CONSULTANTS THRIVING, TEAMS DYING: WHAT 130+ SUBMISSIONS REVEALED (1/3)
🔥 UPDATE (Feb 08 2026, 11:30): 6,523 views | 260+ forms | Fill the form →
🔥 NEW POST: The Post They Hoped I Wouldn't Write130+ forms. Hundreds of comments across posts. 50,000+ views.
All confirmed: This transformation is systematically expensive chaos.
Here's what you told. Part one of three.
THE TWO-ATTEMPT CAREER LOTTERY
73% of you flagged Skills Assessment.
Let me get this straight: After 5 years of proven performance, you get two attempts on a test. After 15 years of delivery, two attempts. After 30 years of institutional knowledge, two attempts.
Test criteria? Unclear. Passing score? Undefined. Consequences? Won't say. Appeal process? Doesn't exist. Leadership taking it? Exempt, naturally.
Oh, and you're being tested on Job Architecture roles you didn't choose for skills you were never hired to have.
But it's officially called a "development opportunity."
One of you nailed it: "They're forcing everyone to take an assessment which is equivalent to firing all of us and partially rehiring based on test results."
Here's the development: Your career now depends on two good days with an algorithm.
Welcome to the Skills Assessment Casino. Two spins. Good luck.
THE SAFE CONSULTANT'S INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
77% flagged SAFe Agile as wasteful spending.
One of you joked that the SAFe consultant probably bought a "dream mansion" with all the training fees.
Harsh? Maybe. But the joke stuck because here's the reality: He's not solving anything.
What has SAFe solved? Your submissions: Nothing.
Business partners don't want it. Teams spend more time in ceremonies than delivering. Framework followed religiously. Problems unsolved. The consultant? Can't explain how SAFe applies to actual work.
"We're being 'Agile' by rigidly following a prescribed framework and ignoring the first Agile principle."
Training budget spent. Delivery problems remain. Consultants still billing.
THE EXECUTIVE SEARCH INVESTMENT
Someone saw invoices: thousands per month to the executive search firm for each of eight director positions. Over ten months.
Math: Hundreds of thousands in fees.
Same firm that placed the God-Mother. Coincidence, surely.
One of you calculated it: ten months at thousands per month per position. Eight positions. You can do that math. That's a lot of "executive search."
THE 18-MONTH LEADERSHIP LOTTERY
53% flagged manager and director performance.
Step one after God-Mother arrived: Make everyone "acting."
Directors. Managers. Everyone temporary. No one permanent.
18+ months later: They're still acting.
Most of them have 10+ years. Deep client knowledge. Institutional expertise you can't hire externally. Teams they've built. Relationships they've nurtured. Award-winning delivery.
They've been doing the job—managing teams, making decisions, delivering under transformation pressure—for nearly two years.
Then comes the announcement: We're posting your position. With external competition.
Your own job. The one you've been doing. Not shortlisted.
One manager: Acting for 2 years. Team reorganized to require external posting. Decision promised before Christmas. Still waiting. Staff in limbo. No idea who they'll be working for.
Another: "Acting managers for anything beyond 3 months is a disgrace... unfortunate they were not compensated for their extra responsibilities and stress."
Remember the Khaleesis and Bannermen? Acting managers stripped of authority but carrying full responsibility?
They're still acting.
Transformation assured us: Psychological safety. Trust. Transparency.
18 months of auditions says otherwise.
WHEN DEADLINES MEET REALITY
Staff are buried in delivery. Project Tango. Weekends. Holidays. Long hours all week. With tight deadlines.
Someone with 25 years said it best: "Projects all the same. Random completion date, arbitrary deadline, push staff."
So teams push. And push. Delivering. Actually working.
Meanwhile, transformation announces:
- Job Architecture mapping sessions
- Mandatory Transformation Cafes
- SAFe certification trainings
- New role definitions to figure out
One of you asked the obvious question:
"When are we supposed to study for an assessment? Figure out new titles? Attend all these sessions? There's no additional time in a day. We're delivering projects."
The answer from transformation: Find time. Figure it out. Be agile.
Right. Be agile while delivering a waterfall project, studying for career-ending assessments, attending mandatory cafes, and figuring out which SAFe role you've been assigned.
But psychological safety.
20-30 year employees on G4 visas. Fail Skills Assessment twice? Visa expires.
People who built lives here. Families. Homes. Decades of service.
Two attempts. Visa expires. Life uprooted.
"What happens after 20-30 years if visa expires because of an assessment?"
WHAT YOU TOLD
73%: Skills Assessment concerns
71%: Communication failures
64%: Hiring irregularities
58%: Forced role changes
53%: Director/Manager performance
130+ voices. Same patterns. Systematic dysfunction.
WHAT'S NEXT
This is post one of three.
Post two (mid-week): Deeper patterns from your submissions. More specific examples. The themes leadership can't ignore.
Post three (next Monday): Takes this beyond the God-Mother. To leadership who can actually act. And introduces a new character you've been asking about.
Before mid-week: We need more voices.
130 is strong. 200 is unstoppable.
TO THE 130 (AND HUNDREDS WHO COMMENTED)
You exposed hundreds of thousands to the firm that placed the God-Mother.
You revealed 18-month acting managers not shortlisted for their own jobs.
You revealed Khaleesis and Bannermen carrying responsibility without authority.
You flagged G4 visa deportation threats.
Keep sharing. Keep commenting. Keep filling forms.
— Your Friendly Neighborhood Chronicler
P.S. — SAFe consultant: Thanks for solving the real estate market. Still waiting on those delivery problems.
P.S.S. — Hey Sultan: This blog's UI is killing you, right? As a UX professional, you deserve better. Call your guy—the vendor you prefer. Yes, someone mentioned this. He can bring his buddies from his company. They'll redesign this beautifully. Modern. Clean. Just like you'd want it. Fix this Blogger template?
P.P.S. — G4 visa holders: We see you. Real lives. Real consequences.
P.P.P.S. — FILL THE FORM: https://forms.gle/kV64rBBokWhhp2NA7
You nailed it.. we need more voices, waiting for two more post. Hope this opens the eye of our true leaders (beyond god mother) to take necessary action..
ReplyDeleteYes hopefully, god fathers are reading this or have read the blogs.
Deleteform submitted
ReplyDeleteDo we have a name for Aisaya?
ReplyDeleteI have spoken to many visa holders who are too fearful to post or comment on the form due to concerns about being identified or traced. Addressing whether this is technically or legally possible, what legal means could be used to obtain identities, and how likely that is, would significantly reduce fear and encourage them to complete the form.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, we cannot live in fear forever. This is the time to speak up, even if it means risking being identified. We are not doing anything illegal—we are simply questioning certain malpractices within a large organization.
DeletePeople must remember that we care deeply about what the Bank represents; that is why many of us chose to stay. Individuals may act corruptly, but the organization itself must survive at all costs. If we continue down this path, the organization will be doomed, and the cost of repair will be unbearable.
DONE- Submitted 2
DeleteIt's time to speak up. Unfortunately fear is everywhere. Around HQ SA, COSA and RWA delegates too.
DeleteVery well said. No one should feel hesitant about speaking the truth. It is unfortunate that concepts such as “psychological safety,” “decency,” “empathy,” “trust,” “transparency”, etc. seem to have become merely words rather than of any value. I appreciate the blogger for having the courage to bring into the open what many of us have observed over the past few months. It’s time for all of us to stand together and offer our support.
ReplyDeleteDone filling
ReplyDeleteLet’s not forget that not all acting managers are great or deserve to keep their jobs. A few have been such consistently poor performers as a manager that it’s hard to understand how they got the job in the first place— yet their contracts keep getting renewed regardless -- they should be let go, rather than rewarding failure.
ReplyDeleteFully agree with you not all managers have been performing well! Therefore, it’s important to call spade a spade by pointing this out that poor performing managers should be shunted out during the rehiring process and only deserving candidates are appointed purely on merit!
DeleteHow should poor-performing managers be reported, and is it ok to include their names in the form? My manager is dishonest, does favoritism, and do self-serving behavior for his own benefit. Employees who unquestioningly comply often receive favorable assessments, while others are penalized.
DeleteCan you refer the team or technology. Or place it in the form
DeleteGuys came back to work, environment feels very very scary.. will I have my job this year, what about the good work I have done over the years hearing that my portfolio might move completely under some other director - does it mean with people or without people - no one knows - no news on managers yet - scary life scary times - this blog is the only support channel for me right now ..
ReplyDeleteHang in there - a lot of us are talking to HR (even though they are not working for management and not OUR best interests), Staff Association, RWA, etc.
DeleteForm submitted. This is the right time to work towards meaningful change. Appreciation to the blogger for addressing the reality of the situation and fostering an honest conversation. More brave voices are needed to drive progress.
ReplyDeleteForm submitted. This is the right time to work towards meaningful change. Appreciation to the blogger for addressing the reality of the situation and fostering an honest conversation. More brave voices are needed to drive progress.
ReplyDeleteCurrent job titles and classifications are outdated and no longer reflect the evolution of technology or the nature of the work being performed since they were originally instituted in the 1990s. While the stated goal is to modernize job titles to better represent actual work, the implementation does not align with how roles function in practice.
ReplyDeleteA new job architecture has introduced 192 predefined role profiles and requires employees to be mapped to a single profile. In reality, most staff perform responsibilities spanning multiple roles—often three or more of the defined profiles—based on the needs of SAFe teams, initiatives, and clients. The role-mapping exercise appears driven by SAFe team staffing formulas rather than a thoughtful analysis of actual work performed, resulting in a checkbox-driven process rather than a meaningful role alignment.
Based on this narrowly assigned role, employees are required to pass an evaluation test. The criteria for this test have not been disclosed, the subject matter experts designing or validating the test have not been identified, and the evaluation framework remains undefined. Employees are given only two attempts to pass. Failure results in forced exit from the organization.
High-performing employees who were rated as “perfect” as recently as last year are now facing termination based on opaque and undefined criteria.
Employees are being evaluated on a fraction of their actual contributions, disregarding years of proven performance.
Morale has sharply declined due to fear, uncertainty, and lack of procedural fairness.
The threat of termination after two test attempts creates a hostile and destabilizing work environment.
Organizational knowledge, continuity, and client confidence are at risk.
This approach is unprofessional and fails to meet basic standards of fair employment practice. Evaluating employees against undisclosed criteria, designed by unidentified SMEs, without reasonable transition periods or remediation plans violates principles of transparency, due process, and good-faith performance management. It disregards documented performance history and treats long-serving, high-performing staff as disposable. This process is inconsistent with established employment rules and exposes the organization to significant legal, ethical, and operational risk.
Looks like this is much bigger than we thought. Probably the idea is to dissolve each unit slowly and later shut it down.
DeleteCould someone shed light on the consulting firms engaged during the GM’s tenure (Deloitte, EY, etc.)? What tangible outcomes resulted from these engagements, was a genuine assessment performed, and what was the approximate expenditure?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely captured every good employee’s mind.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to put a comment it was displaying my gmail id. So had to open incognito mode to enter the details here. Its anonymous now… guys, its safe fyi, you can try incognito.
ReplyDeleteForm submitted 🫡
ReplyDeleteIf you ever needed a code name it could be “Braveheart”. I wish I could live rent free in your brain for a bit to see how you built up to this moment. Thank you for framing our collective voices in this blog. I have many questions 1. Is this an opportunity to just discuss the current situation or to highlight that for decades there was no career framework and there is no real fairness in the system? Should we look at this more systematically and present solutions too instead of only venting?2. Will you be presenting at the executive level yourself or find an executive who is willing to carry the message? (or you maybe a senior leader yourself in which case more power to you.I feel having another trio represent this will help. 3. Have you thought of a game plan for this presentation on how this is laid out? It has to not just reflect frustration but also the collective intellect here of experiences and crowd source ideas to make this practical and get some wins. 4. Can we ask for a working committee of leaders on rotational basis who form a council and spearhead these conversations without fear of retribution?5. How can we make this a norm and not the exception?6. Has anyone asked master/sultan/others on their opinion? What are they thinking?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the focus should be on the current situation. Systemic issues at Westeros may not technically belong in this forum—but then again, given the kind of movement this has sparked, who knows? Stranger things have happened. Maybe these “systemic issues” will finally get their moment in the sun and be fixed in the near future. Or at least acknowledged.
DeleteImmediate needs (a.k.a. low-hanging fruit):
1. Consent Form – Scrapped. ✔️ An early victory. Take a bow.
2. Skills Assessment – Needs to be scrapped as well. Measuring skills with buzzwords is still not measuring skills.
3. Job Architecture – Needs a serious refresh. Less SAFe jargon, more reflection of the actual work people do—especially since many individuals are apparently playing musical chairs with multiple roles.
4. SAFe – Put on hold or scrapped entirely. Let the business across Westeros actually buy in first.
5. Restore the old principle – Back to the days when all Kaleesis and Bannermen were placed in acting roles, with the clear rule: if someone managed 70% of the old work program, they got confirmed. Simple. Transparent. Revolutionary, apparently.
6. Compensation – All G’s who took on acting roles, carried extra responsibility, and still didn’t even get shortlisted should be compensated. Heroism without recognition is overrated.
Parallel work (because multitasking is a core competency):
1. Investigation – EIJ (or whoever has the authority and stamina) should initiate a thorough investigation into the GM’s actions: hiring, consulting firms, SAFe consultants, travel, conferences—basically everything.
2. Job postings audit – Investigate all Kaleesis and Bannermen job postings and any hiring irregularities. Spoiler alert: bring popcorn.
3. Outcome – If anything questionable is found, the GM can be shown the door… or gracefully walk out it herself. Either works.
4. WesterosBA Department – The department created post-GM arrival to accommodate her buddy should be purged. Release the flock, including new hires and confirmations. Think of it as a bonus and a cost-saving initiative—perfectly timed with the GM’s exit. Yes, there may be some collateral damage to worker bees, but they can be absorbed elsewhere. Net impact to Westeros: zero to minimal.
5. HoodooR – Let’s not forget our beloved HoodooR, equally involved in this drama unfolding over the past couple of years. Full accountability required. Heads should roll there too.
Of course, the blogger may have different thoughts. We’ll have to wait and watch.
HoodooR - ROFL 🤣
DeleteThe irony is that all Westeros staff must complete a mandatory training—you know, the "Decency" one. It carefully explains everything you absolutely should NOT be doing, while real life at Westeros, at least in this department appears to be a hands-on demonstration of the exact opposite.
ReplyDeleteIrony indeed. ITSOE is with three acting managers on GG level that behave like they are not supposed to. Their teams experience the situations in this mandatory training every week. Most people are so afraid to say anything. It is tragic.
DeleteNot all ITS acting managers are fit for the job.
Well said. NOT all acting managers are fit. It might not be fair to many good managers serving at the Bank for 10+ years to reapply, but there are other managers not fit for the job.
DeleteServing for 6 months or 12 months or 18 months does not guarantee you anything, and does not mean you are fit and can demonstrate the skills needed for the job. Yes, people need to be compensated, the process is taking too long, we are sick of waiting. But some teams prefer waiting, this is a hope their current manager may not be selected and will be replaced with a better one.
On that note, some psychological safety results remained hidden and not communicated. Some teams don’t know theirs. Why is that? May be to hide disturbing results? Are these results taken into consideration during the selection process?
DeleteBack to the office after the New Year, 2026:
ReplyDeleteManager—unclear.
Next steps—unknown.
Direction—TBD.
How do you feel?
Oceania king after moving to I bldg has literally zero meetings with staff. We dont know what he does, when he comes to office. Literally he is non-existent for any of our staff. He doesnt even met with Managers and we are at a time where we need to know the next steps. All we hear even in town halls are extremely vague response with no vision for the department.
