Thread regarding Cargill layoffs

Brian Sikes has to go

I lost confidence in Brian when he was leading the Protein business, developed a strategy that decided to decrease the exposure of the business to the retail channel but in the first opportunity close to major deals with two major retailers. He doesn't walk his talk, is not strategic and doesn't know how to manage expectations with the family and board stakeholders. If this was a parliamentary government, he would receive a vote of no confidence from this cabinet.

There are multiple culprits to why the company got to these point. These are my highlights:

1- The company doesn't have standard processes and systems, so scaling operations passes by increasing headcount. When profitability problems arise, it's time to call McKinsey to hear the most standard of advices: Increase sales and cut costs to improve margins. And there we go on another wild ride chasing down where to cut staffing and what businesses ought to be sold.

2- The creation of BOSC was an epic mistake that shot the number of FTEs into the sky and didn't bring any synergies, on the contrary. Look at the example of the sustainability team, hundreds of people that cannot come up with a single viable project. Talking about Pilar Cruz, completely loss.

3- IT is a joke and the new CIO is a clown, with no clue on how to lead a global company that makes 60% of its profit outside the US. She's MN centric and lacks the business experience to lead the function outside the twin cities.

4- The new CHRO, another MN centric clown who didn't know about the other countries RIF laws and requirements. Thought that everything could be handled the same way it's done in the USA.

5- John Nash has reached its ceiling in this last promotion (google: Peter's principle). He's only there because of Sikes and has yet to prove he can do something fundamentally new and bold to change the situation.

6- The other business leaders are also very opportunistic and can only blame the functions for their P&L decreases.

7- Cargill is bad a sales, compare it with any other world-class company and our sales force is a joke with no tools, processes and intelligence. We sell a lot because of some dominant positions, it's more like a push to the market and creating new business opportunities that lead to innovation from the outside in.

8- The company has been talking about the importance of being good at changes for the past 20 years, but results are yet to come. IT has spent 20 years trying to rollout a single ERP globally and has failed. The Finance function has been under transformation for the past 10 years. HR outsourced its muscle and walked the brains out the door, it's a zombie function.

9- The family, currently the key family shareholders have long departure from deeply understanding the business and its cyclicality. They receive wealth management advisory from the largest banks in the globe and are growing greed and expecting the company to deliver results on par with companies that Cargill doesn't compare with. This also puts unrealistic expectations of the executive team, which in their turn don't make a good job at educating the family about what's fair to expect. And down to the vicious cycle we go again.

10- As Brian once said he sold the Pork business, every company has the shareholders it deserves. As of now, Cargill's leadership deserves private equity kind. Its employees deserve better.

by
| 4311 views | | 12 replies (last December 4, 2024) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1vMWPKy6

12 replies (most recent on top)

Bad company gobbling up 8000 people's (that they "value") Christmases--unconscionable rat bassturds

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2kgs+1vMWPKy6

Another worrisome aspect is Cargill getting rid of people past a certain age. Is that even legal?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2lai+1vMWPKy6

You’ve laid out some serious points that highlight systemic issues beyond one individual’s leadership. It feels like Sikes’ tenure is a symptom, not the root cause, of broader dysfunction. If the company’s processes, governance, and long-term strategies remain inconsistent, no leader will succeed. That said, accountability at the top matters. Do you think change should start with Sikes, or is a full structural overhaul needed to reset priorities and align leadership with sustainable goals?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1xma+1vMWPKy6

Speaking of diversity/equality in leadership, check out the new Food business leadership team. Almost a complete sea of white, bald, men, so from my vantage point, broadly, women here are not benefiting from any equity measures. Great job living showing up with those values when it counts, Cargill.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1glf+1vMWPKy6

wow, so true. Equality only for leadership when benefits women. HR can have the majority of women, no problem.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ajy+1vMWPKy6

Hey, at least Cargill is diverse and values ​​equality, right? Leave meritocracy alone, what it is important is to have more women in leadership positions, in plants we can keep the majority of men dying either way.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gus+1vMWPKy6

Easy, we moved from meritocracy to mediocrity.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wgx+1vMWPKy6

Please entertain us with horrifying stories. Best way to relieve stress.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @xen+1vMWPKy6

Best post on this forum, everything hits the mark.

IT, oh boy, i could tell you stories, safe to say, good luck with this CIO + VP and S-Director levels, all cronies that are being promoted based on being "yes man" and not based on merit.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mou+1vMWPKy6

Neat idea: Let us review leadership every 6 months.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mac+1vMWPKy6

Jen (CIO) is indeed bad compared to previous IT leaders she has no clue to run such a global company same for her newly build IT leadership team. Anyway, Brian won’t be there long he is a clown not even 10% from what DMac was.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @chx+1vMWPKy6

CIO brought in her cronies from Baker Hughes, they have no clue what they’re hey are doing.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @iir+1vMWPKy6

Post a reply

: