#accountability

BY Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Integrity, understood as a disposition to behave in prosocial, ethical, and principled ways rather than corrupt or self-serving ones, is among the strongest and most consistent predictors of job performance and leadership effectiveness. The reason is far from mysterious. Leadership, whatever its context, is a collective enterprise. No meaningful goal, from building empires to running companies, has ever been achieved alone.

Across history, not just in humans but also other animals, cooperation has depended less on raw power than on trust. Ancient trading societies flourished precisely because reputation constrained behavior: Merchants in Phoenician city-states, medieval guilds, and Silk Road networks relied on repeated interactions and informal enforcement mechanisms to ensure that partners honored their commitments. Those who cheated were excluded, not merely judged. Trust, in effect, functioned as an early mechanism for coordination and enforcement.

The same logic applies in modern organizations. Teams perform better when members believe that leaders will act fairly, keep promises, and avoid exploiting asymmetries of information or power, or are so focused on their personal gain that they have little concern in harming the group. In line, research shows that leaders perceived as lacking integrity struggle to attract talent, elicit discretionary effort, or sustain collaboration over time. Conversely, leaders known for ethical consistency benefit from faster coordination, lower monitoring costs, and greater willingness among others to take risks on their behalf.

Given a choice, people prefer to collaborate with those they trust not because they are naive, but because distrust is expensive. Working with unreliable or unethical partners increases the likelihood of failure, conflict, and reputational damage. In business, this may mean backing leaders who misrepresent performance or shift blame. In politics, it can mean empowering those who erode institutions for personal gain. In both cases, the costs are borne not only by the followers but by the system as a whole.

This is why chronic corruption is one of the most reliable markers of institutional breakdown. As documented year after year by Transparency International in its Corruption Perceptions Index, countries that score lowest on integrity and trust tend to share familiar pathologies: weak rule of law, politicized institutions, capital flight, and persistent underinvestment, generally caused by parasitic governments and destructive leadership. By contrast, countries that consistently rank at the top of integrity and trust measures benefit from stronger institutions, more predictable governance, and higher levels of social and economic cooperation. To be sure, these societies are not free of self-interest or ambition; rather, they have succeeded in aligning incentives so that ethical behavior is rewarded and corruption is costly, censoring selfish short-term individual gains in favor of collective long-term benefits.

Measuring integrity
So, how can we tell whether a person has integrity, or gauge someone’s moral reliability?

The question is especially consequential when applied to leaders, whose decisions shape the success, welfare, and future prospects of others. Fortunately, behavioral science offers several useful insights, even if it stops short of perfect certainty.

First, integrity is not directly observable. Unlike physical attributes such as height or hair color, it cannot be seen or measured at a glance. Instead, it is inferred or deducted from patterns of behavior, consistency over time, and alignment between words and deeds. Integrity is therefore an attribution rather than a trait we can observe directly, which makes assessment inherently probabilistic rather than definitive.

Second, short-term interactions are often misleading. Because appearing ethical brings clear benefits (trust, influence, reduced scrutiny, and access to resources) people are incentivized to signal integrity even when they lack it. This helps explain why superficially ethical environments can sometimes attract parasitic actors who exploit the goodwill and assumptions of others. In contrast, in persistently corrupt settings, distrust becomes the default, and even well-intentioned individuals are treated with suspicion. Context shapes both behavior and perception.

A parallel and increasingly robust line of evidence comes from research on the so-called dark traits: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Although conceptually distinct, these traits share a common core of low empathy, emotional coldness, and a tendency to instrumentalize others. From an integrity standpoint, this combination is toxic. Individuals high on these traits are less constrained by guilt or concern for others, more willing to bend or ignore rules, and more likely to justify unethical behavior as necessary, deserved, or clever rather than wrong.

Psychopathy is most directly linked to callousness and fearlessness, reducing sensitivity to punishment and moral emotion. Machiavellianism predicts strategic deception, cynicism about human motives, and a belief that ends justify means. Narcissism, especially in its more grandiose forms, adds entitlement and moral exceptionalism, the belief that normal rules apply to others but not to oneself.

Together, these traits reliably predict counterproductive work behaviors, ethical transgressions, and integrity failures, particularly in roles that confer power, discretion, and weak oversight.

Crucially, this is not because such individuals lack intelligence or self-control, but because their motivational architecture is misaligned with prosocial norms. Where integrity depends on empathy, respect for authority, and an internalized concern for collective outcomes, dark traits tilt decision-making toward self-interest, dominance, and short term gain, making them among the strongest dispositional red flags for integrity risk in organizational life.

Third, while integrity cannot be measured perfectly, it can be assessed meaningfully. Research shows that peer ratings are among the most reliable indicators, precisely because integrity is reputational: It reveals itself in how people behave when others depend on them. Longitudinal data, such as 360-degree feedback, is especially informative. Personality traits like conscientiousness, altruism, and self-control (including the capacity to self-edit) also predict ethical conduct, as does past behavior. Self-reports are often dismissed, but well-designed measures still differentiate reliably between individuals with higher and lower integrity. Track records matter, even if they do not render anyone immune to temptation. As Warren Buffett famously observed, reputation takes a lifetime to build and a moment to destroy.

Finally, the environment matters. Ethical failures are not only the result of “bad apples,” but also of “rotten barrels.” Weak governance, misaligned incentives, and tolerance for small transgressions can erode integrity even among otherwise decent individuals, while well-designed systems can reinforce ethical behavior by making misconduct costly and transparency unavoidable.

Sapping growth
Taken together, these points suggest that integrity is neither inscrutable nor guaranteed. Whether in governments, firms, or teams, integrity functions as an enabling condition for coordination and progress. When trust erodes, actors devote more effort to monitoring, hedging, and self-protection, leaving less energy for innovation or growth. In this sense, integrity is not merely a moral ideal, but a form of social infrastructure: largely invisible when it works, and painfully obvious when it does not.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is the chief science officer at Russell Reynolds Associates, a professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia University, co-founder of deepersignals.com, and an associate at Harvard’s Entrepreneurial Finance Lab

https://www.fastcompany.com/91490509/3-science-backed-ways-to-measure-integrity

It’s by far the worst experience I’ve had in my professional life. I’m in CWP, leadership is ineffectual, they do absolutely nothing but the bare minimum, just enough to keep their job. They won’t care about their teams, they don’t care about doing what’s right for the members , they just do the bare minimum to keep their job. It’s atrocious and shocking for a company of this size to allow leaders to behave the way they do, I don’t even feel like I have a manager or any sort of support system. I cannot wait to quit this nightmare of a company, The really sad part is I’m one of the few people that other job, follow the rules and the people that do whatever they want aren’t held accountable. It’s only a matter of time before a member takes legal action due to the irresponsibility of most of the staff.

Bumping from @2hr+1kd1d6bb6, well stated.

This is more for my CSG folks but holy fu-k I audit csg chats and calls from time to time and global agents/managers need way better training! From the lack of being able to follow simple articles and policies, to telling clients promises that cant be done, and managers just ignoring any escalations, Dell support is just fu--ing terrible! Literally just saw an agent trying to help client fix her canon printer on a live audit. Stupid!

Year after year, we see the same pattern: failed decisions, failed projects, failed products, failed initiatives, failed policies. The outcomes are consistent — underperformance and disruption.

Yet the accountability is not.

Senior leaders are rarely, if ever, held responsible for these failures. Instead, rank-and-file employees absorb the consequences — blamed, terminated, or laid off while the architects of these poor decisions remain untouched.

How does this culture persist? When poor judgment repeatedly goes unchecked at the top, it raises serious questions about governance, transparency, and whether advancement is based on merit or internal favoritism.

Failure at Dell has become all too systemic — and predictable.

From: Ford Employees
To: Ford Leadership
Dear Ford Leadership:
We write with respect to Ford Motor Company's quality standards and manufacturing processes. For months, Ford customers and employees have watched with concern as quality issues have eroded the trust and reputation our company spent over a century building. After years of escalating problems with certain product lines, customer satisfaction scores continue to decline while warranty costs spiral upward. Ford vehicles cannot continue to disappoint customers while using resources that should be invested in engineering excellence and manufacturing precision. Our customers rightfully expect their company to take action to restore Ford's reputation for quality and ensure no more loyalty is lost. It is critical that we come together to impose common sense reforms and accountability measures that our customers, dealers, and employees are demanding.
We believe Ford needs to enact the following guardrails:

1. Targeted Quality Control – No vehicle leaves the assembly line without comprehensive inspection. End "ship and fix later" practices and improve validation procedures and standards. Require verification that every vehicle meets quality specifications before delivery to dealers.
2. Transparent Problem Identification – Prohibit concealment of known quality issues from engineers, technicians, and customers. Require immediate escalation of recurring defects.
3. Employee Accountability and Authority – enable employees to display ownership of their systems and be accessible for quality concerns. Empower them to stop production when critical defects are identified, without fear of retaliation.
4. Protect Critical Development Time – Prohibit funds from being diverted away from proper engineering development cycles. Ensure adequate testing time for new platforms, powertrains, and major components before launch.
5. Stop Cost-Cutting That Compromises Quality – Prohibit purchasing decisions based solely on lowest cost when quality, durability, or safety could be compromised. Require engineering sign-off on all supplier changes.
6. Uphold Manufacturing Standards – Place into policy a reasonable and consistent manufacturing standard across all plants. Expand quality training and require certification of assembly workers. In the case of a quality escape, production must pause until root cause is identified and corrected.
7. Ensure Cross-Functional Coordination and Oversight – Preserve the ability of engineering, manufacturing, and quality teams to investigate and address potential defects. Require that quality data is preserved and shared across departments. Require consent of engineering leadership before accelerating production timelines.
8. Build Safeguards Into the System – Make clear that all vehicles sold must meet the same basic quality standards regardless of plant, supplier, or production pressure. Allow dealerships and customers clear channels to report quality concerns directly to engineering. Reverse limitations on employee access to warranty data and customer complaints.
9. Data Collection for Improvement, Not Blame – Require comprehensive collection of quality metrics, warranty data, and customer feedback. Mandate transparent sharing of this information with employee teams. Prohibit retaliation against employees who identify quality problems.
10. No Shortcuts in Development – Regulate and standardize the development and validation processes to ensure adequate testing time, appropriate safety margins, and thorough documentation across all product lines.
    These reforms should apply to all Ford products, whether passenger vehicles, trucks, commercial vehicles, or any future platforms.
    Furthermore, there are steps that Ford leadership has the power to take right now to show good faith, including:

Fully addressing known quality issues in current production vehicles before launching new models
Reinstating adequate engineering development timelines that were shortened for cost or speed
Empowering employees to halt production when critical defects are discovered
Investing warranty savings back into prevention rather than treating quality failures as acceptable cost of business.

These are common sense solutions that protect Ford's reputation, ensure customer satisfaction, and honor the legacy of quality that generations of Ford employees built. Our customers deserve vehicles they can trust. Our dealers deserve products they can confidently sell. Our employees deserve to take pride in the vehicles we design and build.

We built the Model T, the Mustang, and the Ford Tempo. We survived a century of challenges through innovation and quality. We can restore that standard, but only if leadership commits to these fundamental reforms.
The employees who produce Ford vehicles are ready to deliver world-class quality. We need leadership's commitment to give us the resources to do so. If they lack the will, we may need to commandeer this vessel so that "we are the captain now".

Respectfully submitted,
Ford Employees

How many managers are going to lose thier jobs over the shady business they have been doing for years?
It's ashame that when these management A holes finally gets what's coming to them they have already ruined other honest peoples careers.

So… saw the big LinkedIn splash about the CXO Leadership Summit.

Thought we were tightening spend on these things? Especially while we’re laying people off and talking about cost discipline.

Genuine question —
• What was the actual outcome of this summit?
• How much did we spend hosting hundreds of “leaders”?
• What measurable business value came out of it?

Feels a bit tone-deaf when teams are being asked to do more with less.

Would be good to see some transparency and accountability here.

Okay I was never a fan of hans... But

What's up with all these tough guy avp and directors now just out and open sh-----g on hans ..

Big tough guys now, where were you a year ago tough guy...

I understand in the vz world bootlicking is part of the game. But JFC these jokers are so gd obvious.

Where the credo about owning problems and not passing the buck...

We are seeing the demise of Xerox ethics. Not internal ethics. Executive and Board leadership ethics. The Executive leadership remains accountable to the stockholders even if that means they receive false internal information reporting. They have yet to hold accountable the executive or next level leadership when they don’t deliver.
BS and CB you should be held accountable for your poor leadership and organization decisions; this means if you don’t deliver next quarter

If sales coaches are training staff and sending stats what do the Managers do?

I find my attitude toward others is off the radar lately. Im beyond sick of the same bs day in and day out. No accountability, the expectation that I should do your work for you, watching slackers get promoted while good staff are targeted and terminated. Trying to hold out as long as possible cause the job market is trash but this place has become so toxic and seems almost intentional

If the rumours are accurate, TD has reportedly made the decision to significantly reduce its New Business team — primarily those operating at field level. In effect, it appears the accountability process was STUBBED at that level.

What is notable, however, is that leadership responsibility for growth through new-logo acquisition does not appear to have been treated with the same level of scrutiny. The individual tasked with delivering that mandate seems to have avoided the cull, despite the outcomes not aligning with the original brief.

Whether this results in a lateral move or progression into another senior role, it raises broader questions around governance and performance accountability. When growth ambitions are not realised, it is reasonable to assess whether the issues sit purely with frontline execution — or whether strategic direction, positioning, and leadership oversight also played a role.

In any organisation, sustainable new-business acquisition underpins stability and long-term success. When that engine stalls, the impact is inevitably felt by those closest to the revenue line. Yet growth challenges are rarely isolated to field execution alone.

If product-market fit was genuinely a barrier, that insight should have been formally escalated and addressed through a structured mitigation plan. Where systemic obstacles remain unresolved, responsibility must extend beyond those executing the sales motion.

In competitive markets where alternatives such as SF or DB may already hold stronger positions, the key question becomes whether the opportunity to win new logos was constrained externally — or whether it was effectively STUBBED internally by gaps in strategy, capability, or vision.

When leadership continuity persists despite repeated growth underperformance, it inevitably prompts reflection on how accountability is applied — and whether standards are consistent across all levels of the organisation. All in all, its evident, those that should hold accountability, despite failure are continuously being rewarded and there lies the problem at TD!

Looks like ford is tracking computers. Happened to check network traffic and workblaze-us.lakesidesoftware.com is showing up every 3 minutes. This wasn’t on my network traffic in the recent past. If you take a trip over to their website it shows Ford as a trusted partner. Transparency would have been nice.

LL6 and up no accountability as they keep making bad decisions.

Hey HR ask these questions on the next survey!

Is leadership a meritocracy or a friendship club?
Do promotions require performance or proximity?
Is feedback only “constructive” when it comes from certain mouths?
Are stretch assignments reserved for the already favored?
Does accountability skip over the chosen few?
When mistakes happen, does context matter more depending on who made it?
Is visibility earned, or inherited through alignment?
Are we building a team, or curating a personality match collection?
If English fluency equals competence, are we measuring skill or accent?
When someone “plays d-mb,” is it ignorance or convenience?
If fairness is real, why is the pattern so predictable?
Why does “culture fit” always seem to fit the same people?

It’s draining pretending not to see it. It’s more draining pretending it doesn’t affect morale.

Has anyone else received their demotion related to Senior Status?

We’re increasing pay for order taker CMs, yet lowering pay for recruiters. It feels like we keep asking certain teams to absorb the impact while others are protected.
If leadership is unable to right the ship, are they also taking title reductions or salary cuts? Accountability shouldn’t only apply to frontline employees.

This approach is damaging to morale and culture. Repeatedly cutting pay or downgrading roles sends the message that hard work and tenure aren’t valued. Strong leadership builds trust, stability, and shared accountability — not uncertainty and resentment.

Right now, this feels less like strategic decision-making and more like reactive cost-shifting, and that’s not good leadership.

Phillips 66 increasingly feels like four different companies trying to share one identity.

Refining behaves like a cyclical market business.

Midstream behaves like long-cycle infrastructure.

Chemicals operates on global petrochemical timelines.

Commercial trading introduces short-term risk and volatility.

Each of these businesses has its own logic. The problem is that they do not share the same operating tempo, capital profile, or investor base.

And yet management continues to insist that integration creates advantage.

The evidence suggests the opposite.

Refining volatility still dominates results. Chemicals absorbs capital just as margins weaken. Midstream demands steady reinvestment as assets age. Trading amplifies swings rather than smoothing them. Instead of offsetting one another, the segments often pull the company in conflicting directions.

This is not an execution issue alone — it is a structural one.

When leadership attention is divided across fundamentally different business models, accountability blurs. Each segment can point to another when performance falls short:
• Refining blames markets.
• Trading points to volatility.
• Midstream cites long-cycle economics.
• Chemicals asks for patience.

The result is a company where no single leader owns the full economic outcome, and shareholders are left holding a portfolio they didn’t explicitly choose.

Investors don’t need Phillips 66 to assemble this mix for them. They can buy refiners, midstream operators, or chemical producers directly. Portfolio theory says diversification only creates value when it reduces risk or increases returns. At Phillips 66, it increasingly looks like diversification is doing neither.

That is why the breakup conversation keeps resurfacing — not as an activist slogan, but as a rational response to structural tension.

Separating refining from infrastructure.

Allowing chemicals to find a more natural owner.

Letting midstream operate without being anchored to refining cycles.

These are not radical ideas. They are acknowledgments that different businesses require different leadership focus and different shareholder bases.

Right now, Phillips 66 feels less like an integrated platform and more like a collection of assets waiting for clarity.

The company doesn’t suffer from a lack of strategy.

It suffers from too many strategies competing at once.

Until leadership chooses focus over breadth, the conglomerate discount will remain — not because investors misunderstand the story, but because they understand it all too well.

This crisis over poor financial controls and potential fraud is completely unacceptable for a former CFO and now CEO. The only real remediation plans involves Martin being fired. Not him "leaving for personal reasons", but actually fired. Without that there's no reason to believe anything coming out of Kyndryl.

For any engineers on the board, I have a couple of questions. Don't take offense, they are legitimate questions:

1. Why can't engineering ever release any projects on time?

2. Why is anything you do release full of bugs and half complete?

3. Why are we as a company years and years behind the competition when it comes to full-stack enterprise IT solutions?

4. Why can we never see a roadmap with anything on it when requested?

5. Why is there seemingly never any accountability to address failed projects or missed deadlines?

This is by far the worst engineering environment I've ever seen at any company I've ever worked at. Seems to me it's engineering comp plans that need to change, not SCPs.

When senior executives leave, the change rarely stops there.

Leadership shifts reset strategy, trust, and expectations. That reset naturally moves to the director level.

Directors are visible. They execute strategy and often carry the imprint of the leadership that promoted them. In transitions, that association matters.

The signs are familiar. New operating rhythms. More focus on accountability. Questions about why work exists, not just how fast it moves.

This does not always lead to exits. Sometimes it shows up as stalled growth, role changes, or sudden performance narratives.

What many miss is that this is not about personalities or praise. It is about how large organizations actually operate. Leadership change is a business process, not a sentiment exercise. It also exposes a harder truth. Many people in senior roles never fully understood the business to begin with.

Titles offer little protection in these moments. Alignment does.

Executive exits make the headlines.
The real change happens one level down.

Here's an idea: why not overhaul the leadership? Every bad decision has come from the top. That might actually save the company.

MST home dispatch tech use and abuse company assets. They drive 100K-200K bucket trucks to their home and back to their home garage everyday. Big V8 6.3 L engines use a lot of gas and insurance on top. Also, with MST high pay and only have .5 job per tech a day per tech how is that saving company money and liability.
There are rules to follow when joining home dispatch program. Following the rules helps save gas and time and wear and tear on a vehicle used to drive to work and to home. But MSTs abuse this program from driving to the garage every day and dispatching at the garage. Making a stop at the grocery store to grocery shop in the company vehicle before driving home. Not closing your last job at the job site and instead, drive home and being still dispatched on your work ticket and then closing the job when you arrive home. I follow the rules, and I do not want the home dispatch program to go away because of MSTs taking advantage of the abuse. Also, MST managers are favoring many MSTs and letting the home dispatch MSTs do what ever they want. STOP ABUSING THE HOME DISPATCH PROGRAM YOU MSTs. You know who you are...

Plans are going to be unattainable, pressure I’ll be immense and management will turn a blind eye and expect the field to make up for their ineptitude without offering any solution. No new offerings, no new messaging, and no field support from leadership as they will just sit back and look at dashboards while complaining things aren’t working without any accountability themselves. Nightmare work environment.

The company has been in a literal perpetual layoff cycle. A perfect record for outflows, constant executive turnover. Demolishing 2 of your newest buildings. Yet somehow giving himself a MASSIVE raise all while ruining people’s lives none stop! These people must be held accountable at some point. Hopefully karma can help but it surely doesn’t seem like it will.

My AD manages 2 people and owns one product . No working level duties .. No delivery pressure or resolving ground level problems

Keep making decks and spreadsheets. Attending meetings where they are not even required.. Taking status from us passing it to leaders as if she is making great progress

All those supposedly great security and cost saving decisions by moving to the cloud without knowing what was being done or securing it made by Legg and Baich just keeps on giving... why didn't their heads roll while staff did?

https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2026/02/att-breach-data-resurfaces-with-new-risks-for-customers

Why it's the leadership at the top not held accountable. They created this disastrous outcome, and we the working employees are paying the ultimate price by losing our jobs and dignity. It's a very sad and heartbreaking day for a lot of good people!

Executives, VPs, and Directors should be accountable and shown the door first.

About a year ago I was talking about MU and the eminent shortage in memory to a Director level dude, his response, 'they're still around?'. That right there tells you all you need to know about the direction of this company. There are a lot of people in high places making important decisions that don't actually care or even understand technology. Middle management has a severe lack of vision and probably accountability.

I've been with SAP for many years and I still trust most of the management but today's call really breaks my trust in it.

Why is management blaming shareholders for the stock price going down? Why can't they take accountability because they set the strategy?

Why is management blaming employees saying we aren't doing as well as we can? We're consistently overperforming even with less resources than before, employees are burnt out and they're setting higher and higher targets for each year. Why can't they allow more budget for areas that need investments?

Why is management trying for share buybacks and layoffs at the same time? They both need a lot of cash flow and the share price rise is modest at best. We're losing budget that can be put to better use instead. Buybacks seem completely unnecessary and layoffs make us lose good employees who can support other initiatives.

Why does management keep talking about Palantir in every fr3aking call? I am tired of comparisons between Palantir and SAP as they are very different companies with a vastly different customer base. I don't understand CK's obsession with Peter Thiel. Our business models are different and we should focus on ours instead of trying to be more like Palantir.

Why isn't management looking into customer feedback around AI? I herd several times that customers aren't understanding AI enough or that they are not using it correctly or that they aren't finding the right tool or whatever new excuse. Microsoft already showed that Copilot generated revenue in the short term because it was forced to be a part of every Microsoft product. But they didn't get the adoption they expected and customers aren't willing to pay more for AI if it doesn't generate additional value for them. SAP needs to work on AI but the focus should be on generating value for customer not on AI adoption of SAP products. So far, Joule has been a failure.

I am tired, boss.

I want less layoffs. I want our management to be more accountable. How do we move on from here? CK and DA are only doubling down on this messaging and SAP's been going downhill.

He’ll blame this latest stock debacle on forces beyond our control. His usual victimhood.

That doesn’t explain the fact that he had a complete id--t running the product organization for 10 yrs who had neither the capability nor the temperament for the job.

Not to mention one disastrous acquisition after another, including the final nail in the coffin, Neustar.

All the metrics are about calls and volume of waste, no real outcomes.

Who’s ready for the Townhall? Anyone planning on posting a very legit, accountability question we all can thumbs up so it gets answered?

Today's word

Can someone clarify whether there are formal guidelines or norms around reporting structures, specifically, whether Senior Directors can have only Band 4 roles reporting to them and no Band 5 (Principal/Director) roles?

VP - endlesslya swashbuckling with engineered decks to ask for more budget for FTEs, consulging engagements (or stupid tech programs with fraudelent value cases that was pitched to them in exchange for a potential board seat down the line). Not accountable for performance and delivery

VP- reports to VP, responsible for procuring the decks for swashbucling and making budget ask justifications. Trying to fill CV to become VP1 in the next gig, only manages up. Not accountable for performance and delivery.

SD- responsible for owning the pretty decks used by VP1 & 2. Not accountable for performance and delivery and wont have any KPIs or OKRs. Only manages up while being responsible for maintaining the facade of leadership. Will threaten and retaliate on any dissent or suspicion of whistleblowing. Will do lots of stupid team events quarterly to provide bread and circus.

D- responsible for creating the decks. Not accountable or responsible for anything beyond managing upwards and keeping the facade up. Will invent BS performance metrics and play bad cop for ICs to keep the order. Just waiting for their SD promotion while not managing more than 3 direct reports.

M- very rare creature at nike, manager level work is done by Directors.

P- invented director role to keep pay levels without the headcount to keep people. will do mostly what D does, doing decks without being accountable for anything or owning anything. will be scapegoated for performance if they stay in role more than 2 years.

L- baseline IC, responsible for doing analyst work to create data for the above. Owns everything without owning it. accountable for everything without influence. May have to do excel flipping on a 30 hour basis.

anything below- congrats for failing at corporate, you are essentially a glorified exec assistant. Will be asked to deliver everything from planning events to procuring merch. will be held accountable and responsible for everything. Performance expectations would be at the sky and will always be scapegoated. will be thrown around from role to role until they call it quits. only chance of moving upwards is finding a D to su-k up to that will eventually promote them as they become indispensible for their ego.

Real work will be done in southeast asia, real value will be generated by partners who sell the real work created in southeast asia. None of the above have any influence or impact on the outcomes as they exist for theathre. Occasional product hits or media sensations created by external agencies keep the ship floating.

Take a look, the new corporate leadership and SWN personnel have added way more costs and increased anxiety across the organization, own up to a wrong doing for the long term and put these people in their place

Does anyone know what the he-l is taking the company so long to issue the new picture ids, that they demanded back in October that we needed to do it or face discipline. No1 knows where or when they r getting sent out. Once again rush rush rush with this company n the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing.

Now even less time for DXC. The AI bot who wrote the earnings call speech is now the DXC CEO.

TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC Established in Compliance with U.S. Regulatory Requirements

Today, TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC has been established in compliance with the Executive Order signed by President Trump on September 25, 2025, now enabling more than 200 million Americans and 7.5 million businesses to continue to discover, create, and thrive as part of TikTok's vibrant global community and experience. The majority American owned Joint Venture will operate under defined safeguards that protect national security through comprehensive data protections, algorithm security, content moderation, and software assurances for U.S. users.
TikTok USDS Joint Venture's mandate is to secure U.S. user data, apps and the algorithm through comprehensive data privacy and cybersecurity measures. It will safeguard the U.S. content ecosystem through robust trust and safety policies and content moderation while ensuring continuous accountability through transparency reporting and third-party certifications.
….
Data Protection: U.S. user data will be protected by USDS Joint Venture in Oracle's secure U.S. cloud environment. The Joint Venture will operate a comprehensive data privacy and cybersecurity program that is audited and certified by third party cybersecurity experts. The program will adhere to major industry standards, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) CSF and 800-53 and ISO 27001 as well as the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Security Requirements for Restricted Transactions.
Algorithm Security: The Joint Venture will retrain, test, and update the content recommendation algorithm on U.S. user data. The content recommendation algorithm will be secured in Oracle's U.S. cloud environment.
Software Assurance: The Joint Venture will secure U.S. apps through software assurance protocols, and review and validate source code on an ongoing basis, assisted by its Trusted Security Partner, Oracle.
Trust & Safety: The Joint Venture will safeguard the U.S. content ecosystem and have decision-making authority for trust and safety policies and content moderation.
Interoperability enables the Joint Venture to provide U.S. users with a global TikTok experience, ensuring U.S. creators can be discovered and businesses can operate on a global scale. TikTok global's U.S. entities will manage global product interoperability and certain commercial activities, including e-commerce, advertising, and marketing.
The Joint Venture, built on the foundation of the TikTok U.S. Data Security (USDS) organization, will operate as an independent entity governed by the following seven-member, majority-American board of directors:
…

Raul Fernandez – Independent Director and Chair of the Security Committee: Raul Fernandez is President and Chief Executive Officer of DXC Technology and a member of its Board of Directors. He brings more than three decades of experience at the intersection of technology, risk, and national security.
…

Full Press Release here: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/announcement-from-the-new-tiktok-usds-joint-venture-llc?lang=en

Just in headend will be contractors based also. They are currently looking at a few potential companies to take over....

Only people to blame are employees for letting this happen.. Chicken sh--s

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of some of these VPs on LinkedIn talking about AI and the impact they can have when they can’t even look away from their monitor and the script that they’re reading from. The chief people officer is the worst offender of all. Cisco is not an AI company just like they’re not a software company. Stick to selling boxes that’s where you made your money.