We’re always waiting for the 1 very not available VP or SVP to bless a decision because they won’t let an AVP or SD make basic decisions.
12 replies (most recent on top)
Some platforms after 8 years have no oversight, 6 million invested, multi-year purchase order, no return on investment. Exabeam investment all over again. How could this occur ? That is just 1 platform. How about VCSD, 10 year+ in house developed application that relies on accurate inventory.. Accurate inventory by whom? and what happens when those developers leave?
the AI token costs per group are in denial, one Associate Director stated oh we are not being charged by the vendor for use of AI in that vendor's solution or solutions. The same statement was made when Verizon transitioned from on prem to Cloud. To implement and obtain approval of an OCI instance in Verizon OCI, it was worse than a bill being passed at the US Government. ITAM asset tagging was a 4 year effort, and still failed due assuming Verizon asset inventory even using the decade old swinfo, now recently to some new platform that zero user testing was conducted. That was a total disaster. Verizon DNS 3.0, been a task for almost 11 years,
not one person from Network Engineering under Jake has reviewed the data itself, and cleaned up decades old entries. SSH Agentless initiative, since Adam B left, no one at Verizon that SSH Key management is not well architected at all. Platform testing is meek at best. Some Senior Directors rely on Vendors to provide granular testing plans, btw a 1 page .pdf is not a granular test plan. Verizon itself should not be an Enterprise test environment for vendors, or if a multi-million dollar platform is selected, the Verizon that owns the operations of stated solutions should begin with a runbook not assume vendor documentation is catered to Verizon's internal day to day operations. That is just a small taste of what has been incorrect with Verizon's day to day.
Since when has an SD made a decision? They are just puppets of senior leaders whose hands are up their you know what.
or the SD and AVP should let go if they do not contribute but only ask AI do the slides for them now and then.
there were so many toxic people in one group due to the former manager pitting people and entire teams against each other. Relying on his opinion on who could present to the former CISO and SVP. Some of their former direct reports didn't even login into the tools, did almost nothing for years on end. Those direct reports would always shuffle the work off to someone else or would spend half their time managing their rental properties during work hours. One Associate Director in a year, probably worked less than 3 months of the year.
@a9 Let’s see how long it takes Jon to figure this out.
Wei Lin also needs to revamp her organization. Right now, it’s on a downward trajectory under the person in charge, who seems to prioritize her favorites over actual performance and merit.
@a6: what is the minimum tally for direct reports hence why have an AD for two-people?? There has to be a minimum of 8-people is/was the policy?
@a5 My AD has only two people under her because she creates toxic environment and people leave. I still don’t understand why is she still a people leader. Can’t wait to leave
A lot of ADs only have 4-5 people reporting to them! What is the point?
When a simple decision requires five weeks and five people to get approved, it creates unnecessary bureaucracy that slows down progress and impacts work performance.
These endless approval cycles waste time, reduce productivity, and add to frustration. You cannot expect people to perform at their best when the system itself creates obstacles instead of enabling them to get work done.
@a1: yes, agree, indeed!!!
I could say the same for many SDs and ADs
flatten the curve !!!