#organization

PM gone. LSS is the largest part of PA. Hard to figure out why.

Why the F do we have a Chief Growth and success officer?

We're so top heavy its laughable now

What an embarassing situation for them.

Ok, throw out your best guesses…. -_-

Why is no one talking about all the org changes today effective July 1 impacting Medicare? Anyone think this will lead to yet more layoffs?

Why have we not changed organization structure to help Paramount+ technology?

So many groups and layers - I don’t think we need product and technology enablement team in VBG. Let’s be honest …

There's a certain art to building a data and technology organization that looks busy, costs a fortune, and produces almost nothing of lasting value. It doesn't happen by accident. It takes years of careful hiring, deliberate avoidance of accountability, and an unshakeable commitment to calling everything a win. Having observed this craft up close, I feel obligated to document it — if only so future generations know what not to do.

Welcome to the Bank data organization. Pull up a chair. Try not to trip over the unused pipelines.

The Architects of Mediocrity: JK and TD

Every great dysfunction starts at the top, and ours is no exception.

JK — EMG — is, by all accounts, a pleasant man. Genuinely. He smiles, he travels to the office locations, he checks in, he goes back home. Remote, of course. He was hired by a senior EMG a few years back, not because of any particular expertise in data or analytics, but because of the time-honored tradition of hiring people you already know and like. He came in with a VP title inflated from a Director-level role at his previous company — a clever move to give him parity with the business-side VP he'd be working alongside.

In over three years, he has produced exactly zero vision or roadmaps. Not a draft. Not a napkin sketch. Nothing. His leadership philosophy, as best as anyone can tell, is: trust your people, avoid politics, and don't make waves. Noble in a yoga studio. Catastrophic in a technology organization.

TD is the other half of this leadership duo — the one who actually knows technology, or at least knows how to talk about it. Specifically, he knows how to talk about Capital One. If you've ever wondered what it was like to work at Capital One circa whenever he was there, just ask him. Any meeting, any problem, any question — "At Capital One, we did it this way." He is smart. That's not the issue. The issue is that being smart and leading well are two very different skills, and he has fully committed to only one of them.

Together, these two have built a leadership culture where looking busy is rewarded, spending budget is celebrated, and asking "but what value does this actually deliver?" is considered rude.

TD's Cabinet of People Leaders

Under TD, you'll find a collection of leaders who share one common trait: they care deeply about their people in the most technically useless way possible.

LA has been with the organization for forty years. Forty. Years. In that time, she has apparently absorbed very little about data, technology, or how to lead an engineering team. What she brings to the table is unclear to most observers, including, one suspects, she herself.

BK runs the platform team, which does legitimately solid work — Snowflake optimization, platform oversight, the kind of stuff that actually matters. The catch? It only matters for the Bank. The same work that could be driving cost savings across every line of business in the association stays neatly siloed because TD likes having a showcase team. Why share the glory? Why scale the savings? That would be efficient, and efficiency doesn't make you look as important.

SK is officially a strategy leader. In practice, she is an executioner who has confused the two. She runs what she believes is a strategy team, propped up by strong engineers who do the actual heavy lifting. She is also the department's most reliable source of complaints — about her team, about leadership, about the general state of things — all delivered faithfully in meetings where decisions are supposed to be made. The irony of a "strategy leader" who reacts rather than plans appears to be lost on her. She has mastered a different kind of influence: the victim narrative.

JK's Bench: Where Careers Go to Coast

If TD's side is a people-leadership museum, JK's side of the org is where engineering standards go to retire early.

MJ came in as a project manager. Through a combination of timing, access to the right interim leader, and sheer persistence, she ascended to Director. She does not know how to run a project. She does not know how to manage a team. She does know how to be present when a vacancy appears, which, it turns out, is enough.

MW is perhaps the most complete embodiment of the organization's dysfunction. His job security, many believe, owes something to the fact that his wife is an AVP on the Bank application side. His team's job security owes something to the fact that businesses keep asking for things and he keeps building them — no questions asked. One file. One expensive data pipeline. One expensive Tableau dashboard. One "big win." Repeat indefinitely. Nobody asks whether the business actually needed it. Nobody asks if the data supports a decision or just decorates a meeting. The business asked. he built it. Done.

GB is a long-tenured director who is — genuinely — a great project/department finance manager. This note is not sarcastic. he is kind, approachable, and his engineers feel heard....again to only those reporting to him. Unfortunately, feeling heard is not the same as getting better at your job, and he offers nothing in the way of technical guidance.

The MVP - DM deserves his own paragraph, possibly his own chapter. He is a director who has reduced technology leadership to a single question: how do I spend this budget before someone takes it away? He leads many teams and many of them does not add meaningful value to the Bank. His genius, if you can call it that, is his unwavering belief that having a budget and spending a budget are the same thing as delivering value.

The Engineer Problem Nobody Wants to Solve

Here is the uncomfortable truth underneath all of this: approximately 75% of the engineers in this organization do not have deep technical skills in the data they support. The workflow is simple — an analyst writes code, the engineer wraps it in a pipeline, and everyone celebrates. That's it. That's the whole thing.

This is partly a legacy issue. The previous executive, AD, forced higher employee contractor ratio, which leaders took a short cut through heavy H1B visa hiring. The result is a large workforce where many engineers are underutilized, underdeveloped, and scrambling for meaningful work. The right response to this would be right-sizing the team, investing in skills development, and building a leaner, higher-output organization.

The actual response has been for JK and TD to go back to the business every year, ask for more budget, get it, spend it on more of the same, and call it growth.

The Members Nobody Is Thinking About

Let's not forget who this organization ultimately exists to serve: the members of the association. Real people. People whose financial lives depend on this institution making good decisions with their money — including decisions about how to invest in technology.

Every reckless pipeline, every budget-hoarding director, every people manager who can't coach an engineer, every roadmap that was never written — it all trickles down. Not to JK. Not to TD. To the members.

Nobody in a leadership meeting appears to be asking: does this help our members? It is, perhaps, the most damning thing of all.

This isn't just a rant. Here's the contrast that makes all of this so frustrating:
A roadmap. Any roadmap. One with a direction.
Technology leaders who can actually mentor engineers.
A shared services model that scales good work across lines of business.
Budget tied to outcomes, not to the fear of losing it.
Engineers who are challenged, developed, and given real problems to solve.
A leadership question asked in every meeting: how does this help our members?

None of this is radical. None of this is expensive. It just requires leadership that came to lead — not to coast, not to protect territory, not to spend budget for the sake of it.

Until then, the pipelines will keep getting built. The dashboards will keep getting launched. And somewhere, a business analyst will hand an engineer a script, and someone will call it a win.

Word through the grapevine is that this is a newly formed committee that makes the decision on whether or not to approve any positions and increases in compensation.

If your team needs a position, it has to go all the way up the approval chain and then be presented by the Chief of your organization to Drew Asher and whatever other finance people are in the committee...

Allegedly, it's now an "act of God" to get promotions and raises outside of moving internal positions. They want us to take on more work with even less people.

I see a lot of us leaving on our own accord if we make it through this mass layoff... I know for a fact I will be looking. I'm not about to ki-l myself over a job...

Some organizations may benefit from exploring manager rotations before layoffs, ensuring decisions are based on business needs rather than politics.

If every 10 employees lose 3 positions while management remains unchanged, the organization should also evaluate manager-level roles. Workforce reductions should be based on efficiency and business needs at every level—not only on frontline employees. A balanced approach creates fairness, accountability, and a leaner organization.

Back to the subject of this site, what is the current landscape of RAs and pips everyone is currently seeing out there? Including business unit and organization would be helpful in response.

First principles are the foundational, irreducible truths of a system that cannot be deduced any further. SNPS is a software company that depends on selling software for profits. So the first principles of the company are those who write codes and those who sell the software. Anything else should serve these two principles: reduce distraction, provide a comfortable working environment, and give them good compensation.

However, at SNPS, these 2 groups are the ones who are mostly ignored and suppressed. When management flips the organizational hierarchy, bureaucracy cannibalizes the engineers who build the product and the sales professionals who generate revenue. Every supporting department—from middle management to HR—should exist solely to optimize this pipeline, not obstruct it. Losing sight of this foundational truth triggers immediate organizational decay. This is the root cause of extreme low productivity compared with our competitors.

This structural inversion creates dangerous consequences for the company's market position. High-performing talent does not stay where it is marginalized. When top-tier developers and elite sales executives face hostility, they leave for competitors who respect first principles. The company is then left with a culture of compliance rather than innovation, where survival depends on pleasing managers rather than creating superior products or winning market share.

To see this reality clearly, it is worthwhile to pause and count the people around you. Ask yourself: how many actually write code? How many engage in real sales? And how many do nothing but to make their managers happy? When the talkers outnumber and outrank the doers, a company has abandoned its first principles.

At SNPS, It's not uncommon that an IC sits in the 8th or 9th layer in the reporting structure. We, the front line engineers, don't need so many nannies and care givers.

This is such a scandal driven organization. Not too long ago, we had Wolfe and his peeps running around Engage. Now we have new SVP who did nothing but politics to get to this level. We observed how he set up Wolfe leading to his demise. At the same time is constantly busy running his own LLC and staffing company. I was just around him in Alpharetta when he was running his own business on his personal phone. Kinda gave 3 of us a look when we overheard a bit. He does not know It’s widely known too. Sharan Consultancy LLC. Look it up who owns it. What kind of global organizations SVP runs his private business and devotes time during work hours while gives us the speech that CEO has told him to make this the no 1 company.

Some also know a lot about this business including direct competitor to LNW. It’s gotten so bad that he has created a working group of people running his own LLC making competing product with LNW. Nothing diff than what Wolfe did and we have to constantly get the “you su-k” from customers. And using LNW resources. Suddenly a bunch of people don’t have to travel due to it.

And how about Sharan and HCL relationships. HCL is the vendor for LNW. And nobody gets hired until SVP gets his cut.

This is going to be another scandal, soon.

Wolfe had his last laugh and Palanisamy follows.

How do MMM’s contributions to the Marketing org stack up? Are we driving progress in the right areas within GMS, TC, VM and ISM?

So the legal lady comes in to clean up the mess after CG doesn't "do the right thing." But the whole function is worse than ever. What gives? Where is the talent brains and skill in the org spending all this $$$? Are we really going to win this way?

I was very optimistic when Dan joined and started cleaning up the organization by weeding out ineffective leaders and dead weight.

However, the needle still isn’t moving. They haven’t even restructured the teams into the right size or organizational model. Everything feels chaotic. I feel like time is running out for him—it’s already been eight months.

Meg just announced the structure of the new Organisation

“From )1 July, we will move to an Upstream and Downstream operating model, replacing our current structure of Production & Operations (P&O), Gas & Low Carbon Energy (G&LCE), and Customer & Products (C&P).”

Now - here is where the jokers lay:

GB is now “EVP, Upstream”
RH is “interim” EVP, Downstream

These are the only two gents listed so far…

https://www.inc.com/bruce-crumley/the-cruel-loyalty-tax-blindsiding-workers-who-stayed-at-their-jobs-for-years/91355763

New survey data reveals why five or more years of company seniority leaves workers uniquely unprepared—and under networked—for sudden headcount cuts.

BY: BRUCE CRU
Jun 4, 2026

The days of cradle-to-grave jobs are as long gone as fully employer-funded pensions, medical insurance, and annual company picnics for staff and their families. But while most employees have accepted a hefty dose of employment precarity as a fact of today’s labor market, new data shows many longer-tenured workers are blindsided—and suffer debilitating setbacks—in getting layoff notices they thought their seniority had made impossible.

