#leadership

Cyber Florida has undergone a department restructuring, leading to layoffs. This organizational change follows a recent leadership transition within the institution. The Florida Center for Cybersecurity was established by the Florida Legislature in 2014. The exact number of affected employees is not specified in the provided text. The article indicates the organization is at an inflection point.

Tampa, Florida

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2026/07/09/layoffs-at-cyber-florida-point-to-restructuring.html

Microsoft’s gaming strategy has misfired badly

• A supply-chain crisis for Xbox couldn’t have come at a worse time*

IT IS NOT yet the PayPal mafia, but the Instacart matriarchy is making its mark. Not long after Fidji Simo, ex-head of the online grocery store, became Sam Altman’s product-focused sidekick at OpenAI, Asha Sharma, Instacart’s former chief operating officer, became Satya Nadella’s Ms Fix-it at Microsoft Gaming. Groceries are a tricky, low-margin business. So is Xbox—and Ms Sharma has wasted no time in getting to work. On July 6th, less than five months after becoming the division’s boss, she launched what she called the biggest reset in its 25-year history.

https://www.economist.com/business/2026/07/08/microsofts-gaming-strategy-has-misfired-badly

Ms Sharma has gone about her overhaul with a candour that is rare in the mealy-mouthed world of big tech. Declaring that Microsoft’s gaming arm is “not healthy”, she announced that 3,200 employees would be axed over the next 12 months, and that up to five loss-making studios would be shed. Her diagnosis makes two things clear: first, Mr Nadella’s gaming strategy has misfired badly; second, the entire console industry is in a supply-chain crisis. No hard-core gamer herself, the battles ahead will test Ms Sharma’s mettle.

With Mr Nadella’s attention focused on the artificial-intelligence bo-m in recent years, Xbox has suffered from neglect. Under previous management, it sought to reduce its reliance on the Xbox console and focus on its multi-platform subscription service, called Game Pass, intending to become the “Netflix of gaming”. To fuel demand, Microsoft invested what insiders say was upwards of $20bn on games and studios, in addition to the $70bn-plus it spent buying Activision Blizzard, maker of “Call of Duty”, in 2023.

Alas, Game Pass, which was meant to have 77m members this year, has fewer than 30m. Meanwhile, the multi-platform approach has undermined Microsoft’s own console business by making content available on other platforms, such as Sony’s PlayStation, which kept its own games off Xbox. Microsoft’s quarterly gaming revenue has been in decline since last autumn. Xbox’s operating margins are a meagre 3%. It has been losing market share to Nintendo, another console-maker. Bureaucracy has ballooned; in parts of the company, Ms Sharma says, work passes through 14 layers of management. Just like a real-life Pac-Woman, she intends to chomp those down to as few as three.

Her strategy is bold. The year of lay-offs will be the biggest in Xbox’s history. Her disposal of studios will end Microsoft’s attempt to hoover up indie game-developers. Yet it is not all cost-cutting. Insiders say Ms Sharma intends to invest in “Minecraft”, a hit game that was used as a cash cow rather than a growth engine and has lost significant ground to Roblox, a stable of games that competes for youngsters’ attention. She also plans to double down on mobile gaming using untapped expertise in King, creator of “Candy Crush”, which was bought with Activision.

The trickiest part will be rescuing the console. When Ms Sharma took over in February she promised “the return of Xbox”. Sales of gaming hardware have long been in decline, but insiders say Ms Sharma considers Xbox users to be her core customers, spending far more on games and services than PC players.

Yet as Ms Sharma tries to win them back, the ground is moving under her feet. When she took control of the business, AI-related demand for memory chips and other components had already caused costs to surge across the consumer-electronics industry. Within her first 50 days, input costs rose by 50%, a source at the company says. All three console-makers have been forced to announce price increases at a time when growth in the industry (excluding China) is sluggish.

The component crunch will have long-term consequences. Microsoft had hoped to increase production of consoles to support the eagerly awaited release of the latest version of “Grand Theft Auto”, made by Take-Two, a listed studio, which is rumoured to have cost a staggering $2bn to develop. The supply constraints will make it harder to increase production of consoles to meet the expected demand.

