#strategy

Long-time employees have heard of, or even been involved in, one of the many attempts to consolidate platforms. Each and every project has been abandoned after smart people laid out the reasons why it can’t be done, at least to senior executives’ expectations. But here we are again. The people at the top have no history of these events and most have no tech background. What’s the right thing to do? Bite the bullet and build new systems using the latest and greatest tools. TSYS, now Global, and soon to be partly FIS, figured this out 27 years ago when they built a new platform. They ate our lunch for a while selling it to new customers but then started losing to First Data when their client contracts were up on the old system and a conversion was required. We should have done this too. Instead, we’ve spent these 27 years NOT consolidating platforms, and making it more difficult by acquiring more. Of course we’re not even contemplating this. We’re going to continue to do the Fiserv thing - chase ghosts and waste time. It would be better to do nothing.

Benchmark Mortgage is reducing its workforce by 82 employees. This significant layoff includes the company's Chief Information Officer and other high-ranking executives. The company is closing its wholesale and correspondent lending operations. These actions are part of a strategic shift to concentrate on its retail lending sector. Resources will be reallocated to support this new focus.

Plano, Texas

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2026/10/02/mortgage-lender-enacts-layoffs-including-c-suite.html

i honestly think part of the proble is our executives just aren't as good as the people running some of these other car companies. look at toyota &honda. people keep buying them because they are reliable and they give customers what they want. now you have the rav4 passing the f150 and that should be a pretty big wake up call. the f150 has been one of the biggest things ford has going for it for years.

then look at the edge. ford got rid of it and maybe the edge had problems and maybe sales weren't great, but meanwhile toyota keeps selling the rav4 like crazy. korean companies are doing well too. so somehow everybody else keeps figuring out what people want while we keep changing plans. we used to benchmark toyota and honda all the time. from what i remember we would look at a few things they were doing, copy a piece of it, and then go right back to doing things the ford way. we never really changed the whole system. that is what bothers me.

toyota is not doing magic. honda is not doing magic. they just seem to make better decisions over a long period of time. at ford we cancel products, start new programs, reorganize, change priorities, bring in new leadership ideas, talk about software, evs, subscriptions and whatever the new thing is. then a couple years later the direction changes again. and when something doesn't work the explanation is always complicated. regulations. interest rates. china. labor. dealers. suppliers.

customers didn't understand the product. whatever. at some point maybe the answer is simpler. maybe the people making the big decisions at toyota and honda are just better at their jobs. you can make fun of toyota all you want, but customers keep walking into their dealerships and buying their vehicles. that is the scoreboard that matters.

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??????

BEAVERTON, OR — Nike announced a sweeping transformation designed to simplify the transformation created during the previous transformation, which had simplified the transformation before that.

The new strategy is described as getting back to sport, but faster, simpler, more consumer-direct, more wholesale, more digital, less digital, locally relevant and globally consistent.

“We have to move at the speed of sport,” leadership told employees, many of whom are still waiting for access to the systems introduced during the last effort to move at the speed of sport.

I appreciate that EH is claiming there is "a" long term plan. But that is not enough.

It will help make the numbers look good with a smaller footprint, maybe a more efficient supply chain. A different geography organization... fine.

But that's not enough.

Nike is built on athlete stories, high performing products. Products that people want and are proud to use. I mean gosh, I grew up watching Serena Williams and LeBron James making history... but the newer generation doesn't 100% relate to them, especially in the international markets. We need more.

The economy isn't great. It actually is really bad... but it won't be bad forever.

When it does improve, will we be ready? Will we have the hot new products that the market wants to buy? Stop reacting to short term measures... show some resilience.

Let me be clear, I admire and really enjoy all my coworkers from India. They are so happy and super smart. But investing in India as a sports company is not the right move. They don’t really play any sports at all high level other than cricket. They aren’t represented in world cups, in Olympics, in any of the major sports, in fashion. VA talks about this being a big bet, but that’s exactly what we don’t need right now. We don’t need to bet, we know where our consumers are, let’s focus our resources in those areas and continue to expand there.

I just wish we got one that makes a bit more sense than this mess.

Here is what MH posted on the Slack Channel:

The takeaway isn’t that everything you heard today is new. Our purpose hasn’t changed, and our businesses will continue to have distinct strategies for the markets and customers they serve.
And importantly, our growth, goals, are not separate from our impact. Growth should come from serving more learners and customers, delivering stronger outcomes and earning greater trust. That growth in turn, gives us more capacity to reinvest in our products, our people and the capabilities that strengthen the flywheel.
What is different is that we now one shared enterprise strategy that connects where we play, how we win, the goals we’re working toward, and how we work together. As Cengage has evolved to become a more integrated, market-facing company, we need that common context to make clearer choices about priorities, investments, and tradeoffs and to make better use of capabilities and strengths across the company. The real test of this strategy will be how it increasingly shows up in our Objective and Key Results (OKR’s), operating rhythms, investment decisions, and day-to-day work. OKR’s will be the framework we increasingly use across the enterprise to track goals and priorities.
On confidentiality, the SOAP and the specific goals and strategy we discussed are internal, and competitively sensitive details should not be shared externally.

