#leadership

Posts mentioning hashtag #leadership

Below are all the posts — topics as well as replies — that mention the hashtag #leadership.

Mention #leadership in your post to continue the discussion!

WFH NY Times article

When the pandemic came to an end, many people who had been working from home assumed they would be allowed to maintain that habit at least a few days a week. But today in the U.S., a third of companies have forced everyone back to the office full time and have banned remote and hybrid work.

Some leaders say they insist on full-time in-person work because it boosts productivity, despite clear evidence that it does not. Others claim it’s about collaboration, creativity or culture. Our new research reveals that the objection to any work from home is more likely to be driven by something else entirely: ego.

Case by case, there may be good reasons for teams to work together in person. As a general rule, though, it turns out that ordering people back to the office full time is a power and status move. It’s a signature strategy of leaders who exhibit narcissistic qualities. They see any kind of remote work as a threat to their authority and admiration. They want to be worshiped at the office altar.

Over the past six years, we’ve studied why some leaders continue to support remote work, while others resist it. We surveyed thousands of executives, middle managers and frontline supervisors on a host of personality traits. When we later asked them about their stances on hybrid and remote work, their answers didn’t correlate with how much they trusted their employees or how much they loved being around people. The only trait that consistently predicted objections to remote work was narcissism — the tendency to be self-centered and entitled. The higher the opinions of themselves leaders expressed, the more they coveted power and status — and the more they favored return-to-office mandates.
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

That pattern held for chief executives of Fortune 500 companies. Since we couldn’t directly measure the size of their egos, we measured factors that many previous studies have identified as reliable proxies for narcissism: the sizes of their pay packages, their signatures and their photos in their company reports. (No, the chief executives probably aren’t directly overseeing the page layout, but their underlings have to figure out what will and won’t please the boss.) Commanding outsize compensation and projecting an outsize image sends a message right out of Ron Burgundy’s playbook: I’m kind of a big deal. We found that the higher chief executives scored on this index, the more likely they were to seek power and status by becoming chairmen of their own companies and joining the boards of other companies. These were the chief executives who made the most negative statements about remote and hybrid work during the first two years of the pandemic.

The connection between narcissistic personality traits and wanting people in the office full time is not coincidental — it’s causal. In one experiment, we got leaders to reflect on the role that a bold, assertive ego played in the success of Steve Jobs as Apple’s chief executive and Larry Ellison as Oracle’s. After participating in that exercise, leaders were more likely to oppose remote work.

None of this is to say that individual leaders who reject remote work are necessarily egomaniacs. Many factors influence workplace policies around flexibility. But our data does show that overall, self-centered leaders tend to struggle with the idea of employees making independent choices about where to work. Psychologists have long suggested that narcissism is like a dr-g — it leaves people craving a regular supply of attention and validation. Remote work deprives leaders of access to that supply.

When people aren’t in the office, it’s harder to command and control. Leaders can’t intimidate by hovering over cubicle desks and slamming doors. They can’t establish their dominance by summoning people to a conference room and pounding their fists on the table. They can’t even make direct eye contact to stare people down.

ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Remote work also prevents leaders from basking in the glow of employee reverence. Instead of standing out in the corner office, leaders are lost in a sea of equal squares on a screen. Instead of rapt attention, they’re met online with boredom, fatigue and interruptions from partners, children and pets. Instead of being showered with immediate gratification, they get glitchy facial expressions and delayed replies. Sycophantic reassurances from employees just don’t have the same effect if they’re on Slack.
Self-centered leaders often respond to these threats by tightening their grip. They declare that people are shirking from home instead of working from home. They threaten to fire people who aren’t on site five days a week.

Rigorous evidence shows that forcing people to come in every day backfires. Take it from studies of over 450 companies and over three million employees: Return-to-office mandates fail to increase financial returns. They succeed only in motivating star employees to quit, reducing the satisfaction of those who stay and discouraging new talent from joining. Experiments at tech companies and nonprofits show that letting people work from home part of the week boosts happiness and decreases turnover by a third — without any cost to performance. In many cases, those employees even get more done, because they don’t have to spend time commuting and don’t get distracted by office interruptions.

There are limits to the benefit of flexible office policies. Research suggests that working from home for more than half the week can be isolating — it’s harder to build connections and cultures. It’s also more difficult to encourage creative collisions, informal learning and mentoring. But it doesn’t take five days a week to accomplish these goals. In fact, it turns out that people are most collaborative and creative when they work remotely part of the week. They can use a day or two at home to focus on individual deep work and reserve the rest of the week for communication and collective problem-solving. It’s well documented that too much togetherness breeds groupthink (not to mention germs). When we spend some time apart, we actually generate more innovative ideas and make smarter decisions.

ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Hybrid work does have its own challenges for leaders. It’s not fun to try to inspire through a recorded video message or lead a brainstorming session on a digital whiteboard. But to maintain a competitive advantage in an increasingly flexible world, it’s time for leaders to put their egos aside and master the art of managing from afar. Evidence supports a few basic guidelines.

One: Coordination counts. Teams need anchor days when everyone shows up — especially to welcome newcomers and mentor junior people. At Microsoft, new hires who spent at least a couple of days a month with their manager and their teams were more satisfied with their early experiences, which in turn meant they were more likely to stay over the next year and a half.
Two: Intensity beats frequency. The software company Atlassian has found that spending a few days with your team at a well-designed quarterly team gathering does more for connection and belonging than daily schleps to the office.

Three: Hybrid work is not one-size-fits-all. Different jobs require different amounts of time in person. So do different people; for example, flexibility proves particularly important in attracting and retaining women. And you need to gather together more if your staff operates like a basketball team passing the ball back and forth, rather than a gymnastics team whose members do their own individual events. (This explains why fully remote teams struggle to patent new technologies, but the people who examine patent applications are more productive when they can work from anywhere they like.)

ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Four: Most people care more about when they work than where. If they can choose the hours, they’re more willing to let leaders pick the place.

Organizational policies shouldn’t be vanity projects. The responsibility of leaders is not to mold the world to their needs. It’s to adapt themselves to the world’s needs, even if it means learning to live without the thrill of a live audience.


Nasdaq Honeywell Aerospace - Ringing the bell

It’s so nice to see that everyone on that stage receives founder bonuses today. While everyone else is receiving a T-shirt, lanyard and drink ware. So glad that we are truly dedicating the employees on who makes the success of the company. JC, time to think differently, time to be the difference in a leader.


The Forge Target is a 20% Cut

Ask about that number in the next town hall.

Leadership has been sworn to secrecy for that reason alone. It is a big number and it will get a lot of press in Milwaukee. Extravagant north building rebuild. Eating a massive loss on Franklin. Mckinsie is leading the way. All while collecting massive consulting fees.


Feeling defeated, tired and angry…

I really thought centene was a great company when I joined. I thought I had a pretty solid team with great leadership. Only to find out it was all a facade. My leadership still refuses to address this issue with empathy towards the team. The director doesn’t seem to gaf about the team and their well being and neither does any of the leaders under her. They should focus on replacing all of management and irrelevant positions. I need them to hurry up and let me go if that’s what they want to do so I can collect unemployment. I have zero desire to do any work and to top it off, every single teammate is disgruntled leaving all their work for others to do…. Job hunting has been an utter nightmare and staying positive is beginning to take a toll. Sorry for the venting this is just terrible. I’m so disappointed in my leadership team and their lack of concern or empathy for their team.


Don't know why my team is rushing to restructure

Don't know what got into our organization lately. They're moving all the leads into completely unfamiliar areas instead of letting them work on what they know best. The whole org just feels more and more chaotic. It feels like leadership has turned everything upside down. More people are leaving on their own, and layoffs keep happening too. I honestly don't know what management is thinking. Almost everyone in the org is disappointed with all these changes. Nobody seems to understand why they're doing this, but at the same time, it feels like if you push back or question anything, you're just putting a target on your back.

Anyone have any idea why this is happening? Forcing people to quit doesn't seem realistic, and if they keep laying people off, there won't be anyone left to do the work. The whole org is going to literally fall apart.


Do you think we have a fighting chance?

This site is often filled with responses from the jilted and jaded. Does anyone still believe the company has a viable path forward? Are the right people still in place to execute that turnaround, or is it time for employees to start planning their exit?

There is a lot of complacency abounds with people openly stating they are just hanging around for the paycheck. Does anyone have faith? I'm by no means the "Company Man", but I would like to still believe that there is a path forward.


Ok lemme get this straight

Hundreds of millions already spent on AI with no benefits so far. None
1400 laid off does not balance the ai debt.
Shipped jobs to ITC and vendors who do absolutely nothing and are robbing us with inflated contracts that leadership is clueless about.
Tons of bloat, inexperience and toxicity in tech leadership and down.

Tech can’t drive excitement for product or make meaning commercials, but we’re sure not helping the sinking ship.