In 2028 both Microsoft and Sony are expected to launch the next generation of devices, which could also be hampered by the supply-chain chaos. Piers Harding-Rolls of Ampere Analysis, a consultancy, says Microsoft may be hit harder, because Sony, as a consumer-electronics company, has stronger relationships with suppliers. On July 1st Sony said it would stop selling physical discs in 2028, a decision that Mr Harding-Rolls says was long in gestation but might help offset rising costs.

Some think Microsoft’s best response to both the strategic blunders and the hardware crisis would be to spin off the gaming business. Gil Luria of D.A. Davidson, an investment firm, reckons that the lumpiness of revenue as a result of seven-year console cycles is better suited to private-equity investors than to public ones.

There are still rich seams of potential growth within Xbox that Ms Sharma will hope to mine before a final decision about its future is made. But as Ben Thompson of Stratechery, a popular newsletter, puts it, “Sometimes it’s Game Over.” ■

Time Warner and should have left it alone. That was a gem of an asset that could have had significant growth but the SBC blockheads had to get their grubby paws into it and dirty up the punch bowl. You think about all the M&A over the years and what they botched, divested, ruined etc...The hubris for an SBC Telco Executive team to think they could do better than the entertainment talent of Time Warner. With AT&T Executives I see little to no connection with the masses of customers or the overwhelming majority of the employee base. I left 2+ years ago and it was the best decision I ever made. Those hanging around based on some mythical package they think they will get.....times have changed and those days are over.

The SLT received HUGE comp increases for the new opentext and many are on LI announcing their promotions and sharing endlessly about their many accomplishments. Others are publicly talking about the new GTM model , clearly excited about their new raises, and some about their company paid I'm sure relocations.

It is stunning because ALL of these people have failed in their previous roles. Meanwhile, many employees announcing their entire teams were let go, the very people who were doing what they could.

There has to be some massive incentives on the table for the ELT around results in addition to their new larger salaries. It's as if they are giddy in their LI posts.

Also, completely inappropriate and poor business sense. LI is not intended for bragging. Oh, and none of them have any significant writing skills.

OpenText looks so foolish right now on LI. A company this size should have a coordinated LI plan.

Notice how much of an impact she made

Can I nominate my leader for VSP? ;)

Jeff doesn’t want you to make friends, he wants you to sit in your cube 5 days a week. Upper management have special privileges. Go ahead and leave, don’t stick around.

I think some layoffs next week are anticipated, however, they are the wrong ones. Stop cutting the ones who do the work, the ones who make things happen. Time to cut the Sr. Directors who do nothing, AVPs with 2 direct reports can do their work.

Verizon leaders should feel the same anxiety as the frontline, they say who stays and who goes like they are gods.

They sit on their thrones and hurt families, time for them to feel the same as the rest of the employees. Why do they always get to stay.

Has anyone else noticed that half the leadership in TX SAM has left in the last year? What is going on over there??

What should we know? ...See full article: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bryanclagett_fintech-payments-creditunions-share-7480737705392287744-i6sg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAACq7UQBsrEhzsmtOcUrxPw12id8cFohgfI

Is anyone on that call? How is Andre going to lead a marketing department when he has no energy and seemingly no experience in marketing.

Also seems like Katz was pushed out.

1. The Segment leaders have been over promoted. Most have never delivered at Fiserv and then we put them in more impactful jobs hoping for different results!

2. FIG is heavy in the SVP area (ex - Core Sales, 3 SVPs managing a handful of people running Core migrations. Same in the RM area.. lots of Chiefs and then lots of Chiefs that have Zero knowledge of the business. Clients are frustrated!

3. Net new logos SE team logs a lot travel expenses... where are the new sales? (ZERO because they are visiting existing clients because the leadership is measuring T&E as productivity!!!!!) - Measure SALES and Golf, Steak and Wine dinners - so much waste in that group.

4. If you REALLY care to know where the skeletons are... call / interview the tenured SVP and VPs that exited in the last 6 months since Divya got there. They will tell you why they left and what rocks to look under! The institutional knowledge lost is mind numbing and the clients are suffering.

