#accountability

Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias’ Driving Change campaign – launched to combat unfair and discriminatory auto insurance practices – is now delivering results, as legislation advancing insurance reforms has passed the Illinois House and will return to the Senate for a concurrence vote.

Senate Bill 1486 builds on the momentum generated by the Secretary of State’s statewide advocacy effort, which elevated concerns from Illinois drivers and helped shape a comprehensive proposal to bring greater fairness, transparency and accountability to insurance ratemaking.

“As Secretary of State, I’ve been clear that driver’s deserve quality auto insurance at a fair price,” Giannoulias said. “Thanks to the thousands of voices of Illinoisans who shared their stories through our Driving Change campaign, we’re now on the verge of passing meaningful reforms that will hold insurance companies accountable and help make coverage more affordable.”

Senate Bill 1486 introduces several consumer protections, including:

Requiring insurers to provide at least 60 days-notice before increasing renewal premiums by more than 10 percent for auto or homeowners policies.
Expanding Illinois law to explicitly prohibit auto insurance rates that are excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory – defined as rates that do not reflect actual differences in expected losses and expenses.
Granting the Illinois Department of Insurance greater authority to review rate filings and challenge those deemed unfair, with a clear process and timeline for hearings and resolution.
Preventing insurers from shifting costs from out-of-state risks, such as natural disasters, to Illinois policyholders.
Modernizing the National Safety Council’s Defensive Driving Course by aligning the in-person course requirements with the online course requirements.
The legislation reflects concerns raised during the Driving Change campaign, which Giannoulias launched to spotlight how insurers use socio-economic data including credit scores, ZIP codes and age to set rates in ways that disproportionately impact seniors, working families and communities of color.

The Driving Change campaign kicked off in Chicago’s Bronzeville neighborhood and included partnerships with organizations such as AARP Illinois.

“As this bill moves through the final stages, we are taking a meaningful step toward a more transparent and accountable insurance marketplace,” said Leader Robyn Gabel. “Illinois drivers and homeowners deserve a system that is rooted in fairness, prioritizes actual risk and protects consumers from excessive or unjustified rate increases.”

“For too long, Illinois families have faced rising insurance costs without clear justification. Senate Bill 1486 establishes important guardrails to ensure rates are not only transparent, but fair,” said State Representative Thaddeus Jones. “This is about protecting consumers and making sure insurance companies are accountable.”

As part of the campaign, the Secretary of State’s office launched an online portal – www.ilsos.gov/drivingchange – allowing Illinoisans to share personal experiences with insurance pricing and advocate for legislative reform. Feedback collected through the site and a series of statewide town halls directly informed the policy framework now advancing in Springfield.

The push for reform comes amid rising insurance costs statewide. Illinois auto insurance rates increased 18 percent in 2024. At the same time, Illinois remains one of only two states that does not require prior review of insurance rates, leaving consumers vulnerable to excessive or unfair pricing.

https://www.ilsos.gov/news/2026/march-19-2026-giannoulias-auto-insurance-reform-bill-clears-illinois-house.html

I posted my thoughts in a comment awhile back, here's my peon take on the state of things:

MGMT isn't held accountable; escape is just a re-org away.

There's zero vision at the top. JP/BH/GD are not the right guys by any metric. Our sales incentives are aligned such that sales will pressure RnD to continue hunting the same 20 banks with the same multi-year projects. That pressure will force RnD to acquiesce.

CIS continues to be a useless rube goldberg SaaS for ticket generation under their current leader.

All while leadership continues to say that we're looking to get leaner, and deliver at a higher volume etc. etc.

Within RnD we have principal developers who don't know how computers work. When I say this I mean the basics of networking, filesystems, algorithms.

I had Sr Principal dev ask me what DFS was.... this by itself is not the issue, but it certainly points to the issue: people are not held accountable for performance, nor are they expected to improve their technical acumen, and inversely, they are rewarded simply for staying.

IMO:

SAS should strive to be (in part) the AWS of data tools. There should have a simple portal such that customers can input their payment info, click on a given tool, and crank it up according to some set of configurable parameters. It should be seamless.

This will require:

CIS and RnD to merge

a real SRE program inside of the company (it's insane and an indictment of the company that no one I've spoken to in CIS has heard of the term SRE).

us to retain top talent, and purge dead weight.

sas would need to spend cycles reducing service footprint/consolidating services/improving big O performance. several gigs of RAM is insane for a login service. Not to mention the fragmentation of said service.

The same model should be followed for solutions, which means prodman will need to actually learn how to do their job. we have some of the most arrogant, yet ignorant, product managers in the business.

know your domain, know the market, and sell to that market. every solution can't do everything. boutique projects are fine, but that's not gonna move the needle.

there should be pre-configured, highly opinionated, solutions that can be delivered and adding value in under a month.

Curious to see the perspective from people around the company

the ai is failing and the sales team is getting the blame. Can’t sell a sh-t product bottom line

I hold a small position in CVS. Tiny enough in relation to the rest of my portfolio that, to be frank, the entire company could be liquidated and I could care less. In fact I'd jump for joy.

But because I am a stockholder, I am eligible to vote in the annual meeting.

Here's how I am going to fill out my proxy card:

1. Directors: Vote against all of them.
2. Ratify the appointment of independent accounting firm: Vote against (of all questions, this probably matters the least, but voting against this sends a message)
3. Approve company executive compensation: Vote against (I don't care if they all end up in the poor house)
4. Approve the company's incentive compensation plan: Vote against (high level types covered by this plan are the ones driving CVS into the ground)
5. Stockholder proposal to reduce threshold to act by written consent: Vote for (goes against board recommendation, and why would anyone want less say in how CVS is run?)

Put your head down and do your work. Fortunately the CSO isn’t actually the one that keeps us safe. He sits behind the doors that he closes behind him in his fraternity room. Bringing the sorority girls in one by one, you know the favorites. The ones that he protects and the ones that protect his little secrets that aren’t even secret! The company doesn’t have time or money for lawsuits to waste on people like this anymore! It’s just a matter of time. One would think that integrity is a core competency as the CSO! Shane on you Nike HR and legal!

There are ongoing concerns about a Southeast team member acting beyond their assigned responsibilities. Multiple customers have reported unprofessional communication, which is negatively affecting client relationships.

Additionally, decisions being made appear to prioritize short-term margin improvements at the expense of customer satisfaction. This is creating unnecessary friction and could impact long-term retention.

It would be helpful to clarify roles, responsibilities, and communication expectations to ensure a consistent and professional experience for clients.

Tasks get passed from team to team because no one wants to claim them, and things keep getting missed. Then it all blows up into a last-minute rush to get it done. How can anybody expect for a company to run successfully like this?

Tasks get passed from team to team because no one wants to claim them, and things keep getting missed. Then it all blows up into a last-minute rush to get it done. How can anybody expect for a company to run successfully like this?

One bad idea after a other - so many to list but let’s take MEC for example - we spent hundreds of millions to build - the “consultants” and internal Verizon lifers in leadership said it’s going to be revolutionary and make us billions.

Results …. Squat! Yet these 30yr veterans are still walking the hallways of basking ridge touting their accomplishments.

When will there be accountability ability to leadership and not just the people under them who executed the orders.

We need fresh leadership and new ideas - period!

3 years in and they still can’t get it right. Why is this so bad?

Always remember: All those executives and management people at State Farm did not get where they are at by having a strong work ethic. They got there by hurting, stepping on, and disregard for their workers. They do not believe in a strong work ethic and loyalty. The exact same is for their customer which is a direct violation of the company mission and vision statement. Everything is negotiable for them but not for you.

—Ensure they are putting in 8 hour days, 40 hour work weeks
—Ensure they are doing more than just attending (unnecessary for them) all day back to back meetings and not any real work
—Ensure they are not favoring some of their employees while harming others. Giving growth projects to some while starving work for others that work for them (unfairly).
—Make sure they are not just protecting their own careers but not their staff
—Check and see if they were the cause of pushing out some excellent employees within the last couple of years that had excellent work ethic.
—Check to see if they stood up for employees being pushed out that asked (even begged) for their leader’s intercession and advocacy but those same leaders would not lift one finger or one word to help.
—If these Directors and Associate Directors are not properly doing their jobs , then cut them loose!

What is going on with GP&T Enablement lately? The team leads and managers basically won’t answer emails, they bail on meetings and when any responsibility comes their way, they immediately say their team aren’t the right ones to handle.

They’ve been using the “we’re at capacity” line for like two years straight… while their headcount has gone up. It’s like the more people they hire, the less anyone is willing to actually do.

The server business was always more sticky and now is hugely more strategic than storage.
Years of comp plans for lEMC sales focused on pushing unity, powerstore, powermax etc distracted from the real prize of owning the entire data centre. They never understood apps, infrastructure. Just boxes.
If they had focused on overall sales, share of wallet, Dell would have been even more of a powerhouse than today.
Servers were never as high margin as storage, but highly profitable and close enough to matter.

Why is she still here? She failed in her most precious task and i see her on LinkedIn accepting paid for bogus awards "best HR person" at some HR boondoggle in Orlando or Phoenix with a bunch of HR Eco chamber id--ts. Sheri did you pay for those trips or did the company?
Brian, she has no credibly or trust with the workforce.

https://www.hcamag.com/us/news/general/class-action-accuses-danaher-of-turning-dei-into-hiring-quotas/568885

So when tf are the managers who enabled this going to be called out? I know who you are at a few opcos. You followed Danaher orders like submissive little boys and girls.

Here’s what’s going on:
If you are hybrid, you need to be showing up in office for full days (6+ hours) 3+ days a week.
This is now in Workday as a goal.

3+ days, nothing new.

Why 6+, because that’s classified as a full day. This is due to people scanning then leaving. This is also due to people who should be in a hub but when their leader sits elsewhere, the employees end up working elsewhere. Like, while taking an undisclosed vacation somewhere.

I have personally witnessed the coffee badgers in office. Show up about noon, gone about 2:30.

That’s why they are implementing the full accountability. So yes, it’s true. Can we stop with all the rumor posts now?

WHEN WILL HE COME OUT NEW STYLE OF SHOES THAT REGISTER WITH PEOPLE!!!

Where is next AF1, AJ1, Cortez? Next Air technology or Air Max technology?

What is upper management doing? Other than figuring out how to cut the company and retreat!!!

If EH cannot provided any significant answer then he should go or PK should let him go

YETI now has a track record of annual layoffs around the February timeframe in the hopes of propping up the stock price, along with a revolving door of leadership for those unable to constantly be a "yes" person for a CEO, who has a constant fear of losing control while repeatedly implementing negatively disruptive changes and holding others to account for those decisions.

After riding out the usual industry cycles, one thing that keeps standing out is how the "We Lead" behaviors aren't just words on a slide deck. they actually shape how things get done day to day.

Even during last year's necessary adjustments, you could see it in action: leaders at every level stepping up with clear direction, owning outcomes, and keeping teams focused on what matters most. No panic, no mixed messages .. just steady, confident guidance that helped everyone stay aligned and move forward. It's the kind of strong leadership culture that turns tough moments into proof that the system works.
What's been especially noticeable since then is how things have sharpened and improved. The focus feels even tighter, collaboration is smoother, and there's a renewed energy around delivering results. Teams are moving faster with clearer priorities, and that consistent "We Lead" mindset: taking initiative, holding ourselves accountable, and supporting one another has really taken root in the day-to-day. It creates this quiet confidence and sense of shared purpose that makes the work feel more purposeful than ever.

Definitely one of the biggest reasons the Chevron culture feels special and worth staying for. Curious if others see the "We Lead" principles showing up the same way, especially in how the organization has come through stronger on the other side.

Many big, successful companies take feedback from employees regarding their leaders.

Verizon has only a one-way survey—from manager to employee—and never from employees to managers or leadership.

Like Amazon runs frequent surveys to get:
• Team health
• Leadership effectiveness
• Workplace satisfaction

They make sure that if someone is polluting the culture, they weed them out. Verizon needs this urgently if Dan is dreaming of any transformation.

It is my understanding that the company is planning to lay off a significant number of employees who are directly responsible for day-to-day execution. In light of this, it would be advisable to also evaluate the structure and effectiveness of the senior management team.

A thorough assessment of management layers and their contribution to operational efficiency may help identify meaningful cost-saving opportunities. In some instances, organizations develop multiple layers of leadership that are not closely aligned with core business functions, which can introduce inefficiencies. Additionally, certain senior-level appointments made under prior leadership may warrant review to ensure alignment with current organizational needs and performance expectations.

It is also important to evaluate whether the addition of high-ranking, high-cost roles is delivering the intended improvements in efficiency and execution. A balanced approach that considers both leadership structure and frontline resources is critical to sustaining operational effectiveness.

From a customer perspective, there are growing concerns regarding execution timelines. Based on ongoing engagement with financial institutions across both the East and West Coasts, a consistent theme is that projects are taking longer than expected to launch. This may reflect an overreliance on layered management and delegation, rather than a streamlined, execution-focused approach.

Given the competitive landscape, these concerns are increasingly significant. Industry discussions indicate that organizations are actively evaluating alternative providers, making it essential to address efficiency, accountability, and delivery performance to maintain strong client relationships l,

I can’t confirm whether every rumor going around is true, but I can speak to what many of us see and feel inside the team. There’s a clear sense of favoritism and decisions that don’t always seem based on merit.
It’s also concerning to watch the CEO receive multimillion‑dollar compensation while work is being sent overseas, reducing local opportunities and creating even more uncertainty for employees.
This isn’t about attacking anyone or repeating unverified claims. It’s about pointing out a culture where some people protect each other while others are left vulnerable, which naturally creates distrust and discourages those who work with integrity.
Fair leadership should focus on transparency, equity, and real accountability.

Another issue, another meeting where leadership sits back while someone from our level gets asked to explain. The people who made the decision are once again nowhere to be found. It's always the same: blame rolls downhill and we're at the bottom. I hate it here.

Real leaders own their mistakes. Ours just deflect and hide. The people running this place have no clue what they're doing and we're the ones paying for it every single day.

Noticing a pattern lately where a lot of the heavy lifting gets done by individual contributors, and then the narrative shifts upward when it’s time to present outcomes.

Genuinely curious—why does this keep happening, especially at the D and SVP levels? Is it visibility, communication gaps, or something more structural?

Would be great to hear how others have seen this handled (or fixed) in their orgs.

How do they keep getting away with things that would get anyone else in trouble?

Why is there no structure at Verizon? Someone in Leadership in retail, who hasn't spent 2 weeks in a direct business sales role can move into leadership in the b2b channel. When did they prove their marks, show their grit, make their strides?

Someone in a AE role can jump to a senior leadership or AD role? When did they work with the larger customers in between, learn to navigate large business, share ideas on winning the deal?

Someone from any other role overstepping into a leadership role, or senior role, that others are already working towards. Why? Why no structure? Why no set steps? Why not automatic advancement based on seniority and the ability to opt-in...

Wouldn't it make sense to say you can be anything you want at Verizon l, just follow the steps.. have some structure

I just got tasked with completion this survey. I did then basically take offshore over the coals.

It's a relationship that is not collaborative, and definitely not a partnership.

Offshore has no skin in the game, has no oncall duties. Why we have Offshore is stupid.

Offshore provides estimates, but they don't even present it to the customer, the onshore TFAL is expected to handle it.

I get that Gainwell does it to save money, but how is handled and executed is utter cr-p.

I'm currently still employed by Gainwell until I get a job elsewhere.

Where are the VCCs going, the ROI’s, etc. Because whoever is in charge of it needs to be FIRED. Forms retuned enter into a voidless abyss of no return and it impacts our members negatively.

HP has spent years testing how much friction its customers will tolerate — DRM-ink cartridges, firmware that blocks third-party supplies, and a CEO who called non-subscription customers a "bad investment." Forced wait times fit the pattern: treat the customer as a cost to be minimized rather than a person to be helped.

https://boingboing.net/2026/03/20/hp-made-support-callers-wait-15-minutes-on-purpose-even-when-agents-were-free.html

AC actually understood the product and knew how to protect it. I vividly remember him jumping in on earnings calls to take product-related questions over MP and TE.

Now we literally hand entire NFL sideline teams Panda Dunks to wear en mass on national TV. When did it become cool to wear something that everybody can have?

Speaking of, I hear we're about to ki-l another franchise out of desperation - the AM90... in the most iconic colorway. What are we doing here??

It's not all about juicing short-term revenues to hit quarterly targets. EH deserves better from his 2nd in command.

Let's see...

• no clear vision
• no real leadership
• no accountability
• bloated executive suite
• failure to keep products moving forward
• no real R&D or innovation
• brain drain

And we are getting rid of MORE workers to fix the sinking ship? When it was the leadership's responsibility to get us ahead? So if they aren't responsible for anything, why are they here again? Let us make the decisions instead, that way if I'm going to be fired it'll be my fault.

And we are divesting as well. So what has been the real purpose of acquiring so much tech? The board members have made these decisions all from long ago until now. Did they finally give up? I stand to argue that none of them know what they're doing and they have no real business sense, they got lucky with some acquires and with their poor business skills have failed to keep momentum going forward.

We were on the right track to fire Mark but we forgot to get rid of the puppeteer, Mr. Tom Jenkins himself along with the board members who have been making these poor decisions after poor decisions since it all started. But that's impossible because ALL the board members are incompetent, and there's no one above. So it's game over.

The final cherry on this cake (truly an insult to us all) is that we hired an executive failure from BlackBerry to take over as the master puppet. Tom Jenkin's hand can reach all the way through and it still won't make a difference.

This is really fascinating and funny to watch evolve in real time. The funnier part is that we have/had the tech to be great. Despite what many of you say about our products being "cr-ppy" which is merely a symptom of bad leadership, we had the chance many times to take it to the next level and instead we sat our as--s down draining whatever life was left of these products until they started to crumble. And then they have the audacity to sp-t in our faces for these failures.

I am truly sorry to everyone who has been and will be affected. The economy is not great, and some of us need our jobs more than ever. You have been failed by corporate toddlers, you deserve better.

As for the corporate toddlers, go back to business school and this time don't skip classes.

Layoffs are not a strategy. They are a symptom of failed leadership. Layoffs impact millions of people annually, with approximately 19.2 million U.S. workers being laid off per year. Too often, are wrapped in fancy words like “realignment,” “rightsizing,” or “transformation.” But behind these words are real people, employees whose lives are tragically upended. Layoffs don’t just disrupt careers. They fracture trust, morale, and culture. People lose stability, relationships, and sometimes even hope. The real costs? Depression, anxiety, addiction, broken marriages, financial ruin, etc.
Leadership Accountability is missing. Rarely are leaders held accountable for the decisions that led to these outcomes. What about “Layoff Reform” to include mandatory post-layoff principles that prioritize dignity, transparency, and accountability?
1) Treat impacted employees with respect/dignity. Layoffs are personal…if you are laid off
2) Emotional/Psychological severance, like counseling for anxiety, depression, and trauma.
3) Rebuild morale with remaining employees who are survivors, scared, concerned and watching.
4) Public layoff disclosure: number of employees, age, tenure, gender, race, salary, and ethnicity.
5) No promotions during the layoff year. Employee advancement while others are discarded sends the wrong message.
6) Suspend bonuses, salary increases, incentive pay, and stock awards for senior and executive leadership during the layoff year. Leaders should not be rewarded and profit from failure.
7) Companies that conduct layoffs are disqualified/excluded from any “Best Employer” lists for that year. You can’t be the “greatest” while laying off employees.

I’ve been in a work environment where leadership is often framed as “shared,” with the message that everyone is leading. In reality, it doesn’t feel that way.

There’s a pattern of conversations being guided toward a preferred outcome, where input is less about open collaboration and more about aligning with what’s already been decided. It creates the impression of shared leadership, but often feels like managed agreement.

When someone has the authority to make decisions but avoids clearly owning them, it shifts responsibility onto others and creates confusion around accountability. Over time, it makes it harder to trust the process or feel that input is genuinely valued.

Strong leadership isn’t about telling people what they want to hear or steering them to a specific answer — it’s about transparency, ownership, and honest communication, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Curious if others have experienced similar

I’m not being paid on accounts I work because I’m being told I wasn’t coded to the account. I asked if they could skate invoices and was told no.

It’s a Cisco- worldwide issue. The ONLY people being laid off are ICs, certification push is also for ICs, performance improvements are also for ICs,
while managers, directors, VPs slack their way…..
At executive level, nobody cares about having multiple directors/VPs reporting to
Each other. They are too comfortable not needing to lift a finger, why would they ever leave a comfortable job.
We all know nobody directors/ managers are ever on a chopping block.

Just like improving quality. Don’t hold your breath suppliers, you have heard this before.

In recent years, Ford hasn't exactly had the greatest relations with its suppliers - at least, according to the Plante Moran North American Automotive OEM - Supplier Working Relations Index (WRI) Study - as it ranked next to last among all OEMs in both 2024 and 2025. Then, last summer, The Blue Oval altered its contracts as a way to offset the impacts of tariffs - forcing suppliers to sign more stringent terms, ditch the ability to opt out of their contracts each year, and in exchange, they received new business and tariff cost relief.

Now, Ford is aiming to improve its challenged relations with suppliers, according to Crain's Detroit Business. At an annual event held late last month, Ford supply chief Liz Door reportedly told the company's suppliers that The Blue Oval intends to begin providing them with a three-year outlook for its vehicle plans, a move aimed at helping suppliers better plan for future launches, production volumes, and discontinuations.

This is a notable change given the fact that Ford suppliers have spent the last few years essentially not knowing what the automaker was planning to do, amid many powertrain strategy shifts - and it also signals that the automaker is more confident in its forthcoming plans as well. Additionally, Ford is launching what Door calls a “two-way scorecard” and a “help desk,” which are intended to “simplify and accelerate problem resolution” for suppliers.

“In response to supplier feedback, and as part of ongoing efforts to enhance transparency and strengthen trust, we plan to work closely with suppliers so they can optimize their own planning,” Door said. “This approach has the potential to simplify processes and drive improvements in overall quality, benefiting both Ford and our supplier network. Strengthening supplier relationships remains a core focus for Ford."

Reflecting on the energy sector lately, it’s striking how much the work we do matters ... not just in powering homes and industries, but in doing it thoughtfully and responsibly.
At Chevron, there’s a quiet consistency to how things get done: prioritizing the safety of people and protection of the environment above everything else, building real partnerships that last, valuing the diverse perspectives everyone brings, and always aiming to deliver high performance with integrity at the core. It’s not flashy, but it’s steady and over time, that approach builds something meaningful.
In an industry full of challenges and change, being part of a team guided by those principles feels like a real advantage. It shapes the decisions, the collaborations, and even the small daily choices that add up.

Grateful to be in the middle of it, contributing alongside people who care about getting results the right way.

What about you? what keeps you motivated in this space?

She is the best Intel could pull in this day and age I guess? I am confident with her coding background and her ability to be so fluent in AI Intel will be back in no time.

She could use a Dale Carnegie course though.

#accountantwithnoITskills