#accountability

For years, many of us watched the ISG organization abandon the very disciplines required to build successful enterprise software. Some spoke up. Most stayed silent. Leadership either didn't listen or simply didn't care.

Now the bill has finally come due.

Products are being shut down. Teams are being eliminated. Many good people are paying the price—not because they failed, but because leadership failed them.

This wasn't bad luck.

This wasn't "market conditions."

This wasn't AI.

This was years of poor execution, weak leadership, and a culture that stopped holding itself accountable.

Engineering operated without meaningful deadlines. Roadmaps became wish lists instead of commitments. Deliverables slipped quarter after quarter with few, if any, consequences.

Product Management became meaningless. Engineering dictated schedules and features it repeatedly failed to meet. The competition, with 1/10th the resources, moved three to five times faster in their velocities. Customers were promised capabilities that never materialized. Eventually leadership stopped publishing roadmaps altogether because they had lost all credibility.

None of this should surprise anyone. When an organization rewards excuses instead of execution, failure becomes inevitable. When commitments mean nothing, customers eventually notice. When accountability disappears, poor quality follows. When mediocrity is tolerated long enough, it becomes the culture.

No engineering organization succeeds without discipline. No product organization succeeds without accountability. No enterprise software company succeeds when deadlines become optional and execution becomes negotiable. The market eventually exposes every weakness that leadership chooses to ignore.

That's exactly what happened.

Companies the size of Dell don't fail overnight. They fail one missed commitment, one ignored warning, one delayed release, and one poor leadership decision at a time.

Eventually, reality always wins. The bill has finally come due.

1. The Segment leaders have been over promoted. Most have never delivered at Fiserv and then we put them in more impactful jobs hoping for different results!

2. FIG is heavy in the SVP area (ex - Core Sales, 3 SVPs managing a handful of people running Core migrations. Same in the RM area.. lots of Chiefs and then lots of Chiefs that have Zero knowledge of the business. Clients are frustrated!

3. Net new logos SE team logs a lot travel expenses... where are the new sales? (ZERO because they are visiting existing clients because the leadership is measuring T&E as productivity!!!!!) - Measure SALES and Golf, Steak and Wine dinners - so much waste in that group.

4. If you REALLY care to know where the skeletons are... call / interview the tenured SVP and VPs that exited in the last 6 months since Divya got there. They will tell you why they left and what rocks to look under! The institutional knowledge lost is mind numbing and the clients are suffering.

5. Lots activity and no results. FIG is never a double digit growth business. But, it is also not a negative growth business. The people you have left there will sink it further.

And.. yes, I have tried to speak up... no one cares! The SVPs are merely trying to get to the next paycheck and vesting... they are not driving CHANGE!

The last guy who actually knew what he was doing was Ivan Seidenberg. I know some of the current management doesn't like him either because he ki-led the pension, but at least he actually knew the nuts and bolts of the business and legitimately wanted us to have the best cell phone and fiber optic network. All downhill after that. Lack of knowledge, lack of regulation, while at the same time the executive compensation took off like rocket ship. Damn shame. good luck to all.

Good move on Travis V. He was obvious, d-mb as dirt.

However, you need to do the same for the rest of the clowns in ISG - Directors, VPs, SVPs. A couple are okay but most have no business doing what they're getting paid to do. Just look at their track records. Their failed records speak loud and clear who should hit the bricks.

How Dell managed to bring in so many incompetent dipshiiiits in high ranking positions is a mystery.

The main problem is that our government contracts public traded corporations such as the above mentioned to take tax payer government funds and allow these companies to make administrative decisions on what claims get paid or not. The main issue with that is these are profit-based corporations required to put shareholders profits before members. The Medicare & Medicaid Members are secondary to them in regards to being their customer. The shareholders are their priority customer.

It is time for the government to drop these public stock traded health insurance corporations and find a way to contract with not-for-profit, non-public-stock-traded, companies to administer Medicare Advantage and Medicaid.

I am astonish to discover after some research, how many of those middle management people at Centene have just a high school or just or just a CNA. I cannot reasonable understand how they can provide with real leadership and evaluate people in a real balanced way. What can we expect from people without any education to The Cost-Efficiency Model: Corporations often prioritize the ability to "do more with less." A manager who can reliably enforce corporate mandates and keep the department functioning within budget—regardless of their academic credentials—is often viewed as "effective" by the organization, even if they lack the capacity for the systemic, empathetic leadership. I understand now, why the government is checking and following the health care organizations....

I’m not exactly a fan of Trump, but I do give him and, more importantly, Oz credit for cracking down on healthcare fraud. We all know the health/medical system has flown largely under the radar. That time appears to be over and I’m all for rounding up rogue doctors, hospital administrators, nurses, pharmacists, DME providers, etc.

Six years is enough time to judge a strategy and its results. Nothing has improved.

Leadership shouldn’t be evaluated by speeches, memos, or slogans. It should be evaluated by results.

Has the company become a more attractive place to work? Has it become easier to recruit top talent? Has morale improved? Has the culture become stronger? Has the strategy delivered the long-term results shareholders and employees were promised?

Those are the questions the board should be asking and the answer to every single one is NO.

I think it’s fair to ask whether the current strategy and the leadership behind it is the right one for the company’s future.

No leader should be immune from accountability. A truly market-based culture should hold leadership to the same standard it expects of everyone else. Nobody else with this poor performance would still be around. Get this loser out while there’s still something to save.

Every time I try to create a post, this captcha expires. Guess what I have to say is too long-winded. Here, let me reach out to copilot to assist with condensing the pertinent pieces of information:

The LACK of financial accountability and the LACK of governance has been around for at LEAST the last 6 years. If only you knew how many millions of the taxpayer dollar has been WASTED on applications, contractors, unnecessary airfare and travel, and failed ENTERPRISE LEVEL projects led by directors with no institutional knowledge (i.e, OMG, what’s the difference between a 1500 and UB-04?). Now, all of a sudden you wanna be good stewards of taxpayer dollars? Well, you know what they say: You only miss the water when the well runs dry. I won’t elaborate because clearly, spirit is protecting me from saying too much, but if only you can take a walk in my shoes……. You might understand. Get to know God. This is just the beginning. And no I’m not JUST talking about this job. It, ALL OF IT is going to get worse. And no, I’m not the Bible thumper who was being bullied earlier. 😂😂

I’m younger. I don’t have a pension. I’m here because the job makes financial sense for my role. Call that “market-based” if you want. But if a better opportunity comes along, I’m gone.

Most of the employees around me everyday are much closer to retirement than I am. Some are already beyond the Rule of 75. If a voluntary package comes along, they’ll likely take it. If not, they can afford to wait it out.

The irony is that the current strategy is pushing out the very people the company should be trying hardest to keep.

As the job market improves, us younger employees with transferable skills will have more options. Five-day RTO, presence reports, and constant uncertainty make it easier to say yes to those opportunities.

Replacing us won’t be cheap, and it won’t be quick. Hiring costs are higher, onboarding takes time, and it can take years before a new employee reaches full productivity. Then, if the culture hasn’t changed, they’ll leave too.

The solutions is straightforward - - Offer a voluntary separation package to employees who are already considering retirement instead of waiting for attrition.

Return to a 2–3 day hybrid schedule to improve recruiting and retention. If leadership insists on five-day RTO, then compensation will have to become much more competitive.

Hold individuals accountable for performance. If someone isn’t doing the job, manage that directly. Don’t build policies around the assumption that everyone needs to be treated the same because a few people aren’t performing.

The company talks a lot about being “market-based”… The labor market is about to remind them what that actually means.

Let’s call it out the directors of the UR Department are world class actresses but little to no experience actually doing the front line work
They attempt to put on world class performances but the workers know
It could be so much better

Hybrid work should be evaluated on outcomes and deliverables, not solely on days in office or commute distance. If managers are meeting their commitments and supporting their teams effectively, a 2-day in-office cadence can be reasonable under current policy. Where concerns exist, they’re best addressed through documented feedback via HR or leadership channels, rather than informal assumptions. Let’s keep the focus on accountability and results for everyone, at every level.

I'm constantly asked to train new hires, but I have way too much on my own plate to be doing that. It's not part of my job and I can't keep up with my own work when I'm spending time explaining things to people who should have been better trained before they started. And the new hires are just as frustrated because they're not really being trained properly. They're just expected to pick things up as they go. This is entirely management's fault and they need to do something about it.

Is this going to be Nike's independence day? Check out the unforced error discussion here.
Come on marketing and merchandising leaders... You can do better!
Will we ever learn and improve? No one at the top echelons ever pays for their mistakes, do they? Instead the rank and file suffers.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/nike-self-inflicted-wounds-risking-070000329.html

We now have more Vice Chairman's than business leaders - we have a Chief Growth Officer who NEVER grew anything ever and a Chief Performance Officer who presided over the largest DECLINE in performance in the companies history. You can't make this up. Isn't the CHRO supposed to be in charge of organization structure? Time for Takis to clean house with all of this overhead.

Why is that whenever I search for Randal Stephenson he has an ear to ear grin? He has a very big smile and laugh for someone who cost the company over $100 billion. Maybe he lives a very comfortable life after making nearly millions in executive compensation. It makes me just sick inside whenever I see a picture of him. I don’t mind the massive business blunders but just don’t be walking around with the cheekiest grin.

In order to protect my investment, I would prefer to see the decision makers replaced, than the workers, who deliver the revenue. I can get into debt myself, I don't need their help. I want them to report revenue!

How's that working out for our executives?

How many layers of executive management exist between the CFO and a person who actually does some work? I'm looking at an example now that shows 5 layers, all based in Houston, all execs and none actually doing anything other than talking about other folks work. It's embarrassing to see the greed given the pain they're causing the rest of the organisation. Too many snouts in the trough and it needs to stop.

The UK Works Council is only there to give a veneer of respectability to whatever DXC HR choose to do. There is no accountability. They never push back strongly just approve as they are asked to do like good pets. Try talking to them and they just say there is nothing they can do.

What they should do in all conscience is resign from the works council so HR can't say "this was approved by the works council".

how can pals hold each other accountable? they cant. so the consultants who keep hiring their buddies to make a "strategy team" paid 3x what managers are paid can do whatever, rif whoever, and answer to no one with smirks and sarcasm. not new...like last cmo who brought in 4 MD leader pals from caremore. Its gross and cold. Remember yesterdays rifs pay for the next exec.

Every day, associates at BNY Mellon share raw, unfiltered feedback on TheLayoff.com—concerns about ongoing job cuts, shrinking mobility opportunities, and a workplace culture that feels increasingly uncertain. What’s striking isn’t just the volume of comments, but the silence that follows. People are asking whether Executive Leadership genuinely cares about what employees are experiencing or whether these voices are simply being ignored.

The Executive Committee has chosen not to acknowledge the discussions happening across these forums, and that silence speaks loudly. Associates want transparency. They want accountability. They want leadership to show that they understand the human impact behind restructuring decisions. Instead, the absence of communication creates more anxiety, more speculation, and more distrust.

So here’s the question for Executive Management and the broader community: If thousands of employees are expressing the same concerns, why is leadership staying quiet? Silence may be a strategy, but it’s not stewardship. It’s not engagement. And it’s not what a global workforce deserves.

It’s time for leadership to step forward, listen openly, and respond honestly. Employees aren’t asking for perfection—they’re asking for acknowledgment.

The Vz Board needs a complete overhaul based on performance.

Today in WSJ you can read how JP Morgan Board and CEO Jamie Dimon named actual candidates under evaluation for next CEO when Jamie retires.

Meanwhile Verizon Board removes Hans and allows for a hostage video from a broom closet to announce immediate removal from CEO roll.. but not before $24M payment.

The fact the Board had zero transition plan and actual promoted from current Board further highlights the Boards failure.

The stock trend to $30 further validates firing Board.... we need Shareholders and PE investors to take over.

Why the F do we have a Chief Growth and success officer?

We're so top heavy its laughable now

What an embarassing situation for them.

Our OD’s bias has created a toxic culture work environment. His comments about people on our team and those that support our team are sickening. He is NEVER willing to give anyone a fair chance cause of what he hears from others and what he perceives. He is NEVER is willing to listen to other opinions and thoughts. Our OD will never be held accountable for his bias and comments that are toxic.

Laptop, badge and COU and he said also password. Why? Is this the standard now?

Hello, as the BNY People Leader and member of the BNY Executive Committee, there are many posts on this forum the scream loudly for executive leadership attention. People concerns for accountability and transparency on topics related to business transformation and responsible leadership, stewardship of Human Resources and governance. While this forum is outside of PeakOn surveys and other formal feedback mechanisms, the readership here would like to have honest dialogue with you and your peers about company behaviors that have created a beyond toxic workplace environment with restrictive RTO policies, forced and falsified performance ratings, a constant cycle of fear and doom related to real estate closures, layoffs, consolidations, offshoring, onshoring, H1B visas, short staffing, reductions in force, staffing shortages within key departments, offshoring of entire job families, the continued buildup of Pune as the largest growth location within BNY, voracious cost cutting, ageism, forced and voluntary terminations, lack of severance, lawsuits, concerns about WARN Act circumvention, USA EEOC complaints, false optics and disclosure issues, etc., etc.. Should you and your staff be interested in reviewing and addressing my employee feedback beyond retributive PeakOn surveys, we would strongly encourage your direct involvement and attention. You and your EC colleagues are choosing to remain silent on all of these topics while ignoring company bylaws. Please come out… come out wherever you are!!!

ExxonMobil is stacked with unnecessary layers of management, and too many people hide in those layers instead of doing real work. Flattening the organization would cut costs, eliminate pointless hierarchy, and force people to actually earn their salaries. A leaner structure would improve accountability, reduce inefficiency, and stop the cycle of managers managing other managers who contribute nothing.

When Mr. Gerstner became CEO, IBM was facing one of the most challenging periods in its history. He made difficult decisions, refocused the company, preserved IBM as an integrated enterprise, and helped restore its competitiveness. His leadership demonstrated that successful executives must balance long-term strategy, financial discipline, innovation, and customer focus.

A Lou Gerstner Leadership Academy could teach future leaders about:

Leading through major organizational change.
Making tough decisions under pressure.
Putting customers first.
Driving accountability and execution.
Building a culture focused on long-term success rather than short-term popularity.

Whether someone agrees with every decision he made or not, Mr. Gerstner's turnaround of IBM remains one of the most significant corporate leadership stories of the modern era. There are valuable leadership lessons that today's and tomorrow's IBM leaders can still learn from his example.

It remains to be seen whether she will be able to address and Drain the Swamp that has accumulated over the past 15–20 years. There is still limited clarity on the actual responsibilities within ISS, beyond attending meetings and adopting titles such as “product manager” without a clearly defined product to manage. Additionally, our current risk‑management structure raises concerns — specifically, why more than 800+ ISS stakeholders are assigned to the exact same risk. Just check boxers. Only a few really understand Computer Science principles - 90% of them just Talk - Presentations - Strategy - with no meat..Of-course there a few gems in ISS but their work will be clouded and the CISO never ever gets to know who are these gems really are..

New CEO: "Core is a disaster, Government Programs is underwater, and our Leaders aren't accountable" ELT: "We launched an App! and it's almost WEA!" pretty much sums up life here

Since when does a company have almost every single person in the building make a decision on even the littlest things? The higher ups, like ML and that whole lot, have better things to worry about than half of the stuff they have to “approve” before anyone can actually move forward with their jobs.

Have a little faith in the people you employ, and maybe focus more on idk maybe a cohesive brand????? We’ve lost the plot entirely

Before taking the company public, Robert Wood Johnson II worried that shareholder pressure might eventually overwhelm the company's values. To prevent this, he created the famous Johnson & Johnson Credo, which established the company's priorities:

• Patients, doctors, and nurses
• Employees
• Communities
• Shareholders

He believed these priorities were so important that he had the Credo carved into massive limestone monuments placed at company headquarters.

For decades, this philosophy helped guide the company.

Eventually, however, later generations of leadership abandoned it.

I joined Tech going on a year now, and I have been working to improve accountability and address long-standing performance issues. Not to be punitive, but because it’s better to deal with low performance directly than end up laying off good employees later.

My biggest frustration has been HR and specifically, employee relations supporting Tech. It’s hard to get a clear answer on what action to take, harder to get a response, and when you do, the guidance often contradicts what leaders in other departments are being told.

I know they’re under pressure too, and I’ve tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. But when managers can’t get consistent support, it makes leading my teams a lot harder. At some point, that becomes an HR leadership issue. I hope their senior leadership is paying attention.

My first move as pretend AT&T CEO would be pretty simple:

Stop chasing “transformational” nonsense and run the company like a telecom company. Wireless. Fiber. Business services. Network reliability. Customer service. Debt reduction. That’s it.

