#culture

Maybe this is me but the concept of announcing several executive level promotions and simultaneously telling the workforce that there will be layoffs to offset inflation, shows a total lack of humanity and civilized behavior. Is that what we have become?

"I want to be fully clear and transparent on the great place to work programme"

doesn't mention that Cisco buys their way to the top
Ok

More details in the comments https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7427118095061819392-rD0R?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAAdeT6sBq6HR8cmvn-Ypy8_0uJhVxf9JjF4

Asurion is supposedly trying to expand service offerings and improve culture but internally we are hearing that they are planning to hire Andrew Brady from Verizon. He was let go from Verizon fie being unscrupulous in his sales practices and treating employees like trash. If that's the new direction at Asurion , Guru should be ashamed

Bridget Engle, whose 2024 compensation was $22.11 million, admitted on a town hall call today that employees were being forced to sit on the floor due to lack of space. This is reminiscent of textile mill workers who were forced to wear diapers because they were not allowed sufficient bathroom breaks. Ms. Engle should be ashamed and embarrassed at this inhumane treatment. The fact that she can casually admit this shows her complete lack of empathy and awareness. Her NUMBER ONE priority should be immediately resolving this issue, publicly apologizing to all employees, and personally apologizing to the affected employees.

From N&O:
“SAS Institute in Cary at No. 556”

Congratulations!

dang everybody looking ashy today

She basically came on saying no questions at the end of this All PCS team call. They are getting eaten alive and are trying to avoid questions now.

Did the email move you at all? 🤔 It felt hollow to me. If they could have gotten rid of all of us at once they would have. I feel more like we are on a subway train...yeah, all of us are moving "forward", but we all have "stops" ahead where we must get off....Oh well, whatever.

Company meeting, a year on and JT is still giggling about the "Difficult conversations" around taking away AEGs

Its been a while since we came here but we are back. So ladies and gentlemen, what is the news?

If you are a PO, PM, scrum lead, BA, RTE in P-M - how are you not losing your mind? The amount of administrative BS we have to do is pure insanity. I have no other word for it. How, on gods green earth, is this an efficient way to work?

Warrior mentality.

Success - you get paid bank
Failure - set of steak knives
Repeat failure - adios

I feel like I work with incompetent people. Some I seriously question how they keep their jobs. Am I alone here? Am I just unlucky? I get technical gaps but this is basic common sense and elementary math.

Can we hope to finally see those MDs who made the poor decisions to expose the company to the risk around Russia (a country on the US-sanction list since 2014 and its illegal invasion so hardly a case of "how could we have known?") finally held accountable for their poor decision-making?
There are Ds and MDs in my area who recruited 100s in Russia and completely messed up our org in the process. Despite showing shockingly poor judgement and poor management skills they are still at Citi.

5 - 22%
4 - 21%
3 - 20%

There’s basically no incentive to do anything other than the bare minimum.

WOW! Stores are literal ghost towns- There is NOBODY in the stores- empty aisles, unsold freight, zero employees. This company has been swirling the bowl for the last 2 years. People- get out now. The company is tanking.

How did people get exec roles in Humana Digital yet have no leadership, experience, accountability or vision/plan to deliver Humana Digital products or create a solid organization to deliver / support? They must have been great talkers during interviews - but the Board and C-Suite need to bring in leaders for Digital! Who is in place there now are awful - what were you thinking??

Humana has no leadership - they do have lots and lots of layers of useful management, just no leadership! They have no vision or plan at all - hence, can't put together a strategy. It cracks me up that they keep hiring upper management but continue to let go of the people who actually do work.

I could never recommend anyone take a job at Humana, nor would I recommend anyone be a customer. They have very few execs / managers that can deliver! Those that cared about the company and its customers are being let go. They are told they complain but in reality they are bringing up real problems and issues that if not addressed will have huge negative impact. The execs / managers don't complain because someone will then say "what are you going to do about that" and they will have no response since they let go of anyone with ideas or that cared!

The 1st question Elon Musk will ask Erica Dhawan is what product did you create?

