#leadership

Major RVP scaling. Sounds like ESD and ESM conversations are happening now. If you have experienced or heard of any field sales impacts please share role & region. I would imagine frontline sales not hitting quota will follow. Wishing everyone the best.

As we move through a horrible week for our employees, there is little reason to believe our most senior executives will change course.

As Rome burns, the meetings continue. Sam S. and Jon G., our strategic development and chief growth officer, hold court on AI companies, trips to California, and the latest voice bot. There are endless slides and metrics, but little scrutiny of what those numbers mean—or what any of it is doing for our customers.

Meanwhile, Verizon signs a $2 billion connectivity deal with AWS - isnt that a strategic development ? Or is a white paper on AI a strategic development ?
Aren’t we a connectivity company? Our customers keep leaving, and the business keeps cycling through its familiar approach: a thousand dartboard approach to yet another offer strategy, another plan, endless complexities that are introduced and ZERO impact to our customer or shareholders (lets celebrate a negative NPS)

The same finance and business leaders —MH, JG, JW, KK, and others—who directed millions of dollars toward a sprawling portfolio of roughly hundreds plan-of-record projects per quarter, year after year, remain in place. Where are the results on churn? Where is the sustained benefit to the stock? Where is the accountability?

Instead, employees who did their best to execute those strategies are paying the price this week. The people who set the direction are still here.

Shiny objects offer a convenient distraction from the operational problems our customers experience every day: broken customer experiences, constantly changing offers, inconsistent execution, and pet projects that consume resources without delivering meaningful results. One moment - Charter knows better, follow them ... wait, I just had lunch with ATT, follow ATT, wait magenta is my favorite color, lets follow T-Mobile.

So much for Angelakis and Croney’s “year of hard truths.”

The meetings are the same. Too few decisions. Too little follow-through. Too few hard conversations. We get lost in slides and EBI metrics that are too often questionable, while discussions about technology stacks and the AI promise of the day provide an easy escape from accountability and the hard truth about any outcomes.

At some point, the ELT has to own the responsibilities of its roles. AI, a deluge of EBI dashboards, and executive opinions about yet another AI company to test, to get the 'I am an innovator badge' - innovation cannot compensate for a failure to address the basic problems frustrating our customers, none of which requires AI to fix. Instead, meetings with 50-plus minions become prolonged debates over yet another pricing strategy, simple content changes that take weeks to decide. The same pattern repeats across countless lack of decisions, meetings, and initiatives, while customers and employees absorb the consequences.

And now we have a transformation office... there is hope .. maybe not

But it is led by the same HR and finance leadership that helped shape the organization we are supposedly transforming. The same functions that hammered the technology teams, didn't bat an eye on the broken business strategy and shenanigans, the bullying and the approved the allocation of millions of $$ behind the pet projects and POR (that had ZERO impact on the growth of the company) are now being asked to lead a transformation LOL.

What, specifically, will be different this time? What demonstrated record of delivery supports that confidence? What authority, expectations, and consequences will change?

A new office does not establish accountability. Another presentation does not demonstrate progress. And another round of employee cuts does not answer the central question:

Why are the people responsible for setting the direction still insulated from the consequences, while the people tasked with executing it lose their jobs

100s of remote no work all day remote , netflix for 6 years, 200 k package with 50k eoy bonus, senior software engineer. How to be vp?

Our leader looks like a ghost. Arms crossed rocking back and forth, and reading off a page while speaking.

If these people arent technical, arent they supposed to at least have social and people skills, and business acumen? This is like watching a high school science fair.

Reward the people who climb the ladder and make a difference, handsomely. But when a decision at the top fails spectacularly, boards should be able to claw back the bonuses on behalf of the customers and employees who pay for it.

I just want to thank folks who're taking the time to let us know what's going on, some of them even at one of the worst moments of their lives. It's sad we have to rely on this place to get our info instead of the leadership, but it is what it is. So thank you, it's truly appreciated.

I've been hearing rumors that it's common practice for large DSD brands to incentivize Managers, RBLs, RVPs and higher with personal gifts & monetary gift cards to execute their vision in stores. This seems very unethical and wondering how it will be received when/if a public company (Kroger) takes over. It's concerning if these "leaders" are receiving tens of thousands of dollars in monetary gifts to sell-out the company. Wasn't someone just fired a few years ago for doing similar?

Has anyone heard/seen anything similar in your stores?

Apple is undergoing significant workforce changes under its new CEO, John Ternus. Recent reports indicate that over 400 positions have been eliminated, primarily affecting teams focused on AI and mixed-reality development. This restructuring also includes the removal of a layer of hardware managers and directors. While a large-scale layoff plan for AppleCare was reportedly canceled, these targeted cuts signal a shift in the company's operational strategy. The total number of affected employees remains a small fraction of Apple's overall workforce.

Cupertino, California

https://gulfnews.com/technology/apple-cuts-400-jobs-directors-sacked-as-new-ceo-john-ternus-swings-the-axe-report-1.500723621

AT&T vs. Starlink is shaping up to be a Blockbuster vs. Netflix moment, and we’re going to watch it happen in real time with a front-row seat. Get your popcorn ready!

While the competition evolves, AT&T leadership is busy tracking badge swipes and forcing employees into the office five days a week for absolutely no good reason. Now everyone is burned out, checked out, and increasingly indifferent to what happens to this company. Just 8 and skate and collect your paycheck. That’s the culture Stink has created.

The market is changing, the technology is changing, the competition is changing. Apparently, the only thing AT&T leadership wants to change is where its employees sit, seemingly hoping they’ll become miserable enough to quit on their own.

AT&T “leadership” is a fu--ing joke.

Let’s be honest about what happened this year.

Oracle cut 21,000 people in twelve months, 13% of the company, and then came back in September for more. The filing says it’s “the adoption of AI.” That’s the polite version. The real version is that leadership bet the company on data centers it can’t afford, borrowed tens of billions to build them, and decided the cheapest line item to cut was us.

We didn’t find out from our managers. We found out from a 6 a.m. email signed “Oracle Leadership,” a signature with no human name on it, because no actual person wanted to put their name on it. Some people found out when their badge and laptop stopped working before the email even arrived. Years of quota, on-call weekends, and customer escalations, and the exit interview was an Okta error.

Meanwhile, the stock run made the chairman the richest man on the planet. Think about that. The same balance sheet that couldn’t carry your salary had plenty of room for the biggest personal fortune on Earth. Nobody at the top took a haircut. Nobody at the top got a 6 a.m. email.

And spare me the “AI efficiency” line. AI didn’t take your job. A $90 billion capex plan took your job, and AI is the press release. If the tools were really replacing headcount, they wouldn’t need to cut sales, customer success, and Health in the same breath as they promise customers better service.

This is the same company that turned license audits into a revenue strategy and turned Java into a compliance trap. Treating employees like a line item to be optimized away isn’t a new Oracle. It’s the same Oracle, just finally saying the quiet part with a layoff email instead of an audit letter.

To everyone who got cut: you weren’t the problem. You were the funding source.

To everyone still there: look at the capex number, look at the debt, and ask yourself who’s next in the queue when the next round of financing comes due.

What say?

How is E “rebuild” D still there??? Surely they’ve seen the pattern and damage? No?

Learned of a significant round of layoffs in CONNECT, affecting more than 100 employees. The cuts reportedly include at least two VPs and several Directors (ED, SD, and D levels). Leadership has already been informed, while lower-level employees are expected to be notified tomorrow and Wednesday.

Ramon says it’s your execution.

Countless other articles point back to failed executive leadership

Ramon seems intent on self preservation and gaslighting his employees

One thing that is true is employees overwhelmingly believe executives are not providing a clear direction or have the right plans to improve business.

Now people are hoping they are the lucky ones to be given the severance package.

Ram now wants your feedback.

Ram - the analysts are correct, your people are defeated, and the plans are unclear.