No media empire. No satellite TV fantasy. No “synergy” PowerPoint garbage. No paying billions for assets and then selling/spinning them off later at a loss.

The basic plan would be:

1. Aggressively pay down debt instead of trying to look clever.
2. Keep investing in fiber, because that actually fits AT&T’s core strengths.
3. Protect the network craft workforce, because contractors and outsourcing can save money short term but can wreck service quality.
4. Simplify management layers, because AT&T has always seemed ridiculously top-heavy.
5. Stop abusing loyal customers with confusing promotions that reward switchers more than longtime customers.
6. Make executive compensation depend on long-term debt reduction, free cash flow, network quality, and employee retention, not just stock-price optics.

And yeah, I’d probably cancel half the consultant contracts in the first week.

But the hostile takeover part might be tough. AT&T’s market cap is massive, and I’m currently a little light on the tens of billions needed to pull that off. Also, I suspect the board would object to my official turnaround slogan: “Stop Doing D-mb Sh*t.”

Cisco AITECH offers a free, 15-hour crash course and AIBIZ providing only high-level business concepts without a formal exam!

Translation: loss of company $$$ + a way to bypass hiring qualified engineers, allowing non-technical managers to fake technical expertise and undermine the value of a rigorous engineering degree.

ONLY Cisco did this. Top companies knew better.

• 95% of AI pilots fail to deliver measurable profit-and-loss impact is accurate, sourced from the MIT NANDA report.

• Despite $30–40 billion in enterprise investment, only 5% of integrated AI pilots extract measurable value.

• Harvard Business Review says AI is flooding workflows with low-quality output that requires more human intervention to validate, creating a net loss in productivity.

Bottom Line - products, sales fail because they treat AI as a plug-in tool.

Pack it up and head out. Layoffs started and more to follow. Numbers haven’t been there and new services remain in perpetual delay. Accountability is late to the party but finally arrived. Buckle up, cowboys - Dallas, Jersey and Seattle are in play so so much for hub cover. Verizon is waiting in the wings ready to scoop up talent which admittedly has dropped in the last few years. Good ones leave on their own volition and balance are average to above average Joe’s and Jane’s. You heard it here First!

It is just extremely frustrating that Stankey is still CEO and Chairman of the board after his business blunders cost the company $106 billion. Employees are held to a high standard and now we have these strict presence reports but the CEO gets a free pass.

Stankey and his predecessor Randall are both not capable of running a lemonade stand on a sunny weekend. But we let Stankey remain CEO of a Fortune 50 company. Randall is now on the board of directors of Walmart after leaving AT&T in shambles.

These board of directors should be ashamed of themselves. They are so far removed from the daily operations of the business to understand what is in best interest of the company. To them it is just a part time position where they get to fly into Dallas and be treated like a celebrity for the week.

Silence should no longer be an option. Since "leadership" is ignoring the call to step down, it’s time to turn up the volume. Let’s keep this conversation front and center until they finally acknowledge the need for a change.

Great Leaders Lead By Example
Therefore, I expect Sarah to be the first to take the new Voluntary Separation Program. But we all know she won’t. She got totally outplayed by the Trump administration and now far too many are going to pay the price for her ineptitude.

Here's how people can push back against this.

If layoffs start happening, and I'm one of the people affected, I fully intend to create a presence on YouTube, Rumble, and TikTok focused on the layoffs at Centene and the broader issues with how the company is being managed.

I'd invite former employees to share their experiences (I am sure I can came right here to get folks to speak out) —what it was like working there, how the layoffs were handled, and examples of poor leadership and mismanagement. If I end up getting laid off, keep an eye out for it. Also if I don't get lay'd off please feel free to use my idea!

The reality is that when enough current and former employees speak openly about their experiences, it creates public accountability. Companies pay attention when their reputation, recruiting efforts, and public image are affected.

We've seen major brands take hits when unpopular decisions became public and consumers pushed back (Bud Light and Gillette). The same principle applies here. It's especially relevant when a company benefits from federal and state subsidies while making decisions that negatively impact its workforce.

There was a time when employees had very little ability to challenge this kind of behavior. Today, that's changed. Social media and online platforms give people the ability to share information, compare experiences, and bring issues into the public spotlight.

When enough people tell their stories, it becomes much harder for leadership to ignore what's happening behind closed doors.