That continued belief in the traditional unwritten employment rule of “first in, last out” costs more tenured workers who wind up being dismissed an emotional and professional “loyalty tax.” That’s the term workforce staffing company Careerminds used to describe the penalizing effects on laid-off workers who thought their five, 10, 15 years of service for the same employer had made them virtually invulnerable to headcount cuts. In addition to the disbelief, shattered trust, and deep loss longer-term employees struggle with when they’ve been cut, those staffers also end up being vastly less prepared to find new opportunities than more cynical colleagues who’ve come to view employment as increasingly at risk.

The result is often a distressing real-life mash-up of Death of a Salesman and Up in the Air for longer-term workers caught in the middle of it.

“One of the biggest misconceptions employees still have is that loyalty will protect them from layoffs,” said Careerminds career expert Amanda Augustine. “Unfortunately, many longtime employees discover all too late that their years of dedication don’t necessarily equate to job security.”

To gain a better understanding of what happens when longer-term workers are hit by those layoff bolts from the blue, Careerminds recently surveyed 900 people who’d lost jobs they’d had for a minimum of five years.

The first major finding was that a large majority of respondents, 76 percent, had considered their employment to be secure or very safe prior to getting a pink slip. Nearly the same portion also said they’d felt sure “their terms of service would protect them from being laid off.” Not surprisingly, 66.3 percent of respondents said they’d been thunderstruck by their dismissal, with nearly a quarter having previously considered it unthinkable.

That misplaced conviction that their relatively long tenure with the same employer offered a higher degree of job protection was penalized by the loyalty tax in a few ways.

The first form of that came even before layoffs were announced, with 58 percent of respondents reporting they’d rejected one or more outside work offers before being cut free—opportunities they’d considered unnecessary and unwanted.

That same contentment with nd confidence in their employment situation also led 46.5 percent of survey participants to let their resumes become sorely out of date. Similarly, a bit more than 53 percent of respondents said they’d let their professional networks fall into partial or complete disuse.

That benign neglect produced the second jolt of loyalty tax. The sudden loss of a job most respondents had considered safe made bouncing far more difficult and time-consuming than for people who had viewed the risk of renewed unemployment a constant possibility. In fact, just 13.8 percent of participants said they could have applied for new roles using the resumes, work hunting skills, and contacts they possessed when they were dismissed.

It goes without saying that employers don’t lay staff off eagerly, or without carefully selecting job eliminations that serve the company’s best interests. That’s especially true when it comes to longer-term workers.

But managers can be aware of the acute shock and subsequent struggles more tenured employees with experience, and try to help minimize those. A few other findings in the survey offer ideas on how managers can do that.

The first way is financial. Fully 45 percent of the more tenured respondents to the poll said they got no severance pay or other monetary assistance from their employers. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter said they received far less severance than expected for their time served. Financially acknowledging the loyalty and effort of longer-term staffers on the way out will blunt some of the difficulties in longer-term workers being let go.

The second way is professional. Most laid-off workers said they went from being a valued, integral part of the team to becoming an outsider left to fend for themselves almost overnight. Most felt abandoned at the worst moment of their career—a sentiment that can be easily avoided.

“Nearly two-thirds of long-tenured workers (63.3 percent) were offered no outplacement support upon their exit, no career coaching, no resume help, no job search guidance,” the survey results noted. “These employees arrive at a time of transition with dormant networks, out-of-date resumes, and no experience in job hunting. Outplacement is one area where organizations can make a genuine difference in how a long-tenured employee lands.”

A review needs to happen for leadership roles within the India team, particularly L10 and above, should also be included. These are some of the highest-cost resources, especially when travel expenses are considered.Corruption is at its best with some leaders who run ICC or GCC
There is a perception that accountability standards are not being applied consistently. From what I have observed, some leaders have limited overlap with business hours, significant flexibility in schedules, and there is little visibility into actual productivity or outcomes.
The return-to-office expectations should also be reviewed. While the requirement may be three days onsite, there are concerns that attendance is not always being validated consistently. I have heard reports that some individuals badge in briefly and leave shortly afterward, while others may be relying on workarounds that undermine the intent of the policy. Whether these reports are accurate or not, they warrant verification if compliance is being reviewed.
In addition, overlapping leadership and management roles, travel spend, organizational layers, productivity, and office attendance should all be evaluated together to ensure consistent standards, fairness, and value realization across the organization.

Are we still expecting the next round of org changes and small rounds of JEs on the 21st?

So we will keep the same OLM/ RLM model or some large scale org change is coming soon? Any insights?

What will happen June 29th? Any rumors or theories on the organization changes planned? Very little has happened so far. Is this the breather before the plunge?

Anyone see RV’s latest LinkedIn post and the comment suggesting that what Robin Vince is building at BNY Mellon proves that the most enduring organizations treat their employees’ financial futures as seriously as their clients’?
That’s a strong statement but it doesn’t quite line up with reality.
In 2023, the company shifted its 401(k) match from a per-pay-period contribution to a single annual lump sum, paid the following year. In most cases, employees must still be employed on December 31 to receive it.
That change matters.
One of the core advantages of a 401(k) is compounding consistent contributions invested over time. Delaying the employer match reduces that compounding benefit, and tying it to year-end employment effectively places conditions on compensation that employees have already earned.
Policies like this send a different message than the one being promoted. If organizations want to position themselves as stewards of employees’ financial well-being, the structure and timing of benefits should align with that claim, not work against it.

Just heard the Org under Sinclair/Vlok facing layoff last week of May. Total about 20% of those working under Vlok.

The Harrisburg Jewish Federation faces financial difficulties. Its campus operations are no longer sustainable. This situation will result in upcoming layoffs. The organization must address its viability. Employee reductions are anticipated soon.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

https://www.abc27.com/video/harrisburg-jewish-federation-campus-unsustainable-layoffs-loom/11750400/

Any experience with being “overpaid” and having to pay the company back? I’ve heard many people over the years having to pay back supposed owed money due to either being paid more because of some pay reconciliation or after having EDB, then between Sunlife and payroll there being a discrepancy. Is this another instance where the law doesn’t apply to this organization? Can they ask and expect money overpaid to be repaid, or is this dependent on how long ago it was discovered? Asking for a friend…

Just informed that Jane is asking all managers to 1) revisit their org structures to ensure C15s have at least 10 directs and 2) identify support functions (such as risk reviewers) that may be duplicative with BAU functions. Anticipated restructures in June as a result of this review. This was noted as "Firm Wide". June was my managers guess.

I saw many people in my org get laid off. I am in Game.

Will they continue with more layoffs in the same team/orgs or will layoffs move to other teams ?

So we got a new strategy guy from your favorite consultants who have made a pile of money from Cargill in the past few years including the 2024 layoffs.

Guess where all the “flat organization” and other doses of corporate fools gold came from to Cargill? That’s right McKinsey…. Sadly he is not the first one….. we had an Asian lady years ago who ended being kicked out from animal nutrition (she ran it to the ground) from the same shop….. not a good precedent.

Hang on; this will be a wild ride; more “right sizing “ coming up!

The architect for our organization keeps using Gartner reports , online research and chatgpt to command what the devs need to do. He has no clue on real software development, has not written a line of code and woefully incompetent. Our MD loves the BS this person produces with power point slides. EA org loves him as they are equally incompetent. My head hurts and I am losing all will to try push for coding the appropriately designed software stack for our business.

…isn’t it time to eliminate Integrated Services and the wasted salaries of MA and CM, neither of whom have ever delivered anything of value to Ford?

If you have info, please share. And good luck to everyone.

This place is way too complicated. Too many different groups, too many channels. One part of the company has no clue what the other part is doing. I'll be happy to be out of here, even if it's by being laid off.

Have they published an org chart for Arium and Zayo? Is tower team allowed to see it?

GPC finally fired not retired our supposed tech leader. He destroyed a great organization. Next they will move to take out all his minions.

Adios Geoff! Reveal of new org structure.

April 1 is right around the corner. It's coming just after a gloom 1st quarter, a senseless new organization and the same BS games we are all involved in. What are we hearing or thinking regarding more changes or layoffs for HQ?