WE KILLED THE CONSENT FORM. NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE EMAIL

🔥 NEW: The Numbers Don't Lie (But She Does) | Fill the 360
📊 This post: 13,575 views | Total: 154K+ | Share Your Story

26,000+ views. 250+ comments. Three blog posts.

And the God-Mother finally responded.

Late December email. Not planned. Not strategic. Reactive.

Because silence wasn't working anymore. Because the blog made ignoring this impossible.

They had to say something.

So let me show you what they said. What they didn't say. And why this changes everything.

First: Let's Acknowledge the Win

The consent form is dead.

Not "postponed." Not "under review." Not "being refined based on leadership feedback."

Dead.

The email basically said the consent form was "just a concept being considered" that's "not part of our job architecture mapping plan."

Let me translate that from Corporate to English:

Corporate: "The concept was considered."

English: "We absolutely had the document drafted. Hard copies were shared with the leadership team. It was happening."

Corporate: "It is not part of our plan."

English: "26,000+ blog views and 250+ comments made us realize we needed to back down. Fast. While pretending it was just exploratory thinking all along."

And you know why the God-Mother backed away?

You.

Every view. Every comment. Every time you shared this with a colleague who said "WHAT?"

Every person who finally said: "Not like this."

Your voices made them reconsider.

So before I show you what's still broken:

You won this round.

Well done. Genuinely.

Victories in 29-month transformations are rare. Feel that. Own it.

Now let's discuss what the God-Mother is still trying to pull.

The God-Mother's Two Emails

You know the story. The Emperor has no clothes, but everyone pretends otherwise until a child points out the obvious.

The God-Mother sent two emails. Same Emperor. Different wardrobe.

November email (before this blog existed): Confident. Direct. Firm timelines.

The message was clear: We're redesigning organizational structures. Skills assessments are happening for everyone. Position yourself for higher standards.

Clear. Unambiguous. This is happening. Get ready.

December email (after 26,000 of you read about consent forms): Defensive. Vague. Suddenly collaborative.

Now the tone shifted: Concepts were shared with small groups for feedback. Assessments won't be used in isolation. We're moving iteratively with multiple feedback avenues.

They say we've "always been listening." We're "adjusting as appropriate." Moving "even more deliberately."

The tone changed. From directive to defensive. From confidence to damage control. From certainty to corporate backpedaling.

The consent form wasn't shared with a small group for feedback. It was drafted. It was distributed to leadership for review. It was real.

Quick note: When someone brought the consent form idea to the God-Mother, she should have killed it on the spot. "Absolutely not. Next topic." Instead, it got drafted, reviewed, printed, and nearly distributed.

What the Email Doesn't Say (And Why That Matters)

Here's my favorite corporate magic trick:

"Announce you're backing away from the terrible thing while staying vague about everything else."

Watch:

The December email claims skills assessments won't be used in isolation for employment decisions.

What that SHOULD mean: "The test is one factor among many. Your performance reviews, experience, manager input, and actual work quality all matter significantly."

What it ACTUALLY means: "We won't use ONLY the test. We'll also consider... something. Other factors. Which we're not specifying. With weights we're not sharing. Using criteria we haven't defined."

Translation: "We're giving ourselves complete flexibility to make 'employment decisions' however we want while claiming the test isn't the 'only' factor."

Here's what the God-Mother conveniently forgot to mention:

• What "other factors" matter in employment decisions
• How much weight each factor carries (10%? 50%? 90%?)
• Whether the test can override everything else
• What happens if you're deemed "not a fit" for the new role you didn't ask for
• What's being tested
• Whether there's an appeals process
• Why leadership remains exempt from all of this

The God-Mother backed away from the consent form—the most legally indefensible part.

Zero clarity on anything else.

The Skills Assessment is still coming. Job Architecture is still happening. Your role is still changing whether you like it or not.

The God-Mother just removed the most obvious trap and hoped you wouldn't notice the minefield is still there.

The Real Problem: This Isn't About SAT

Here's what I've realized.

The consent form was symptom.

The Skills Assessment is symptom.

The disease is something bigger.

It's a pattern of decisions—across this entire transformation—that share common characteristics:

Announced without clarity. Implemented without consultation. Defended without evidence. When questioned, deflected with corporate speak.

Let me give you examples.

Pattern 1: Director Quality

The Sellswords vs. The Sworn Shields

What we had: The Sultan. The Master of Coin. The Prince of Persia. The Night's Watch.

Four became two. The transformation "restructured" two of them out.

The Prince of Persia? Gone. The Night's Watch? Gone.

Make of that what you will.

The Sworn Shields: Grew with the House. Know how things actually work, not how org charts say they should. Relationships that matter. Institutional memory. Loyalty.

The Sultan delivers what the Sellswords are still roadmapping. The Master of Coin handles portfolios invisibly while others fumble publicly.

Are they perfect? No. Stubborn? Sometimes. Territorial?Absolutely.

But their loyalty is unquestionable. Twenty years of staying when they could have left. Building when others were breaking. Delivering through every leadership change, every transformation, every crisis.

The Sellswords? They'll leave for a better offer tomorrow. Because this isn't their house. It's just a job.

And it's not just directors.

The Khaleesis. The Bannermen. Proven managers. Some Acting for nearly two years. Delivering results. Holding teams together.

They know the institution. They've earned their place. They're the next generation of Sworn Shields.

But they're being sidelined. We'll talk about that in Pattern 2.

What we got instead of the departed Sworn Shields: The Sellswords. Most of them 3rd or 4th choices after better candidates saw the chaos and declined.

Ask their teams about roadmaps. (There aren't any.)

Ask about strategic vision. (Still drafting.)

Ask about director interaction with staff. (What interaction?)

(The likes of the Fake Sultan, The Merchant — big visions, bold promises. Ask their teams about delivery.)

Talk to their teams. Share your thoughts in the comments/forms about the Sellswords you're working under.

I wonder if the Sultan brings a book to those meetings. Not to read during—just in case the conversation takes a turn into something resembling actual strategy. He's probably three steps ahead while they're still trying to spell "digital transformation."

The Master of Coin watches the Step God-Mother present half-baked processes, watches them implode, watches her backpedal while calling it "iterative refinement."

Do a 360 review of the new directors. Ask their teams.

Then compare it to what the Sworn Shields built—and what the Khaleesis and Bannermen have been holding together.

You'll see the difference.

Pattern 2: Hiring Irregularities

The Acting Manager Trap

Staff kept Acting for 18, 20, 22 months. They perform the job. Manage teams. Handle crises.

Many were managers before this transformation. Competent. Proven.

Then the role is finally posted:

"Oh, we're restructuring, so it's a 'new' role now."

"Need to open it to external competition."

"Acting managers can apply." (Many weren't even shortlisted. Of course. And many were—they had to be, because their job didn't change. But they won't be selected. Just checking the box.)

"But we prefer external candidates with fresh perspectives."

Translation: "We'll keep you Acting until it's convenient to replace you."

The 75% rule? Designed to preserve continuity.

The workaround? Keep people Acting so it doesn't apply. Restructure. Claim it's "new."

And here's where it gets interesting:

Word is that The Sultan reorganized his house so incumbent Khaleesis' portfolios fell just below the 75% threshold. Suddenly had grounds for new manager hires. Clean. Legal. Smart.

The God-Mother probably didn't even realize she'd been outplayed.

Yes, I praised him for loyalty and now I'm calling out his maneuvering. Both are true. Twenty years teaches you how to work the system while delivering results.

The Master of Coin? Retained his Bannermen even when one fell below 75%. Favoritism? Sure looks like it.

But context: He was Acting God-Father. Never applied for the permanent position. That choice earned him loyalty from leadership.

The Sultan applied. Got the roller coaster. Got his department stripped and reorganized.

Lesson? Sometimes not playing the game is the smartest move.

Now the Sellswords are bringing in more Sellswords.

The same mistake made with directors is now being made with managers.

The Khaleesis and The Bannermen—proven, respected, Acting for nearly two years—are being passed over for external hires who don't know the institution, the staff, or how anything works.

All Acting. All delivering. All told: "Apply for your own job against external candidates."

I hope the Khaleesis climb on their dragons. I hope The Bannermen raise their banners. And I hope together they storm the Red Keep.

Because they could. And maybe they should.

Pattern 3: Wasteful Spending

The SAFe Agile Saga

Remember when everyone in ITS had to get SAFe certified?

Multiple certifications. Across regions. Expensive trainers. Membership fees year after year.

Total cost? Thousands upon thousands of dollars.

Current usage? About 10%. Generous estimate. Most teams are "using it" because they're forced to, not because it works.

Why isn't it working? Because the clients—the business units we support—don't want it.

They like the old process. The old process works. They're asking "why change?"

But here's the thing: if you want ITS to implement Agile, the clients need to partner on it.

That requires buy-in from other VPs. That requires a top-down mandate.

That's the God-Mother's job.

Instead, we're being sent to convince clients to adopt something leadership hasn't sold internally.

It's like being told to sell vegetarian meal plans to a steakhouse. While leadership is in the back grilling ribeyes. And when the steakhouse says "no thanks," we're the ones who get blamed for poor salesmanship.