PEPNA is a bad idea. PepsiCo has failed under vertical integration. We are are getting outmaneuvered by companies who can specialize and adapt. We are too big and carry way to many priorities. To many silos, to many internal obstacles.

It’s time to hand the keys over to operators.

Hope it happens soon.

Love the bespoke approach to restructuring here. Other companies commit the rookie mistake of just naming a number and ripping off the Band-Aid—which accidentally stabilizes their stock price. Why settle for shareholder confidence when you can drag out the suspense and run a company-wide game of musical chairs instead?

Offering buyouts to 60k people is certainly better than outright layoffs.

This site is about layoffs at DXC.

RV got his marching orders today in a very pleasant email from PT.

Why delete the earlier post?

Ace Ventura held us together, Dennis the Menace sold us

Anyone feel like Rick was gaslighting us a bit in the Q&A during the corporate update? No layoffs huh? I know of several!!

Vz once again exposed.. highest Debt, missed Revenues and cuts jobs for cash flow.

Dan's strategy (aka) Race to Bottom

C Levels in Basking Ridge forming a Circle Pull!

Tried asking a question in the Q/A and it was blocked bc they didn’t want to talk about HWF. Didn’t allow others to vote on if they wanted to see the question.

Firstly, I'm a manager in HR, so I'm not always completely in the loop. I wish I was!!!

That said, I still don't think mass layoffs are happening until well after Thanksgiving.

We still don't know the overall structure from the main man himself, JB. And even when that's announced, the people reporting to him will need time to build their own teams and decide who they want.

The earnings call is in about 10 days or so. I can't see them announcing mass layoffs then, although they'll probably say they've got a clearer idea of the direction they're heading in.

I also wonder whether GC is heading for the exit. Co-Chair of TV?!? CBS was supposedly such a priority not that long ago, and now GC is "Co-Chair of TV"?!? I'm not particularly worried about him, though. He and CM made an absolute fortune from their Co-CEO roles before the Skydance take over.

I also think this round of layoffs will be US-only. WBD has so many employees across different countries, and dealing with international redundancies would be a massive undertaking for HR at this stage and take too long to realize the savings.

And given that WBD people seem to be leading pretty much everything, those of us on the Paramount side are probably f**d!

You can all come for me, but I genuinely don't think we'll see any concrete announcements about mass layoffs until early December at the earliest.

Anyway, don't shoot the messenger! I'm just sharing my thoughts based on what I'm seeing. I could be completely wrong!

When you say you don't expect the majority of savings figure to come from staff reductions - We know you still mean 49% vs 51%. - We aren't stupid.

Also, F u-k you!

The CEO is a complete mo--n.

This goes to show Ford can't do anything right.

No targets, no customers, no headaches. Approve PTOs, time cards, and weekly check ins that no one cares. They rarely get LRed or PIP.

The announcement that there would be no more LTIP for anyone below the T6/Director level, delivered shortly after Roman’s retirement, was admirably clear: if you’re a worker bee, don’t bother dreaming about LTIP. That nectar is now reserved for the management hive only. Why? Well, let’s consult the sacred tablets of hard data.

Over the past 15 years or so, promotion velocity in management has been running at roughly 1.5 to 2 times the speed of the bench. You know, the people actually doing the messy little work of inventing the technology and shaping the product ideas ! Meanwhile, every Tom, Di-k, and Susan who somehow managed to ditch the bench ( mostly utter failures as technical folks) , then climb into management after hitting T4 or T4.5, can apparently fast-track their way to Director in 12 to 15 years with astonishing efficiency. A kind of corporate alchemy, really.

By contrast, if you remain in a nonleadership role ; 3M’s charming euphemism for “the people still making things happen”, then after 15 to 20 years, your reward may be a T5, if the stars align and the universe feels generous. And for the tiny fraction, perhaps 2 to 3 percent, there is the distant and glittering possibility of reaching T6 or above, where the LTIP finally appears like a mythical prize at the end of an especially uneven race.

