Thread regarding Charles Schwab Corp. layoffs

Who Vets who?

I recently lost a lot of respect for my organization.

We’re laying people off while also spending what appears to be hundreds of thousands of dollars on culture partners. That makes me wonder: who is responsible for the checks and balances on decisions like this?

I looked into one of these vendors and found they recently had been involved in a workplace harassment lawsuit. They also changed their legal name shortly before we entered into the partnership. If that information is publicly available, who is responsible for the due diligence?

Is it HR? Procurement? The business unit? Does CS&S have a vendor governance process?

Or is the process simply that someone reads a book, likes the message, and approves a half-million-dollar investment?

At this point, I question whether anyone thoroughly reviewed the company’s background, leadership, qualifications, or history before committing to this partnership. If they did, I’d genuinely like to understand what standards were used.


by
| 2 views | | 10 replies (last 2 days ago) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kw0vpqne

10 replies (most recent on top)

It’s not about being cryptic or blaming anyone. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to bring awareness to potential blind spots so we can make better decisions in the future.

If I were an executive with influence over these types of investments, I’d seriously consider creating a role dedicated to identifying risks, validating credentials, and surfacing blind spots before we commit significant time, money, or resources. The goal wouldn’t be to stop good ideas—it would be to make sure we’re making informed decisions.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @w3+1kw0vpqne

@r1 Violates TOU

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @t1+1kw0vpqne

Why be so ambiguous and cryptic? Everyone is anonymous here so why not just name names and provide details of who or what you are talking about?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @r1+1kw0vpqne

We’ve made big purchases from a dude working out of his house, a sales rep sleeping with the purchasing VP and dozens that couldn’t satisfy vetting paperwork, indemnification or security requirements. Then we push out witnesses.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mp+1kw0vpqne

Contract owners are responsible for choosing the vendors. They go through due diligence but CVM/TPRM has such limited bandwidth that the reviews border on a joke.

Contract owners rush things through and sign off on whatever is popular - not realizing that if something goes wrong with the vendor, the CO is responsible.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kg+1kw0vpqne

Well if the ones laid off were responsible for the poor investment of the cultures partners. This would made sense.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a5+1kw0vpqne

Every leader in CSS sat through this workshop. No way they had a lawsuit for a bad workplace right before!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a4+1kw0vpqne

Partners In Leadership now Culture Partners

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a3+1kw0vpqne

What is the company?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1kw0vpqne

You mean the company we bought books from for every leader? The one whose listed business address is a mailroom? The company where one of its senior executives publicly claims extensive credentials that couldn’t be independently verified?

For an investment of this size, I’d expect someone to verify the company’s leadership, credentials, legal history, and overall legitimacy before approving a partnership. And we layoff execs, while these contracts continue to get fulfilled. Someone should check their backgrounds.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a1+1kw0vpqne

Post a reply

: