Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

Anne Chow was awesome. My point stands that ATT is not capable of picking leaders for the modern era. They rely on an old pedigree to identify "most qualified" in a world that has changed.

Anne Chow was a great leader and was one of us! Sad we will never have another Ike her who communicated to the masses . Not because she is a women - but she is a good human , who thinks of others - not just herself or those who look or think the same.

Maybe, if she was still in charge - this layoff would have been more thought out and better communicated. No one was asked if they wanted to volunteer or plans on retiring by year end. 30 day notice at minimal, but 2 weeks ?) for EE’s who were in good standing and and no package only severance for long time folks is thankless.

On another note: I am proud of the work I did because I want to give my best - not because of my gender/ color of my skin or age/religion or political affiliation.

Friend, women are not a minority group in the U.S. Selecting people on the basis of whether they can do the job excludes women because their performance has always been lackluster.
Name one successful woman CEO. Are you enough of a feminist to drive a GM car and support Mary Barra? Of course not. Their cars are horrible. But you know there is a minority group that makes the best cars! They can do the job.
This is how we should approach equity. By giving people opportunities to succeed but also acknowledging where they do their best work. A woman who can lead adopts so many male characteristics that they are only a woman in appearance. Their real gender is man. If I am wrong, provide counter examples.

Why are men so intimidated by women in leadership positions. Is it because of their inferiority complex.

Melissa Arnoldi is probably one of the smartest and brightest but she keeps getting moved sideways !!!

newsflash - anne chow made it her personal objective to start the girls club - everyone knows it - thankfully her activism got her fired

" I don't understand the down votes"

The woke brigade (which is the one person clearing their cache and doing this) is energized.

Throwing words like "attack" and "racist" around effortlessly.

When all that was stated is that the person hired was not as qualified as some others.

And then they actually state that simply pointing that out in and of itself is inherently racist.

You can't make this stuff up.

I don't understand the down votes. ATT has historically overlooked the best candidates for its jobs. Is it mentioned in your LwD courses that the CEO of T-Mobile whose strategy pushed them to #1 was a former ATT Exec who left as a VP?

This is why we must consider disruptors with proven ability to do the work in addition to those with the historical "best qualified" resumes. If we don't choose them internally, the market will choose them for us.

My friend, I should have been more clear in my reply. The definition of "most qualified" that we used in the past was largely excluding minorities because of past racism that prevented them from having access to the same types of jobs. The question we should be answering when hiring for a job is whether the candidate can do the work - and reviewing their past education and job titles is not the only way to determine this.

I have some examples. Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple all grew under CEOs that did not have a career history or business degree. Why would we use work history and education to determine the most qualified candidate, when these companies are more successful than our own?

So the best way to stop racism is by using more racism? Think about what you are saying and see if that really makes sense.

A lot of people do not understand that "more qualified" usually means they have education and experience in positions that were only open to white people in the past. There is no better way to fix unintentional racism than to offer these positions to minorities that can do the work but were shut out from the traditional path to the promotion.

Additionally it must be recognized that ATT's traditional path to promotion led to the failing business that exists today. The Original Poster is simply not equipped to determine the most qualified candidate. They have been at ATT too long to know any better.

@1tyt+1iQTdIZx let the hate go and breathe.

To those that think these kinds of things aren’t happening, I have personally heard from a few leaders behind close doors that have admitted this is indeed happening. They have all been pressured to promote people that weren’t as qualified, but checked some diversity boxes. This is what real discrimination looks like.

I have been saying this for years. All these poor decisions by leadership - TMo failed attempt, DTV, Time Warner. Cost us billions and nobody in leadership has lost their job. The board should be ashamed of themselves.

Your post is about L3's but you added women in your comment. You chose to write about women. In essence an attack on women.

“ why the attack on women”

Not an attack on women to state that this particular woman’s qualifications and experience were less than those of some of the others vying for the role.

why the attack on women .... grow a pair and stop playing the victim scam role.

Been rotten since Fenolio ran that LWD sham

Last year, an AVP left. 10+ candidates were interviewed for the replacement by a panel(AVPs/Directors in the VP group). The top 3 or so were chosen and were to be interviewed by the VP, and he would make the decision. Well, the VP got pressure to hire a candidate who wasn't in the top 3 or even the top 1/2 (for context this was a white male). To his credit, he pushed back but the position was not backfilled for months due to this back and forth and ultimately the candidate who had support in high places(at the SVP/EVP level) ended up leaving anyway.

They always trim the muscle and keep the fat.

It just sounds like the whole promotion program is a scam. A program with no integrity, and completely broken. Has HR been made aware of this?

"Son, Cousin, Brother, Dad, Bro-In Law, Boy-Friend, etc...
Next question."

Well, I get the sentiment and yes, as a long -term employee I have certainly seen SOME of that...but honestly, it's not the norm. And it cannot be (and isn't) as in the example provided, when one is reporting to another. That simply could not fly. Yes, those levels will look out for each other always, and if you're a friend in another org and you can call a VP you know in another org to make a call to a VP in your org to make something happen for you, I am sure that happens all the time.

My post was more about an org structure that has 4 layers of VP's alone. Completely ridiculous.

How did she get promoted to L3 if there were more qualified candidates competing with her?

Son, Cousin, Brother, Dad, Bro-In Law, Boy-Friend, etc...
Next question.