The good: they finally said there is a long term plan

The bad: they keep acting on short term profitability (layoffs). You can't have both ways

By firing that many people they are basically signaling Nike will be a smaller company in the coming years

Air Force 1 resurgence saves the day because apparently the answer to ki-ling the Dunk is going back to 1982.

PACE keeps pacing, the India supply-chain team will be cooking while we sleep and sleeping while we work, and unless somebody plans on selling a million pairs of one shoe, none of this fixes the math.

Good news though: now that we’re down to four geos, maybe we can just combine the other three and hide the North America decline.

See you at $26.

Statement:
ConocoPhillips has notified employees, partners and regulators that it is evaluating a potential sale of its Norway business and Teesside asset after receiving an unsolicited offer. This evaluation is consistent with the company's disciplined strategy to optimize and high-grade its portfolio. If we do not receive an offer that meets the company's expectations for value, ConocoPhillips will retain the assets.

What are your thoughts?

geoff and team seem convinced ai will solve all our problems. maybe if they spent a little more time talking to actual physicians and patients, they’d understand where ai is useful and where it simply isn’t.

ai makes sense for reducing administrative burden. it has a clear future in manufacturing, imaging, workflow optimization, and plenty of other areas. but when a patient needs a catheter to solve an actual clinical problem, an algorithm isn’t replacing the therapy.

the idea that ai is somehow about to "disrupt" every medical device category feels like something you believe when you spend more time in executive meetings than around actual clinical practice. ai will absolutely disrupt a lot of corporate work, including the work of executives who apparently need technological assistance just to read and respond to emails on time.

therapy is different, yep.

getting that distinction wrong can have real consequences for patients. cathworks may ultimately demonstrate that gm paid for an expensive science project, while scientia may prove to be the kind of practical technology that delivers value for years. time will tell, but apparently nuance isn’t nearly as exciting as putting "ai" on a strategy slide.

Cisco's AI talk is the Potemkin village; the balance sheet is still routers and switches. Cisco wasn't in the room where the real AI titans sat. Maybe because everyone already knows a Potemkin village doesn't get invited to the palace

We are significantly lagging behind competitors in both digital assets and artificial intelligence. While we are late to roll out crypto offerings falsely assuming we are at the technological forefront our AI capabilities are even further behind the market.

Robinhood has leapfrogged standard API integration by introducing an MCP architecture with automated trade pre-approval and an expanded ecosystem of third-party data feeds. They are providing retail and custom developers with streamlined access to high-value data sources that were previously difficult to source and integrate:

Unusual Whales: Tracks unusual options activity ($30/mo).
SkyFi: Provides satellite intelligence and real-world Earth imagery ($10/mo).
Narravance: Detects viral stocks and emerging social media chatter ($8/mo).
Additional Providers: Includes institutional-grade data tools from Nasdaq, SpotGamma, Quiver Quantitative, Token Terminal, Carbon Arc, and Fiscal.ai.

https://robinhood.com/us/en/campaign/presents/

I'm sure they are getting a cut of the monthly subscriptions, should be a big moneymaker for them. They are also moving to 24x7 trading....

CS missed the boat as always due to mismanagement at the top... a complete lack of original strategy. All we can do is slow follow... unfortunately things are moving so fast a slow follow is as good as doing nothing.

Can someone tell me how running the same playbook that ran us into the ground around walking out of wholesale (aka in china this is a distributor model bc of mono brand retail) in the MOST RELATIONSHIP DRIVEN COUNTRY ON THE PLANET is a good idea?

Who signed off on this? Who believes the investment in own retail over partner doors a success for us so doing it now will help us?

All that will happen is those storefronts will change to competitor brands and we will lose not shelf space but PRIME RETAIL LOCATIONS,

Good god help us all.

ai foundry looks untouched, wealth seems pretty protected, while content, dso, product and senior people have all taken hits. if thats intentional, then the layoffs are basically showing us the strategy before leadership actually explains it. are we definately moving away from parts of the old factset core? its wierd that employees have to recieve the strategy by watching which teams survive and which ones get cut. would be useful to seperate cost cutting from actual strategic direction.

Two long-standing game development studios have successfully navigated industry layoffs by implementing conservative growth strategies. Jackbox Games and Rebellion Developments have avoided significant staff reductions by focusing on sustainable business models. Jackbox Games relies on its annual Party Pack releases, where individual game performance does not critically impact the company. Rebellion Developments maintains a consistent release schedule with controlled budgets, supported by a back catalog and diverse revenue streams. Both companies emphasize realistic expectations and strategic decision-making to ensure long-term stability.

Chicago, Illinois

https://gamesbeat.com/how-two-veteran-studios-have-avoided-layoffs-sustainability-lessons-for-games/

We hear a lot from leadership, but somehow we always end up with more questions than answers. There's plenty of polished language and very little that tells employees where we're actually going.

I don't care if the stock goes +10 or -10% on this earnings call. I truly don't.
Measure the inputs, not just hope that the outputs will improve by themselves.
Accountability on the things that will move the needle. EH and his leadership team will run investor day .

I hope they don't keep changing the plans. Show the 24 month plan and stick with it. Get it done. We need accountability, not short-term promises.

One of the most frustrating things about career advancement here is realizing that performance, experience, education, and demonstrated leadership are not necessarily what determine who moves up. After years of strong performance, the feedback can still boil down to “relationships, image, exposure, and sponsorship” and that the employee needs to figure out what they need to do differently.

That feels backwards. If an organization has experienced, high-performing employees who repeatedly compete for advancement but remain stuck, leadership should have some responsibility for identifying the gap, creating development opportunities, and building an actual path forward. Telling employees to simply “figure it out” while promotions depend heavily on who knows you, who sees you, and who advocates for you is not a meaningful development strategy.

At some point, companies need to ask whether their talent systems are actually developing people or simply rewarding those who already have the right visibility and relationships.

Just saw one of the fastest thread takedowns I think I've ever seen. It may have been there a minute or two before I saw it but I was in the middle of responding to it when it disappeared. 😂

I guess it was one of the trolls at T bragging about their new AI something or another that was in the news today.

But it got me to thinking.

What are we doing with our wireless network right now?

I have no idea what we've done recently to improve it.

All I hear about is dark fiber, data centers and free AI training for the nation.

And with T getting two big announcements in two days for their 5G improvements, is Dan's plan to actually let the wireless side kind of fizzle out?

Wireless does seem to be the focus of a lot of the layoffs lately unless I am mistaken.

Yes, you heard it right. Your compensation and maybe even job will depend on how much of this garbage you repeat.
Yes, they are the worst batch of leaders NM has ever seen.
Yes, they spent millions of dollars and over a year to dream up what you just saw.
Yes, it was absolutely underwhelming.
Yes, they gave you absolutely nothing new.
Yes, there is no way this will work.
Yes, NM is in huge trouble.

https://247wallst.com/personal-finance/2026/09/21/humana-is-dropping-plans-covering-600000-members-and-hopes-240000-choose-humana-again-the-replacement-is-not-the-same-plan/

The stock price is about where it was when Chris became CEO in 2019.

Way to go, Chris! How's that "strategy" panning out???

Have some dignity and resign. Or just ask the board to fire you, which is beyond me why they haven't.

White space, commercial, white space, underpenetrated (eww), white space,…

I’m looking for a serious discussion here: no trolling, rage bait, etc.

I’m assuming if you’re still here, you either have no options or genuinely enjoy whatever culture we have left, especially if you got in before COVID.

Anyway, what do you think about the new structure changes? What do you think the plan is?

There is a question worth asking about the recent RIFs affecting Customer Success Managers across Oracle Consumer Industries:

Why does it appear that Hospitality CSMs are carrying a disproportionate share of the reductions compared with Food & Beverage?

The question becomes more interesting when you consider the nature of the two businesses.

Hotel technology particularly at the enterprise level is incredibly complex. A Hospitality CSM may be dealing with global hotel companies operating hundreds or thousands of properties, OPERA Cloud deployments, integrations, payments, distribution, loyalty, partners, escalations and major transformation programs.

These aren't simply account-management roles. The best Hospitality CSMs often become the connective tissue between the customer, Support, Development, Consulting, Sales, Product and executive leadership.

If Hospitality is also delivering stronger profitability and margins than F&B, as some believe, the disparity becomes even more difficult to understand. It would be useful to see the actual numbers.

And there is another question that probably needs to be asked:

Does the background of the current Consumer Industries leadership play any role in how Customer Success resources are being allocated?

With leadership experience coming from the F&B side of the business, could there naturally be greater familiarity with or a different view of the F&B Customer Success model and its staffing requirements?

That doesn't mean anyone is deliberately protecting one organization at the expense of another. Nor is this an argument that F&B CSMs should be losing their jobs instead.

It's a question about whether the two businesses are being evaluated using the right criteria.

If Hospitality has greater customer complexity, larger enterprise transformations, significant integration requirements and attractive margins, what is the business rationale for deeper reductions in Hospitality Customer Success?

Maybe there is a good answer.

But employees and customers deserve to understand the strategy.

What metrics are actually determining where the CSM reductions occur and are Hospitality and F&B truly being evaluated on an equivalent basis?

I was genuinely happy to see that we are finally building a GCC for a bank—something we have all been looking forward to. However, as we have moved into execution, it increasingly feels like a single-person agenda. It no longer feels like a Truist GCC; it feels like a “T-GCC.”
The leadership style has been non-collaborative, with a lack of maturity and, at times, an abrasive communication style. There seems to be a strong personal agenda to maintain 100% control, creating significant friction and politics very early in what should be a long-term strategic capability.
I have always had great respect for SA, but I feel he has placed too much control with T. I am not sure whether he—or others involved—fully recognize how much friction and a negative culture have already been created.
We are already behind on this initiative, and I am concerned the current direction is taking us further away from where we need to be. I am becoming skeptical about moving my function into the GCC because I genuinely question whether it will help us achieve what we intended.
It is also surprising that HR, Risk, GSD… are allowing this to continue. what is our GCC partner doing about it ?
What we seed today will grow within the GCC. If we continue to seed friction, politics, and a lack of collaboration, that is the culture we will ultimately build.

I guess 100 million to mckinsey wasn't enough

EOM

Belk’s workplace culture is antiquated and old school, as is the customer base.

The customer base is dying. Literally. Belk’s customers are kicking the bucket and there is nobody to replace them.

33 Directors + 3 VPs + 2 SVPs = A tone-deaf waste of time and money.

The math is hard to ignore - between flights, lodging, meals, and lost working hours, this easily represents close to a half-million dollar investment. For that expense, I'd expect a concrete deliverable: a roadmap, reorg decision, or a prioritized set of initiatives with owners and dates. As far as I can tell, none of that has materialized - nor will it. No memo, no readout, no change in direction.

This seems like a good moment to ask a harder question: why does IT currently support a director population this large relative to its actual scope of delivery? A retreat of this size implies a leadership bench that, on paper, should be shaping strategy, but the day-to-day experience for most of the org is that priorities shift reactively, tickets sit unworked, and nobody below the director layer can point to what these roles are actually accountable for.

If 39 directors and above can be pulled out of the building for a week with no discernible business impact, it's evidence the roles themselves may be over-provisioned.

So Dan's been here a Year... can anyone provide top 3 goals/strategies that is being implemented for Culture change?

I sit through All Hands and leave clueless.

Sampath at least repeated each session.

Strayer University must not of taught that to Directors.

Interesting Linkedin post with internal and external POV on the Hugo fiasco and the resultant $700M investment for the right to sell someone elses robot?

https://lnkd.in/p/gN_sz95G

The drastic cuts
Restructured comp plans
Hold-out on commission payouts.
Gunning for EPS and headlines.

NVIDIA would never move to reduce its revenue-per-head (RPH). Our executives should not be offended. It’s not practical to compare Dell RPH to NVIDIA. Server production (and rest of Dell portfolio) in a predominantly direct-sales model will always yield higher operational cost than chip manufacturing in an alliance/OEM model.

MD should be proud of the massive company and portfolio of products he built. Dell ranks only slightly below median RPH compared to similar businesses.

The long-term strategy (and legacy) would be to treat employees well. Don’t go down like this MD.

I retired fairly recently after working for CMCSA for 17 years all of which was in HQ. I am not disagreeing with comments about leaders not changing focus, product development issues or competing/over-lapping groups but what tech or product should CMCSA have "pivoted" (man I hate that word) to?

It was only a matter of time before video would die and the theme park experiment was just that. So where should they have invested in?

I know very little about all sports, but I enjoyed watching the US Open this year. It seems like the right size sport to measure whether the sport offense strategy is working (running for example way more disjointed and hard to comprehend). 2 years of EH feels like enough time to do some dummy analysis.

Mens winner wore Adidas

Womens winner wore an Asian brand I don't know

Mens runner up who seems very marketable/American wore On

Our top player Alcaraz is wearing Travis Scott backwards Swoosh stuff (this is not "innovation" and not sport related)

I can't find any exclusive shoe of a top player we sponsor online

Tennis Warehouse which looks to be the biggest retailer in tennis showcases us the same way online that Fleet Feet running does for our running stuff

I can't find any decent brand/storytelling about Alcaraz, Sinner (Google says he didn't play), Sabalenka. I remember we used to do this well during the Sampras Agassi era.

Serena and Osaka both past their prime but feels like we focus a lot on marketing them despite their wearing old models/non Nike retail stuff and on the back end of their careers.

Product seemed boring/bland/no innovation compared to other brands. That's in everything I could find abut design and what the swag actually is.

Which GM or VP leads this? Do you think they think we were successful in the biggest tennis sport event of the year? How much do we make off this business and should we exit to win in areas we are more realistic in? I wonder how much we pay top athletes and what the ROI is.