Below are all the posts — topics as well as replies — that mention the hashtag #governance.
Mention #governance in your post to continue the discussion!
‘On May 26, 2026, Synopsys entered into a cooperation agreement with activist investor Elliott Investment Management that includes appointing Elliott managing partner Jesse Cohn as an independent director, effective June 1, 2026, expanding the board to 11 members.’
The vultures have arrived, surely things will get better now.
From the Economist today….
Since 2020 as many people have run bp as have run Britain. Sir Keir Starmer, the
fourth prime minister in as many years, promised to end the pantomime in
Westminster. Last year Albert Manifold was appointed as chairman of bp to do the
same thing in nearby St James’s Square. Sir Keir is still hanging on. Mr Manifold is
finished. On May 26th, after less than eight months in post, Mr Manifold was sacked in
a unanimous vote by the board, which includes Meg O’Neill, the oil company’s new
chief executive.
Mr Manifold inherited a neglected giant. The net-zero strategy of his predecessor
Helge Lund, a Norwegian, had made bp uninvestable. It is fitting, then, that Mr
Manifold’s dismissal should have the air of a Eurocratic initiative. The timing of the
directive announcing his departure could not have been better chosen to agitate
markets. It travelled down the wires just as traders in New York returned to their desks
after a bank-holiday weekend and were busy digesting news about a possible end to
America’s war in Iran. Shares in bp fell by nearly 10%.
But the real sin was the statement’s style. It was written in the worst literary tradition
of arrogant, managerial minimalism. Rather than elaborate on the reasons why bp must
now search for another chairman, the board o!ered just a few lines of cryptic lanyard-
speak. There are “serious concerns” about “important governance standards, oversight
and conduct”, the statement said. Trust us, he’s a wrong’un, pleaded a board which
shareholders have little reason to trust. Like Sir Keir, bp’s board appeals confidently to
an authority that has been spent twice over.
Thus began a guessing game: what did Mr Manifold do that was seemingly awful
enough to jeopardise bp’s turnaround? Plotting a coup in some faraway resource-rich
land? Not likely. Trying to sink Ed Miliband, Britain’s fanatical minister for net zero, in
the North Sea? If only. Predictably, initial speculation turned to sleaze. In its recent
history two bp chief executives have left their posts in bizarre circumstances related to
their private lives.
That wasn’t it, either. Instead, Mr Manifold was apparently exiled from clubland for
being a bad chap. The Financial Times reported allegations that he had been viewed by
some at bp as aggressive and that the board had received complaints from whistle-
blowers. Some reportedly called him a bully. On May 28th Mr Manifold responded. Yes,
he may have pushed people to accelerate cost-cutting and strengthen the balance-
sheet. But “at no point”, he wrote, “has anyone raised with me any issue about my
conduct...I dispute entirely this characterisation of my conduct.”
If Mr Manifold was truly intolerable, the board must explain to shareholders in more
detail. If he was merely disagreeable, that is probably proof of a job well done. As a
supposed City grandee herself, Dame Amanda Blanc, the bp director who led the
process to appoint Mr Manifold, would surely have known his City-wide reputation for
directness. Having (very) successfully run crh, an Irish building-materials firm, for a
decade, Mr Manifold could hardly have been expected to be a passive and detached
chairman.
Accusations of abrasiveness are, in the markets’ eyes at least, a less serious crime than
Accusations of abrasiveness are, in the markets’ eyes at least, a less serious crime than
the value destruction of which other members of the board are plainly guilty. Sure, bp
is in much better shape than it was a year ago. Profits from producing oil rise with the
price of the commodity, after all. The company’s traders are making a fortune. Last
year it made a huge discovery o! the coast of Brazil. Its corporate structure is in the
process of being simplified. But the job is not even half finished. Costs are out of
control, including at its headquarters in St James’s. It is the most indebted of the major
oil companies and still bears the weight of some of its worst misadventures in
renewable energy.
Must bp always be as ungovernable as Britain? Oil majors often reflect the politics of
their home countries. Exxon and Chevron are run by men who care little about the
separation of powers. Both run the board and manage the company. Together the firms
are worth $400bn more than a decade ago. The top job at TotalEnergies, the French oil
major, is held by a former civil servant; at Eni, by a colourful Italian. The two have
outperformed their British rival. bp, once in e!ect a branch of the British state in the
Middle East, now mirrors its decline. Whitehall talks about “delivering at pace”; bp,
about “moving at pace”. Neither goes anywhere.
Manifold destiny
The psychodrama at bp could not have been better designed to embarrass Britain’s
business elite. One view is that an outsider was appointed to shake things up at a
national champion before being pushed out unceremoniously by a club of grandees
who talk about change without really wanting it. An alternative reading of Mr
Manifold’s tenure is about as bad: an amateur with little experience in the industry
thought he knew better than the experts and came unstuck. The big American firms
would hardly hand such power to someone new to drilling.
The main problem with reforming Britain’s business elite is that it doesn’t really have
one. Those in America, Japan, France and Germany are all easily pictured. But Britain?
Its once-mighty merchant banks have disappeared. So have its fund managers. Its
biggest companies, like bp, have mostly become a global clearing house for mediocre
management talent.
The City nowadays is best viewed as a battleground between European collectivist
politics and American finance. Capitalist villains such as oil companies, tobacco giants
and banks make up much of Britain’s stockmarket. But the top investment banks and
funds fly the American flag. The saga at bp is a case in point. It threw itself zealously
into net zero. Now it is being disciplined, mostly by Elliott Management, an American
hedge fund. A very British shambles—and an international joke.
Here's an update from the UK Telegraph. It's behind a paywall, so I've copied it here. Seems AM was also questioning the hospitality spend, with particular reference to highly expensive Wimbledon tickets. I recall seeing photos of BL and his partner at the tournament in July 2023. Nice to know who was really paying for them.
Ousted BP chairman hits back over ‘excessive’ spending
Dismissed chairman suggests his ‘determination to drive change’ is behind misconduct allegations
Albert Manifold said his cost-cutting measures, such as foregoing limousines and private jets, may have ‘ruffled feathers’
Christopher Jasper
The ousted chairman of BP has attacked a culture of “excessive” spending at the oil giant, including purchasing tickets for sports events such as Wimbledon.
Albert Manifold suggested he had been forced out of BP after raising concerns over “unnecessary expenditure”.
Mr Manifold was dismissed without warning on Tuesday, with people close to the BP board suggesting he had been shown the door because of a “volcanic” temper, “bullying” and “verbal abuse”.
However, in a 769-word statement published on Thursday, Mr Manifold said he had been the victim of “lies” from people hiding behind “anonymity”.
He said that during a 40-year career he had “never once had accusations made against me such as those made in recent days”.
During his eight-month tenure at BP, Mr Manifold is understood to have proposed a crackdown on unnecessary spending, such as some corporate events.
Events attended by board members at the expense of the company are said to have included Wimbledon.
A source close to Mr Manifold said: “He feels that that is one of the reasons the board turned on him. Some members didn’t share his commitment to cost-cutting and budgeting.”
Ousted BP chairman hits back over ‘excessive’ spending
Dismissed chairman suggests his ‘determination to drive change’ is behind misconduct allegations
Albert Manifold said his cost-cutting measures, such as foregoing limousines and private jets, may have ‘ruffled feathers’
Christopher Jasper
Transport industry editor
28 May 2026 4:21pm BST
The ousted chairman of BP has attacked a culture of “excessive” spending at the oil giant, including purchasing tickets for sports events such as Wimbledon.
Albert Manifold suggested he had been forced out of BP after raising concerns over “unnecessary expenditure”.
Mr Manifold was dismissed without warning on Tuesday, with people close to the BP board suggesting he had been shown the door because of a “volcanic” temper, “bullying” and “verbal abuse”.
However, in a 769-word statement published on Thursday, Mr Manifold said he had been the victim of “lies” from people hiding behind “anonymity”.
He said that during a 40-year career he had “never once had accusations made against me such as those made in recent days”.
During his eight-month tenure at BP, Mr Manifold is understood to have proposed a crackdown on unnecessary spending, such as some corporate events.
Events attended by board members at the expense of the company are said to have included Wimbledon.
A source close to Mr Manifold said: “He feels that that is one of the reasons the board turned on him. Some members didn’t share his commitment to cost-cutting and budgeting.”
In response, a source close to BP suggested it would not have been unusual for the firm to take up tickets to entertain business clients at events such as Wimbledon.
BP also has a history of hosting politicians – many of whom have backed the oil industry – at the tournament, and was revealed in 2023 to have donated tickets worth more than £4,200 to two MPs and a government minister.
Before his removal, Mr Manifold reportedly clashed with BP’s company secretary and board member Ben Mathews over costs.
Mr Mathews, whose role is to advise the board on corporate governance, was a key architect in the push to oust Mr Manifold, according to the Financial Times. He has since been put on medical leave because of stress after having dealt with the departures of Mr Manifold and his predecessor Helge Lund in quick succession.
BP did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding spending by directors.
In his statement, Mr Manifold said he was dismissed after he had “sought to streamline and refresh the board and started to advocate for a review of the workings of the board to improve efficiency”.
Called out excessive expenditure
Mr Manifold said he had wanted to “set an example” at BP and detailed how he demonstrated this by making his own coffee, buying his own lunch and resisting the use of private jets.
He added: “Where I saw unnecessary or excessive expenditure, I called it out. I had no interest in having a dedicated chauffeur-driven limousine at my beck and call on the occasions that I was in London.
“I, like most people, walked, took taxis, trains, etc. I had no interest in taking private aviation nor in availing myself of corporate tickets for sports events. I made my own coffee and bought my lunch in the local café. I sat in a small office, eschewing the grand corner-office privilege of previous chairmen.”
However, he said, those priorities “were not always shared by everyone”.
He added: “In business, small signals matter in driving change and contribute to ensuring no company has a culture of entitlement.
“All of this was my attempt to ensure the continuing independence and transparency of the board and the ongoing improvement in oversight and governance.”
Mr Manifold praised BP’s chief executive Meg O’Neill, its chief financial officer Kate Thomson and the wider executive team as being “among the finest people I have worked with”, saying they were “brimming with integrity”.
"Shareholders rejected a proposal that would have required an independent board chair separate from the CEO role, according to preliminary voting results at the annual meeting on Wednesday"
Only a genius could come up with the perfect business model. Create fake jobs to review fake work, challenge fake wording, produce fake governance, and then report fake progress on risks everyone already understood. Then call it “enhanced oversight”.
But the good news is: several fake issues are being actively monitored and reported in several fake risk committees.
So that’s nice.
IBM is facing a lawsuit. The suit alleges racially discriminatory layoffs. It claims Black executives were targeted. This raises questions about IBM's diversity and governance. The case could impact investor perception and client relationships.
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/ibm-lawsuit-over-black-executive-211421488.html
IBM (NYSE:IBM) is facing a lawsuit that accuses the company of racially discriminatory layoffs targeting Black executives.
The suit alleges a pattern of race based terminations tied to shifts in regulatory and compliance priorities.
The case raises questions about IBM's diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and its internal governance controls.
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/ibm-lawsuit-over-black-executive-211421488.html
Generally, a CEO with sustained poor performance is -on average- let go after ~3 bad years, if not less. That’s been studied pretty extensively across medium-to-large NYSE-listed companies, and the stats are easy enough to find. Yet Goff Murka is still here.
The decision about a CEO’s employment and performance reviews is handled by a committee of the Board. And Geoff himself is also on the Board. That’s one of the reasons CEOs often sit on boards in the first place: to avoid being completely at the mercy of the Board and to maintain some degree of stability and influence.
Funnily enough, three MDT board members also came out of GE. Funny how that works. At the very least, there’s an element of mutual back-scratching and shared incentives.
Being on a Board is a great gig: incredibly lucrative and relatively low-risk compared to operational executive roles. Great money for comparatively little legwork, with the worst-case consequence usually just being the loss of the seat. Geoff has a pretty nice setup with the GE network: everyone scratches each other’s backs and keeps the machine running.
This is basically a textbook corporate-governance criticism: board interlocks, executive networks, and incentive alignment reducing accountability for underperforming CEOs. We can stop speculating on the mystery of why GM has his job. It's this simple.
There’s simply far more incentive for everyone involved to sit tight and protect the status quo and their own interests than there is to force a change.
And that's where Elliott has come in. That's why they've gotten seats on the Board. What they do with the seats remains to be seen: join in on the grift, or try to save MDT as a company.
There is no mystery. It's rent-seeking in plain sight and will not change until the GE faction leaves or is removed from the Board.
New surveillance commissioner in board of directors?
https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/f5-adds-anand-eswaran-board-201000022.html
LAHSA will issue layoff notices to 284 employees. Their final day of work is scheduled for June 30. This action is part of a restructuring plan. The agency cites impending county funding cuts and a shift in its role. LAHSA will now focus on governance, data management, and federal funding.
Los Angeles, California
https://mynewsla.com/business/2026/04/20/lahsa-announces-plans-to-layoff-nearly-300-employees-amid-shift-in-funding-2/
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/oracle-layoff-reports-put-ai-140359566.html
If RTO policies are enforced with strict measurement, tracking, and compliance expectations across employees, why doesn’t the same rigor apply to Cloud leadership (Head of Cloud and his directs)?
GL17/GL18 leaders—many already significantly compensated from prior Amazon equity and long industry tenure—operate with materially less visible accountability, while execution is heavily dependent on engineering teams under them or contracting firms.
The pattern is consistent: delivery is externalized or engineering team , credit is cloud leadership , and accountability becomes diffused.
If operational discipline is the standard, it cannot be selective. It must apply uniformly across all levels—including senior leadership—based on measurable impact, not hierarchy.
Otherwise, it stops being governance and becomes structural protection of the top layer.
More for UHC but I wanted to know if anyone else got the ridiculous email about the “ Executive Complaints” email regarding appeals. For those not in the know basically if a Governor, share holder, state person or anyone else in the top 1% have UHC we are to work the case IMMEDIATELY and push it through and prioritize it above all the other cases to have a decision made ( and approved and paid for by UHG) within 24 hours. Must be nice to make more money than more than half the people at the company and demand a strict 24 hour turn around time while the disabled patient who actually needs care gets denied chemo therapy and their hospital stay because the company decided “ it wasn’t necessary”
God I F$)):& hate this company
P66 has announced that 2 new directors have been appointed to the Board of Directors.
I don’t know anything about them but Elliott says they’re pleased with the appointments.
If they’re pleased I’m pleased.
How to navigate gaps in
EAP architecture (Enterprise Architecture Program / Enterprise Architecture Practice)
Business Tech architecture
Management architecture decisions
Rosy Picture vs Reality
With decisions centralising and more governance and finance leadership coming in, what outcomes have people seen in similar situations — tighter oversight only, portfolio moves, or does this usually end in restructuring and layoffs?
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.
It's only a matter of time now.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kyndryl-faces-governance-turmoil-legal-091414134.html
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!
ClawdBot (now OpenClaw over trademark issues) is officially the fastest growing open source project in history. When looking at graphs of open source adoption, it's a vertical line and nothing even comes close to matching its success. Why does it matter? Because it's the first comprehensive agentic system with an ever growing list of tools that is more or less completely unleashed (use at your own risk! remember it's early yet).
For those of you still convinced AI is just a chatbot, you should go out and take a look at what people are doing with this tool. Then tell us how jobs aren't going to be automated away. Remember too that, job displacement doesn't necessarily mean the AI is going to fully replace you, but that it's going to enable people to 10x their work and require significantly less headcount. Given how lackluster WF growth is, I doubt the growth needed to maintain headcount will keep pace with the productivity this will unlock.
As a bonus, go check out moltbook.com for laffs. It's hilarious to read through.
How does this relate to WF and layoffs you ask? It should be obvious once you understand what it is capable of. Your biggest firewall right now is data governance, and plenty of companies are working through this right now, including WF. Only Wells Fargo are way behind the curve, for obvious reasons of ineptitude.
Our Board are directly culpable for the situation we now find ourselves in. It is how corporate governance works.
My question: when will the market, activists etc hold them accountable and force change. It needs to happen.
I am curious. How many of you who survived the layoffs and still come to this page are witnessing catastrophic consequences to leadership decisions to eliminate departments, capabilities or expertise? How many of these have serious regulatory components or are millimeters away from causing harm to our branch teams?
For example, a department was eliminated in Enterprise Learning that updates all the online learning modules. We can’t seem to get courses fixed in the learning management system that branch teams need to gain access to their branch desktop or other important applications. I know several associates who have tried to raise this issue but their leaders don’t care because they have “more important fish to fry.”
In another important area, data governance was eliminated so that our AI is now fishing in a corrupt pond of data. But the push to use AI in the home office is intense.
Records and Information management has completely disappeared. There are no guard rails, well, anywhere. And the firm just hit an iceberg. At least, that’s what it feels like.
What are you seeing?
It is long past time for accountability in this sinking ship. Whatever loser or losers and their incompetent management team and/or cross functional teams internal and external should be made known. This place reorganizes so much that nobody knows who is in charge of what. It’s a complete disgrace, glossed over with constant empty buzzwords and kickoffs by talking heads. Everyone just blames someone else - the project team, the outsourced team, whatever and then reorganizes again. Somebody is responsible including their leadership and yes they are responsible for governance of outsourced work too. Just disgusting this clown show has lasted for so long. It’s one thing for a string of failures like blue jeans and finance transformation to continuously take place, but now gross incompetence and neglect has severely tarnished our basic service. Just pathetic. If they need savings then fire the people that can’t manage or do their basic jobs for once!!!! Fools. Happy new year Verizon. What a way to start it off.
Does the board face any legal risk given that they haven't acted in the best interest of the company?
They are likely to make a decision shortly regarding the GCC structure and associated work effort. Cognizant and Infosys appear to be the leading contenders for the GCC efforts. Heard some concerns that the process may have been influenced in a way that disproportionately favors Indian IT firm Infosys. Several technology leaders who work extensively with these partners were not included in the evaluation process
UnitedHealth Group has released findings from multiple independent reviews of its business practices following a June pledge from CEO Stephen Hemsley to conduct a transparent and comprehensive examination of company processes.
The reviews, conducted by FTI Consulting and Analysis Group, examined Medicare Advantage risk adjustment operations, utilization management practices, and Optum Rx’s administration of manufacturer discounts. UnitedHealth has adopted 23 action plans in response, with 65% targeted for completion by year-end and full implementation by March 31, 2026.
Ten things to know:
Across all three areas, the auditors concluded that UnitedHealth maintains strong operational controls and documentation. However, a common theme emerged: policy organization, centralization and governance structures need improvement. The risk adjustment review found policies weren’t always codified or recently reviewed; the UM review found corrective actions that weren’t fully remediated; and the PBM review recommended consolidating and streamlining policy documentation.
In response to the findings, UnitedHealth said it will ensure all policies and procedures are reviewed and approved at least annually, maintain centralized policy repositories, and enhance enterprise-wide governance structures outlining roles and responsibilities for policy oversight, compliance monitoring and risk assessment activities.
FTI reviewed Optum’s risk adjustment diagnostic coding standards against ICD-10-CM guidelines and found the content consistent with official coding guidance. The HouseCalls in-home assessment program received strong scores, with “comprehensive and well-organized” policies and evidence that the majority had been reviewed within the past 12 months.
FTI recommended separating coding audit functions from operations. Currently, targeted coding audits directed by Optum compliance are performed by coding resources that report into coding operations rather than compliance. FTI recommended establishing dedicated coding audit resources within compliance itself. UnitedHealth’s action plan confirms it will “establish an independent coding audit team within the broader Optum compliance organization.”
UnitedHealthcare holds national NCQA utilization management accreditation with 100% scores. The insurer achieved the accreditation in 2023, which deems its Medicaid and commercial plans 100% compliant with NCQA utilization management standards. When benchmarked against Medicaid peers in external quality reviews, UnitedHealthcare met full compliance in all 12 states examined, scoring 100% on prior authorization and practice guideline standards.
Nine of 62 UM audits showed corrective actions that weren’t fully remediated. While 42% of the UM-related audits FTI reviewed had no negative findings, auditors flagged instances where corrective actions from previous audits remained unresolved. FTI found UnitedHealthcare lacks “an overarching control” to ensure full remediation of all audit findings and recommended formalizing a standardized tracking mechanism with dashboards and internal thresholds independent of regulator deadlines.
The UM review questioned how quality management is operationalized. FTI observed that while multiple teams have roles in quality improvement for utilization management, “there did not appear to be a documented, centralized process or cross-functional accountabilities” to oversee systemic improvement opportunities. The quality management team’s UM role focuses on maintaining NCQA accreditation rather than leading broader quality improvement activities, FTI found.
Analysis Group identified 25 distinct controls in Optum Rx’s manufacturer discount administration. The PBM review concluded that Optum Rx has “built a robust and well-structured governance framework” for collecting discounts from dr-g manufacturers and disbursing them to clients.
Optum Rx was advised to improve client reporting on why certain claims don’t generate rebates. While the PBM provides information on claims deemed ineligible for manufacturer discounts upon client request, Analysis Group recommended assessing opportunities to enhance this reporting proactively. The firm also suggested refining escalation processes for manufacturer disputes and non-payment, and evaluating automation opportunities for low-complexity, high-volume processes.
All three reviews had limitations. The auditors did not test the effectiveness of controls, did not perform legal analysis, and expressly disclaimed any opinion on legal compliance. FTI’s UM and risk adjustment reviews focused only on current-state policies, not historical practices. Analysis Group noted its PBM review “did not identify deficiencies” but rather “opportunities to further enhance Efficiency
All the data collection that supports the initiative is an ongoing matrix submitted for supplier governance reason. Nothing changes with the data. And suddenly they are being reused and presented as a new initiative. This is not any reinvention! Just game playing. Coming from the person right at the top, I can conclude that the company is doomed.
The King can dominate the world.
Another deal to boost LBT's forture:
https://www.reuters.com/business/intel-pursued-deals-that-boosted-ceo-lip-bu-tans-fortune-sources-say-2025-12-10/
LBT is using Intel funding to acquire his own companies: SambaNova Systems where LBT is the chairman; Tara where LBT is the investor. Both startup have no customer and is almost dead. LBT is pouring Intel money to invest to himself and his son's company.
Why is LBT able to serve as chairman of so many companies and work for multiple companies, while he asks others to return to the office?
If every former and current employee contributed to an LLC to buy up Truist shares until that entity gained majority share, they could overthrow Bill and the BOD. Not sure why someone hasn’t started this yet? Seems like an easy answer.
One board member’s vote represents the opinion of 10,846 T employees.
Do they represent your thoughts about the current state of the company?
The last semblance of segregation of duties and independent oversight is gone. Not that Citi is the only one to do this. But well....
It's like his private property. He was lucky and had some talent, but his returns are sooooo oversized and he did nothing to deserve the whole thing for him self and the pack of wolves that follow him. The game is rigged.
Want to mitigate the risk of corruption and fraud to the firm? Hire someone who participated in it as your head of enterprise risk.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nebraska-economic-development-director-resigns-covid-grant-concerns
Pretty well every employer is a shareholder. Speak out to the board and investor relations. If everyone floods them with messages showing disapproval as shareholders, the long term impact to the business they can’t ignore it.
Even with exxon owning 69.6% of the shares it starts to open so legal questions if they have opposition from other shareholders.
Your silence is acceptance.
If long term this hurts imperial there may be grounds for a shareholder class action.
https://www.bcbstx.com/docs/forms/group/tx/grp-proxy-tx.pdf
Ford has sunk millions (and sometimes billions) into initiatives like Model e / FNV4, Ford Next, Canopy, and FordLabs, and what’s becoming increasingly clear is a repeated pattern: massive spending, vague execution, questionable hires or partnerships, and little to no lasting impact.
How do these projects keep getting approved? Who’s actually making the strategic calls? Who signs off on these black-box initiatives, the hiring, the vendors, the direction? The execution feels disconnected from reality. Where’s the accountability for these profound strategic missteps? What oversight exists? I don't understand: is it the board, the CEO, product leads, entire leadership chains, external partners, etc.? Is there an internal innovation council or P&L division that says money is for X and Y but not Z? Is there gatekeeping? Is it greed? Kickbacks? Special vendor relationships that lock us?
Who handles HR and talent acquisition? Did we just bring senior roles with high pay and unclear mandates in the name of innovation? Are our analysts in an ivory tower, not understanding the fundamentals and easily fooled? How come we need so much money to build and do things, and why are we cheap in places that matter? Is it a circular talent problem? Where does the actual money end up being spent? Who is hoarding it? Is it money laundering? Do special committees lack deep domain knowledge? I can't wrap my head around this.
Do executives rotate out before results materialize, or are they promoted elsewhere or hired externally? Does the Media & PR shape the story far more than the product teams? Is the company under existential pressure to look like they're innovating? Why does Ford's structure allow it? Is it due to consultants with strategy decks without deep product execution knowledge? How does HR acquire talent and also place them accordingly? Do we have executive recruiters with vague job specs that drag and drop people like a menial task? Is it because of the whole "who we know" bit which bypasses procurement for strategic partners to add to the reliance on market signaling?
Do we have a siloed org structure that breeds "mini-empires"? Do we have experts that may be downplaying other experts that may threaten an empire? Is talent held back, or perceived as going rogue for initiative and being vocal? Do things repeat because we have an inability to absorb failure lessons due to quietly folding concerns under the rug instead of facing humility and accountability? Did we really bask in what a startup mindset really means? Milchmädchenrechnung?
I really want to hear the rationale behind decisions in such a historic company competing in the now. Are we structurally incapable of absorbing new insight without breaking internal equilibrium? Is it from gov bailouts and subsidies that enable mistakes to continue, compelled through lobbying packets written by "independent" parties? Are people with real execution power and holistic domain knowledge not looped into the work?
Do we suffer with watered down layers of middle management or political handlers? Is it relationship over merit that requires tribal alignment when presenting accurate feedback or data to prevent it from being rejected if it comes from "outside the circle"? Do we monitor sabotage behavior, and do we enable it or step in and put our foot down? Is it ego over mission, where elevation itself upsets social balance and as an org we are unable to cut through biases? Are these divisions, projects, and products "moonshots," as in high risk but necessary for survival, yet poorly executed?
I'm not asking for the benefit of Ford, but to deeply understand and learn from what is going on in this company, I know trolls will come or bash execs and blanket it all, but I'm checking to see angles I may be missing here. Interested in any sort insight for my own education because I don't know what I don't know. Managing the unknown in my case-study. Thanks.
# Questions About Executive Accountability: The F5/HackerOne Case Study
## The Timeline
2019-2023: BIG-IP Next Development
2022: Leadership Change
2023-2024: Company Struggles
2024: Product Strategy Reversal
September 2024: Executive Departure
October 2024: The Promotion
## Questions This Raises
For HackerOne shareholders:
For the industry:
For F5 stakeholders:
Sources available upon request - all information gathered from:
I can't fathom why we have board members that are both incompetent and unethical. How can these people take millions of dollars in payment through stocks despite losing revenue year after year. Also, there seems to be some INSANE conflicts of interest at the board level.
Heard there is a small contingency of GP's discussing a no confidence vote for Penny. Has this ever happened at the firm?