#leadership

What’s going on with the abrupt leadership change in AEP Texas?

Downvote for no.
Upvote for yes.

Well between RIF and worse strategic attempts to get people to quit with case loads being unreasonable ir putting people in work plans the oregon and WA teams are about dead and gone.

DCO is a soulless id--t. CSMs are pale images of what they had been in past, all the talent and integrity leadership is gone.
At least competitors are coming in

There’s a lot of negative sentiment here around Thrive Together. That reaction is completely rational. Many people are trying to rationalize the decision - commercial real estate exposure, leadership being out of touch, or executives undervaluing remote productivity. Those explanations miss the point. Thrive Together is a much larger slight against employees than most people realize.

It’s easy to assume the executive team is uninformed or making poorly thought-out decisions. That assumption is wrong. These are experienced business leaders who understand exactly what they are doing. Whether internal metrics show remote work to be more productive is irrelevant. If those metrics supported the narrative being pushed, employees would see them. They don’t, and they won’t. Leadership knows the data doesn’t support the story, and they don’t need it to.

Their only real objective is increasing the stock price.

Historically, one way companies accomplish that is by reducing headcount. The problem is layoffs come with costs - severance packages and payouts of accrued PTO. Thrive Together creates a mechanism to reduce the workforce without formally conducting layoffs and without paying those costs.

Instead of layoffs, the company now has a framework where employees who cannot comply with Thrive Together requirements can simply be labeled as low performers. That label leads to performance improvement plans and eventual termination. The end result is the same as a layoff, but without severance, without PTO payouts, and without triggering the procedures that normally accompany workforce reductions.

Flexible Time Off (FTO) reinforces this system.

FTO didn’t expand a benefit - it removed one. Under a traditional PTO system, employees accrued time off that the company was obligated to honor or pay out. Under FTO, nothing accrues. Time off is technically “unlimited,” but in practice none of it is guaranteed.

FTO can function in a truly flexible remote or hybrid environment where employees aren’t bound by strict office attendance quotas. That is not the environment being created here.

Under the current policy, time taken under FTO does not reduce in-office attendance expectations. For the average employee, that creates a clear disincentive to take vacation because office quotas remain unchanged regardless of time off.

Leadership recently increased the expectation to three days per week in the office. If an employee takes a week of vacation, they still owe those three in-office days somewhere else in the fiscal year. Two weeks of vacation doubles that deficit.

If the company eventually moves to four or five in-office days per week - as many suspect it will - the system becomes mathematically unsustainable. There will be no practical way for employees to take time off while still meeting attendance expectations within a quarter. FTO with Thrive Together is structurally incompatible with meaningful time off.

What’s happening here isn’t confusion or poor planning. It’s a gradual tightening of pressure on the workforce while removing the company’s obligations that typically accompany layoffs. Even better, some employees will leave on their own to avoid the mess.

The plan was always to make you work more while creating a system that results in less time off, lower performance reviews, and a convenient excuse to fire people without severance.

Let’s remind leadership who runs this company!

The company consistently advocates for metal health and talking to someone. Rip the bandaid off and just let everyone know where they stand within the new org chart. The anxiety and stress within our employees is at an extreme high right now. Come on OVV make your decisions already.

Once upon a time, the biggest concern was the lack of ‘good for you’ products in the portfolio. Today, the biggest concern is the lack of good leaders in the organization. How is each function holding up, is there any hope?

One of the most fascinating management models I’ve seen recently is the “mutual admiration club.”

A small leadership circle hires each other, promotes each other, and then gives each other outstanding performance ratings. Meanwhile, the people actually running operations and supporting customers suddenly become “underperformers.”

It’s a brilliant system if the goal is to protect the club and shift accountability elsewhere.

Unfortunately, it’s not a great system if the goal is to run a serious business.

In the long run, organizations usually discover that echo chambers are very good at protecting leadership, but not very good at running businesses.

Board numbers are being reduced https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/outgoing-bp-chief-auchincloss-earned-53-million-pounds-2025-2026-03-06/

They could probably reduce the board further but at least this is a start!

So, exploration will be gone entirely ? Even the VP is done. Is this the right move?

One leader is out and two new ones fill his spot. He stayed less than six months. Cost effective?

Check out this latest news!.

https://www.travelpress.com/sabre-unveils-once-in-a-generation-company-rebuild-ai-first-platform-at-itb-berlin/

Is this a joke?

Look at some of the lines in the article

"Over the last several years, under a refreshed executive leadership team, Sabre has executed a full modernization of its technology stack, moving to the cloud, rebuilding core systems, and unifying once fragmented capabilities under the new Sabre Mosaic™ platform"

"Sabre completed this rebuild while simultaneously strengthening its financial foundation. Disciplined debt management, portfolio actions, and operating rigor enabled the company to modernize without carrying forward legacy constraints.

A focused strategy has enabled Sabre to materially increase its engineering capacity over the past year, accelerating innovation cycles and time-to-market"

This is pure deception and no one is telling the truth!!!!!

Heard that Pharm Systems is at it again. Another wave of VPs and executives leaving. Others (barely any) updating their LinkedIn profiles to "Open to Work" and probably asking competitors for job openings. Europe, US - they're flying out faster than Tom&Jerry in their private jet to Jackson Hole. The sales organization is wiped out - a printed picture memory at this point. The people who actually knew the clients, knew the product, and knew how to close - gone. Last I heard, they now have project managers hunting for device business. Let that sink in. Somewhere along the way, politics ate strategy alive. Then came the massive bonus and commission cuts - looks good on the quarterly report. The PnL is probably on life support by another travel ban. Then Services? Handed to people with 0 experience whose previous team was actually taken apart and promptly set on fire. Those of us who got out are just sitting here with popcorn, watching, and waiting for the "Pharm Systems Acquired By..." press release to drop.

Layers and layers of worthless VPs that have to be let go.

• Fundamentally broken and needs a full reset.
• There is no clear or credible technology roadmap.
• Leadership and hiring appear driven by internal relationships and favoritism.
• Vendor decisions often look questionable and raise concerns about incentives.
• Systems from acquisitions remain fragmented and poorly integrated.
• Deployments and upgrades move far too slowly for a modern IT organization.
• Overall execution is weak and the group is widely seen as ineffective.

I had high hopes that there would be some improvements with the new regime but they are every bit as indecisive as the last batch of lackeys. The 1B area is a mess with people running around chasing their tails because their new boss lady can't make a decision and the leads are scrambling too. I sure hope Steve Sparkes' powers of observation are sharp and he picks up on the issues in his org soon or he will be the next sacrificial lamb. People are holding on by a thread waiting for change but the good ones are polishing off their resumes and looking externally since the internal postings are a joke.

Companies that operate with a hub-based workforce model should align their teams geographically rather than scattering small numbers of employees across multiple states. When the majority of a department or function is concentrated in a primary hub, it makes operational, financial, and collaborative sense to place the entire team in that same location instead of maintaining one or two employees in various other states.

First, collaboration and communication improve significantly when teams are centralized. Even in remote environments, employees located within the same region or hub tend to share similar, leadership structures, and workplace culture. When teams are spread out as “one here and two there,” those individuals often become disconnected from the main group, making collaboration less efficient and creating unnecessary communication barriers.

Second, centralizing teams supports stronger leadership and accountability. Managers can more effectively support employees when their teams are structured in a clear and cohesive way. When a handful of employees are placed outside the main hub, they may receive less consistent oversight, mentorship, and integration into team processes. Bringing employees together in the dominant hub location creates clearer reporting structures and stronger team cohesion.

Third, there are cost and operational efficiencies. Supporting employees in multiple states often introduces additional administrative complexity such as payroll compliance, state-specific regulations, and HR management differences. Consolidating teams in the primary hub reduces these complexities and allows resources to be focused where the company already has the strongest infrastructure.

Finally, a hub model should actually function like a hub. The purpose of a hub is to concentrate talent, resources, and collaboration in one central location. Maintaining scattered employees across various states contradicts the very concept of a hub structure and weakens the benefits that such a model is intended to provide.

For these reasons, companies that promote a hub-based workforce strategy should ensure that teams are largely located within the same primary hub rather than distributing small numbers of employees across multiple states where they operate in isolation from the core teams.

The asset management industry is changing rapidly, and staying ahead requires more than incremental adjustments.

One area that deserves close attention is the layer of middle management. Many of the managers responsible for executing strategy appear increasingly detached from the company’s long-term mission. When leadership positions become primarily about protecting paychecks rather than building lasting value, organizations inevitably lose talented people who want to contribute meaningfully.

Over the past years, a number of highly capable individuals have left because they wanted to deliver impact and build something meaningful. When those voices disappear, it is often a signal that something deeper in the culture needs attention.

The competitive landscape is also evolving. Firms like BlackRock have significantly expanded their position in areas such as ETFs and are investing heavily in AI and data-driven investment capabilities. Competing in this environment requires not only technology and capital, but authentic leadership and a culture that empowers people to act with conviction.

Strengthening leadership culture should start with divisions such as Strategic Advisers (SAI), where the connection between research, portfolio management, and long-term client outcomes is critical. This kind of review requires diligence and honesty, not narratives that avoid uncomfortable realities.

Organizations that are willing to examine themselves critically tend to emerge stronger. Those that ignore early signals often find themselves losing relevance over time.

The opportunity to reinforce a culture of accountability, integrity, and genuine leadership is still there—but it requires deliberate action.

You can feel it everywhere. Nobody believes in leadership anymore because they haven't gives us a reason to in a long time. The ship is sinking fast and everyone knows it. If you're not job hunting, you're one of the few who isn't.

I reported in close proximity to Pete for 3 years and also worked around and with Felicia and Morgan. Pete was a great leader. Yes, he has two watches. But he was smart and asked good questions and focused on results and performance. He had what it takes. He’s a markedly better than Gail. The other leaders? Morgan? Ha. Felicia? Ha ha. Anthem has been a den of mediocrity at the top for a long time. Pete was better than them all…by a lot.

There is no reason to try harder. If you see your leadership coasting… coast harder.

If you see your leadership failing to make a decision… stall on decision making.

If you see your leadership throwing their peers under the bus… do the same with 10x effort.

If you see leadership leaving at 4:00… leave at 2:00.

Leadership sets the tone of an organization. And it has been made clear by Nike leadership:

• We don’t care about you
• We don’t care about Nike
• We only care about ourselves

I wonder what would happen if leaders at all levels in the company had their performance and bonuses solely based on how well they led their teams. Take bottom line business numbers out, feed those through individual contributors, and if you’re a leader you are solely measured on your ability to lead! Measured through TTUS (and p.s., stop asking bullsh-t questions you know aren’t targeting the truth), you measure through attrition and actual employee satisfaction surveys. Oh what a concept and how things would change, real fast

Evanko is the visionary Cigna needs. I can’t wait to see where he leads us!

Hearing noise about VPs across the company being let go

This will come as a surprise to Chevron management; respect is earned and not deserved due to title or legacy. It has been a long time since I worked with a Chevron manager who actually earned respect. Management drafts way too many entitled individuals into their ranks who have little to no regard for the workforce, do not have a reasonable understanding of the workflows they are responsible for nor a comprehension of the industry as a whole. Sad to see the company that I have worked for over twenty years start to cave in on itself due to poor leadership and decision making. Management ranks are full of nepo-babies, one hit wonders, and TikTok influencers without a clue. Experience, skills, and hard work are no longer valued here.

Downstream VPs managers ruining Upstream, Uncon experienced folks ruining Deepwater and Deepwater folks ruining Uncon.

Yes we need cross fu ctional experience, but not Leaders/managers. They come and make people do uncecessary studies and projects which are doomed to fail. The upstream industry is more than 100 years old, yet these d-mb bozoz think they can change the world.

This is foolishness

#IGNITE Stupidity

My area is getting rid of our contractors, and not backfilling even after a large VSP leave. Checking to see if other areas are experiencing the same in the very near future. Is CF trying to get the rest of us that’s left to just quit? Entire company has fallen apart more in the past few months, just when I thought it couldn’t get worse but yet HR pretends we’re stronger than ever? Have they read comments from our members or providers or even employees? Leadership definitely doesn’t know how to read the room.

So after the multi phased layoff, re-orgs, I have a MD 3 layers up that does not understand the tech they are over. No shocker there, but they are making decisions that more than hamper operations. I can’t be specific naturally but let’s just say they are out of their depth.

It’s like “so you need nails to build a house, are you sure you can’t cut back on the number of nails used? or let’s try using half the nails, how about that?. If you aren’t sure if the structure can remain standing, then just build half of the house.”

That’s as close to an example I can give without jeopardizing my employment but you can see how odd and reckless this is. Now imagine trying to explain the folly of using half of the nails and\or building only half of the house and they just don’t get it.

Checking in on the global RTO rollout: I’d love to hear from colleagues in the UK and EU offices. Has your local leadership confirmed a specific Phase 2 start date yet or are local labor regulations still being navigated? It would be great to compare notes on how the transition is being handled outside the US hubs.

What is going on with the continual stream of postings on LinkedIn with our executives at charity events, groundbreaking ceremonies for non-profits, opening of trading floors at a university, and Leaders Group members discussing risk, AI, and advertising their latest speaking engagement outside of the company?

In HR and IT, it seems to be the norm to promote yourself outside of the company. Our EVP of HR (not a real position in other energy companies) is attending events and putting himself front and center at the opening of a university trading floor. Why is he even there?! Should that not be an opportunity to promote our traders and the trading leadership? Instead, he is front and center.

This all started under M@rk and the selection of the current EVP of HR and EVP and Chief Digital and Admin Officer. They promote themselves externally on social media, share their travel plans to foreign destinations with their teams, and are clearly angling for more senior roles outside of the company.

Meanwhile, employees are losing their jobs and we being told we need to manage our own careers.

The culture at PSX has been broken and these two “leaders” are a big part of the problem. M@rk, wake up and do something about it.

Why was someone brought in from an outside firm to manage the Investment Advisory Group that has no investment advisory experience over many qualified with the group?

Rumour is they are going to do an employee feedback survey. Is the current thoughts and views and morale and feelings and challenges and of the vast number of employees not very obvious? Another crazy idea from crazy KK lady.

Meeting after meeting after meeting dealing with that one loud mouth bully abusing employees and contractors alike, and the "leadership" here does nothing. Watch the rest of the talent dip once those aip checks get cashed...

The stock is responding well now over 51. Keep your foot on their throats Dan!

on the ask me anything session. Here's a summary:
"blah blah, strategic blah blah excited, blah blah Ai, blah blah blah No Layoffs"

So hard to believe any of this, the actions of the past years do nothing to support them. The leaders are powerless, only Christian, Dominik and S/O have the power and make the cuts.

interested in your impression if you have met him. i met him a while back and was not impressed. he seem odd and awkward and didnt really appear competent for his job.

In November of 2021, nike stock traded at nearly $170 per share. Five years later and the stock is trading consistently sideways in the low $60’s, with no end in sight. Despite leadership purchases, leadership changes, constant layoffs, reorg’s, buy backs and a retail / wholesale reset, nike is one of the worst performing stocks out there. Today it’s trading at $59 and may go lower. A nearly %280 drop in valuation. Unbelievable.

Was he not the CFO the past few years? And greenlit HIH?

I don’t remember exactly where, but I saw a comment about Citi being a toxic place to work, followed by a request for clarification. I don't recall the OP ever following up, but as a software engineer who’s been at Citi for some time now, I have my own thoughts. Maybe it’s just my specific bubble in CISO, but here’s my take:

1. Non-existent inter-team communication. It’s like a collection of medieval castles: no one talks to anyone on the outside unless you hold a certain title. God forbid you’re a peasant. The Indian hierarchy and culture only aggravate this further; if you want anything done or even answered, you're forced to escalate immediately.

2. Terrible product quality. I honestly don’t understand how people with such abysmal coding, problem-solving, and process-building skills get hired anywhere, let alone at a bank.

3. Leadership with a heavy stench of narcissism. Don’t even get me started on Tim Ryan. He’s single-handedly decided that along with his title, he inherited a flock. Now every Thursday, he delivers a sermon on how to live, think, and behave --- even dictating which tools to use for work he doesn't understand in the slightest. Oh yeah, I sh-t you not, he also travels worldwide to Citi branches with his "Roadshow."

If you’ve been laid off, it’s a blow, but please understand: in the long term, you are better off. It’s a toxic, ugly environment for any software person. Your skills won't just stall there --- they will die. And they'll do so quickly.