5. Lots activity and no results. FIG is never a double digit growth business. But, it is also not a negative growth business. The people you have left there will sink it further.

And.. yes, I have tried to speak up... no one cares! The SVPs are merely trying to get to the next paycheck and vesting... they are not driving CHANGE!

Based on my experience, I would encourage candidates to do thorough research before accepting a position. During my interactions with the company, I came away with concerns about leadership, the hiring process, and the organization’s direction. The interview process felt disorganized and left me with little confidence in how the company was being managed. Given the recent layoffs, I would carefully consider the stability of the role before making a decision.

While Starlink is pushing the industry forward and Wall Street is raising concerns about what that could mean for AT&T, we’re still consumed by RTO, presence reports, and building a new headquarters. That’s the only focus here and it feels completely backwards.

Instead of talking about how we’re going to compete with Starlink, people are talking about badge swipes and making sure they sit in a chair for eight hours before heading home. Time that many employees once spent working extra is now spent commuting. The result is 8&skate culture where people check the box, do their eight hours, and leave. That’s not how you build an innovative company, but that’s the culture Stink has created with RTO, FTW, and Presence monitoring.

At the same time, we’re spending billions on a new headquarters nobody wants while facing one of the biggest competitive threats the company has ever seen. Shouldn’t the priority be improving our competitive position, controlling costs, and attracting and retaining the talent needed to compete?

The conversation should be about how we beat new competitors, not how many days people are in what office. If leadership wants this company to be successful, the priorities have to change. Right now, it feels like we’re looking inward while the competition is looking forward.

Time is running out, and if things don’t shift soon there won’t be an AT&T left for these egos to lord over.

https://www.lightreading.com/business-management/t-mobile-hires-former-at-t-exec-chris-sambar-for-b2b-push

Good move on Travis V. He was obvious, d-mb as dirt.

However, you need to do the same for the rest of the clowns in ISG - Directors, VPs, SVPs. A couple are okay but most have no business doing what they're getting paid to do. Just look at their track records. Their failed records speak loud and clear who should hit the bricks.

How Dell managed to bring in so many incompetent dipshiiiits in high ranking positions is a mystery.

It amazes me how many d-mb decisions those above me in leadership make. They call in multiple 3rd party companies to direct them when they have thousands of people who have worked hand in hand with clients everyday for multiple decades and know what they want.

Investing in a POS solution wasn't Genius at all. Global put it's self in a market that immediately made all of your biggest partners leave because you are now the competitor.... Instead of increasing what was huge partnerships to just handle the payment processing. Both Tsys, Heartland, and Global all had 1000s of large partners and the companys were profitable but Global blindly decides to disrupt its own base and wonder why they are going broke... Get back to the foundations and focus on being the best payment processor and partner. You cannot compete in a software world where anyone can build their own POS now. Focus on being the payment partner of choice for every software.

Well just checked multiple Sr Director and VP calendars and looks like some groups met already to proceed forward with next weeks rif.... its rare to see all of them meet same day/time and of course you can check the same day for prior weeks to see its not a normally reoccurring meeting. So I guess the lists are made and finalized, and Sr. Directors now know who is on the cut list. Obviously they can't share it early but I wish they could, just so we dont have to think about it for another week. My manager is concerned and I can't blame them... things just feel super weird lately.

Someone posted that he may be getting fired. Is there any merit to that claim? I know most people think he should be fired but I’m curious if there is any merit to the claim that he will be fired

I've always believed Dan was brought in to be the fall guy for what the board really wanted to do. At least from a reduction standpoint. I think the never ending focus on AI is more him than the board because he sees himself as a visionary. Or he wants to be seen/remembered as a visionary. That said, the one thing I heard consistently (in addition to being a hatchet man), was that Dan was not a fan of outsourcing, yet we continue to do it. Why?

So has he really changed his methods or is this more the board's decisions and he's just the face of it now...? Did AI make him do it?

How are the new leaders? Are there more restructuring or layoffs?

The leader of the largest division of Canon USA has tunnel vision and is simply focused on spreadsheets and not the real problems that trouble WTS.

If you want to other people to help sales out start off by looking in the mirror. What have you done for the WTS sales group since you took over in January?

For starters we have seen more price increases to both hardware and service while you admit the market it declining 5%-15% annually. You want us to sell more IT services but you don’t want to pay us. We can’t make more than a 2% override these days and our income is significantly decreased YOY. We then got stuck using this awful product called Google. Let’s not address the fact that not one person has acknowledged this was a great move. We simply don’t talk about it anymore because your mother told you if you have nothing nice to say don’t say it.

So when you tell those who work within WTS to help others, what have you done?

I am rooting for the grizzly bear!!!!

PLs have been given some insights this week. But are not saying anything.

Anyone wanna pop on this site and tell us what you were told this week.

We was told the annual employee survey was supposed to happen in June. Still nothing.

I have to wonder why… Are they worried the results will look like they did last time?

Because the feedback has been pretty clear… Employees have been saying the same things over and over, five-day RTO is hurting morale, the presence report is damaging trust, and people feel like leadership isn’t listening.

The action plans that come out afterward have become a joke. They check the box, put out some talking points, and nothing changes. They never actually address the issue employees are raising.

The answer isn’t another mental health program or another communication campaign. The feedback has been loud and consistent about what the biggest problem is.

At some point, leadership has to decide if they actually want honest feedback or just feedback that confirms what they already believe.

If the strategy is working, release the survey, get the results, and prove it. Or are you too scared to get your ego bruised again, Jon?

I am astonish to discover after some research, how many of those middle management people at Centene have just a high school or just or just a CNA. I cannot reasonable understand how they can provide with real leadership and evaluate people in a real balanced way. What can we expect from people without any education to The Cost-Efficiency Model: Corporations often prioritize the ability to "do more with less." A manager who can reliably enforce corporate mandates and keep the department functioning within budget—regardless of their academic credentials—is often viewed as "effective" by the organization, even if they lack the capacity for the systemic, empathetic leadership. I understand now, why the government is checking and following the health care organizations....

As expected, my LinkedIn feed for the last 18 hours has been filled with former colleagues announcing they had been kicked to the curb by OpenText.

But in a new sick twist, a number of remaining employees have taken to LinkedIn to crow how they were promoted over the past two days. The posts all read the same as if they were told or highly encouraged to post and what to post.

In addition, there were posts (on the same day as their colleagues being dumped) celebrating the addition of new employees.

There is no doubt that ELT and HR have orchestrated this to cover up the nasty truth that a number of talented, hard working, productive people were sacrificed to almighty Canadian dollar to make amends for the sins of Tom Jenkins as he leads this company to ruin.

OpenText under the leadership of Jenkins, the clueless BoD, Bell, Muhi, and the rest of the clownshow ELT has become classless and hopeless.

Unwittingly, OT is showing what it really means when they say the company is "Canadian by design" ... Incompetent, fractured and losing relevance.

So said a senior leader when the numerous questions from the front line staff about any further layoffs were brought up. Those doing the work are so down and depressed about the circumstances that the managers approached senior leaders to inquire. The answer was "we can't tell you." That really perked the crowd up and inspired them to produce better work (not really).

How this company is so backwards. We got another ”people team” leadership. How many have we had in the last 6 years?? The out of touch CEO have no clue how bad it is here and no career trajectory for anyone unless you are a former GS executive or best pal with the EC.

Time to take summer vacation!

Good riddance SH

For years we’ve been told the next initiative was going to turn this company around. First it was five-day RTO. Then it was AI. Then workforce reductions. Then another reorganization. Then a new headquarters campus. The strategy keeps changing, but the underlying problems don’t.

Meanwhile, employees have been saying the same thing the entire time - morale is declining, trust has been destroyed, experienced people are leaving, and the company is becoming a harder sell to younger talent. Instead of asking why so many people are saying the same thing, leadership keeps doubling down and acting like the employees are the problem.

