Thread regarding Honeywell International Inc. layoffs

A Call for Accountability in Aerospace ISC Leadership

Aerospace ISC senior leadership is operating in constant scramble mode, recycling old ideas instead of developing real solutions. They’re not even attempting to rebuild the slide decks or MOS frameworks — they’re simply pulling forward whatever was used years ago. HOS is the clearest example: if it had truly worked, sites would still be using it today.

Rather than listening to the people doing the work, they’re bypassing basic management‑of‑change discipline and issuing knee‑je-k directives with no data behind them. Every week brings a brand‑new ‘top priority’ metric — not because it drives improvement, but because it creates the illusion of action for the board. The pattern is unmistakable: constant metric churn, no sustained focus, and no measurable improvement. If the approach worked, we would see progress; the absence of improvement is the proof.

At some point, the new board of directors will have to acknowledge that the dysfunction originates in the first layers of executive leadership — and that nothing will improve until those tiers are addressed. The board must begin asking the hard questions and digging deeper to separate the leaders who can actually drive change from those clinging to outdated approaches and contributing nothing new.


by
| 1 view | | 6 replies (last May 9) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kqxwz4e1

6 replies (most recent on top)

In a competent manufacturing organization, the ISC leadership would have already been fired. Having this level of backlog is a major drag on the business and it has not meaningfully improved in literal years.

Our customers from Airbus to the Pentagon are all yelling at us for cr-p service. Gulfstream has laid out a direct threat against our future business. And to top it all off we are nowhere near prepared for the next gen narrow bodies for either Boeing or Airbus.

My hope is that after the spin there is a serious house-cleaning in our leadership ranks, starting with both ISC and Engineering. The old guard needs to go, like yesterday.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @q3+1kqxwz4e1

@gs That is a great take on what it will take to change but you left out the one overriding factor, the Hit the STOCK PRICE will take when " Numbers are not met". There is NO management group left in Corporate America who will fall on their sword to appease the GODS (Wall Street Analysts) for missing the numbers. The Board is the least Capable to perform the watch dog function that is their prime reason for existence. Its just ONE BIG CLUB.... you know the one they HIT you with for telling the truth!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hc+1kqxwz4e1

Honeywell Aerospace can break the cycle — but only if the board is finally willing to confront the root cause. The organization has never lacked talent, capability, or operational insight at the site level. What it has lacked is executive ISC leadership willing to abandon the failed pattern of recycling old frameworks, repackaging stale initiatives, and managing through reactive directives instead of strategy.
Real improvement becomes possible only when the board stops accepting surface‑level activity as progress and starts demanding evidence‑based leadership. That means:
evaluating the first layers of ISC senior leadership,
separating those who can actually drive transformation from those who only recycle legacy playbooks,
and insisting on a management system built on data, discipline, and sustained focus — not weekly metric churn.
Until that happens, the rinse‑and‑repeat cycle continues.
Once it happens, the cycle ends almost immediately.
The capability for improvement is already in the organization. The barrier is executive ISC leadership discipline. Remove that barrier, and the improvement will follow.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gs+1kqxwz4e1

It’s been a 25-year rinse and repeat cycle.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ea+1kqxwz4e1

We’re operating in constant chaos mode, and bringing back certain leaders to the ISC table only guarantees that the cycle continues. Their leadership style is built on ever‑shifting targets, belittling people, making promises they never intend to keep, and dragging their own leaders into the worst version of themselves. Instead of stabilizing the organization, this presence amplifies the dysfunction and reinforces the behaviors that got us into this mess in the first place.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b4+1kqxwz4e1

They want more excel sheets done , that takes hours to complete, delaying real focus of getting parts shipped! Migration has been a nightmare where you can’t even access systems to even do your basic work, but yet new leadership wants new IMS, and PowerPoint cr-p created that doesn’t add value, and get the parts in house from suppliers for our customers! Just incompetent!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ar+1kqxwz4e1

Post a reply

: