#reorg

With Morton departing, TR has announced another reorg. I suppose in the absence of any real progress, reorgs and in-depth documentation is considered progress. Is this orginaization serious about anything?

The self-promotion "Sweet Julie" PR tour continues. "Look, I'm so awesome according to me" (she really does think she is). She claims and thinks that she cares so much about people and "human connections".

Is she trying to save her job and is applying for the next one?

How Accenture CEO Julie Sweet communicated a major restructuring to 770,000 employees across 120 countries without ever sending a memo

https://fortune.com/2025/09/01/accenture-julie-sweet-restructuring-ai-memo-video-message-titans-podcast/

“Reading it on a piece of paper would not have conveyed the why in the same way as hearing it—hearing the excitement in my voice, understanding the passion we have for why we’re changing,” Sweet said in a recent interview

Sweet’s communication strategy reflects the scale of challenge she faces as head of Accenture, the world’s largest consulting firm by revenue. The Dublin-based company generated $64.9 billion in fiscal 2024 and serves more than 9,000 clients, providing services spanning strategy consulting, cloud migration, data analytics, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and more. With hundreds of thousands employees spread across more than 120 countries, Accenture helps organizations reinvent themselves in the digital age, making it both a beneficiary of and participant in the AI-driven transformation sweeping global businesses.

Sweet herself represents an unconventional path to corporate leadership. Since becoming CEO in September 2019, she’s been the first woman to lead Accenture and the first CEO in the company’s history who didn’t start there straight out of college. Her background as a high-powered corporate lawyer—she spent 17 years at the prestigious firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore, making partner within eight years—gave her an outsider’s perspective when she joined Accenture as general counsel in 2010. Under her leadership, the company’s revenue has grown more than 50%, and she’s been recognized as one of Fortune‘s Most Powerful People in Business.

The restructuring Sweet announced represents what she describes as reversing “five decades of how we’re working.” The move brings together previously siloed business units to better serve clients seeking comprehensive digital transformation, aligning Accenture’s organizational structure with its strategy to be “the reinvention partner of choice” for businesses navigating rapid technological change.

At the heart of Sweet’s strategy was recognition that this transformation had to be both decisive and deeply human. The restructure wasn’t a cost-cutting exercise, though Sweet acknowledges it inevitably uncovered efficiencies and duplications. Instead, the move was driven by client needs and Accenture’s ambition to deliver integrated solutions combining industry knowledge, technical expertise, data, AI, and functional capabilities as a single offering.

“In order to capture the opportunity with AI, you really have to be willing to rewire your company,” Sweet said, reflecting broader advice she gives to Fortune 500 CEOs. “Many times, when clients are saying, we’re not getting a lot out of AI, it’s because they’re trying to apply it to how they operate today.”

Sweet’s approach to managing the change went beyond just the medium of communication. She solicited feedback and critiques from her leadership team, refining her message through multiple iterations to ensure it resonated at every level. “I try to have no ego on communication, because it’s so important that we’re really clear,” she said, noting all her direct reports work with speech coaches to hone their communication skills.

The transformation also demanded what Sweet calls a balance of “art and science”—using metrics and benchmarks from Accenture’s transformation GPS database to provide the analytical foundation, while applying empathy and cultural understanding to ensure the human element wasn’t lost. Ultimately, Sweet’s leadership through this restructuring has become a case study in navigating sweeping organizational change in an era when traditional corporate communication methods may no longer suffice.

..so when exactly would the plug be pulled for the rest of this division, as we all know there is going to be a shift to partners?
Some say end October/Start of November? What are you hearing?

Layoffs? Realignment? Other info of relevance?

Since this Enterprise Reimagine was so bad, who will take responsibility? There are loads of complaint from field and survivors, who should take responsibility?

Also hearing that this is the master plan that Chubak wants Penny to do ER so that he can be managing partner faster. Nobody wants to wait 5 years to see Penny retire and then taking over.

I am sickened to my stomach to see this organization go backwards in all of the values they believe in + the momentum the firm had around new business/technology/products. We lost so many unicorns and institutional knowledge that we will never get back.

Good luck everyone. I was part of the 1% who got laid off today. I was expecting a re-org but the layoff was very unexpected. I still believe in Nike, and hope to come back.

Any truth to the warnings about missing monthly minimum number of autos in a rolling 12 months? Agency is having difficulty with the new ASC product and pricing.

Don't worry. Everything is gonna be normal, easy, smooth after layoffs, emotions, reorgs.

Hahahahahaha.

Enjoy the misery of tryin' to get anything done in the new situations. For many it will be demoralizing, depressing, and a kick in the teethies.

Those who get to leave are the winners.

It’s not going to be like the last dozen reorgs over the years that reduced the workforce but accomplished absolutely nothing else. No, sir. This one is going to make real changes! Unlike all the others, we’ll finally see real improvements in results, not just a temporary bump because of layoffs. I’m telling you, this is it!

I’m new here, so I’m wondering. More worrying, really.

S&T reorg has been an absolute debacle. Implementation team clearly didn't involve enough people actually executing the work for these workflows to make any sense and then point their fingers at other orgs when there is a question of who does what. At least they all got their promotions though. What a fu--ing joke.

The pending reorg is draining the company. There’s no information and no transparency about what’s coming next. At the same time, leadership keeps asking for more and more work without providing org clarity. Do they realize how unreasonable it feels to demand so much while sharing so little?

When will LC be fired? He's non existent and IT is a complete disaster after the re-org. Morale in the toilet and there was no plan at all for what happened after the cut 50% or more of US staff. I've heard Engine is a disaster as well. Also wonder if MW will ever show his face again to employees. Only way to hear from him is to see him talk to Wall Street Sc-m on TV.

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4284185518

Job posting for external organization design consultant with experience in large scale reorganization.

Know Your Rights in a Demotion / Reorganization (Missouri Employees)

There’s a lot of rumor right now about upcoming demotions being used as a cost-cutting tactic. Some of you may be wondering: If I’m offered a big downgrade and I refuse it, am I considered “fired” or “quit”?

The truth: It depends how the company handles it, and how severe the changes are. Missouri courts have looked at this exact issue many times. Here are some important cases:

⸻

Key Missouri Cases
• Kimble v. Division of Employment Security (2013)
An IT manager’s role was eliminated; he was offered a car sales position. He refused. The court said this counted as a voluntary quit without good cause because he didn’t try to preserve his job and the pay loss was “speculative.” Result: No unemployment benefits.

Takeaway: If you refuse a different role, the state may treat it as a resignation unless the demotion is clearly unreasonable.

•   Mickles v. Maxi Beauty Supply (2019)

A manager was demoted by text to a clerk position. She quit. The court said she had good cause to quit—the demotion was unfair and handled poorly. She qualified for unemployment benefits.

Takeaway: How the employer handles the demotion (fair process vs. unfair surprise) matters.
• Sokol v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n (1997)
Employer changed contract terms; worker refused to accept. The court said this was a discharge, not a resignation.

Takeaway: If the company outright says “You’re done if you don’t accept these changes,” that’s a termination.

• Von Hoffman Press v. Industrial Comm’n (1972)
Worker declined being forced into full-time after working part-time. Employer fired her. Court ruled this was a discharge.

Takeaway: If they change the deal and then end your job, that’s not a voluntary quit.

• Armco Steel Corp. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n (1977)
Worker declined a transfer with a 44% pay cut. Court found she had good cause to refuse and qualified for unemployment.

Takeaway: Major pay cuts are recognized as good cause to decline.

What this means for you

1. If you accept the demotion → You remain employed, but you may have little legal recourse later.
2. If you refuse → It matters whether:
   • The company terminates you (that’s a discharge).
   • Or they frame it as you “resigned” (that’s voluntary leaving).
3. Unemployment eligibility hinges on whether the demotion was so significant (pay cut, loss of prestige, unfair handling) that a “reasonable worker” would quit. Courts will look at that.
   1. Document everything → How the offer was made, the pay difference, responsibilities lost, communications with HR/management.

Bottom line
• Not every demotion refusal = “resignation.”
• Missouri courts do side with employees when the change is drastic, unfair, or essentially a way to push you out.
• If you’re faced with this, don’t just walk away silently. Make the company say whether you’re terminated. That distinction matters for unemployment and legal rights.

Disclaimer: This is general information based on Missouri case law, not legal advice. If you’re directly affected, consult an employment attorney.

It appears numerous higher up’s have left. Will stores be impacted next?

Separation dates apparently spread out. September 30, 2025 to July 31, 2026. APPLY: August 26 to September 9, 2025 area likely.

It’s really amazing that we’re going to create another org filled with external executives that are not from telecom. She signed a lot of bad deals in supply chain.

Hi. Does anyone have insights on yesterday’s business reorganization? Will this lead to layoffs in sept and Oct?

I see new manager roles that have two to four roles that report up to them. Is this because Hess staff are coming in and not in scope in round 2?

Curious where folks are seeing cuts. HSE here, and honestly I can’t tell how deep this is. I am seeing a lot of down grading of roles tho…

When a company states that it will expand its footprint in an area with a new facility and consolidate 2 sites (Emeryville and San Diego) into one single research site, then something has to give. It won't be the leadership, but everybody else will be on the chopping block in 18-24 months. It is going to be painful for Novartis folks in California!

How do the jobs posted in rd 2 look in the subsurface space? Big cuts?

I am really worried about what joining Cenovus means for our jobs. Will there be layoffs or restructuring? The uncertainty is stressful.

The job cuts included the elimination of the merchandising coordinator position, as Saks Global continues to blend the merchandising systems of Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus into an integrated system, WWD reports.

https://news.centurionjewelry.com/articles/detail/saks-cuts-90-jobs-in-another-round-of-layoffs

In the old days, companies used to call layoffs “downsizing” or “right-sizing,” like it was some kind of corporate yoga pose. Now it’s just “restructuring” “ Early Retirement Program “—a polite way of saying we spun the wheel and your name came up.

Make no mistake: layoffs in corporate America aren’t always about performance. They’re about PowerPoint presentations, stock price sugar highs, and executives proving to shareholders that they’re “decisive” by cutting the very people who actually do the work.

You can almost picture the C-suite playing a board game:
• Roll the dice — Land on “Cut 500 jobs” and collect a bonus.
• Draw a card — “Move production offshore, skip ahead to your stock grant vesting date.”
• Spin the wheel — “Congratulations! You’ve eliminated your entire customer support team. Hope the chatbot works!”

Meanwhile, employees are left watching their email like contestants on a reality TV show, waiting to see if they’re voted off the island or if they get to keep their seat in the open office zoo.

And the best part? The company will send you a warm, heartfelt email thanking you for your “dedicated service,” signed by an executive who couldn’t pick you out of a lineup. But don’t worry—your sacrifice will be remembered… until the next quarterly earnings call.

The pink slip game isn’t about survival of the fittest. It’s survival of whoever’s on the “critical projects” spreadsheet that quarter. And even that’s temporary. Because sooner or later, they spin the wheel again.

This post needed its own thread. The OP is @a9+1k36wh77z, all credit goes to them.

Arena BioWorks has laid off 30% of its workers 19 months after launching with $500 million and visions of bringing the Bell Labs model to biotech.

Changes at Arena BioWorks follow events that have shaken confidence in gene therapies.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/arena-bioworks-19-months-after-splashy-launch-lays-30-its-staff

The board has been working with a financial company for a year behind the scenes to prepare any and all parts or the whole for sale. Mark had FY25 to stop the bleed but also, simultaneously, start positioning business units to be lean and attractive to buyers .

Today's call was clear as stated by the board member that they have been working with FIN analysts and will continue to do so.

The fact is that a significant amount of preparation for sale has been in play for many months and we can expect and should be ready for a series if announcements when the new CEO comes on board before the start of Q2 in 6 weeks.

@be+1k2f42xsy makes an excellent point.

From what I am hearing, most of folks on ISP list will be DLs.

Given the objective of cascade 2 is to reduce leadership layers, it makes sense. GPs/Directors will save their skin and throw DLs under the bus.

Skills, capabilities and performance will not matter. If you are a DL and don’t have a GP/Director protecting you, your name will end up on the ISP list.

After closing hundreds of branches through merger and project star, the latest bright idea to save the bank is to build hundreds of new branches lol. Analysts (particularly Mike Mayo) promptly p-o-p-o these plans as too little too late, pointing out the plan doesn’t actually solve for the banks primary issues.

Looking in my crystal ball, I can see in ~ 2 years time we will have new leaders whose “bold” idea to save the bank will be to consolidate/close branches.

So that means we’re still a long way from being done? Mid-September is the earliest we can hope for this to finally be over?

We have serious organizational and leadership challenges that a headcount reduction alone can’t solve. Yes, there may be redundancies in some areas, but at the same time, we’re missing key roles that are critical to moving forward. What we need is competent leadership with a clear, thoughtful vision for where we’re headed and how we’re going to get there. Letting go of 30 people, seemingly at random, without a strategic plan to address the root problems won’t take us anywhere.

The Economist, Aug 21st 2025 | 6 min read

To survive, Intel must break itself apart

• And it should do so before it is too late

Intel once set the pace of technological progress. Gordon Moore, one of its founders, predicted in 1965 that chips would get faster and cheaper with metronomic consistency. Over the decades Intel brought Moore’s Law to life, designing and building the processors that powered servers and, later, personal computers. Today it makes headlines for its turmoil more than its technology. On August 7th President Donald Trump demanded the resignation of Lip-Bu Tan, Intel’s boss, citing his links to China, only to praise Mr Tan four days later after meeting him. Reports soon surfaced that the government was pursuing a 10% stake in the company, which would make it Intel’s largest shareholder. On August 18th SoftBank, a Japanese tech conglomerate, announced that it would invest $2bn in the company.

The drama has refocused attention on Intel’s plight. The company has missed nearly every big shift in its industry over the past two decades. It failed to profit from the rise of smartphones, was slow to adopt advanced lithography tools and has largely sat out the bo-m in artificial intelligence (AI). Between 2021 and 2024 revenue dropped by a third, from nearly $80bn to just over $50bn; last year it made a net loss of almost $20bn (see chart 1). Over the past five years its market value has fallen by roughly half, to around $100bn. TSMC, which has stolen Intel’s crown as the world’s leading chip manufacturer, is worth ten times as much.

Yet Intel still matters, as Mr Trump’s interest shows. The most advanced chips, vital for smartphones and AI, are now made almost entirely by TSMC. America’s tech giants depend on it. Such reliance on a single supplier—particularly one based in Taiwan—is risky. Intel is one of the few firms that could rival TSMC. But it will need more than government subsidies to do so. If it is to recover its chipmaking prowess, Intel will need to break itself apart.

Throughout its history Intel has designed and built its own chips. That integration let it use its manufacturing prowess to deliver better products even when its designs lagged behind. From the mid-2010s, however, repeated missteps in its manufacturing saw it fall behind TSMC. Deprived of that advantage, Intel’s processors became uncompetitive with those from AMD, a long-term rival which gave up on manufacturing long ago. In 2021 Intel, too, began outsourcing production of its most advanced chips to TSMC.

The erosion of Intel’s manufacturing leadership has coincided with fiercer competition in the market for designing processors. As recently as 2019 Intel controlled 84% of the global market for PC chips and 94% for servers. By 2024 those figures had fallen to 69% and 62%, respectively (see chart 2). AMD, using the x86 architecture pioneered by Intel, has developed better chips. Cloud giants such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft, which were once reliant on Intel, now design their own processors using outlines from Arm, a British company owned by SoftBank. In December Amazon said that half the server capacity it added in the preceding two years used its own silicon.

Pat Gelsinger, Intel’s boss from 2021 to 2024, tried to reverse the slide. He split design and manufacturing into two units, allowing the product arm to shop around for the best manufacturer while opening Intel’s chip factories, called “fabs”, to outsiders. To build a contract-chipmaking business, known as a “foundry”, Mr Gelsinger then set about splurging $90bn on new fabs in four American states. He tapped private equity and bagged nearly $8bn in subsidies under America’s CHIPS Act to fund his vision. But the plan was thrown into disarray by a combination of technical problems at the foundry, which deterred external customers, and falling sales at the design arm.

Pat on his back

Mr Tan, who took over in March after Mr Gelsinger was sacked, seems to have different priorities. He has rightly identified that the company is bloated; at the end of 2024 it employed 109,000 people, nearly as many as Nvidia, the leading designer of AI chips, and TSMC combined. Mr Tan plans to cut Intel’s workforce by a quarter by the end of this year. When it comes to AI, he believes that the firm should focus not on designing chips for training models, an area that Nvidia dominates, but on inference, the task of running them. As for the foundry, last month Mr Tan scrapped projects in Germany and Poland, and pushed construction of Intel’s advanced fabs in Ohio back to the early 2030s. He also hinted that the company might retreat from leading-edge manufacturing if it cannot secure external customers.

All that may help buy Intel time. Yet it lacks the boldness needed to save the company from fading into irrelevance. Evercore, an investment bank, reckons Intel’s design arm might be worth more than $100bn on its own. But it faces a crowded field and its products are no longer distinctive.

Mr Tan could sell the division to another fabless chipmaker such as Broadcom while it still holds value and focus solely on the foundry, which is troubled but holds more long-term promise. Its newest “18A” process incorporates transistors that are ahead of TSMC’s, as well as a novel way of feeding power through the back of the chip to save space and energy. SemiAnalysis, a consultancy, reckons Intel will need to invest a bit over $50bn between 2025 and 2027 to make it competitive in leading-edge manufacturing. A sale of the design division would more than cover that.

Parting with the design business would help in other ways, too. Foundries must serve many customers using the same process. To do so they provide “process design kits”—the blueprints chipmakers use to design their products. TSMC’s kits are broad and easy to use. Intel still tunes its kits for its own products first. One veteran designer who has used both says Intel “lacks the experience” of working with outsiders. Ian Cutress, a semiconductor analyst, notes that Intel sought to buy that expertise with its attempted acquisition of Tower Semiconductor, an Israeli foundry, but the deal collapsed after Chinese regulators withheld approval.

By making its foundry truly independent, Intel may be better able to persuade other chip designers to work with it. More customers would, in turn, make Intel a more compelling choice. Foundries live or die by yield—the share of chips that function as intended. New processes start buggy and improve only with volume. Foundries typically need yields above 70% to break even; the current rate for Intel’s 18A process is reportedly closer to 10%.

America’s tech giants would certainly welcome another alternative to TSMC. Samsung, the only other contender in leading-edge chipmaking, recently secured a $16.5bn contract from Tesla, a car company, to make AI chips at a new fab in Texas. But the South Korean company has a reputation for being difficult with customers and has faced technical challenges of its own. Indeed, if Intel’s shareholders would rather pocket the proceeds of a sale of the design arm, it is possible that a consortium of would-be foundry customers could be persuaded to invest instead. SoftBank has also reportedly expressed interest in acquiring Intel’s manufacturing business.

Intel faces a difficult choice. A foundry-only business would certainly be a gamble. But the longer it dithers, the lower the chance of success. Intel’s greatness once lay in doing everything. Its contribution in future may come from doing one thing well: making chips.

The company is tightening up its workforce across multiple divisions and restructured several parts of its business, resulting in the loss of 30 jobs. The cuts have been made with “the goal of investing in capabilities that will propel our business into the future,” according to a Hallmark spokesperson.

https://www.thewrap.com/hallmark-layoffs-company-restructuring/

Has anyone visiting this page been impacted by the pooling process discussed a few weeks ago?

Cosmetics company has approved layoffs of 3,200 staff based on a previously disclosed restructuring plan and may reduce head count by another 3,800, with expected restructuring charges of up to $1.6 billion.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/estee-lauder-to-cut-up-to-7-000-jobs-as-china-and-duty-free-sales-stay-weak-82092ee3

A SI and Ops Spec. roles had a last-minute meeting this week stating that we're looking at reduction of roles due to NK's lifecycle.

Anyone else catch any more details on this?

When will EMEA reorg start? Aren't they supposed to still go through the Tech reorg?

It’s increasingly unclear what’s happening within Moulis’ former organization in OT. There’s been little to no communication about the long-term plan, while people keep leaving or being let go. Rumors of another reorg continue but with no transparency on timing or impact. Leadership — including the new VP — has not provided clarity or support. Does anyone have additional insight on this?