At some point you have to stop blaming the workforce and start questioning the strategy. Success isn’t measured by how many people badge into an office or how many presence reports get generated. It’s measured by whether people want to work here, whether great candidates want to join, and whether the business is actually moving in the right direction.

The market eventually exposes every bad strategy. Employees vote with their feet. Candidates vote by accepting offers somewhere else. Investors vote every day the market is open. Those are the scorecards that ultimately matter… not another memo telling everyone the strategy is working.

Six years is enough time to judge a strategy and its results. Nothing has improved.

Leadership shouldn’t be evaluated by speeches, memos, or slogans. It should be evaluated by results.

Has the company become a more attractive place to work? Has it become easier to recruit top talent? Has morale improved? Has the culture become stronger? Has the strategy delivered the long-term results shareholders and employees were promised?

Those are the questions the board should be asking and the answer to every single one is NO.

I think it’s fair to ask whether the current strategy and the leadership behind it is the right one for the company’s future.

No leader should be immune from accountability. A truly market-based culture should hold leadership to the same standard it expects of everyone else. Nobody else with this poor performance would still be around. Get this loser out while there’s still something to save.

Any medical device company that thinks AI is here to disrupt it are foolish and wrong. AI is here to disrupt mo--ns like every EVP and SVP at this company that can’t read or reply to emails on time and it’s here to definitely stay in manufacturing and will be utilized in imaging but when it comes therapy, AI will ki-l people and GM is the biggest id--t for not understanding this basic thing. Cathworks will prove it that GM acquired a fu--ing science project while scientia will pay dividends for years to come

I’ll probably be in the minority, but I think Bill Brown is exactly the leader 3M needed.

He came in with a plan, had the courage to make the tough decisions, and is executing it without wavering. That isn’t easy, and it certainly isn’t popular.

Yes, the layoffs are painful, and my heart goes out to everyone affected. But leadership isn’t about avoiding difficult decisions—it’s about making them when the long-term future of the company is at stake.

Bill was hired to transform 3M, not to preserve the status quo. From what I’ve seen, he’s earning every cent by making the hard calls that many before him avoided.

History will judge whether he got everything right, but no one can say he lacks courage or conviction.

Hey everyone, let's stop falling for the bait. People are testing our responses to see if leadership comments here. Having a positive, negative, or neutral opinion just means people have different thoughts. It doesn't make them leadership. Don't let them trigger you.

I'm surprised Dell leadership let PPDM continue for as long as it did. BAIN, on the other hand, appears to have looked at the business objectively and concluded that enough was enough.

PPDM was a loser from the beginning. Engineering consistently failed to deliver on the promises made. Deadlines slipped, key deliverables were continually missed, quality issues persisted, and eventually leadership stopped publishing roadmaps altogether. Instead of making commitments, they lowered expectations.

Meanwhile, the competition was innovating three to five times faster, continually widening the gap while PPDM fell further and further behind.

Much of this traces back to poor leadership. Travis and his Data Management organization made one questionable decision after another, all while operating with no sense of urgency. Customers paid the price. We lost account after account as organizations abandoned PPDM because they couldn't get it to work reliably at enterprise scale. Eventually, we stopped actively pitching it or selling it because confidence—both internally and externally—had eroded. One customer even told us they would show us the door if we ever mentioned PPDM again.

The layoffs under BAIN are difficult, and no one enjoys seeing people lose their jobs. But restructuring is sometimes the inevitable consequence of years of poor execution and weak leadership. At least there now seems to be a willingness to make difficult decisions based on business fundamentals rather than continuing to pour resources into a failed strategy that wasn't delivering results.

C Sanbar to T-Mobile

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260707712752/en/T-Mobile-Appoints-Chris-Sambar-Chief-Enterprise-Officer-and-Evolves-Leadership-Team-to-Advance-its-Next-Era-of-Strategic-Growth-and-Innovation

The track record of the CHRO and CEO in selecting talent is abysmal. The batting average must be less than 2 out of 10 have made it including Franks failed selection of Mike Lyons himself.
Where is the Board? Surely the Talent and Compensation Committee Chair must be witnessing this failure. Divya alone will cost the company millions.