shark Tank," said that it's "so crazy" not to make that correlation.

"The key to a long and happy life is your close relationships," she added.

For Grede, being in the room matters from the very start of a career.

"Listen, I did a lot of unpaid internships and I did it while being somebody that didn't have a lot of money. And that was a real struggle for me," Grede said.

Despite that, she said she saw the value of those opportunities.

"It was a huge unlock for me, the ability to go into an organization and get under the hood without having any qualifications or right to really be there. I think that there have to be certain protections on it, but I'd like to lift the lid because there's so much to be learned," she said.

It's not the first time Grede has taken a hard line on workplace expectations. In May 2025, she said she considers it a red flag when job candidates ask about work-life balance during the interview process.

"Work-life balance is your problem. It isn't your employer's responsibility," Grede said.

In an April interview with The Wall Street Journal, Grede also sparked an online debate after describing herself as a "max three-hour mum" on weekends focused on creating "high-impact, core memories" with her kids.

Grede is part of a growing number of CEOs pushing back on remote work.

In May 2023, Elon Musk said he views remote work as "morally wrong," saying it's unfair for some workers to stay home while others must be physically present to do their jobs.

"It's like, really, you're going to work from home and you're going to make everyone else who made your car come work in the factory?" Musk said.

In March, JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon said that working from home simply "doesn't work" for many younger employees, who will benefit from in-person guidance from their colleagues.

"They learn by going on a sales call with you," Dimon said. "They learn by seeing you make a mistake. They learn by how you deal with the mistake."

Since mid-2025, several major companies, including JPMorgan, Amazon, and Google, have implemented return-to-office policies.

Why don’t they change the people on the executive level? Should changes not start at the top?

Like the title says. The current crop is useless. We all love to complain. So who would you want to be leading various businesses and tech? Either internal or external. For internal use the current internal role instead of their names.
IDK what this would do ... I am just dreaming here.

r&d is as cushy as it gets. people sit around trying to stay in the cto’s good graces while he promotes his buddies and little gets done. i’ve heard the same from a friend in it, where leadership is just as rough, and everyone is trying to get away from the vps and svps.

How about your management and leadership.

Way too many around me.

It's been over 10y since I was laid off from Mattel.

One of the 2 most toxic places I've worked for.

The $100k people pay the price for the stupidity, thick headed-ness and arrogance of the leadership (at least in my days and bases on the company executive list, some of them are still there)

I know it sounds like a cliche but, if they let you go, you're all better off/

The how and where report was wrong again. Shorting me hours at the end of the day.

Leadership did tell us two things this week.

• Don't let your average drop below 7.
• Don't make it a habit of leaving early on the same day every week.

Three words. What a mess!

We witnessed our leaders in a dark room with bad lighting. There were sound issues that went on the entire meeting that was giving me a headache.

Our senior leaders talked for 30 minutes about what food they like. The last 30 minutes were a blur of non sense. They all looked like they hate each other and have not exercised in 15 years.

I walked away feeling d-mber for having used my time to attend that meeting. Thank you.

Cisco IQ availability announced today… what is happening with CX leadership?

Why are we letting leadership make unilateral decisions without pushback? The push for full-time office work feels unreasonable and out of touch with what many of us actually need to do our jobs well.

It seems like a culture of fear has been created where people don’t feel comfortable speaking up, so whatever is decided just goes unchallenged. Is there a way for us to collectively raise concerns or push back in a constructive way

Former Consultants who strictly consulted and advised on digital transformation are hired into SVP, VP, and SR DR roles (as well as our favorite EVP AK). They know how to suggest but not lead and execute.

No accountability exists from these people, they don’t know how to lead, because they’ve never had to. Repeat this hiring cycle 100x bc consultants love hiring other consultants, and we are now in this state of being industry laggards!!!!!!

Hopefully an announcement next week. This is beyond ridiculous. Under qualified and incompetent knucklehead.

An Analyst asked on the Earnings call if Meg thought there was a scenario where this discovery wouldn't proceed to development. He started his question by saying how big AF described it to be.

She did not answer the Analyst's question about whether there's a way it doesn't get developed.

CO2 is clearly a know issue with these fields. To not answer and dodge the question by sayijg a great team is working the project sounds like reason to run.

Should we be worried we've dug ourselves into a hole we can't get out of with this biggest discovery in 25 years?

Architecture leadership without architecture, direction without clarity, and decisions without grounding, this isn’t strategy, it’s a slow, well-documented collapse

1️⃣ Lack of Leadership
Employee: “I stopped looking up because there was no one to look to.”

Great leaders set direction, model integrity, and earn respect every day.

2️⃣ Lack of Trust
Employee: “Every time I spoke up, it cost me something.”

Great leaders reward honesty, defend their people, and prove every voice matters.