Please please do not hire those people.. They are just good at talking instead of doing.

In AI world, we need someone can actually create something

Professional meeting attender.

Calendar always appears full.

Spreadsheet-centric, for everything.

Meets with entire team 2-3 times weekly, each meeting 1+ hour, overly repetitive and negative tone.

Has weekly 1-on-1 with each direct, only focusing on what they can do more of.

Shows up, but provides no value during partner interactions.

Takes everything personally.

Distrusts everyone, even top performers.

Provides no praise, just do more mentality.

Takes credit when no credit is due.

Track record of micromanagement and employee attrition.

Makes you feel small during every interaction.

Has horrible breath.

Wow!!! It has been 10 years since commitment runs deep day. Oh how the time flies. I would like to wish all the Coterra people a happy welcome to a wonderful company. Many you enjoy your time at the new and improved Devon and may the odds be ever in your favor.

Bunch of frauds.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge8nd5ve00o

Galgotias University was removed from the India AI Impact Summit 2026 after falsely presenting a Chinese-made Unitree Go2 robot dog as their own, in-house, "Made in India" innovation.

Last few town halls, CEO in jeans and boots with huge belt buckle, now COO with jeans, sneakers, no collar shirt. Is this now the business casual standard? If so, I’m here for it.

22% raise while the masses get ran off to pay for it. Every single employee is a pawn, a commodity to be used traded and discarded at will. You are no more to her than stapler.

AI promises were made and it did not work out. It will eventually but AI did not bear the fruit (money) that was promised. We’ll have AI in place and it’ll replace “x” number of employees this year. It did not work but even still gotta run off the people to save at least some of the money that was promised. So…YOU are on the chopping block.

Meanwhile, Jane raise\bonus is locked in at the cost of your job. She’s laughing at the fact that you are paying the price and not her.
Those that are left behind the carnage will be worked to death to pick up the slack and again she will chuckle. You guys need to get past the point that she does not care what you do, say, think, suffer through or feel. You are such a non-concern to her much like a discarded bottle cap that you and your well being does not even register as a thought to her. She came from McKinsey for which their sole purpose in life was to help CEO’s determine the best way to sell laying people off for optics.

My advice to tech….leave on your own terms as soon as you can. Be willing to move elsewhere for the same pay and maybe even settle for less but at least you won’t be blindsided. Yes, I am aware it takes a very long time to find something so start searching now rather than after the axe falls. Skill up and go. Either Citi sees the value you bring to the table or they don’t and some other company will. Try branching out to other sectors. As said before a tech person at Citi is not exclusively locked in only to the banking sector. There are other sectors that also use PowerBi, SQL, Exchange, various vendor firewalls, routers, switches, cluster, AD, etc….. crazy, I know, but Citi is not the only ones that uses various technologies. Give other sectors more than a passing glance.

Another American company with 85% of its ‘team’ in low-cost countries and 3 confused dudes in the US pretending to be the HQ. Not really an American company anymore—just a flag of convenience for venture capital. 🇺🇸 in name only.

BY Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Integrity, understood as a disposition to behave in prosocial, ethical, and principled ways rather than corrupt or self-serving ones, is among the strongest and most consistent predictors of job performance and leadership effectiveness. The reason is far from mysterious. Leadership, whatever its context, is a collective enterprise. No meaningful goal, from building empires to running companies, has ever been achieved alone.

Across history, not just in humans but also other animals, cooperation has depended less on raw power than on trust. Ancient trading societies flourished precisely because reputation constrained behavior: Merchants in Phoenician city-states, medieval guilds, and Silk Road networks relied on repeated interactions and informal enforcement mechanisms to ensure that partners honored their commitments. Those who cheated were excluded, not merely judged. Trust, in effect, functioned as an early mechanism for coordination and enforcement.

The same logic applies in modern organizations. Teams perform better when members believe that leaders will act fairly, keep promises, and avoid exploiting asymmetries of information or power, or are so focused on their personal gain that they have little concern in harming the group. In line, research shows that leaders perceived as lacking integrity struggle to attract talent, elicit discretionary effort, or sustain collaboration over time. Conversely, leaders known for ethical consistency benefit from faster coordination, lower monitoring costs, and greater willingness among others to take risks on their behalf.

Given a choice, people prefer to collaborate with those they trust not because they are naive, but because distrust is expensive. Working with unreliable or unethical partners increases the likelihood of failure, conflict, and reputational damage. In business, this may mean backing leaders who misrepresent performance or shift blame. In politics, it can mean empowering those who erode institutions for personal gain. In both cases, the costs are borne not only by the followers but by the system as a whole.

This is why chronic corruption is one of the most reliable markers of institutional breakdown. As documented year after year by Transparency International in its Corruption Perceptions Index, countries that score lowest on integrity and trust tend to share familiar pathologies: weak rule of law, politicized institutions, capital flight, and persistent underinvestment, generally caused by parasitic governments and destructive leadership. By contrast, countries that consistently rank at the top of integrity and trust measures benefit from stronger institutions, more predictable governance, and higher levels of social and economic cooperation. To be sure, these societies are not free of self-interest or ambition; rather, they have succeeded in aligning incentives so that ethical behavior is rewarded and corruption is costly, censoring selfish short-term individual gains in favor of collective long-term benefits.

Measuring integrity
So, how can we tell whether a person has integrity, or gauge someone’s moral reliability?

The question is especially consequential when applied to leaders, whose decisions shape the success, welfare, and future prospects of others. Fortunately, behavioral science offers several useful insights, even if it stops short of perfect certainty.

First, integrity is not directly observable. Unlike physical attributes such as height or hair color, it cannot be seen or measured at a glance. Instead, it is inferred or deducted from patterns of behavior, consistency over time, and alignment between words and deeds. Integrity is therefore an attribution rather than a trait we can observe directly, which makes assessment inherently probabilistic rather than definitive.

Second, short-term interactions are often misleading. Because appearing ethical brings clear benefits (trust, influence, reduced scrutiny, and access to resources) people are incentivized to signal integrity even when they lack it. This helps explain why superficially ethical environments can sometimes attract parasitic actors who exploit the goodwill and assumptions of others. In contrast, in persistently corrupt settings, distrust becomes the default, and even well-intentioned individuals are treated with suspicion. Context shapes both behavior and perception.

A parallel and increasingly robust line of evidence comes from research on the so-called dark traits: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Although conceptually distinct, these traits share a common core of low empathy, emotional coldness, and a tendency to instrumentalize others. From an integrity standpoint, this combination is toxic. Individuals high on these traits are less constrained by guilt or concern for others, more willing to bend or ignore rules, and more likely to justify unethical behavior as necessary, deserved, or clever rather than wrong.

Psychopathy is most directly linked to callousness and fearlessness, reducing sensitivity to punishment and moral emotion. Machiavellianism predicts strategic deception, cynicism about human motives, and a belief that ends justify means. Narcissism, especially in its more grandiose forms, adds entitlement and moral exceptionalism, the belief that normal rules apply to others but not to oneself.

Together, these traits reliably predict counterproductive work behaviors, ethical transgressions, and integrity failures, particularly in roles that confer power, discretion, and weak oversight.

Crucially, this is not because such individuals lack intelligence or self-control, but because their motivational architecture is misaligned with prosocial norms. Where integrity depends on empathy, respect for authority, and an internalized concern for collective outcomes, dark traits tilt decision-making toward self-interest, dominance, and short term gain, making them among the strongest dispositional red flags for integrity risk in organizational life.

Third, while integrity cannot be measured perfectly, it can be assessed meaningfully. Research shows that peer ratings are among the most reliable indicators, precisely because integrity is reputational: It reveals itself in how people behave when others depend on them. Longitudinal data, such as 360-degree feedback, is especially informative. Personality traits like conscientiousness, altruism, and self-control (including the capacity to self-edit) also predict ethical conduct, as does past behavior. Self-reports are often dismissed, but well-designed measures still differentiate reliably between individuals with higher and lower integrity. Track records matter, even if they do not render anyone immune to temptation. As Warren Buffett famously observed, reputation takes a lifetime to build and a moment to destroy.

Finally, the environment matters. Ethical failures are not only the result of “bad apples,” but also of “rotten barrels.” Weak governance, misaligned incentives, and tolerance for small transgressions can erode integrity even among otherwise decent individuals, while well-designed systems can reinforce ethical behavior by making misconduct costly and transparency unavoidable.

Sapping growth
Taken together, these points suggest that integrity is neither inscrutable nor guaranteed. Whether in governments, firms, or teams, integrity functions as an enabling condition for coordination and progress. When trust erodes, actors devote more effort to monitoring, hedging, and self-protection, leaving less energy for innovation or growth. In this sense, integrity is not merely a moral ideal, but a form of social infrastructure: largely invisible when it works, and painfully obvious when it does not.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is the chief science officer at Russell Reynolds Associates, a professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia University, co-founder of deepersignals.com, and an associate at Harvard’s Entrepreneurial Finance Lab

https://www.fastcompany.com/91490509/3-science-backed-ways-to-measure-integrity

Ever since RC got let go, the morale has been at an all time low, AM who is the DM now has made everyone miserable

You can’t “create culture” in a building no one wants to be in. You can’t force innovation with badge scans. You can’t build the future of work by dragging people backward into an office they explicitly said they don’t want.

The survey feedback was not complicated. It wasn’t “please give us a shinier office.” It wasn’t “add more collaboration pods.” It wasn’t “install more cold brew taps.” The message was simple, we want flexibility. We don’t want five days in an office. We don’t want forced presence. We don’t want performative collaboration.

Instead of listening, leadership built a monument to denial. A new office filled with aesthetic distractions and useless junk doesn’t solve the actual problem. It just proves the feedback was either ignored or rewritten to fit a predetermined decision.

You can’t gaslight thousands of employees into believing they asked for this. Culture isn’t furniture. It isn’t square footage. It isn’t proximity. It’s trust. And when you ignore the one thing people clearly said they wanted, you don’t build culture — you burn it down.

You can’t build the future in an office your workforce is actively trying to escape.

Just look at the cop personal finance channel to remind yourself a lot of people here have no common sense and really are just unable to think critically

Anyone else seeing random positions created and prioritized over necessary reqs? Im seeing alot of it now and itn random locations not in the forced “growth locations”

Thoughts on the latest AMA? Felt very avoidant and not full answers.

Lets be real here. Customers use bank services. These services seem simple to the customers. And in fact, are a tiny part of what goes on behind the scenes. I say this to remind everyone (if needed) that all the BS, discrimination, unfair dealings, crooked management, outsourcing, d-mb RTO rules, etc. - don't matter. They don't matter if the customer is unaffected. Its all under the rug so to speak. Until things get so bad that bank services are impacted, John Q. Public is oblivious and it all doesn't matter. Except to us. And it is continually ground into our psyche as the bus runs us over again and again. Stay at WF long enough, and one could easily be damaged goods emotionally. It really is that bad.
Thanks chainsaw, you've really done a number on WF. You have made a "difference". Now can you move on, please?

Transparency != "We will tell you more in 'current_date'+30". Maybe find a new buzz word, as this is anything but transparent.

I wanted to ask for some clarification regarding the recent changes in Teams and the organizational view. Previously, it clearly showed the team I’ve worked with consistently, but now when I look at my organization, it lists many different names I’m not familiar with. I understand that organizational structures can evolve, but the sudden change without context feels confusing. Can someone please explain what these updates reflect and whether they indicate a shift in team alignment, reporting structure, or workflow? I believe transparency helps everyone stay informed and aligned, and I would appreciate any insight you can provide.

The culling cycle continues.

J. Simon org.

Someone said “right after Super Bowl”… they weren’t kidding. “Best quarter ever” earnings report… stock even went up… still no safety.

Pickleball. Kayaking. Kick a soccer ball around. We are truly blessed.

If it's cost performance, it should hit the MD D SVPs isn't it.why i see only VP getting affected