Jun layoffs wtf is going on?

They laid off people holding the project together and kept the ship afloat. It's funny how none of the senior leaders are not getting laid off but people doing the actual work are. They have been hiring massively .. there are 5000+ opening in Optum currently, 1000+ IT roles, so it's not a budget issue... It almost seems like being smart and good at what you do and bending to your managers will is seen as a weakness..the most arrogant Karens and Kens that push back at everything are the only one surviving in this burning he-l. Better start worshipping Satan if you want to survive the coming rounds.


IBM Should Develop a leadership academy named after Mr Gerstner

When Mr. Gerstner became CEO, IBM was facing one of the most challenging periods in its history. He made difficult decisions, refocused the company, preserved IBM as an integrated enterprise, and helped restore its competitiveness. His leadership demonstrated that successful executives must balance long-term strategy, financial discipline, innovation, and customer focus.

A Lou Gerstner Leadership Academy could teach future leaders about:

Leading through major organizational change.
Making tough decisions under pressure.
Putting customers first.
Driving accountability and execution.
Building a culture focused on long-term success rather than short-term popularity.

Whether someone agrees with every decision he made or not, Mr. Gerstner's turnaround of IBM remains one of the most significant corporate leadership stories of the modern era. There are valuable leadership lessons that today's and tomorrow's IBM leaders can still learn from his example.


The Secret Reason Bosses Want Everyone Back in the Office

"Ordering people back to the office full time is a power and status move. It's a signature strategy of leaders who exhibit narcissistic qualities, Adam Grant, Marissa Shandell and Courtney Elliott write. "They see any kind of remote work as a threat to their authority and admiration. They want to be worshiped at the office altar." https://nyti.ms/4uWqZhq


The axe will swing

Let’s get real peeps.

FIS bought, absorbed, renamed, reorganized, and stacked business on top of business without ever turning the whole thing into something coherent. Too many layers, too many handoffs, too many teams protecting their little kingdoms, and too many people paid to attend meetings about work instead of doing work.

That kind of structure can survive for a while, especially when revenue hides the rot. But eventually the bill comes due. And when it does, headcount is where leadership goes first.

Your impending layoff is the natural consequence of FIS getting big without getting better. The smart move is to stop treating this like a personal betrayal and start treating it like a warning. Update your resume. Call people. Look outside. Move before the axe swings.

And if you have spent years coasting inside FIS, this is the moment of truth. The market will tell you very quickly whether you were building a career or just collecting a paycheck inside a system that made underperformance easy to hide.

Get over it.


Topgolf Leadership Initiates Turnaround Amidst Sales Decline

Topgolf recently laid off hundreds of employees nationwide. The company also lost nearly $1 billion in value under previous ownership. New CEO David McKillips aims to revitalize the brand. His plan includes upgrading golf ba--s and introducing simulator leagues. McKillips also intends to expand locations and diversify entertainment options.

https://www.dmagazine.com/business-economy/2026/06/topgolf-ceo-david-mckillips-plan/


Another week done

How is everyone doing?
Another week done and it feels like we are hamsters on wheels. Same s*** different day. We get a message from
Our Chief Revenue Officer about finishing the Q strong - with 2 days to go that’s kinda late. Where he been hanging out the last few months? Maybe if he checked integration that was supposed to help like move to D365 now even more late than the 7th version of timeline we’ll all get to a more stable position?


Passing out opinions like lollipops

Since when does a company have almost every single person in the building make a decision on even the littlest things? The higher ups, like ML and that whole lot, have better things to worry about than half of the stuff they have to “approve” before anyone can actually move forward with their jobs.

Have a little faith in the people you employ, and maybe focus more on idk maybe a cohesive brand????? We’ve lost the plot entirely


Bloomberg: chief executives are feeling especially unloved these days.

You can Google it I'm not posting a link.

I got a crack out of the article. CEOs should tell us more about how they're moving jobs overseas, decimating the workforce with AI, while accepting larger and larger bonuses.

  • A significant shift in sentiment has made the job of running a company tougher, with CEOs complaining they are overworked, overstressed and subjected to endless scrutiny.
    The rise of political populism and volatile shifts in trade policy have contributed to the decline in admiration for CEOs, with polls showing they are no longer as admired as they once were.*

21000

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/oracle-layoffs-company-confirms-how-many-employees-received-email-from-oracle-leadership-at-6am-saying-that-we-have-made-the-decision-to-eliminate-your-role-as/articleshow/131930070.cms

Glad the Times of India confirmed this from the annual report. So many people. SVP’s and above who ruthlessly cut people off will be in the next rounds of RIF’s.

Larry and that C-Suite do not care who you are.

I have come to have a disdain for RIF’s and the immortality of it all. Lesson. Take your PTO. Work your posted hours. Trust no one at this company. Career growth will only come from moving out not up here.

At some point the true character of leadership is what they tell us it is. They stop being people and “act” on behalf of “the company” and that is why no one at these big companies should care beyond the minimum.


The forgotten credo

Before taking the company public, Robert Wood Johnson II worried that shareholder pressure might eventually overwhelm the company's values. To prevent this, he created the famous Johnson & Johnson Credo, which established the company's priorities:

  • Patients, doctors, and nurses
  • Employees
  • Communities
  • Shareholders

He believed these priorities were so important that he had the Credo carved into massive limestone monuments placed at company headquarters.

For decades, this philosophy helped guide the company.

Eventually, however, later generations of leadership abandoned it.


Talked to an Ops VP...

He expects a cut, notes that it will be sizable but 'reasonable' (whatever that means). When I pressed with numbers did not want to share anything. I said 20K, he said unlikely, I said 10K he said maybe. Take it for what it's worth. I typically trust him as he's a good person and we have a close relationship (long story) but wanted to share that.


The reason BB is pushing for RTO...

Famous Wharton organizational psychologist argues that business leaders’ overinflated, insatiable egos—not productivity—are the real driving force behind their hatred of remote work.

https://www.inc.com/bruce-crumley/rto-isnt-about-productivity-wharton-psychologist-reveals-the-dark-truth-behind-in-office-pushes/91364877


Kroger VS 84’51

I’ve been with Kroger for over a decade, and I have a solid understanding of the systems and the code I’m working on. I’ve collaborated with multiple 84.51° teams, and I’ve noticed that some individuals are quick to escalate what they believe are issues, even when they aren’t actual problems. It often feels like they’re trying to prove themselves rather than first understanding the context. Unfortunately, we don’t always have strong leadership support from the Kroger side to help provide that context or resolve these situations effectively.


Feedback on P. Di-kerson's Management Style

If leadership is reading this, I encourage you to take an honest look at P. Di-kerson's track record since she joined. Consider the number of people who have left the team, the overall level of dissatisfaction, and the noticeable decline in morale.

I would challenge leadership to run a truly anonymous team survey. I believe the results would highlight concerns that many people are currently reluctant to raise openly.

Her management style creates an environment of fear rather than trust. Public criticism is common, feedback is often delivered in front of others, and people become more focused on avoiding blame than on doing their best work. Instead of encouraging ownership and collaboration, it drives people to protect themselves.

There is also very little visible self-reflection or willingness to acknowledge when her own approach may be contributing to problems. Accountability appears to be expected from everyone else, but rarely from herself.

I hope leadership takes these concerns seriously, as I believe the current environment is having a significant negative impact on employee wellbeing, engagement, and retention.


Dear Fiserv Executive Leadership: Measure Outcomes, Not Office Attendance

Fiserv has an opportunity to modernize how it thinks about work, productivity, and employee accountability.

The return-to-office model is being sold as “collaboration,” but for many employees, the actual workday does not support that claim. A large amount of the work still happens through Teams calls, emails, shared documents, workflow systems, and digital handoffs with colleagues, subject matter experts, developers, reviewers, and leaders who are spread across different states and locations.

That is not true in-person collaboration. That is remote work being performed from an office cubicle.

The issue is not whether employees should be accountable. They absolutely should be. The issue is whether physical presence is being mistaken for productivity.

Fiserv is a technology and financial services company. If the company wants to lead in innovation, artificial intelligence, automation, client service, and operational excellence, then it should manage employees by measurable outcomes, not outdated assumptions about “butts in seats.”

A better model would be simple:

Set clear productivity benchmarks.Set clear quality expectations.Set clear deadlines.Track cycle time, accuracy, responsiveness, client impact, rework, missed handoffs, stakeholder satisfaction, and risk reduction.Hold underperformers accountable.Reward employees who produce excellent work.Require office presence only when there is a legitimate business reason for people to be physically together.

That is a more mature operating model than blanket attendance rules.

Many employees were more willing to give extra time and discretionary effort when working from home because commuting was not draining hours and energy out of the day. When people are forced to commute to an office just to sit on virtual meetings with people in other locations, they become more protective of their time. That is not a lack of commitment. That is a rational response to an inefficient work design.

The company should ask itself a direct question:

What business outcome improves when an employee drives to an office, sits at a desk, and collaborates with remote colleagues through the same digital tools they would have used from home?

If there is a real answer, define it. Measure it. Apply it only where it makes sense.

But if the answer is vague language about culture, collaboration, or visibility, then the policy is not really about productivity. It is about control, optics, and habit.

Fiserv should not confuse visibility with value.

The future of work should not be built around where a person is sitting. It should be built around what they produce, how well they produce it, how reliably they deliver, and how much value they create for clients, teams, and shareholders.

The new CEO has a chance to reset this conversation. Not by eliminating accountability, but by making accountability smarter.

Measure the work.Measure the quality.Measure the outcomes.Measure the impact.

Then let high-performing employees do their jobs in the environment where they produce the best results, within legal, ethical, client, security, and compliance requirements.

That would be a real innovation culture.


The AI Cost Reckoning: Not Quite the Saving Grace Companies Hoped For

Companies poured billions into AI with sky-high expectations. It was supposed to be the ultimate productivity hack — slashing costs, supercharging innovation, and delivering effortless competitive advantage. Executives bet big that generative AI and automation would be the simple solution to margin pressure, talent shortages, and sluggish growth.

Now the reckoning is here.

Early pilots looked magical. Chatbots answered queries, code assistants sped up development, and analytics tools promised smarter decisions. But scaling those wins across the enterprise is proving far more expensive and complicated than the headlines suggested.

The costs are piling up: massive compute infrastructure, eye-watering energy consumption, specialized talent that commands premium salaries, constant model retraining, and the hidden expense of integrating brittle AI systems into legacy workflows. Many organizations are discovering that AI doesn’t magically replace headcount — it often requires more people to manage, monitor, and refine outputs. Hallucinations, bias issues, and compliance risks add further friction and potential liability.

The result? A growing number of leaders are quietly coming to terms with a harder truth: AI is a powerful tool, not a plug-and-play savior. ROI timelines are stretching. Some projects are being quietly deprioritized or rightsized. The hype cycle is colliding with balance-sheet reality.

That doesn’t mean AI is a bust. Far from it. The companies that will win are the ones treating it as a long-term capability build rather than a quick-fix expense. They’re focusing on narrow, high-value use cases, investing in data quality, building human-AI collaboration models, and being honest about both the upside and the total cost of ownership.

The era of “just add AI” is ending. The era of thoughtful, disciplined AI adoption is beginning.
What are you seeing in your organization — genuine transformation or mounting costs? Curious to hear real experiences.

#AI #Leadership #BusinessStrategy #TechAdoption


Tech HR

I joined Tech going on a year now, and I have been working to improve accountability and address long-standing performance issues. Not to be punitive, but because it’s better to deal with low performance directly than end up laying off good employees later.

My biggest frustration has been HR and specifically, employee relations supporting Tech. It’s hard to get a clear answer on what action to take, harder to get a response, and when you do, the guidance often contradicts what leaders in other departments are being told.

I know they’re under pressure too, and I’ve tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. But when managers can’t get consistent support, it makes leading my teams a lot harder. At some point, that becomes an HR leadership issue. I hope their senior leadership is paying attention.


ChatGPT auditions for CEO

My first move as pretend AT&T CEO would be pretty simple:

Stop chasing “transformational” nonsense and run the company like a telecom company. Wireless. Fiber. Business services. Network reliability. Customer service. Debt reduction. That’s it.

No media empire. No satellite TV fantasy. No “synergy” PowerPoint garbage. No paying billions for assets and then selling/spinning them off later at a loss.

The basic plan would be:

  1. Aggressively pay down debt instead of trying to look clever.
  2. Keep investing in fiber, because that actually fits AT&T’s core strengths.
  3. Protect the network craft workforce, because contractors and outsourcing can save money short term but can wreck service quality.
  4. Simplify management layers, because AT&T has always seemed ridiculously top-heavy.
  5. Stop abusing loyal customers with confusing promotions that reward switchers more than longtime customers.
  6. Make executive compensation depend on long-term debt reduction, free cash flow, network quality, and employee retention, not just stock-price optics.

And yeah, I’d probably cancel half the consultant contracts in the first week.

But the hostile takeover part might be tough. AT&T’s market cap is massive, and I’m currently a little light on the tens of billions needed to pull that off. Also, I suspect the board would object to my official turnaround slogan: “Stop Doing D-mb Sh*t.”