#accountability

Now leaner and meaner VZ is ready to soar. It has been many years now but the board finally is addressing their failures. Why they waited so long is puzzling.

Paisner v. Tan, Del. Ch., No. 2026-0307
Paisner v. Tan is a shareholder derivative action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5, 2026, seeking to void an "extortionary" deal involving a 10% stake in Intel Corporation sold to the U.S. government.
Case Overview
Plaintiff: Richard D. Paisner, an Intel shareholder represented by Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP and GM Law.
Defendants: Lip-bu Tan (Intel director), other Intel board members, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and the Department of Commerce.
Core Allegation: The lawsuit alleges that Intel's board was coerced into issuing approximately 10% (9.9%) of its equity to the Department of Commerce (DOC) for "no meaningful consideration" following public demands from President Donald Trump.
Key Legal Arguments
The complaint, which was partially unsealed on March 11, 2026, asserts several grounds for invalidating the transaction:
Lack of Congressional Authority: The suit argues that only Congress can authorize a federal agency to become a partial owner of a publicly traded company, and no such law exists for this transaction.
Extortion and Coercion: It alleges the board succumbed to "well-founded fears" regarding personal and professional relationships after President Trump publicly claimed CEO Lip-bu Tan was conflicted and should be fired.
Illegal Voting Agreements: The deal reportedly included provisions requiring the government to vote its 9.9% stake as directed by the Intel board and pledged government support for sitting directors. The plaintiff argues this created a conflict of interest by providing directors with a unique benefit not shared by other shareholders.
Pretextual Funding: The complaint claims the government demanded the shares as a "pretextual advancement" of funds Intel had already earned under a 2024 CHIPS Act agreement.
The case was initially filed under seal on March 5, 2026, and unsealed on March 11, 2026, with certain confidential information redacted. The plaintiff seeks an order canceling the deal and unspecified damages.
Bloomberg Law News

One thing I genuinely appreciate about my team at Truist is the leadership style in our organization. Our leaders trust us to do our jobs. There’s no constant hovering or minute-by-minute monitoring. We’re given autonomy, clear expectations, and ultimately we’re judged on the results we deliver.

What’s interesting is when you compare that to some of the cross-functional groups we work with. Their leadership approach couldn’t be more different. From what I’ve seen, it’s a lot of micromanaging and tracking every hour people spend on their laptops.

And honestly, the outcomes speak for themselves. That group seems to struggle far more just getting basic things done, and the results simply aren’t there. Our clients are the ones that pay the price for this!

It really reinforces a pretty simple lesson: when leaders don’t trust their teams and try to control every detail, it usually backfires. Autonomy and accountability drive performance. Micromanagement just slows everything down.

I was not surprised by this statement on yesterday’s call. This begs the question, then WHY are those people sitting up there collecting checks? Alfonso also said there were too many people involved in the process. Too many people running reports and not enough execution. Again, why are they sitting there. None of them can do what we ask the front line to do today. Great leaders lead from the trenches not from the conference room.

Years of poor mergers, awful stock performance, and a massive data breach have left the company weaker, less trusted, and increasingly irrelevant. Instead of owning these failures and investing in real product improvement, leadership has done almost the opposite.

The products have stagnated. Customers know it. That’s why they’re leaving. And rather than fixing what’s broken, leadership’s answer has been blunt-force cost cutting and pushing a ~30% SPI increase onto customers who already don’t see the value. It’s not strategy — it’s desperation.

While customers churn and employees are asked to do more with less, Mike and the executive team have quietly extracted hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from the company. That money didn’t go into innovation, security, or customer success. It went into executive pockets.

The most insulting part is the attitude. When concerns are raised, the response isn’t accountability or respect its dismissal, contempt, and sometimes outright laughter. Leadership hits paydirt while employees hit the breadline, and we’re told this is “good for the business.”

It isn’t. It’s short-term financial engineering at the expense of long-term trust.

Shame on the leadership team for hollowing out a company that once mattered. And shame on anyone still carrying water for decisions that have clearly failed customers, employees, and shareholders alike.

This didn’t have to be the outcome. It was a choice.

Well said, @ad+1keshgf86.

First, alignment doesn't exist. Ask three managers the same question and you'll get three answers, maybe four. Then when you actually need support, when you raise your hand because you're stuck, they go blank. No ideas, no resources, and no help. Just a lot of blinking. But God forbid you make an error. Then they're everywhere. Suddenly they have all the time in the world to watch you and question every step, just to make sure you know you sc--wed up. They can't help you succeed but they'll definitely monitor your failure.

I have a masters degree. Spent years and money getting it. Did the same job as people without one for less money. When I left, they hired someone with no degree at all. Then I learned they paid them ten grand more than I ever got. The difference? They're good at su-king up. That's the only skill that matters here.

I would like to raise concerns regarding workplace culture and accountability, particularly related to an East Coast office. There have been ongoing reports from employees expressing discomfort with certain interactions and behaviors involving male colleagues.

Additionally, there is a perception among some staff that complaints about inappropriate comments or conduct toward female employees have not been consistently addressed. This has created concern about whether employees feel safe and supported when raising workplace issues.

There have also been broader concerns raised about leadership response and whether appropriate steps are being taken when complaints are reported. When employees take the step to bring forward concerns, it is important that they feel those concerns are taken seriously and reviewed objectively.
I believe it would be beneficial for leadership and HR to review these concerns to ensure that workplace standards, professionalism, and accountability are being upheld across all offices.

Leaders need to be in office as consistently as the employees they force to be there to protect their employees if you aren’t going to address the behavior. Get out of meetings and offices and start doing your job!

The big AI companies have been talking for two years about their plans to build huge data centers worth trillions of dollars. Any sensible person could understand that they would empty all inventory of computing components, memory and data storage. Cisco did nothing about this and woke up in complete panic only about two months ago. The trust and confidence of partners in Cisco is in a state of collapse and the long-term damage is enormous.

laid off and cigna sends us to a help desk in india if we have issues? zero transparency , zero accountability . what a joke of a company CIGNA EVERNORTH

The current approach to promotions highlights a troubling double standard.

HR has proceeded with promotions within its own ranks including VP to SVP and reversed role classifications from Senior Manager back to Director, even though the rest of the organization was required to make those changes.

At the same time, commercial line-of-business teams responsible for generating revenue and driving business performance are restricted and effectively blocked. Across my organization, leaders have taken on significantly expanded scope and accountability, with direct responsibility for new business generation, revenue growth, and client retention. Despite these expanded roles, we were told during both job reviews and the annual merit cycle that promotions were not possible even in cases where retention risk and material scope changes are clear.

When HR the very function responsible for fairness, governance, and organizational consistency applies a different standard to itself.

If there's one skill AT&T has, it's taking something good and ruining it. Nobody does that better.

Here we are in 2026:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ford-deep-water-after-sweeping-recalls-hit-every-model-since-2020-one-exception

(Ford only built 1,350 of the one exception, unrecalled GTs.)

Did Farley miss any bonuses?

Farley in 2022: Ford F-150 Lightning has exceeded Ford’s expectations as 200,000+ customers lined up to reserve one… exceeded production capacity for the 2022 model year.

Ford sold 15,617 units of the F-150 Lightning in 2022.

Did Farley miss any bonuses?

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.

• 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’d love to see some change on the floor

I don’t think everything is our representatives fault we have to take some accountability as well.

One of the things I don’t understand from our reps though is the gate keeping of our contract, I’ve heard a few times about refusal to get a copy of the contract.

We should all have the opportunity to get a copy so we can enforce the contract and hold management and each other accountable.

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.

I’ve worked at Wells Fargo for five years. For four consecutive years, I met expectations and received merit bonuses. Last year was the only time I was rated “inconsistent,” based on metrics that were never clearly communicated, and I did not receive a raise.

Now I’m being told I must outperform everyone on the team because of last year’s rating. I’m required to have weekly check-ins and am being criticized over minor issues, while others with similar performance are not held to the same standard.

My manager has said this is due to a “new policy,” but the way it’s being applied feels selective and unfair. At the same time, documentation is being added to Workday that does not accurately reflect the full picture of my performance.

It’s striking how the true heartbeat of many companies the frontline workers in blue-collar roles rarely voices complaints about lack of recognition. Yet those in office based positions often amplify their own grievances about feeling undervalued or disrespected. The irony is clear: genuine appreciation is seldom extended where it’s most earned, to the individuals whose hands-on labor keeps operations running.
If the company strips layers and non-essential overhead, the organization would likely continue to function, and often thrive thanks to the quiet, relentless efficiency of those boots on the ground employees. Their backbreaking, essential work persists without fanfare, without viral complaints on forums, and without demands for constant validation. In contrast, the productivity of many keyboard bound roles is far more replaceable than the tangible output delivered by those who actually build, maintain, and deliver the company’s core value.
True organizational resilience isn’t found in boardrooms or spreadsheets it’s forged in the field, by people who show up, do the hard work, and let results speak for themselves.

Cost Shareholders minimum $150-$200 Billion.
T-Mobile
DTV
Time Warner
Lots of smaller potatoes as well in their shareholder evisceration stew.
Each of those two Dolt Headed CEO's will walk or have walked from their tenures with $250M each and all the perks.
Remember executive compensation is never linked to share price at ATT. Just metrics that are easily manipulated and massaged.

They're mostly just tools to push people out. Rarely do they reflect someone’s real performance, or the value in terms of skills, experience, or productivity. And let's be honest, the higherups aren’t exactly brilliant either. Hard to see much of a difference, and that really says something.

I don’t even care if I give myself away on here, because I need to say this.

Over time, I’ve noticed a consistent pattern in how several senior directors operate, I’ve seen certain leaders target employees outside their own unit through gossip, and finger pointing.
When issues arise, the focus rarely lands on the behaviors or decisions of the senior directors that contributed to the problem. Instead, pressure is redirected onto others.

This is especially prevalent from GP&T Product and Sales senior directors.

I try to be transparent about what I know and what I don’t. When I ask questions for example, whether a specific person is the right contact for client obligations or duties, the response is often disproportionately hostile.

Today was a straw that broke the camel’s back situation. I tried being helpful and instead was responded to as if I was a schmuk (and maybe I am) but to the Sales guy, you could have used a little more tact especially at your level.
“Period!” (your own word)

I took it personally and it ruined my mood going into the weekend. I’m not ashamed to admit that I teared up.

A Massachusetts couple settled a lawsuit after eBay employees carried out a cyberstalking and harassment campaign triggered by an online newsletter critical of the e-commerce company. The settlement, disclosed in a federal court order filed Wednesday, Feb. 25, halts a trial set to begin next week over multimillion-dollar claims filed by David and Ina Steiner against eBay and three former executives. The terms of the settlement were not shared. The company declined to comment beyond the order but previously said in court papers that it was committed to compensating the Steiners "fairly and appropriately for the appalling conduct they endured." https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2026/02/27/ebay-lawsuit-settlement-cyberstalking/88883622007/

Target leadership need to realize as a publicly traded company they are continuing to harm their external stakeholders and investors despite the changes that perceive will fix the issues.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2026-02-27/targets-management-under-fire-as-investors-agitate-for-change

Anyone else think the current COA metrics and stipulations are a joke? From my perspective, the expectations feel misaligned with the operational realities many recruiters are facing.
I genuinely appreciate the hard work and dedication of our top performers. However, I think it’s important to acknowledge that some of those team members have access to additional resources—such as administrative support—that significantly reduce their non-recruiting workload. Other recruiters are expected to meet similar performance standards while also managing administrative responsibilities independently. This creates a perception of inequity across the team.
Historically, many tenured recruiters managed large principal headcounts—often 60–80 coa—without additional support and while serving as the sole point of contact. Those titles were earned through sustained performance under challenging conditions. While compensation structures and business models have evolved, the current expectations combined with reduced support and compensation pressures are contributing to morale concerns.
There also appears to be inconsistency in how resources are allocated. Concentrating support around select individuals may drive strong results for a few, but it can unintentionally limit broader team growth and development. A more balanced distribution of resources could potentially create stronger, more sustainable performance across the organization.
Additionally, low level recruiters continue to absorb responsibilities outside of traditional recruiting scope—particularly in areas where ownership of process and payroll has shifted. When placement teams are not fully owning those processes, recruiters are often required to fill the gap. This increases workload without a corresponding adjustment in expectations or compensation.
Finally, I believe leadership alignment and transparency are critical during times of change. There are individuals within recruitment who bring deep institutional knowledge and strong operational leadership. Ensuring that the right leaders are empowered to guide strategy and execution will be important for long-term success. There needs to be advocating for equity, clarity in expectations, and a structure that supports both high performance and team-wide growth. The recruitment team deserves a win not more unrealistic goals thrown up against the wall hoping it sticks.

There is a strong emphasis placed on accountability, performance standards, and meeting deadlines, with clear consequences when expectations are not met. Annual performance scores and compensation are directly tied to those metrics.

Given that standard, it is concerning that the organization provided only one week’s notice that the largest bonus of the year would be delayed by an entire month. The communication was limited to a generic platform notification, with no direct leadership acknowledgment or explanation.

Additionally, the messaging shared on internal earnings calls often differs in tone and substance from investor communications, which are delivered prior to company-wide updates. That contrast creates confusion and erodes trust.

Delaying annual and Q4 bonus payouts by a full month, particularly without transparent communication, raises valid concerns about financial timing decisions and prioritization. Compensation is not discretionary recognition; it is earned performance pay.

When accountability appears to operate asymmetrically, it impacts morale, credibility, and ultimately retention. High-performing employees expect alignment between standards set for them and standards modeled by leadership.

Use this guide to help you manage team members who are not meeting the expectations of the office work goal and who are in a hub location. Holding your team members accountable to this goal is one of the expectations of your People Leader Goal. You should seek further guidance from HR Advisory Services (HRAS) if coaching the employee as described in this guide doesn’t result in improvement.

Note: This People Leader resource provides guidance regarding ongoing performance management relating to the office work goal. For information relating to the office work goal in relation to the year-end performance review process, please refer to our Measuring performance: People Leader resource.

Details

As a leader, we trust you to lead your teams with empathy while ensuring you set clear and consistent expectations. Be mindful that the office work goal may be challenging for some. Listen and provide the guidance needed for your team to achieve their office work goal.

U.S.: As a reminder, medical accommodations or flexible work arrangements may be applicable depending on the reason someone is not fulfilling the office work goal.

Europe: For leaders with team members in Europe, approved flexible/remote work arrangements and exceptions may also be applicable depending on the reason someone is not fulfilling the office work goal.

You have access to a dashboard to see how frequently your team members come into the office. This data should be considered, among other factors, when assessing team members’ performance with respect to the office work goal, such as observations of a team member’s work location (in person or via Teams video), vacation, illness, work travel, etc. For more information regarding the dashboard and its metrics, see the people leader resource.

Considerations

When using the dashboard to assess your team member’s in-office work, you are expected to assess the full picture of their performance, collaboration, and in-office presence, including but not limited to the following considerations:

Timing. When was the office work goal in effect for your team member? Because hub transitions are taking place on a rolling basis, team members should only be held accountable to the goal once they have an assigned work location and are directed to work onsite three or more days per week.

Absences. Was your team member on vacation, sick and safe leave (SSL), or an approved leave of absence (continuous or intermittent) during the relevant time period? Don’t count approved absences against your team member.
Note: team members on an approved leave of absence are excluded from the dashboard while on leave.

Work travel. Did your team member travel for business during the relevant time period? Don’t count work travel against your team member, even if they weren’t working from a U.S. Bank location.

Flexible work arrangement (FWA)/reasonable accommodation (U.S.). Did your team member have an approved flexible work arrangement or reasonable accommodation that allows them to work from the office less frequently or not at all during the relevant time? If your team member’s in-office work (or lack thereof) is consistent with an approved FWA or reasonable accommodation, they are meeting their office work goal.
Note: Team members on an approved FWA or remote work reasonable accommodation and their badge swipe data are excluded from the dashboard while the FWA or reasonable accommodation is in effect.

Approved flexible/remote work arrangement or exception (Europe). Did your team member have a flexible/remote work arrangement or exception request approved that allows them to work from the office less frequently or not at all during the relevant period? If your team member’s in-office work (or lack thereof) is in line with such approved requests, they are meeting their office work goal.

Short-term need. Has your team member requested a short-term need to work remotely? You can approve short-term exceptions (up to two weeks) to the office work goal without additional documentation or approval (for example, a mild illness that does not prevent them from working remotely, temporary transportation challenge, other personal issues, etc.).

Other. Was the team member using a temporary badge or are there other reasons the data in the dashboard may not be accurate?

Its the worst. They have nothing to show and all they do is take years for decisions.
Thought Katie would be better but no progress. We are so behind on data tooling and no strategy to move forward. The move to Dennis wont help as he is out of depth.

Here’s where it goes wrong:

1. It ki-ls specificity

Good reviews are specific.
Bad reviews say: “Consistently demonstrates strong teamwork and leadership.”

That’s filler. That’s what AI defaults to if you don’t feed it real input. And vague praise or criticism helps no one grow.

If a manager can’t point to:
• A project
• A missed deadline
• A tough conversation handled well
…then the review is noise.

1. It removes accountability

A performance review is leadership. If you outsource your judgment, you’re outsourcing responsibility. That’s weak management.

Employees can tell when feedback is generic. It erodes trust fast.

1. It avoids hard conversations

The real value of a review isn’t the document. It’s the conversation.

AI makes it tempting to soften, blur, or “corporate-speak” real issues instead of saying:

“You’re strong technically, but you’re not stepping up in meetings.”

Growth requires clarity. Not polish.

1. It creates legal and ethical risk

AI can unintentionally:
• Introduce biased language
• Overstandardize nuance
• Use phrasing that sounds formulaic and defensible instead of human and accurate

That’s risky in performance documentation.

Thank you for all that you’ve done! Here are your impossible deadlines, and here’s your Meets Expectations. For some, here is your pip instead of layoffs with packages

After NASA’s current review of the crew capsule space incident, Boeing is done, but is too Arrogant to admit it.

The latest version of the presence report contains a significant error. It assumes that all employees require 5 days of office presence; however, some organizations require only 3 days.

This tool fails to account for this variability and applies the five-day requirement uniformly. As a result, it inaccurately lowers the overall office presence percentage for teams operating under a three-day model. It is time to retire this ineffective tool, as it has repeatedly failed to produce accurate results.

If this company truly wants to grow its market, it must take a hard look at the people directors leading its teams. These leaders have a direct and measurable impact on team performance. Ignoring this level of leadership has not produced meaningful gains so far, and it will not do so in the future. You have leaders that do not show up for work or for their teams. Why would any company pay leaders not to show up? It would serve the company well to undertake the necessary, perhaps uncomfortable, work to address this now, unless the intention is to continue falling short with full awareness of the cause.

And to be clear, this post is not intended to solicit responses from people directors who may feel personally offended by this perspective. The focus should remain on results, accountability, and the long-term success of the organization, not on individual sensitivities.

https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/20341/report.html

FIS Official Anonymous Ethics Hotline and Reporting

Start lighting fires and speak up. We already know they don't care, so throw some gasoline on the fire and start throwing all these do nothing cowards under the bus.

I am a biggest advocate for products that I use. I give feedback. I use word of mouth. I put on good reviews. T on the other hand, does not allow their employees to use any telecommunication technology by enforcing an outdated Draconian policy from 1950s to work at an office. Why should I buy their internet? their cell service? their streaming? (if that's still even alive).

T does not believe in all of this. Why should you?

Verizon says they want to be customer focused but my boss said that’s BS and only wants sales. He said he don’t give a Frick about making them happy. He wants presidents club

There's a team proposing the following update to the OS Behaviors -

1) Accountability Deflection Mastery - Why own a problem when you can schedule three meetings to discuss whose problem it really is?
2) Narrative Optimization - Reality is negotiable. Alignment is mandatory.
3) Strategic Efficiency - Cutting corners isn’t negligence, it’s “operational agility.”
4) Perception Management - Performance rarely matters. Visibility matters more.
5) Meeting Endurance - If a decision can be made in 10 minutes, ensure it takes at least 6 calendar invites.
6) Innovation Vocabulary Fluency - Repackage the same idea every 18 months. Call it transformation.

Can we hope to finally see those MDs who made the poor decisions to expose the company to the risk around Russia (a country on the US-sanction list since 2014 and its illegal invasion so hardly a case of "how could we have known?") finally held accountable for their poor decision-making?
There are Ds and MDs in my area who recruited 100s in Russia and completely messed up our org in the process. Despite showing shockingly poor judgement and poor management skills they are still at Citi.

How did people get exec roles in Humana Digital yet have no leadership, experience, accountability or vision/plan to deliver Humana Digital products or create a solid organization to deliver / support? They must have been great talkers during interviews - but the Board and C-Suite need to bring in leaders for Digital! Who is in place there now are awful - what were you thinking??

Bunch of frauds.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge8nd5ve00o

Galgotias University was removed from the India AI Impact Summit 2026 after falsely presenting a Chinese-made Unitree Go2 robot dog as their own, in-house, "Made in India" innovation.