A couple of the leaders that “retired” have been near the top of the wireless organization pyramid for a long time. Does anyone know whether this is the just the usual game of leadership musical chairs or whether effective change is coming?
8 replies (most recent on top)
@a3 replaced or reduced? Do we really need this many “leaders”? They want to save money they need to start eliminating those huge salaries, not us peons.
The larger strategic question is how the company should deploy approximately $5 billion in capital.
Should it prioritize stock buybacks, growth investment, debt reduction, or dividends? Buybacks may improve short-term financial metrics, but they do not build future competitiveness.
Automation can reduce costs, optimize networks, improve service, and increase workforce productivity. But becoming efficient at operating yesterday’s business is not a strategy for building tomorrow’s.
AI-led innovation requires deep expertise in telecom networks, customers, operations, and economics. Generic AI prototypes cannot replace experienced people who understand network architecture, spectrum, edge infrastructure, customer behavior, operations, and the economics of telecommunications.
Alphonso/Ferry t are seasoned mgmt consultant without any real experience running large organization. They can suggest transformation but don't have leadership to "drive" innovation. They can think "business" and "understand "finance" but don't understand "network" & "technology" and AI is primarily technology.
These changes seems to be strategic and the mastermind behind it clearly is Alfonso, and these changes supports the earlier decision to get rid of other "leaders". I hope this is only a first round in N&T, as there are still some names at the top tier that do not make any sense to stay. Then they have to go another level into VP and below to clean up the toxic environment those "Leaders" have created.
@a7 You are right, there is a lack of leadership, though I am not so sure about the presence of highly capable engineers. Don’t let yourself get distracted by DEI or the online hive mindset. Bureaucracy is the answer. Once people reach a position worth keeping, they play the game and make whatever decisions are most convenient to be admired by fellow bureaucrats. It takes unique individuals to stand alone; you might say you could be that person, but they are the ones holding the role and making the choices. Meanwhile, bureaucrats retire or run off those who don't play along, stand out, or simply make others feel bad about themselves. Sounds familiar to non-management teams, doesn't it?
Many leaders (Shankar/Vivek) were highly capable engineers, but technical intelligence was too often mistaken for leadership ability. The inner circle largely consisted of people who agreed with one another, while independent and outside perspectives were not genuinely embraced. The fact that many people joining from outside the established circle left within three to five years suggests a deeper cultural and leadership problem.
His organization actively promoted a culture of visibility through DevOps competitions, hackathons, repeated demonstrations, presentations, and LinkedIn posts. Although such activities can encourage innovation, they increasingly appeared focused on recognition, personal branding, and acting like corporate celebrities rather than producing meaningful and sustainable outcomes.
He remained in the role for too long, allowing the leadership culture to become increasingly insular. For example The appointment of Kalyani—whose experience appeared to be primarily in enterprise project management—to lead the AI and Data Office further raised questions about whether senior positions were being filled based on the capabilities required for the role. This is where genuine leadership matters most: making difficult, transparent, merit-based decisions in the company’s best interest.
DEI should broaden access to talent and strengthen merit—not be used to justify favoritism, token appointments, or nepotism. When personal relationships, internal politics, or optics appear to outweigh relevant expertise and demonstrated performance, credibility suffers and the company ultimately bears the cost.
@OP it is a remarkable thing, what this group of leaders has done over the years and still be around and keep doing the same over and over again with no accountability. They swivel their chairs around and save themselves with each reorg. But never...ever had they achieved any meaningful value for the business, yet they are still up there keeping up with these stupid useless changes that make things worse....and what's more incredible is the fact that the board keeps them around
@a3 What a breath of fresh air, this would do it for sure! I would just add these replacements likely need to come from outside the company to avoid the in hiring network issues that caused this mess in the first place.
It would happen if all of these becomes true
1) EVP, SVP is replaced - Done
2) of out of all of VP at least 75% replaced - Planned
3) of out of Sr Dir at least 50% replaced - Planned
4) AD/Director is at least 25% replaced - Planned
4) VZ India is completely outsourced or directly reporting to onshore at mgr level