BD has turned into a circus of nincompoops , seemingly united by one goal: destroying what used to be a great company. It started at the top with the CEO, followed by a chain of DEI hires, each worse than the last, culminating in the collapse of TGS. The irony is that the CTO/CIO doesn’t even realize that he/she’s being manipulated by her VPs.
11 replies (most recent on top)
@27b they cannot do anything but complain about DEI - it is trumpism running rampant here. DEI has nothing to do with it - it has everything to do with running before you can walk and putting people into "opportunities for growth" that they are not prepared for. I wish these fools using DEI as the crutch to explain all of their problems would find a new tune to sing
@28c S/he is probably a DEI / nepo candidate, so you can’t really expect him/her to understand how DEI policy has effed the quality of everything. It would be a futile effort to explain things to him/her
OP is correct, DEI is a cancer eating away at BD.
Here is a simple breakdown:
Language Barrier - High number of employees that cannot properly communicate with English speaking employees, this ranges from following simple instructions to understanding figures of speech.
Critical Thinking/Creativity - management argues that these employees need detailed instructions but even if tasks are broken down to its more basic steps they fail to follow them. Understanding signals or data from the activity they are doing is simply out of the question.
Obfuscation - When mistakes are pointed out they are quickly to claim they misheard/misunderstood instructions or argue that they did not understand the context of a certain word or phrase.
Inflated Complexity - Even the most basic of tasks for supposed professionals is missing, basic Excel spreadsheets will be turned into a broken mess and complexity will be inflated to then propose hiring more resources.
This post is already far too long but there is more than enough evidence. I am not a US citizen and English is not my first language.
There are of course other factors and actors of course, complacent/unqualified management that is content with job security rather than seeking resolution of issues.
@27b Oh, you’ve already decided, huh? Explaining anything to you would be like trying to teach a brick wall to debate. You’ve got such a refined sense of “quality” that the first shiny thing you see instantly becomes the best ever. Maybe you need to step out, see the world and then realize how rotten this place is.
Please explain to which DEI hires you are referring and how these so called string of DEI hires have caused BD to make bad decisions. I work there so I know the details. DEI has nothing to do with it. But I am listening.
@1z2 BD’s philosophy is, stay longer cause no one else will hire you, butter up the level and get promoted. Skill is immaterial. I see some folks without basic qualifications are now Senior Director.
What is being described is the definition of a DEI hire at the C level. This person had no experience at similar level previously, but checks the boxes. The board is happy. New hire does what is expected and brings in friends who have no experience as well. It is a cr-p show for TGS.
@134 BD is a family oriented public listed company, meaning positions are mostly available to friends and family. Seldom we recruit people based on their skill or talent and hiring managers are even blunt about it. Simple and honest suggestion, either cope or leave.
@xf The leadership here is incredibly punitive; dissent is met with being managed out or terminated. Look at the number of parent-child combinations in BD—it’s blatant nepotism. These 'successors' are being raised in a culture devoid of professional self-respect, ensuring that when they become leaders, they will simply follow their parents' footsteps. I pity those nepo-kids who needs their dad's help to get a job despite being born and raised in an affluent family. That talks about theie self-respect and talent.
@xa most leadership roles are filled with DEI policy or favoritism without any relevance to skill that those roles demand, why is it a problem to call that out?
Why cant you guys just ever not use the political buzzwords? Theres plenty of ways to describe corporate dysfunction without being polarizing.