As we move through a horrible week for our employees, there is little reason to believe our most senior executives will change course.
As Rome burns, the meetings continue. Sam S. and Jon G., our strategic development and chief growth officer, hold court on AI companies, trips to California, and the latest voice bot. There are endless slides and metrics, but little scrutiny of what those numbers mean—or what any of it is doing for our customers.
Meanwhile, Verizon signs a $2 billion connectivity deal with AWS - isnt that a strategic development ? Or is a white paper on AI a strategic development ?
Aren’t we a connectivity company? Our customers keep leaving, and the business keeps cycling through its familiar approach: a thousand dartboard approach to yet another offer strategy, another plan, endless complexities that are introduced and ZERO impact to our customer or shareholders (lets celebrate a negative NPS)
The same finance and business leaders —MH, JG, JW, KK, and others—who directed millions of dollars toward a sprawling portfolio of roughly hundreds plan-of-record projects per quarter, year after year, remain in place. Where are the results on churn? Where is the sustained benefit to the stock? Where is the accountability?
Instead, employees who did their best to execute those strategies are paying the price this week. The people who set the direction are still here.
Shiny objects offer a convenient distraction from the operational problems our customers experience every day: broken customer experiences, constantly changing offers, inconsistent execution, and pet projects that consume resources without delivering meaningful results. One moment - Charter knows better, follow them ... wait, I just had lunch with ATT, follow ATT, wait magenta is my favorite color, lets follow T-Mobile.
So much for Angelakis and Croney’s “year of hard truths.”
The meetings are the same. Too few decisions. Too little follow-through. Too few hard conversations. We get lost in slides and EBI metrics that are too often questionable, while discussions about technology stacks and the AI promise of the day provide an easy escape from accountability and the hard truth about any outcomes.
At some point, the ELT has to own the responsibilities of its roles. AI, a deluge of EBI dashboards, and executive opinions about yet another AI company to test, to get the 'I am an innovator badge' - innovation cannot compensate for a failure to address the basic problems frustrating our customers, none of which requires AI to fix. Instead, meetings with 50-plus minions become prolonged debates over yet another pricing strategy, simple content changes that take weeks to decide. The same pattern repeats across countless lack of decisions, meetings, and initiatives, while customers and employees absorb the consequences.
And now we have a transformation office... there is hope .. maybe not
But it is led by the same HR and finance leadership that helped shape the organization we are supposedly transforming. The same functions that hammered the technology teams, didn't bat an eye on the broken business strategy and shenanigans, the bullying and the approved the allocation of millions of $$ behind the pet projects and POR (that had ZERO impact on the growth of the company) are now being asked to lead a transformation LOL.
What, specifically, will be different this time? What demonstrated record of delivery supports that confidence? What authority, expectations, and consequences will change?
A new office does not establish accountability. Another presentation does not demonstrate progress. And another round of employee cuts does not answer the central question:
Why are the people responsible for setting the direction still insulated from the consequences, while the people tasked with executing it lose their jobs