3️⃣ Feeling Undervalued
Employee: “My work spoke loudly. No one was listening.”

Great leaders notice effort, name impact, and show appreciation often.

4️⃣ No Growth Path
Employee: “I wanted to grow. They wanted me to stay the same.”

Great leaders build clear paths and invest in growth early.

5️⃣ Lack of Challenge
Employee: “I used to feel alive solving problems. Now it’s just tasks.”

Great leaders reignite curiosity by giving purpose, not just projects.

6️⃣ Burnout
Employee: “The more great work I do, the more they expect.”

Great leaders protect energy, balance ambition, and stop rewarding exhaustion.

7️⃣ Lack of Inclusion
Employee: “I was in the room, but never really part of it.”

Great leaders create environments where every voice is heard and valued.

8️⃣ Unfair Pay
Employee: “They said they valued me, but not enough to show it.”

Great leaders match reward to impact and make fairness non-negotiable.

https://www.stephanieshills.com/weeklynewsletteroptin

For those still inside the red machine, what are the early impressions of the Fiddelke regime? More of the same old?

MG: If you’re gonna post an update, can we please drop the phony familiarity and assumption that we know who the he-l you’re talking about? Ridiculous & juvenile tone

All this AI push to make Shell better is just lip service by so-called leaders wanting to save money with reduced headcount. Before long, there won’t be any employees to buy their products. It’s laughable that YL and his merry bunch of “leaders” think employees are stupid enough to believe it’s anything else.

To all the negative people over here.. just ask yourself: Is Hans better than Dan?
Answer is obviously No..
Atleast we are not hiring random people for DEI.. I saw former cooks/ gym instructors getting hired under some program. There was mafia in GTS ( some people are still here) .
I liked Hans for keeping everyone comfortable on a sinking ship without doing anything to help the ship..
I would rather be uncomfortable but save the ship.

WARNING: this post is longer -and possibly more useful- than you may expect.

So, for those who still have meetings to attend, dashboards to ignore, or layoffs to survive, here is the TL;DR:

Xerox tolerated years of weak performance, endless restructuring, and a stock chart that looked like it fell down the stairs.

Then, in February, the company raised $450M through an IP-backed JV with TPG Credit, basically borrowing against part of the Xerox crown jewels.

A few weeks later, creditors were reportedly paying attention, and suddenly Steve B was out “effective immediately”.

Maybe it is all coincidence.

Or maybe poor performance made Steve vulnerable, but the IP deal made him disposable.

Now the full blown post to see if we’ve got this right.

For years, Xerox performance looked like death by a thousand paper cuts - not one clean fatal blow, just endless small wounds: shrinking revenue, restructuring fatigue, disappearing morale, executive-level delusion... until the patient was technically alive but nobody wanted to check the pulse too closely.

The stock was crushed. The core business kept shrinking. “Reinvention” became the corporate version of putting a fresh tie on a skeleton. Employees were asked to run, rush, sacrifice, and also restructure, realign, resize, reskill, re-something every quarter.

Meanwhile, the top of the house kept pumping out “Reinvention” slides like PowerPoint decks could pay down debt, grow revenue, and make the stock chart stop looking like a cliff.

And through all of that, Steve B stayed.

The board tolerated him. The company tolerated him. The market tolerated him less enthusiastically. Employees tolerated him because, well, employees are not usually invited to vote on the circus.

Then suddenly — bo-m.

March 30, 2026: Steve “steps down”.

Louie Pastor becomes CEO effective immediately. No long transition. No elegant handover. No “after a distinguished tenure, Steve will remain through year-end”. Just corporate-speak for: “Please exit through the back door”. Xerox also reaffirmed 2026 guidance in the same announcement, which makes the timing even more interesting.

If nothing was wrong, why the trapdoor?

Here is the part employees should pay attention to.

Six weeks earlier, on February 17, Xerox announced a $450 million IP joint venture with TPG Credit.

Translation for normal humans: Xerox took valuable intellectual property (the sort of assets that make Xerox, Xerox) and put them into a special financing structure to raise cash. Xerox said the deal was designed to strengthen the balance sheet and support liquidity, Reinvention, Lexmark integration, and possibly debt repayment.

In plain English: when a company starts pawning the crown jewels to keep the lights on, people are allowed to ask whether this is a clever financing move or the corporate equivalent of playing your last card.

Now, is that illegal?

Not necessarily. Smart lawyers get paid obscene amounts of money to make aggressive things look technically permissible. Xerox disclosed the deal. Serious advisers were involved. The paperwork was almost certainly blessed by lawyers billing at rates normally reserved for organ transplants and ransom negotiations.

But let’s not pretend this was a normal “strategic partnership”. This was not two companies joining hands to invent the future.

This was Xerox raising money against the crown jewels because liquidity matters when the "balance sheet" drops "balance" and starts looking like "sh*t".