Unless this issue, among several others, is addressed, morale will continue its slow and consistent descent. It would hardly be surprising if Q2, Q3 2027 brings a lively exodus from the T4.5 to T5 ranks. Perhaps a little alarming attrition will finally send a message to the highest levels..... much like during Covid, when a wave of technical talent left 3M and, quite sensibly, never came back. To its credit, 3M eventually did learn something from that episode and made promotions a bit easier from T3 to T4 and T4 to T4.5. A touching example of institutional memory, however briefly it may last.

@15y+1m5adfe2d said it perfectly.

Really? Same play for EVERY company that they su-k millions of dollars from over and over again to be the fall back villain so the ELT have someone to blame. SAME play for years. McK and Bain are the worst. And yet, no one notices that it’s the same play for every company layoff year over year? Insane. Has anyone googled the corruption against these companies? Oh, it’s real. Yet, a scapegoat matters more than our jobs.

IBM’s problems are structural. Changing leadership will accomplish nothing unless they setup for a sale and get the value till it lasts.

Old R&D prestige does not override 21st century economics. IBM’s hybrid-cloud is not, by itself, evidence of cloud leadership. Customers running Red Hat software on AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud still pay for the underlying infrastructure alongside their software subscriptions. IBM must demonstrate that its additional layer delivers measurable value or risk operating an expensive software tollbooth.

Mainframe transaction capacity also cannot substitute for a compelling economic case. AWS reported more than 59 trillion DynamoDB requests during Prime Day 2026, while Aurora processed hundreds of billions of transactions. These results demonstrate that extraordinary scale is achievable on distributed cloud infrastructure.

IBM’s burden is straightforward. Prove that its platforms improve cost, performance, resilience, and delivery speed enough to justify their price. Historical prestige cannot carry that argument. Until the underlying value proposition changes, a leadership reshuffle risks putting a new face on the same strategic problem.

Curious if anyone can share what SVP’s VP’s and directors are let go since they said they were trimming the big fat.

Hi folks,I’m thinking about sending this open letter to the CIO and or CFO. Please share you thoughts with me here about how it can be improved.

Dear CIO,

Your recent reorganization announcement identifies many things TIS desperately needs: clearer accountabilities, better collaboration, stronger business enablement, and more efficient delivery.

Those are the right priorities. But for many of us, the announcement was deeply frustrating.

We've been waiting years for these improvements.

The previous transformation initiative was supposed to address longstanding problems with governance, decision rights, processes, and collaboration. It delivered little meaningful change because the executive leadership team couldn't align on what needed to be done.

Then we gave you another year to learn the organization and establish your direction.

You've been with the company for approximately 15 years. You're an SVP with significant authority, a substantial budget, and the ability to bring in whatever expertise was needed. You didn't need to wait for a reorganization to start fixing these problems. That work should have been happening in parallel.

You inherited the dysfunction. But after a year in the role, you own the lack of progress in fixing it.

We've reorganized. What have we fixed?

Your announcement changes reporting lines and leadership responsibilities while acknowledging that significant work remains to determine how the organization will function.

That's difficult to accept.

The same executive team that has struggled for years to resolve cross-functional problems now has substantial new portfolios, teams to integrate, and businesses to support.

Expecting those same leaders to somehow find the time, alignment, and motivation to transform TIS is not a credible plan.

Running TIS and fixing how TIS works are both essential. But the latter cannot remain a side responsibility for the people who have repeatedly failed to deliver it.

Put trusted leaders in charge of transformation

Establish a TIS Transformation Council comprising a small group of directors and managers selected for their credibility with TIS employees, delivery performance, and the trust they've earned across the organization.

You don't need to guess who those people are.

Employee engagement survey results provide evidence of which leaders have built strong teams, earned employees' confidence, and created environments where people feel respected and supported. Combine those results with delivery performance and cross-functional credibility.

Let the council choose its chair. Give it dedicated capacity, a budget for external expertise, direct access to you, and the authority to challenge existing practices.

Task it with fixing the processes, governance, decision rights, and accountabilities that connect TIS. Require practical recommendations, implementation plans, measurable outcomes, and deadlines.

The executive leadership team must remain accountable for implementing the changes, but it cannot be allowed to stall them through competing priorities or an inability to reach consensus.

And listen to the people doing the work. Many have been identifying these problems for years.

Change is about human behaviour. If you want employees to embrace it, put leaders they already trust in charge of making it happen.

Reconsider who you're trusting and rewarding

One of the biggest criticisms of the previous CIO was the perception that loyalty mattered more than independent judgement and that challenging leadership carried personal risk.

Your appointment was supposed to change that.

Yet employees have seen a highly respected, trusted, and effective director leave after demonstrating the courage to challenge senior leadership and stand up for what they believed was right for the company. Not only did you fail to stop it, you've told us you enabled it.

Whatever the circumstances of that departure, its effect was chilling.

Meanwhile, leaders facing longstanding concerns about their performance, people leadership, and ability to deliver meaningful improvements remain in senior positions. Some have even been promoted.

The message employees take from this is troubling: challenging leadership may cost you your career, while failing to deliver results carries little consequence if you retain the confidence of those above you.

Whether or not that's the message you intend, it's the one your leadership decisions risk reinforcing.

Are you rewarding the people who make TIS better, or those who are best at managing their relationship with you?

When employees believe speaking up carries greater risk than underperforming, they stop telling leadership what it needs to hear.

You need to challenge your executives, confront poor leadership, and reward integrity, competence, and results rather than loyalty or personal relationships.

Accountability requires capability

There's another lesson from the previous leadership regime that appears to have been missed.

The former CTO wasn't necessarily the underlying problem. The bigger failure was assigning that position an unrealistic breadth of authority without adequate checks and balances or consideration of the capabilities required.

That was a leadership decision.

And we risk repeating it.

The new structure assigns executives responsibility for broad and sometimes very different technology disciplines. But have we adequately assessed whether they possess the experience and judgement to lead them?

We wouldn't assume a civil engineer was qualified to lead pipeline integrity simply because they held an engineering degree. We'd expect relevant expertise.

Why should technology be different?

Cybersecurity, cloud infrastructure, software development, enterprise architecture, operations, AI, and technology strategy are distinct disciplines. Experience in one doesn't automatically qualify someone to lead another.

Technology expertise deserves the same respect for specialization that we give engineering.

Executives don't need to be experts in everything they oversee. But they must recognize their limitations, understand the expertise required, and empower capable people to exercise genuine authority.

Otherwise, we're setting leaders up to fail and then expecting to hold them accountable for responsibilities they may never have been equipped to fulfill.

As CIO, you're accountable not just for your executives' performance, but for whether you've put the right people in the right roles with the support and authority to succeed.

Stop leaving employees to reconcile contradictory expectations

Your direction appears to give the business greater authority over technology decisions while TIS retains responsibility for architecture, cybersecurity, standards, and risk.

That ambiguity is unfair to employees and dangerous for the company.

People are expected to follow established governance requirements while being criticized for slowing down the business when they do exactly that.

If the policies are wrong, change them. If accountability belongs elsewhere, move it. But don't expect employees to read your mind.

If you want to change the rules, change them in writing. Communicate the new expectations, align authority with accountability, and stop treating employees who follow existing policies as obstacles to business enablement.

The longstanding ambiguity between the BSS/DSS teams and TIS is another example.

You knew about these problems from your years in the business. Yet after a year as CIO, the boundaries, decision rights, and accountabilities remain unclear. Have we moved the needle even a little? It doesn't seem so.

These aren't technical problems requiring years of study. They're leadership decisions that should have been addressed long ago.

Lead the organization. Leave the technology to the experts.

You weren't appointed CIO because you had the deepest technology expertise.

Your value proposition was your business knowledge, relationships, leadership experience, and ability to improve collaboration and organizational culture.

Those are valuable strengths. But we need to see them put to work.

We already have talented professionals who have spent their careers mastering technology, delivery, governance, and risk management.

What we lack is consistent executive leadership that trusts their expertise, removes organizational barriers, resolves conflicts, and supports sound professional judgement.

We don't need you to become the smartest technologist in the room. We need you to create an organization where the smartest technologists can do their best work.

The previous CIO brought technical discipline but struggled with culture and collaboration. Your opportunity was to retain that discipline while fixing the leadership problems that held us back.

Instead, we risk weakening governance without materially improving trust, accountability, or organizational effectiveness.

That's not the change people were expecting.

It's time to raise the standard

Nobody expects you to resolve years of dysfunction overnight. But after a year in the role, we should have a credible plan, dedicated leadership, clear accountabilities, and evidence of progress.

Instead, we have another reorganization that appears to reward the EMT, and another promise that the real work is about to begin.

We need you to establish the Transformation Council or something similar, empower trusted leaders, resolve longstanding accountability problems, and hold your executive leadership team responsible for supporting meaningful change.

We need you to reconsider whose advice you rely on, whose performance you reward, and whether employees can challenge leadership without fearing the consequences.

And we need you to hold yourself and your executive team to the same standards of competence, integrity, accountability, and professional judgement that you expect from everyone else.

There are exceptional people throughout TIS who know how to deliver. They've spent years working around organizational barriers that leadership has failed to remove.

They don't need another announcement about change. They need leadership that finally delivers it.

You have the experience, authority, resources, and relationships to be that leader. But it requires focusing on the problems that only you can resolve.

Stop trying to prove you can lead the technology conversation. Start proving you can lead the technology organization.

We've been ready for change for years.

Now it's time for you to deliver it.

We in TIS deserve better. Enbridge needs better.

I hope someone in leadership is reading this site. hello. are you out there?

How much does HO know about product? 0

We are #110 on fortune 500, yet #61 on most H1B sponsors https://www.levels.fyi/h1b/sponsors/ which says all you need to know

Btw, if you make under $137K, congrats, you make less than the avg H1B's they hired to "save costs" because they “couldn’t find equivalent U.S talent” which should be a slap in the face to you. There are some serious questions that need to be answered here.

The worst part is our stock would be doing the same with Andy (in retrospect, my word was he the last stand against mass outsourcing, and now I miss him despite his quirks) as it is with GK. The stock is "performing" due to the larger markets, NOT because of GK. And she thinks its her doing, so will double down on the outsourcing. Godspeed.

For legal reasons, this is all "allegedly"!

It is wild how quickly a strong team of employees (Direct channel) can fall apart under the wrong leadership.

Once they put the two channels together everything started falling apart.

How does a powerhouse team disintegrate over the past 2 years?

Why are the people at top not looking at previous scorecards prior to putting the channels together compared when they were separate.

The smartest managers that were at the top for years are now at the bottom. What changed? Only management.

I’ve been doing this a long time and have never experienced a company like PANW. The fear of NA and the toxicity that he creates and demands in the culture is unbelievable (but true). No one will stand up to him or share a different opinion, no one challenges him, no one offers new ideas. So this permeates down to how the rest of leadership treats all of their orgs. No room for individual thought or new ideas. It’s all about the firewall and insisting everything is ok to be in the cloud. Customers know better and PANW is not important to any customer or strategic partner. PANW is a widget at best now and an afterthought - not a strategic alliance. NAs whole strategy is to take advantage of the AI fears and breaches and customers aren’t buying that PANW is the right answer. Can’t even get meetings much less revenue. They’re actively reducing their footprint after being taken advantage of for many years and PANW refuses to accept their role in this and right the ship. They blame sales teams, engineering, services and support and demand we give over our own likeness and image to AI for mandatory ‘trainings’, and refuse to listen to customers when feedback is provided on what they need from partnership or product innovation. Leadership brags about working all the time and demanding their people are available on vacation or during times of personal loss. Oh. And try to find true diversity in leadership. I’ll wait….