Thread regarding Comcast layoffs

Excellent, senior leadership with applicable and relevant technology skills along with significant people skills, and the ability to inspire and motivate have been severely lacking at Comcast.

I’ve worked there 20 years and have made it to the upper levels. I’ve witnessed this myself.

Only nepotism gets you to the top here.

Everyone getting laid off in a severance should be happy. Take the time to reset skill and join a company with better senior leaders.

If you find yourself completely unprepared for this with no suitable or valuable skills outside of the Comcast bubble, you yourself are part of the problem.

Embrace the reality

@a4 bingo.

@ce it’s impossible to disagree unless you’re defending the company. You can’t reformulate reality like you hope just to protect your sense of identity. This is the problem. Your rose colored glasses to the issues is why there’s a layoff…and another…and another.

@c9 so leave?

@c9 That’s a lot of projection for someone preaching objective reality. You’ve invented an entire narrative about strangers on an anonymous message board. Hard truth: Not everyone who disagrees with you is defending the company. Sometimes your argument just isn’t as compelling as you think it is.

@a8 13 year lows for stock.

@c2 a lot of defensive word salad there. I cannot make your Stockholm Syndrome come to objective reality rather than the reality you want it to be. You’re defending a company that restructures or lays off quietly and loudly every other quarter for years EXCEPT for their leaders while claiming its top nepotism and cronyism aren’t signs of a greater dysfunction. There will always be someone who attempts to minimize reality because they’re scared of it. That’s you and your fellow cronies who are now facing the consequences. But you cannot force your desired reality onto other people, especially not with desperate attempts to distract through a thesaurus.

@ay The irony of confusing correlation with causation while demanding objectivity is remarkable. Nobody disputed the existence of cronyism. You’re simply treating speculation as evidence and personal attacks as rebuttals. Corporate dysfunction isn’t proof of a uniquely dysfunctional governance model. But perhaps October 28 will clarify which assumptions actually survive scrutiny

@a8 You changed your position because you’re attempting to force yourself into being correct. It’s a typical move of Comcast leaders. You also cannot prove that every company has it to the same extent as Comcast nor that Comcast isn’t unique. As someone even pointed out, Comcast polices itself with board members also being executives - many also friends. You also cannot say that being a crony doesn’t change the argument because of course someone is willing to argue otherwise if cronyism benefits them instead of objectively looking at facts. It is no surprise you’re blind to that like the leaders are that have allowed cronyism and nepotism to nosedive this place to the ground irregular to other companies.

Maybe Chieftain was right 18 years ago…

https://archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/investor-calls-for-ouster-of-comcast-chief/

@a9 it’s a baller move

What can the Board do when Brian holds/controls the private class B stock?

I think that structure makes Comcast stand out

@a7 You’re confusing disagreement with a change in position. My point hasn’t changed: corporate politics and cronyism aren’t unique to Comcast. Saying the degree varies isn’t a contradiction; it’s common sense. You’re claiming they RUN Comcast, which is a much bigger assertion than saying they exist. Where’s the evidence that Comcast is uniquely worse than other Fortune 500 companies? And resorting to calling someone a crony because they challenge your argument doesn’t exactly strengthen yours. You can criticize leadership without abandoning critical thinking.

@a6 you can’t just try and change your point to pretend you actually made one. Your point was that Comcast isn’t unique and their point is that it is: nepotism and cronyism RUN the company. Thats different from your sudden change of heart now agreeing it can happen in pockets and degrees. Just say you’re actually one of the benefitting cronies or nepo leaders here and keep it moving.

@a4 You’re actually reinforcing my point. Nepotism, cronyism and corporate politics aren’t unique to Comcast. The degree may vary, but these dynamics exist across corporate America. And let’s not pretend Ralph built an empire entirely free of politics or personal relationships. The real question is whether the people in charge are delivering results. When they aren’t, the board has a responsibility to intervene. That’s when titles, relationships and years of loyalty stop being guaranteed protection. The very people who built and benefited from the hierarchy may find themselves on the list. Corporate politics work both ways.

@a2 I hope you’re right, but I’m skeptical

@a2 no, it doesn’t happen at every company. It might happen in pockets in every company but Comcast is made of nepotism and cronyism at the top and it’s finally caught up with them. Brian was handed a pot of gold by Ralph but to keep it running, you need that same hard working spirit and discernment. Brian is instead surrounded by lovebombing narcissists who kiss up and punch down and are tanking the company due their lack of talent and cronyism.

This happens at every corporation. When a company is performing well, the C-suite has the freedom to lead. When performance deteriorates, the board starts calling the shots. Suddenly, the executives who made the decisions, the layers of management they created, and the people they brought along become subject to scrutiny. Poor performance shifts the conversation from protecting leadership to holding it accountable. And being part of the inner circle doesn't guarantee protection when the board demands change.