And creditors noticed.

Octus reported that Xerox lenders were preparing a cooperation agreement following the “deal-away” transaction. Debtwire/Ion Analytics later reported that a lender group had signed a cooperation agreement after the $450 million TPG-led deal-away transaction.

That is finance-world language for: “The people who lent money are not calmly sipping herbal tea”.

Why would lenders care? Because if valuable assets are moved into a new structure where new money gets priority, existing creditors may worry that value has been shifted away from them.

Again: maybe legal. Maybe documented. Maybe clever. But definitely suspicious.

So now look at the sequence:

• February 17: Xerox announces $450 million IP-backed JV with TPG Credit.
• Late February: lenders reportedly start organizing after the transaction.
• March 30: Steve B is suddenly out, Louie Pastor is in, effective immediately.
• April 2: Xerox files Steve’s separation terms, including non-disparagement, non-compete, non-solicitation, cooperation obligations, continued vesting, and severance mechanics.

Nothing to see here, folks. Just your average corporate spring cleaning: monetize IP in February, creditors start circling, CEO disappears in March, and everyone smiles for the press release.

Maybe it is all coincidence.

Maybe Steve suddenly discovered a passion for gardening.

Maybe the board, after years of tolerating him as the corporate equivalent of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Chief Clown, finally woke up one Monday and said, “You know what? Leadership quality matters”.

Or maybe the IP deal changed the risk.

That is the real theory.

Poor performance made Steve vulnerable. But poor performance alone does not explain the suddenness. Xerox had been under pressure for years. The stock did not collapse overnight. The business did not become difficult in March. Employees did not suddenly notice the “Reinvention” machine was mostly powered by layoffs and vocabulary.

The more plausible question is this:

Did the board get scared?

Scared that the IP-backed financing was too aggressive?
Scared creditors might challenge it?
Scared the company had moved from “bad strategy” into “legal exposure”?
Scared that if this thing went sideways, directors might be asked what they knew, when they knew it, and why they approved it?

Boards can tolerate weak CEOs for a long time. They can tolerate bad morale. They can tolerate stock charts that look like ski slopes. They can tolerate employees screaming and leaving.

But creditor lawyers? That is different.

Once lenders start organizing, the room gets colder.

This does not prove Steve did anything illegal. It does not prove the board did anything illegal. It does not prove the TPG deal was invalid. But it does suggest Steve’s sudden exit may have had less to do with “fresh leadership” and more to do with risk containment.

In corporate terms, Louie Pastor may not just be the new CEO. He may be the adult brought in to stand next to the smoking g-n and say, “Everything is under control”.

The official story is simple: Steve stepped down, Louie stepped up, guidance was reaffirmed, please continue working harder with fewer people.

The unofficial employee version is more interesting:

Xerox may have borrowed against the crown jewels in February, creditors started paying attention, and by March the CEO was gone.

Maybe that is coincidence.

But at Xerox, there are no coincidences.

And until the two march in lockstep, layoffs and bottom-basement morale will continue. Each person needs to decide for themselves whether to continue to work for this set of values or not. While I wish the best of outcomes for everyone, I left in late 2023 because I realized that fear and bullying were evergreen in the leadership teams here. Happy to report there’s great opportunity beyond this organization.

DXC does not spin up a truly new platform in 12–18 months, especially given their engineering capacity, budget constraints, and the leadership churn you’ve been tracking.

But here’s the real story:

OASIS is built on the same underlying lineage as Platform X — but DXC is deliberately avoiding saying that publicly.

CarQuest Lifers you know who you are, time is running out time to find a new job…Same for AAP Lifers…..clock is ticking. This company is in shambles and leadership knows it and are just getting that pay check.

There are 50% chances that Dan might fail but there are 50% chances that he might succeed to transform..
I do see lots of negativity among Band 5 leaders.. overheard negative talk on the floor after All hands..
why can’t these middle layer leaders do not want to give it a fair chance ?
Looks like Dan made these ultra comfortable people uneasy and they are not liking it.

This was a leadership change memo received on Friday 24th 2026 to a limited audience. For obvious reasons, names and dates have been redacted or altered before posting to this forum.

To: Selected Leadership Colleagues
From: Office of the **
Date: April 24th, 2026
Subject: Leadership Transition Notice

This memorandum serves to announce a realignment within our executive leadership team. Jnnnnnnn Mtttttt will be departing from her role as Vice President, with her formal affiliation concluding on April 30, 2026.

We acknowledge the tenure of her service and the professional milestones achieved during her time. To ensure a structured organizational transition, Jnnnnnnn has been transitioned away from her current operational mandates, effective immediately.

The organization extends its best wishes for her future endeavors. Further communication regarding the optimization of departmental reporting lines and interim coverage will be disseminated through the appropriate channels in the near term.

Naaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa