#advicetomanagement

The 1st question Elon Musk will ask Erica Dhawan is what product did you create?

Please please do not hire those people.. They are just good at talking instead of doing.

In AI world, we need someone can actually create something

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

I'm a Manager and I have had to lay off top raters over low performers because the leader has a vision. I can tell you, ratings have some sway but ultimately no one is safe from the shoulder tap.

Keep your options open.

If you're able, get licensed and the FPQP designation. I know it seems intimidating but you know more than you think.

Tenured BOAs are being let go through teaming. Remember all that dust we kicked up about our pay? Yeah.

Be prepared.

Anyone else get this mandate this week from their manager as a SWE? I dont understand how this is even possible or how it can sustain itself. I asked my manager if we have any ideas or plans for what any customer or user would want in an AI feature, he said no, but leadership wants to see AI, so we as engineers need to come up with something. ??? Isnt that products job?

The only "AI feature" we have made as a team in 3 years is an internal RAG chatbot that reads our docs. Some guy also added AI code review because management made him. Thats it. And no one uses any of it, ever.

So how are we gonna make a feature every quarter until the end of time? Eventually we will run out of places to cram it, even if these features go in smoothly (they wont). This place has gotten absolutely insane.

By end of day 19. Please come back and remember what I told.

Ignore the trolls.

Our entire executive team should be forced to watch this in a loop for 24h straight. This video should be broadcasted all over the TVs in every qcom office.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2026-02-04/things-have-to-change-at-qualcomm-goldberg-says-video&ved=2ahUKEwi_9t_yrMWSAxUUL0QIHf2aKm0QwqsBegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw1-EcxiKck5FQbTK9zBI6Oy

Why dont we vote to have AI replace the CEO & BOARD

Lets lead the market by example.

Spend 30 minutes on AI, but you "have 5 minutes to get through 8 things". You literally just acted like running out of time is a valid excuse to not share the "Dan Plan". What a joke.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/anthropic-economic-index-january-2026-report

TLDR: How humans prompt is how Claude responds: The education levels of human prompts and AI responses are nearly perfectly correlated (r > 0.92 at both levels). Higher per capita usage countries also show more augmentation—using Claude as a collaborator rather than delegating decisions entirely.

In other words, model quality output highly correlates with education level. Explains a lot at WF. Time to bring in more AI savvy people.

As a senior woman at this bank, I am appalled at the handling of the bully and harasser Andy Sieg. The HR team here is the absolutely worse. In fact, Sara told us at a meeting of senior women that she knows nothing about HR and is just "fake it till you make it".
Jane, do us all a favor and go hire someone who understands the important role HR can play when led by someone with integrity and an ounce of employee advocacy.

With Rick Rieder poised to become the next Federal Reserve Chair, the direction of U.S. economic policy is no longer ambiguous. He has stated repeatedly and publicly that the American job market must be protected and strengthened, and that current interest rate policy has already harmed job creation for American workers. This is a clear signal that domestic employment is now a top national priority.
If BlackRock truly stands by its claim that it “cares about America,” then this moment demands action—not slogans. Corporate patriotism must be reflected in hiring decisions, especially at a time when millions of capable Americans are seeking stable, well-paying jobs.
BlackRock currently employs a substantial number of H-1B visa holders in roles that do not require rare or irreplaceable skills. These are jobs that qualified American workers can and should be doing. Continuing to rely on foreign labor in such roles directly undermines the stated goal of strengthening the U.S. workforce and suppresses opportunities for American citizens.
The conclusion is straightforward: BlackRock should phase out foreign workers in roles Americans can perform and fill those positions with American workers. Anything less is inconsistent with both the priorities articulated by the incoming Federal Reserve Chair and BlackRock’s own claims of commitment to the United States.
If BlackRock wants to be seen as aligned with America’s economic future, it must put American workers first—clearly, deliberately, and immediately.

Straight from Davos:

• JPMorgan Chase CEO Warns AI Could Cause Civil Unrest

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon discussed AI's impact on jobs at the World Economic Forum. He warned AI could lead to civil unrest if not managed properly by society. Dimon urged businesses and governments to collaborate on worker support programs. This support includes retraining, income assistance, and relocation aid. He suggested a slow AI rollout and potential government regulation to prevent mass layoffs.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91479436/jaime-dimon-wants-government-to-restrict-ai-layoffs

i.e. retire

There comes a time when we must come to terms with being led by malicious, unethical, psychopaths. Protect yourself, they will eat you tomorrow if they believe they can gain anything.

and for the love of whatever higher power you do or don't believe in, whistle blow outside the organization not within it. They are smothering honest reports

Do not sign anything, hire lawyer right away!

Can we please hire some good sales managers. Why are we paying 4-10m a year in GP payouts for a job that we could get for 300k. They would actually have the skills to do the job other than being "a nice guy". Where is enterprise reimagine when you need it? They are the low hanging fruit.

TL;DR: Kraft's constant cost-cutting and corporate mess gave room to competitors come in and take market share. I hope Nike executives read this

Other OP posted a terrible word vomit on the post, but I thought it was a good read. This feels uncomfortably close to home. The WSJ’s “ How Kraft Heinz Lost Its Lock on Mac and Cheese—and American Shoppers” is worth reading. Now they are in turnaround mode.

WSJ article:https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/kraft-heinz-mac-cheese-split-ceo-dccc9217?source:google.com

W/o paywall thelayoff post: https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1kdyrg024

Where do ethical concerns at this firm end up in leadership - seeking a name that isnt RV. There are insidious tactics being applied to domestic employees at this time which will have prolific downstream consequences. There is proof abound certain execs are complicit with fake performance reviews under a visa and 3rd party displacement model.

Please write your government representatives if you see it too, or have worked with McKinsey on these models in the past.

2025 was the year of the snake 2026 is the year of the horse. Corporate snakes still lurk. But the horse Spirit will determine if MoA fades into the sunset or starts kicking Ar-e again

Below is the new 1 yr strategic plan. Failure to execute on all of these means the Board & C-Suite get fired.

1. Brokerage option in plans
2. Managed option within plan
3. Eliminate paper to reduce costs, errors, & fraud
4. Overall of website & mobile app
5. Communication upgrades like secure chat, texts, secure ways to communicate
6. Eliminate dead wood in IT, Ops, Sales

There you have it. Execute on all these and You get to keep your job. Miss any of these are you are fired !

The AI bubble isn't a bubble, it' actually a black hole. All the threats from SAP to our customers about how they wont get access to AI without RISE and Grow, all the consternation and turning customers into enemies, was all for nothing.

"Functional AI agents "will take about a decade," he said"

https://www.businessinsider.com/andrej-karpathy-ai-agents-timelines-openai-2025-10

Don’t know if anyone has seen the videos but there’s a big potential criminal case forming against PayPal and their subsidiary honey for multiple charges in more than 20+ class action lawsuits. Honey was acquired by PayPal in 2019/2020 for $4 billion when Schulman was still CEO. Investigative journalists have brought to light dirt on both sides primarily due to Honeys practices which now trickle under the PayPal umbrella/leadership.

Do you think this potentially is the reason some higher ups at PayPal are getting a free ticket out and coming here in case any action gets taken against PayPal? Does this question the new leadership at VZ?

A post making the rounds has similarities to a certain company…..

Starbucks did not lose $30 billion because of bad coffee. It lost it because the company
mispriced what actually created its value. When Starbucks appointed a McKinsey-trained executive as CEO, the mandate was operational discipline. Costs were scrutinized. Processes were standardized. Stores were pushed to behave like efficiency machines rather than community spaces.

On paper, the logic made sense. Consultants optimize margins by removing friction. But
Starbucks was never a pure efficiency business. Its premium pricing depended on brand emotion, store experience, and cultural loyalty. Those are intangible assets, but they carry real monetary value.

As efficiency initiatives rolled out, customers noticed. Service quality declined. Stores felt
transactional. The brand lost its emotional moat. Foot traffic softened. Growth expectations reset.

Markets reacted quickly. Over 17 months, Starbucks shed roughly $30 billion in market
capitalization. Not from insolvency risk, but from a reassessment of future cash flows tied to brand strength.

The board reversed course. The CEO exited. Strategy changed.

The wealth lesson is structural. Consulting frameworks work best where value is mechanical and repeatable. Consumer brands compound wealth through trust, identity, and habit, not just margins.

When leadership optimizes the wrong variable, scale turns small misjudgments into massive losses.

Starbucks did not fail at execution. It failed at understanding what it was actually selling.

Note on LinkedIn from new exploration VP on BBG1 lease sale results - lots of congratulations and kudos for a BU which hasn't discovered a thing in a decade, suddenly transformed into "strong outcome", "leadership position", and "great teamwork". The hilarious part is reading the comments by the Chevron sycophants trying to impress the new VP. Oh, and if you take a look at the bidding, it's all high-risk or fringe acreage and leases previously held then dropped. Don't expect anything better than maybe a tie-back or two, if indeed we can actually discover something.

Imagine all the money our SVPs and exec staff make and Bain still runs the company. A substantial number of decisions are all based off Bain recommendations. We could save millions upon millions of dollars if we got rid of most of our SVP layer kept some of our VPs and kept our Sr and Director layers and just used Bain.

Otherwise why do we need SVPs who are totally incapable of making decisions without Bain?

Am a industry consultant here who works with a couple of large recordkeepers and its painfully sad to see the speedy demise of such as great institution. Here is what your company needs to do to get back to the glory years of late Flynn/early Moran:
~new board
~hire outside PR firm to stack and positive press on website, AI searches, google rankings, glassdoor, bbb.
~new management over operations.
~better website w/modern tools
~modern education
~overhaul of communication. Use of AI, chat, GPT5, text, communication omnichannel.
~farm out IT & Call Center to Philipines
~~close florida and arizona office. Exclusive work from home from all over US. Get best and brightest talent.
~~Spend less than $7M per year on real estate/rent
~sell Capital Management
~CITs
~~Managed Accounts
~~revenue generators/financial planning
~~automate all distributions
~~cut salary of VPs and above 25%. Cut the fat at top.
~~cut sales reps. Replace by strong AI presence online & plan set and lead process
--reform healthcare and cut $10m out of health care each yr
~~add put options/surrender charges.
--new investments !
~~new sales leadership & new leadership over operations.
~~career paths and recognition for your employees who are overworked. Fire HR. eliminate performance reviews6-7
--total rebranding and name change

There it is. If your company hired an outside consultant, you'd pay them $2.67m for the above. I did it for free and helped your company. Call me to implement the above.

Make sure you take the antitrust training so you can learn how to do it right. It could be Trump is trying to milk the family for more donations, but if you have been paying attention to headlines Cargill has been caught fixing beef, turkey, wages over the past decade or so. All of these matters led to settlements, therefore never really ‘caught’, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. ($32.5M, $32.5M, $29.75M respectively) Even McDonalds brought a suit earlier this year, the pride and joy customer, I mean ‘partner’. Don’t forget the hiring discrimination settlement for $2.2M beginning of this year.

Minnesota Public Radio

November 10th, 2025

Wayzata-based Cargill is one of four meatpacking giants accused by President Donald Trump of collusion, price fixing and manipulation.

“For too long, a handful of giant meat packers have squeezed America’s cattle producers, shrunk herds, and jacked up prices at the grocery store,” a White House press release said.

President Trump previously took to social media on Friday to order an investigation into Cargill, Tyson Foods, JBS and National Beef. Attorney General Pam Bondi said an investigation was underway at the Department of Justice.

Cargill did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Meat Institute, a trade group representing meat and poultry processors, said beef packers have been losing money.

“For more than a year, beef packers have been operating at a loss due to a tight cattle supply and strong demand,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a press release.

The supply of cattle is at its lowest level in decades, while demand for beef is rising.

President Donald Trump previously announced a quadrupling of Argentine beef imports to potentially lower beef prices, a move that’s been largely denounced by American producers.

The White House press release said the investigation, though, could show that four meatpacking giants’ apparent monopoly has driven up consumer prices.

“This investigation will root out any illegal collusion, restore fair competition, and protect our food security,” the press release said.

But the Meat Institute’s Potts said the industry is already heavily regulated, and market transactions are transparent. She added that beef packers and cattle producers rely on one another.

“The entire beef value chain is strongest when supply is balanced by demand,” Potts said. “Beef packers remain committed to ensuring safe, delicious and nutrient-dense beef remains affordable to American families who rely on its nourishment.”

Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef Packing Co. have often been dubbed as the “Big Four.” Together, they sla-ghter over 80 percent of U.S. cattle meant for meat cuts, according to Reuters. That amount of control has often led to discontent among ranchers.

“We agree — American ranchers aren't to blame for high beef prices,” the National Farmers Union said in a social media post. “It’s time to go after the big four meatpackers who dominate the beef industry, driving up prices for consumers and pushing family farmers and ranchers to the brink.”

However, the United States Cattlemen’s Association said on social media that while it’s appreciative of the Trump Administration’s scrutiny of the agriculture industry, there may be a different reason why beef prices are higher.

“USCA will continue to state that beef prices in the grocery store are not too high,” the association said. “Prices are a direct reflection of consumer demand — consumers want U.S. beef.”

Welcome. Please understand how damaging and unqualified a chief product officer you have and make the right decision for the company to remove them as fast as you can. Previous leadership didn’t want to admit they made a bad decision and some of the damage being done is irreversible. Just scroll through this site for the past year and you’ll see many examples of this (of those that don’t get deleted). Not only are they inept from a technological standpoint but they are oddly dangerous from an HR standpoint. Just ask the women in his org. Have one real hour long unscripted conversation with him (or even better attend a customer meeting where real world needs are being discussed) and decide for yourself if he says anything that actually makes sense or if it’s a mess of buzz words and avoiding taking a real stance on any strategic direction.

Get rid of it ! You are wasting everyone's time. Whoever purchased the application is getting kickbacks on or in the back end. Siebel ran better than this. And we all know where that got us. I have never seen a more inept application. Have you ever counted the number of screens that flash on your tablet when trying to run salesforce just to have it transfer the customers account into opus ? Screens that just go nuts and serve no purpose. 9 different screens that go crazy and bouncing ba--s too. And security.......... total lack of security. We took a step backwards in securing customer accounts.

I would like to bring to your attention concerns regarding leadership practices and workplace conduct that may require investigation. There appear to be patterns of behavior that could potentially expose the organization to significant legal and financial liability.

Specifically, there are allegations of:

• Management practices that may not align with professional standards
• Possible involvement of Human Resources in matters that warrant review
• Concerns about workplace monitoring and external consultancy activities

If you have experienced similar concerns, I recommend documenting your experiences and considering whether to consult with colleagues or seek appropriate guidance through proper channels. Collective action through established procedures may be warranted to address these workplace issues and offer you better protection.

I encourage anyone affected to follow appropriate protocols for reporting workplace concerns through private legal counselling, private advocacy groups or governmental organizations. This includes refraining from contacting HR or using the whistleblower hotline. They will identify the most traumatic method to attribute responsibility back to you.

Over and out

Are you reading the posts on this forum? Do you care about the health of this company? As a shareholder, I do. You don’t need to hire a multimillion dollar consulting firm to diagnose the situation and put a plan in place. A rational person and a little GenAI can summarize the themes for you

Key Themes
• Organizational instability: Employees cite constant reorganizations—often every six months—which has created fatigue, confusion, and a sense that structural decisions are being driven by short-term pressures rather than a long-term plan.
• Talent decisions undermining trust: There are repeated concerns that recent layoffs and promotions didn’t align with performance, with high performers cut while lower performers remained due to internal politics or legacy relationships.
• Leadership and HR gaps: Employees point to inconsistent leadership quality, slow or overly procedural HR processes, and communication missteps around sensitive changes. Some comments note ineffective leaders remaining in place despite clear issues.
• Burnout and morale decline: Workloads are heavy, career mobility feels limited, and many employees describe being exhausted and discouraged. Morale appears fragile, and trust in leadership is weakened.
• Impact on innovation: Several threads reference a shift from leading the market to following it. Internal volatility is viewed as slowing decision-making and diluting the creative culture that historically fueled Nike’s brand strength.

Implications
Left unaddressed, these issues create material risks: higher attrition among top performers, slower innovation cycles, reduced productivity, and a culture that becomes increasingly difficult to repair.

Recommendations for Consideration
• Stabilize the organization by pausing major reorgs and aligning on a multi-year structural plan.
• Audit recent layoffs and promotion decisions to rebuild confidence in fairness and performance alignment.
• Strengthen leadership accountability through clearer expectations and more rigorous capability reviews.
• Address burnout by examining workload models, spans of control, and internal mobility pathways.
• Recommit to innovation by protecting creative/product teams from ongoing churn and simplifying decision processes.

Nike’s external brand remains incredibly strong, but the internal signals point to a need for stability, clearer leadership alignment, and a renewed focus on innovation. Addressing these areas will help rebuild trust and set the foundation for long-term growth.

Some advice to senior management: If your new VPs and people managers don’t have LC or MS experience, don’t hire them.

They only excel at sugarcoating results and self promotion.

Purge them. Were a science company

Unbelievable - JW has become a laughing stock .... tone deaf and unrelatable to 99% of IOL staff across the board. Did y'all see his interview emailed - felt like a replay of his announcement on 30th Sep (exact same words too) - must be practicing them every night in sleep too! What a joker - worst CEO ever awardee! No leadership skills. He looks weak and incapable of ushering IOL to rebuild from here.

Not a single person I know in company is willing to trust this JW joker. Forget the transformation - people mostly in all stages of career - near retirement/Mid-career/Early career - everyone is looking to bail out of this sinking ship over next 2 years. Purely based on the lack of trust of the CEO. I wish HR understands this soon enough.

Not that anyone is asking, but perhaps here is an advise - EM could fire this joker CEO because of all the ill will he has earned in such a short time & replace him with a more trustable person to take the company forward into transition - someone who is actually capable of doing the job and not just a bootlicker.

Wow, the business world has made AT&T C-suite and BOD look like a bunch of imbeciles. Buying assets above market price only to sell those same assets for pennies on the dollar. Can they really be that inept? T CEO Stankey and Stephenson are notorious for getting "hoodwinked" and beat out of billions. It almost rises to the level of a conspiracy, other companies raiding the AT&T coffers. How these guys can even show their faces in public is beyond me.

We know you are in here watching these threads, much like you sit and watch your minimally staffed teams struggle and break under workloads. If you have a shred of humanity in you, we are PEOPLE, not machines. While labor laws are pretty sh-t in this country, they do exist. Also, your job will not last forever either and we hope the people you burn while you sit and watch people struggle helps to keep you warm when you attempt to get your next job.

Stop reorging every 6 months. Stick to one organizational model, have a resilient plan that you can stick to for at least 24 months. All of these constant changes erodes motivation, creativity and our trust in the leadership. Help us build the brand and create sick products that will sell .

Stop reacting too much about the short term. Have a vision, share it and follow it.

They don't value employees, and some of the tactics they're using to cut costs feel downright deceitful and unethical. If I could give them any advice, it would be to just put us out of our misery. These slow, constant layoffs where they keep cutting our best people are just torturous. If the plan is to ki-l the company, then get on with it instead of this slow, painful death march.