Meanwhile, we've spent a fortune on certifications we're barely using.

But sure, let's talk about cutting costs.

Pattern 4: The Role Reassignment Game

The Job Architecture Shuffle

They didn't ask if you wanted a new role. They told you to pick one.

"Here are your options. System Architect. Product Manager. Product Owner. Scrum Master. Choose."

Never mind that you do all of those things already. System architecture. Project management. Team leadership. Development. All of it.

Never mind that none of these boxes actually describe what you do.

Pick one. Because Job Architecture says so.

And the Skills Assessment? It'll test you on that new role's skills.

Not the technology you were hired for.

Not the expertise you've spent years building.

Not the work you actually do every day.

New skills you didn't sign up for, in a role you didn't choose, tested on criteria you've never been evaluated against.

Fail twice?

"Not qualified for the role."

That's not a skills assessment. That's a setup.

What I Need From You

I've identified these patterns. But I need more than one perspective.

I need yours.

Because we're building something together. A comprehensive case. Evidence-backed. Specific. Undeniable.

And we're taking it to people who can actually make things change.

But I need your examples. Your stories. Your evidence.

Not gossip. Not rumors. Facts.

What have you witnessed since this transformation began?

Hiring decisions that didn't make sense? Spending on initiatives that went nowhere? Leadership decisions that backfired? Promises made and broken? Policies applied inconsistently?

I've created a form. It's anonymous. Two questions. Five minutes.

https://forms.gle/oA5AUsMe2oy1NHEk8

Question 1: Which areas have you witnessed problems?

Hiring irregularities

Wasteful spending

Director/Manager performance

Role changes without consent

Communication failures

Skills Assessment concerns

Other

Question 2: Share specific examples.

What happened

When (timeframe)

What the impact was

Why it matters

Use the fun character names we've created—no direct names.

And by the way: The character names you're coming up with in the comments? I've seen better creativity from the Step God-Mother's process documentation. 

Just kidding. They're actually brilliant. Some of you could give GoT writers a run for their money. Keep them coming.

The consent form is dead. But the transformation is still broken.

If we stop now, nothing else changes.

Fill out the form. Give us the evidence to fix the rest.

What Happens early January

I'm not revealing the full strategy here. Not publicly.

But know this:

We're taking everything you share—every example, every pattern, every piece of evidence—to people who have the power to act.

People above the God-Mother.

People who care about institutional effectiveness, not just corporate messaging.

People who can force real change.

But they need to see that this isn't just complaints. This is systematic dysfunction backed by specific evidence from credible sources.

Your submission becomes part of that case.

Your story becomes proof.

Your participation becomes pressure they cannot ignore.

To Directors and Managers (The Sworn Shields, The Khaleesis, The Bannermen, Not the Sellswords):

You're frustrated. You see the dysfunction. You can't say it publicly.

But your input matters most. You have the institutional memory. The leadership insight. The evidence from the inside.

The entire staff of ITS is behind you. We're standing for you.

Fill out the form. Anonymously. Share what you know.

We're building this case for all of us. But without your perspective, it's incomplete.

Your turn.

To Those Reading Silently

Thousands of views. But many haven't engaged.

The form is anonymous. No names. No emails.

If you stay silent now, you'll regret it later when Skills Assessment comes for you. When Job Architecture changes your role. When you're tested on skills you never signed up for.

This is when it matters. Five minutes. Fill out the form.

To My Colleagues

We've come far.

From silence to 25,000+ views.

From one voice to a movement.

The consent form is dead because we finally acted.

But we're not done.

In ten days, we take this to the next level.

We need to know you're with us.

Not just as readers. As participants.

Fill out the form. Share what you know. Be part of what happens next.

Because together, we're building something they can't ignore.

Together, we're unstoppable.

https://forms.gle/oA5AUsMe2oy1NHEk8

— Your Friendly Neighborhood Eternal Transformation Chronicler

P.S. — Share this post. Many colleagues don't know there's a new one. We need comments and views too. Spread the word.

P.P.S. — Apology: I know these posts are getting longer. I'm trying to shorten them. Really. It's just that there's so much to say. And apparently I can't help myself. Working on it.

P.P.P.S. — To the silent readers: Your moment is now. Five minutes. Anonymous. Do it.

P.P.P.P.S. — About the 48-hour silence: I locked myself out of Google. VPN rookie mistake. Even IT veterans aren't immune to basic OpSec failures. I'm back now. Let's finish this. 

P.P.P.P.P.S. — STOP READING. FILL OUT THE FORM. https://forms.gle/oA5AUsMe2oy1NHEk8