#leadership

She was on fire the first few days after joining and completely dead these days. Or is it just another top exec being paid millions for nothing.

How is Brady still in charge of marketing with these silly commercials?? Embarrassing.

More than ever, continuously updating skills is critical in today’s environment.

Organizations can survive leadership missteps and even recover from strategic errors, but when trust erodes at scale across the workforce, the damage runs much deeper and takes far longer to repair. At that point, uncertainty replaces alignment, and employees naturally begin to focus on self-preservation rather than long-term commitment.
When people no longer believe that decisions are transparent, fair, or in their best interest, engagement drops, collaboration suffers, and institutional loyalty weakens.

This is not a reflection of individual failure—it’s a predictable response to prolonged instability. In these moments, waiting for systems to correct themselves is risky.
That’s why taking ownership of your own growth has become essential. Investing in skills, adaptability, and relevance is no longer just about career advancement—it’s about resilience. Regardless of organizational outcomes, those who continue to learn, evolve, and stay market-ready are better positioned to navigate change, protect their careers, and create optionality for the future.

In uncertain environments, self-development isn’t selfish—it’s strategic.

Tend to agree. Putting this up for visibility. Found at @bb+1kd04e88w.

https://www.asugsvsummit.com/video/the-magic-of-thinking-big-reaching-edtechs-massive-market-cap-potential-with-chip-paucek

Every time I open LinkedIn, I see the same pattern: former employees of a certain global sports brand publicly declaring their love for the company, met with warm, performative gratitude from those still inside.

It’s a strange phenomenon.

I know plenty of people who work—or have worked—for excellent organisations and somehow manage to move on without a public love letter. What makes this different is that many of these posts come from people in leadership roles.

It makes you wonder:
Is public adoration a prerequisite for belonging?
Is gratitude now a loyalty signal?
Or is this just corporate theatre dressed up as authenticity?

The tone often feels forced. Like a ritual. As if saying the right things, loudly enough, might keep you in favour—or at least signal that you were one of the good ones.

Let’s be clear about something uncomfortable:
You don’t need to be grateful to work for a company.
You were hired. You were paid. That’s the deal.

If anything, companies should be grateful that talented people choose to give them their time, energy, creativity, and years of their lives.

Gratitude is meaningful when it’s genuine.
When it’s compulsory, it becomes performative.
And when it’s performative, it stops being honest.

And please—no more staged photos outside head office, smiling beside a corporate statue, as if it were a religious site. We don’t believe you!

Careers don’t need altar calls.
And loyalty shouldn’t require applause.

Allegedly there is going to be a MAJOR executive shakeup next year. This comes from a very good source. Store closures, executive shakeup,!reduced budgets, declining sales, get out now!! While you can!

The C-Suite has no clothes.

That’s not news to anyone. That’s an acknowledgment of what we all know. The 10s of Billions lost (not to mention the opportunity cost which may well be more expensive) is a direct result of the awful strategic decisions made by Ford’s pathetic executive team.

What’s the purpose of saying this? So that those leaders who want to play pretend and have successfully seeded this “the entire industry sc--wed up” narrative with their media lackeys get this message: you are to blame. You failed us. You failed our customers. And we all know you know it.

It has been obvious since the beginning of the EV cycle that the demand wasn’t there. The value proposition has never had widespread appeal. The working class - remember them? - isn’t lining up to pay more for a less capable, less convenient solution with less resale value, a shorter lifespan and horrible supporting infrastructure. If you didn’t know this, you should resign immediately.

Did you need to flush ~40B dollars down the drain (who got rich from this fiasco - that begs for some investigation) in order to figure out that your core customer base didn’t want to pay more for far less? Or did you think the government was going to ram them down all of our throats and that you would sit back and be the benefactors of a command economy?

Oh, and don’t think we all didn’t notice that you inflated the pricing of all your ICE vehicles to subsidize your abominable strategy.

How about we focus on improving the products people want to buy? You know, the ones that actually sell. Or, will it be some more outside hires from Silicon Valley to come and show us all how to execute the next scam? My money is on the latter.

Bunch of Hy-Vee Executive planning on living it up at the KC Game. Just like usual. Maybe they can rub elbows with Swift. Won't do the company any good but hey if they can take advantage of that hefty Hy-Vee sponsorship do you blame them?

If leadership does, well, they’ll have to learn the hard way. And we’ll be the ones paying the price.

The organization seems heavily weighted toward advisory positions rather than operational leadership. While credentials are valued, practical experience and accountability appear to be lacking at the management level. This has led to ineffective guidance, limited clarity in decision-making, and inconsistent execution. Financial performance may be sustained by legacy systems or market position, but management practices themselves show significant room for improvement.

Employees have many concerns still about employee culture. Below is a AI Generated Search from Bing about the current sentiment. How accurate is AI. U B the judge
##########
Mutual of America reviews highlight significant customer complaints about poor communication, lost documents, difficult withdrawal processes, and unresponsive customer service, especially regarding elderly clients or complex issues like death benefits. Employee reviews often cite nepotism, poor leadership, lack of training, low pay, favoritism, and organizational disarray, though some praise recent positive executive changes and the company's niche focus. The company also faced litigation for steering clients into proprietary funds

Customer Complaints & Issues Service & Communication
Customers report endless phone calls, being given different information, lost forms, and managers failing to return calls.
Withdrawals & Distributions: Difficulty accessing funds, with long delays and bureaucratic hurdles, especially for seniors needing 1099s or dealing with deceased spouses' accounts
Identity Verification:Automated systems create major barriers for elderly or less tech-savvy clients trying to access their accounts
Missing Funds: Beneficiaries report issues with missing retirement funds after the account holder's death, with the company unable to account for the money

Employee Concerns & Culture
Management & Leadership
Frequent complaints about poor leadership, lack of transparency, micromanagement, and favoring friends over qualified staff.
Work Environment: Issues with nepotism, bias, a toxic culture shift, and lack of support from HR due to management interference
Compensation:Underpayment compared to market rates and a lack of yearly raises
Training & Organization:Lack of proper training and general disorganization

Company Response & Context
Positive Changes: Some reviews note recent executive changes and a focus on improving the back-office experience
Financials: Fitch Ratings noted capital concerns and a rating downgrade in 2024, but acknowledged the company's unique market position
Past Legal Issues: The company settled litigation in 2023 for improperly steering participants into proprietary investments

Overall Sentiment
Reviews are mixed but lean negative, with significant recurring complaints about operational issues, especially customer service and access, contrasting with a niche market position and recent attempts to improve

/Smith

WRS had a huge Christmas party, they had raffles where apparently people won very expensive prizes. They also get free lunch everyday and I’m pretty sure that they also constantly have giveaways and raffles at the office.

Onshore? We don’t even get a thank you for working our butts of everyday, our thank you will probably be a lay off in a few months after being treated like garbage. Good thing the US jobs market is doing so great right now.

The new leadership is horrendous and it is absolutely disgusting what has happened to this company.

Dan foolishly believes A.I. will magically fix everything wrong with Verizon.

The only question is how much damage will he do before he leaves?

If leadership is planning massive layoffs, which they are, this would be a good way to start. I’d take it without a second thought, and I imagine plenty of others would too.

I'd love to see some of our GPs, the OGs that are too young to truly retire but are leaving because they can't stand PP, break off and form something new. I'm thinking like the original owner from Scottrade did. Those OG GPs are the only ones with enough capital to do this.

Associates will follow you. FAs and their clients will, too. Edward Jones is dying. It's time to build something better from its ashes as the ultimate sc--w you to PP and her sh---y ELT cronies.

Deadly Ford 'blackout' dashboard glitch prompts $7B recall on entire F-Series model
On some of Ford's newest and most popular pickup trucks, drivers have reported a chilling failure the digital instrument panel suddenly goes dark, leaving them without a speedometer, fuel gauge, or warning lights while still moving in traffic.

… and I said goodbye to two teammates today. What kind of company, (true) leader or decent person would set 6 days before Christmas as a departure date? Another example of the integrity vacuum that’s been slowly suffocating us since COVID. Not sure how these people can sleep, let along look themselves in a mirror. Guess a fat paycheck works wonders

Deep cuts need to happen in tech even though that won’t fix sales.
The problem is that any survivors will have no motivation to work if the same tech leadership is in place. AC, ES (all vp down to sr managers and in some cases managers. None of them talk to each other and no root cause tech issues are ever fixed.
Truly weak leaders that micro manage or are completely checked out and no, a manager 101 course will not fix that.

“So, I literally came up with a plan to become a CISO, and I executed on it.”
https://fortune.com/2025/12/19/at-t-executive-manifested-his-chief-information-security-officer-job/

All of GT may be a dumpster fire, but CP&I somehow manages to be the main attraction. At this point, logic has officially resigned. JS’s directs and their teams are sprinting in every possible direction like headless chickens, enthusiastically throwing work at the wall with zero business alignment and even less clarity.

My engineering manager now treats strategy like a daily horoscope - every morning comes with a brand-new “priority,” allegedly inspired by whatever whim floated down from JS overnight. Meanwhile, CP&I is aggressively hiring engineers for teams where absolutely nothing is happening… while simultaneously loaning people out to PLM because, surprise, that’s where the work is.

In a truly impressive feat of leadership gymnastics, JS laid off all contractors, declared a noble shift to a 100% FTE “engineering excellence” model, and then - plot twist - brought in external vendors to help with engineering development. One can only marvel at the cost of this enlightenment.

As for ITC, it’s probably best described as a very expensive travel club. A leadership group of about ten makes frequent pilgrimages there, producing no visible outcomes except invoices. Rough estimate: ~$200K burned for vibes and frequent-flyer miles.

All in all, CP&I remains a fascinating social experiment. With VA now inheriting Technology, I’m genuinely curious to see whether this saga ends in transformation… or just a bigger, better-funded mess.

Looks like the next few months are going to be a slow-motion collapse. Leadership might bail, CSG will keep bleeding out, and the AI server sugar high won’t last. When the bubble pops, the stock could crater below 70. RevOps won’t save us, and the new tool launching in May might just choke what’s left of the org. Meanwhile, certain leaders will keep shouting confidence while everything burns behind them.

A post making the rounds has similarities to a certain company…..

Starbucks did not lose $30 billion because of bad coffee. It lost it because the company
mispriced what actually created its value. When Starbucks appointed a McKinsey-trained executive as CEO, the mandate was operational discipline. Costs were scrutinized. Processes were standardized. Stores were pushed to behave like efficiency machines rather than community spaces.

On paper, the logic made sense. Consultants optimize margins by removing friction. But
Starbucks was never a pure efficiency business. Its premium pricing depended on brand emotion, store experience, and cultural loyalty. Those are intangible assets, but they carry real monetary value.

As efficiency initiatives rolled out, customers noticed. Service quality declined. Stores felt
transactional. The brand lost its emotional moat. Foot traffic softened. Growth expectations reset.

Markets reacted quickly. Over 17 months, Starbucks shed roughly $30 billion in market
capitalization. Not from insolvency risk, but from a reassessment of future cash flows tied to brand strength.

The board reversed course. The CEO exited. Strategy changed.

The wealth lesson is structural. Consulting frameworks work best where value is mechanical and repeatable. Consumer brands compound wealth through trust, identity, and habit, not just margins.

When leadership optimizes the wrong variable, scale turns small misjudgments into massive losses.

Starbucks did not fail at execution. It failed at understanding what it was actually selling.

Middle managers should be clearing paths, growing talent, and preparing teams for the future. Too many here do none of that. Here, problems always get ignored, issues mount, and nothing ever improves. Sometimes I wonder what’s the point of having them at all.

Sounds familiar?

Starbucks did not lose $30 billion because of bad coffee. It lost it because the company
mispriced what actually created its value.

When Starbucks appointed a McKinsey-trained executive as CEO, the mandate was operational discipline. Costs were scrutinized. Processes were standardized. Stores were pushed to behave like efficiency machines rather than community spaces.

On paper, the logic made sense.

Consultants optimize margins by removing friction. But Starbucks was never a pure efficiency business. Its premium pricing depended on brand emotion, store experience, and cultural loyalty. Those are intangible assets, but they carry real monetary value.

As efficiency initiatives rolled out, customers noticed. Service quality declined. Stores felt
transactional. The brand lost its emotional moat. Foot traffic softened. Growth expectations reset. Markets reacted quickly. Over 17 months, Starbucks shed roughly $30 billion in market capitalization. Not from insolvency risk, but from a reassessment of future cash flows tied to brand strength.

The board reversed course. The CEO exited. Strategy changed.

The wealth lesson is structural. Consulting frameworks work best where value is mechanical and repeatable. Consumer brands compound wealth through trust, identity, and habit, not just margins.

When leadership optimizes the wrong variable, scale turns small misjudgments into massive losses.

Starbucks did not fail at execution. It failed at understanding what it was actually selling.

Did everyone see the email John Stankey sent us this Thursday morning? There is a video link of him showcasing AT&T's accomplishments this year and imitating Home Alone at the same time.

How on earth does the CEO of a major Fortune 50 company have time to film and act for this stuff while RTO-ing to an office 5 days a week.

Ford’s largest 2025 recall nationwide – 227,000 cars risk dangerous failure.
Ford has announced its largest recall of 2025, affecting 227,006 vehicles nationwide, raising fresh concerns about quality and safety controls.

And he gave me a cold stare as though never to mention it

Something isn't right. They had a finalist who dropped out? It's been 6 months and suddenly Tom Jenkins has gone cold quiet. There is some significant disagreement going on amongst the board and internal division.

what were your thoughts on the email that Steve sent today?What inspiring ideas did the email from Steve spark in you today?

Remote employee- I requested my return package for my laptop and concession device the Monday after Thanksgiving- I just got an email today saying that 'they've approved my ticket, but there is currently a backlog due to a large number of requests with our vendor.' Then HR tells me that it could 'potentially' impact my severance payout if they don't receive it in time as I'll be gone until the 5th to visit family. Then this morning, we finally get some notification about Dan's 20 million dollar 'retraining' fund that he's been bragging about, and they still kick the can down the road saying that we'll get more details in the coming weeks. How can they layoff 13,000 people and not have prepared for this? Anyone else having these kind of issues?

The decision-makers at Mattel are stuck thinking one quarter at a time. There is no long-range vision, just constant reaction. It’s like they’re having trouble realizing that popular trends can last anywhere from a month to years and you can’t base a whole business strategy on just that. That lack of foresight is painful to watch.

Yesterday, leadership stated that individual contributors will remain the primary model moving forward, and the entire organizational hierarchy is under review. There's talk from the C-suite about increasing the number of doors per RDM to between 20 and 30. At the same time, it appears they're planning to reduce the workforce by at least 20%, which would effectively double (and in some cases triple) the workload for remaining individual contributors. This comes at a time when these teams are already significantly reduced and stretched thin. It's frustrating to hear executives celebrate strong performance while simultaneously pushing for deep staff cuts. This feels like pure corporate greed on T-Mobile's part.

Another Frankie c-suiter is leaving. Chris Augustine is retiring. I wonder if it was by choice? Word is another Indian from FIG is taking his place.

And even has HR coming in to get a pulse on things yet gets defensive on a team call right before the holidays today to address the feedback. This leader is very disconnected from his actual team, CANNOT make a decision without consulting SLOD for BAU business matters, and spends all his time being a site leader when the time should be spent understanding his new role , engaging his team and for the love of everything training his green people leaders. Kennedy is a great leader pretty surprised he hasn’t caught on to this about his direct. Call today was odd he had with our team defensive when asked for feedback. Then don’t ask! Merry Christmas ya’ll.

https://old.reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/1ppowek/att_staff_outrage_prompts_ceo_stankey_to_regret/

Where in the strategy of the Lexmark acquisition was there the action to railroad Xerox completely. Xerox is far from perfect (and Lexmark is far from perfect as well. They did lose £600M last year) BUT Xerox does have a heritage, does know some stuff and has done some good stuff and yet Lex are railroading every decision - ignoring Xerox people, no regard for any Xerox experience and ignoring everything that has ever been done. Why don’t the EC just pay off Xerox people and leave the apparently-Lexmark-wonders to manage it all?

The only thing he’s doing is planning ahead for the 2026 layoffs in January

Note on LinkedIn from new exploration VP on BBG1 lease sale results - lots of congratulations and kudos for a BU which hasn't discovered a thing in a decade, suddenly transformed into "strong outcome", "leadership position", and "great teamwork". The hilarious part is reading the comments by the Chevron sycophants trying to impress the new VP. Oh, and if you take a look at the bidding, it's all high-risk or fringe acreage and leases previously held then dropped. Don't expect anything better than maybe a tie-back or two, if indeed we can actually discover something.

Imagine all the money our SVPs and exec staff make and Bain still runs the company. A substantial number of decisions are all based off Bain recommendations. We could save millions upon millions of dollars if we got rid of most of our SVP layer kept some of our VPs and kept our Sr and Director layers and just used Bain.

Otherwise why do we need SVPs who are totally incapable of making decisions without Bain?