#leadershipdevelopment

I left about 2 years ago, I'm sure this won't just be a pure toxic forum...

But... If some objective entities could chime in if it got better or worse, I'd appreciate it.

Fu-k Wayne Peacock.

I’m interested in learning more about Capital One’s MBA education benefits. I understand the company offers educational assistance for employees pursuing graduate degrees, but I’m curious about how the benefit works in practice.

For employees who have pursued an MBA, is the assistance generally limited to the standard $5,250 annual tuition benefit, or does Capital One offer additional funding through direct tuition sponsorship, prepaid tuition programs, stipends, fellowships, or other arrangements?

Are there opportunities for additional MBA funding based on job level, performance, tenure, or participation in leadership development programs?

I’d especially appreciate hearing from current or former employees who have personally taken advantage of these benefits and can share what Capital One actually covered.

Every hardware vendor builds or outsources utilities to expose and manage its hardware features. That's table stakes.

Dell, however, goes much further, spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on in-house development and acquisitions of pure-play software vendors. The results are consistently disappointing: products that fall further and further behind the competitors, ship with persistent bugs, and are widely viewed as unfit for enterprise use.

The usual defense is that software works as a loss leader to help sell hardware. But thin hardware margins can't possibly offset the millions of dollars lost to failed product development and weak customer adoption.

So what's the real explanation? Arrogance? Ignorance? Poor engineering leadership? Poor executive leadership? Something else entirely?

How does a company justify losing millions each year to earn pennies? I'd genuinely like to hear from anyone who understands the reasoning.

Having worked at other new age companies, here is what I see.

The people responsible for investment decisions don't understand the customer deeply, neither do they understand the product deeply.

The bigger problem is that they aren't humble enough to admit they don't know and speak as if they know what they are talking about. It's so irritating that they won't even ask questions to learn but rather just go on and on to loudly shut down any other opinion in the room that doesn't match theirs.

It's funny to see two leaders having a conversation with half baked knowledge and driving investment decisions.

There are many in leadership who don't seem ready for the positions they're holding. Simple questions turn into long explanations, basic decisions get pushed around, and then everyone underneath them has to compensate. I don't understand how this became normal.

Oh god. Can we get a qualified leader who understands strategy, tech and has people skills!!!

IT needs a massive leadership change. We were glad Rama was gone but then Satya??????

Venky is fostering a bunch of non-qualified leaders and rotating through the VP roles across his organization. Look at the team he has, and all the different roles they have taken in the last 6 years. It's not normal to have VPs rotating through different countries, marketplace, sourcing, manufacturing, planning - no expertise just su-king on Venky's teet.

Won’t be around for the merger completion…

Our OD and SSEM continue to show the their incompetence. We now have to track things on a spreadsheet cause they don’t know how to use actual tools to lead the business. This is a prime example of why Cisco is continuing to lose market share. These two should not be in any leadership position. OD does not know how to lead. SSEM wants to be a mini-OD instead of leading SEMs in leading their SEs.

I think one of Nike’s biggest problems is that we’ve been so dominant for so long that we became too self serving. At some point, we stopped listening enough to what’s happening outside of Beaverton. We became too confident that we knew the consumer and that what worked for us before would continue to work.

Meanwhile, a lot of other brands were actually listening. They were closer to consumers, closer to culture, and quicker to understand how the market was changing. Especially with Gen Z and now Gen Alpha, the way people discover brands, connect with products, and decide what to buy has changed dramatically. I don’t think we changed fast enough with them.

And now we’re trying to fix it, but we’re already playing catch-up.

I think that’s partly a Nike problem, but I also think it’s an EH problem. When he came back, there was a real opportunity to challenge how we operate and change the way we think. But a lot of what I’ve seen feels like we’re trying to bring back the same Nike playbook that worked a few years ago. There’s nothing wrong with going back to some of our strengths, but the world we’re operating in today isn’t the same world.

There’s also an irony to Nike being an American company. Being American was a huge part of why Nike became what it became. American sports, athletes, and pop culture had enormous influence around the world. But I think that can also be one of our weaknesses today because we still tend to look at the world through a very US centric lens.

The world doesn’t work that way anymore. People aren’t only looking up to the US to tell them what’s cool or what’s next. Sport, fahsion and culture are coming from everywhere now and sometimes I feel like there is so much happening out there that we’re simply missing because we’re too busy talking to ourselves.

That’s the part that worries me the most. I don’t think the answer is just to get Nike back to what it used to be. We need to keep what made Nike special, but also become much better at listening again. We need to get outside of Beaverton, be closer to what’s actually happening in the world, and let the world influence us as much as we want to influence the world.

But I’m also afraid this isn’t something that will change overnight. And honestly, I’m not even sure it will change at all unless there is enough pain to force real change.

That’s probably the hardest part. Big organizations don’t fundamentally change just because people know they should. They change when the cost of staying the same becomes greater than the pain of changing.

And when you’ve been successful for this long, there are a lot of people in senior positions who grew up in the existing system and benefited from it. Asking them to think differently isn’t just asking them to change how they work. In some cases, you’re asking them to question the structure, the roles, and even the way their own value has been defined for years.

That’s why I’m not sure the people sitting in those high chairs will naturally want to step outside of their comfort zone. Because real transformation could also mean changing their own role, reducing their influence, or even questioning whether some of those roles need to exist in the same way anymore. That’s a very difficult thing for any leader to voluntarily do.

So maybe Nike needs to feel significantly more pain before we see the level of change that’s actually required. I hope that’s not the case, but I worry that small fixes, reorganizations, and bringing back pieces of the old playbook won’t be enough.

Because the problem isn’t just the playbook. It’s the mindset and the system behind it.

And unless we’re willing to challenge that, we may keep changing things around the edges while protecting the very structure that got us here.

I know there is an advancement guide for normal people dictating promotion timing. What about supervisors and hipos? Do they have separate advancement guides?

I wonder why

I don’t think he can read the room and see how he’s destroying PayPal. I’m sure he is looking for a quick sale but the company is worth less every day.

Crummy colleges like Strayer University or 3rd world college mills. DEI candidates majoring in "organizational leadership" (wtf kind of degree is that). Leaders not qualified to do entry level work in their organizations because they lack certifications. sum result is a bunch of employees who are pretenders when it comes to working.

Point being Verizon needs to ask itself if it wants intelligent leadership, or a bunch of crash test dummies collecting paychecks

Saw some people starting to speak up about Elavon, so here I am saying I will probably quit soon. The past 2 years have been eye-opening for me. Way too many red tapes to get merchant services solutions work done and keep my sanity, yet leadership shows zero support and empathy for their teams. Also, Elavon drives very little revenue growth over the past few years and everyone is pointing fingers at each other while it is actually a combination of many factors. Unnecessary stress.

There is an old leadership principle: A leader's competence is measured by what they build, but their accountability is measured by what they ignore.

For nearly a decade at Centene, General Counsel Chris Koster has held primary responsibility for legal and regulatory oversight. Yet under his watch, the company has paid millions of dollars in state and federal settlements while the compliance infrastructure scrambled to contain the fallout.

To understand how a health plan incurs ten-figure regulatory penalties, one need only examine the appointment of Ashlee Knuckey as Chief Compliance Officer.

When Koster tapped Knuckey for the CCO seat, he elevated an individual directly from a law firm background, a litigator with no operational tenure in corporate compliance programs, no track record in managed care execution, and no prior experience as a Chief Compliance Officer.

What followed was four years of organizational turbulence disguised as a "compliance transformation."

Repeated internal escalations warned that the program lacked basic execution standards, structural clarity, and the foundational knowledge required to build an effective managed care compliance framework. These warnings were brushed aside. For four years, the enterprise operated in a state of compliance compromise, a persistent vulnerability that no amount of settlement checks can permanently ensure against.

Now, following Knuckey's exit, Koster has embarked on a series of "listening sessions" across the department. The timing invites obvious skepticism: where was he for the last four years?

Centene cannot pay its way out of fundamental governance failures indefinitely. Listening after the damage is done is not oversight, it is reputation management. If leadership failed to act on internal warnings when the compliance program was being dismantled, these listening tours are not a course correction. They are optics management.

Real protection requires leadership that understands what compliance actually entails on the ground. As Centene searches for a new Chief Compliance Officer, one directive must remain non-negotiable: do not hire another law firm attorney without operational compliance managed care experience. The next CCO must be a proven industry veteran who has successfully built and led compliance programs inside complex healthcare payers.

If Koster wants to demonstrate actual accountability now, he should step back from isolated decision-making and bring frontline Compliance team members directly into the interview process for the next CCO.

Otherwise, Sarah London needs to ask the hard question: after ten years and a billion dollars in regulatory costs, what, exactly, has Chris Koster been doing?!

You are going to lose your job. I didn’t say get displaced—I said lose your job.

The directive from the top is to get below 200,000 employees by year-end. Too much money was spent on displacement last year, and they cannot afford to repeat that. So this time, the strategy appears to be reducing headcount without formally displacing as many people.

You may have already noticed it. A coworker is suddenly gone. Your previously solid performance is now being documented as mistake- or behavior-ridden. Your manager suddenly moves you into work that is outside your normal scope. Expectations change. Documentation increases. If that is happening, pay attention—you may already be on the list.

The new check-in system can also be used to create the documentation needed to support termination. These processes used to be centered around a plan designed to help employees improve and keep their jobs. That does not appear to be the priority anymore when the larger objective is headcount reduction.

And AI complicates the picture. We do not yet have the clean workforce data needed to formally identify every position for displacement based on AI-related changes. Meanwhile, redeploy team does not redeploy everyone. The team works with the populations and employees it has been directed to retain.

We were honest on the employee survey about what we were experiencing, and instead of leadership seriously examining why employees feel the way they do, we were characterized as entitled.

Maybe we are entitled—to transparency. We are entitled to understand the direction of the company we work for, what is expected of us, and whether decisions about our careers are being made fairly.

Pay attention to what is happening around you, not just what is being said publicly. Document changes to your responsibilities, expectations, feedback, and performance history. Protect yourself professionally. Update your résumé. Strengthen your network. Keep your options open.

Don’t wait until the decision has already been made for you. RUN

Can we bring back good leaders to Nike? Those who left or RIF’d people actually liked and/or at least did great work and delivered results? Ones who their teams liked working for? I don’t even care if liked, but if delivered can we petition to get them back?!?

Who do we go after? I just want to have competent leadership again.

Doesn’t bode well for J2 when he wasn’t even invited to the call. Clear ego-rift forming.

The R2B role has become extremely difficult to sustain. Leadership appears to still be struggling with the transition and, rather than developing a clear strategy for the new model, much of the focus has shifted toward call volume. At times, it feels less like strategic business development and more like a fundraising phone bank where activity is valued over meaningful results. There seems to be a significant disconnect between what the role is supposed to accomplish and how teams are actually being managed.

It also feels as though some of this pressure may be coming from uncertainty surrounding the future of R2B leadership and the possibility of teams eventually being moved under B2B.

Interesting to see a new kid on the block taking on CTO role from a smaller company. Good luck to him. The last guy lasted 3 years and I thought he was good.

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

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

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

Anyone got some details? Actually liked him.

We at Fiserv are so grateful that the the empty suit, cowatd Mike Lyons has moved on. He destroyed the retirement accounts of so many people, was the master of vapid nonsense- coordinate, collaborate, execute- blah blah blah. No work ethic, lazy and entitled- good luck Truist

Hackett Pavilion 1 & 2. Are you kidding me? When nothing is named after Mulally, it shows you how insecure and id--tic leadership really is.

I just saw into CR on West Campus and low‑key freaked out. He used to be one of my favorite tech leaders before he moved into that executive role in sebcoe amd then left us for a big tech company. Do you think he might be coming back?

When Mr. Gerstner became CEO, IBM was facing one of the most challenging periods in its history. He made difficult decisions, refocused the company, preserved IBM as an integrated enterprise, and helped restore its competitiveness. His leadership demonstrated that successful executives must balance long-term strategy, financial discipline, innovation, and customer focus.

A Lou Gerstner Leadership Academy could teach future leaders about:

Leading through major organizational change.
Making tough decisions under pressure.
Putting customers first.
Driving accountability and execution.
Building a culture focused on long-term success rather than short-term popularity.

Whether someone agrees with every decision he made or not, Mr. Gerstner's turnaround of IBM remains one of the most significant corporate leadership stories of the modern era. There are valuable leadership lessons that today's and tomorrow's IBM leaders can still learn from his example.

So many shakeups among the leadership over the years and things keep getting worse. It's like we're incapable of bringing in or selecting people who are actually capable of leading.

KELLY AND BILL SHOULD STAR IN THE NEXT SEQUEL.

Mist leadership taking over and Aruba folks are leaving. What are y’ll thoughts?

https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/1u7pzgl/leak_exposes_members_of_peter_thiels_secretive/

Wtaf!

I report to someone, but after they flattened the hierarchy and got rid of all the middle managers I ended up reporting directly to the director in my org.

He's not interested in or capable of leading a team. I never see him except during our monthly 1:1 (which is basically just a monthly recap so he can tell his boss what I do).

There's no leadership here at 3M anymore. Just a bunch of disinterested, self-important jagoffs having meetings because they didn't know what else to do. And nobody can get promoted, so it's never to change.

The problem isn’t just one bad decision. It’s weak direction, poor follow through, and leadership that doesn’t inspire much confidence. Does anybody actually still see a future here?

This is my favourite Wizard of Oz song.

It is about time for regime change.
18 months and all he does is fire people?
And not one positive thing came out in 18 months that he has been here
preaching positivity.

Anyone?

In most organizations, you will typically find two groups of people. Those that are desperate to lead and those that are not interested in leading. Most times, your best leaders are in the latter group. The question is, how do you convince the latter group to want to lead?

GPC finally fired not retired our supposed tech leader. He destroyed a great organization. Next they will move to take out all his minions.