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing the blog. While I largely agree with the core of what you are describing and support your actions and intent (and as a Team Coach who had to agree to my new role on the spot, I am very glad the consent form was killed), I have to say I have not witnessed quite the malfeasance up close that others have. While my manager is in the same boat as others and I share the concerns about how the assessment would be used (not really so much that it exists - as a development tool, I would welcome a way to gauge if there are areas where I need to improve if I were then supported in making those improvements in a reasonable timeframe without dire consequences attached to it), I have not seen particularly wasteful spending (any more than the WBG has always had) nor outright favoritism and undercutting as seems to be happening in the Sultan's shop (I never worked for him but have seen him at his worst - swearing viciously at someone who crossed him on something trivial). It seems to me that the God-Mother is not a very good pitch person and has a low opinion of what ITS was when she arrived, and the combination has been a change agenda without buy-in. It's been complicated by director hires that have not prioritized leadership of staff and people, which would be needed to help increase that buy-in. Half-baked ideas are thrown at us regularly and confidence in senior VPU leadership is at an all-time low. Change itself is not necessarily bad, but this one has been horribly mismanaged. I hope you are able to collect enough genuine evidence of wrongdoing to bend the curve further on how things play out.
ReplyDeleteThis.
DeleteHope we get more and more evidences and filling of the forms this week..Everyone wants to enjoy the harvest, few are willing to sow the seed(hope you are not)
Delete“ God-Mother is not a very good pitch person and has a low opinion of what ITS was when she arrived”. This was clearly visible at her SAFe Summit keynote as she trashed ITS and presented herself as the savior, all the while reading everything from a tablet.
DeleteSubmitted the form. Thank you. We are with you.
ReplyDelete👌
ReplyDeleteIf HackeRank is used for assessment, see some reviews from google, first of all it has 3.1/5 from 52 reviews. Second the positive reviews are for people who used it for training and not assessment. Here are a few: "Shxx platform,..", "I am a software developer with 30 years of experince, ... they tend to emphasize highly abstract, puzzle-like problems that favor math specialists or algorithm enthusiasts rather than reflecting the challenges most professional developers actually face.", "Garbage platform, terrible to use, and a terrible way to evaluate developers", "The questions are poorly written.", "Hackerrank is part of the problem, not the solution. This has to be the WORST IDE out of any of the plethora of comparable platforms. Why make it so hard for people to pass your tests? Terrible way for companies to assess candidate skills.", "Buggy IDE and ambiguously-worded exercises. Very poor experience.", "Horrible experience: interviewees are not allowed to choose their most knowledgeable language for testing.", "Worst IDE possible! It doesn't even show you how to solve an exercise if you got Stuck. How could this be considered a new way of learning?
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty upsetting that some companies use this method to undestand candidates' skills!", "The environment is buggy at best. Material is ok. Some questions worded wrong, eg the matrix is a square, when it turns out it isnt. Youd hope that the assumtions they write down are correct. Compiler asked me to submit again as my code had failed to upload, now im locked out as "my rate is very high"... you just asked me to resubmit multiple times hackerrank"
Why are so many of us commenting and sharing our concerns here…. It clearly means one thing our concerns are not heard and acted upon inside the right channels… it’s time for senior management and board to take note of these growing concerns
ReplyDeleteHi, I sympathize with the ITS crowd, but a lot of this sounds quite entitled. You are not entitled to a visa if you don’t have a job, no one owes you a right to remain in the country if you no longer hold a contract. You had 20-30 years to sort out your legal status. Re assessment - it is a technical discipline, so pass the test. If you can’t, then maybe you are not entirely fit for the job, which is again not an entitlement. The IT system at the Bank is sub-par, apps are ridden with mistakes, systems are glitchy, so maybe a skills update is not a bad thing after all
ReplyDeleteEntitlement is not listening to your staff and their concerns. Building a culture of them vs us by management. HRs indifference is entitlement. Staff are experienced and skilled. The leadership is sickening… happens when you don’t trust talent and hire from outside… compare with Goldman Sachs, which takes leaders strictly from talent in house..
DeleteEvery domain is “technical” - you can design a test to validate economist skills and btw every organization’s internal systems sucks. You only know if you actually worked in different places. The complain is about wasteful Agile transformation and it’s impact on staff.
DeleteFor other VPUs and those who yet to realize this. What is happening in ITS is a pilot for the rest of the WBG. If you don’t stand with us now, there will be no one to stand up for you when it comes to your VPU.
DeleteUPDATE: Volunteers Needed
ReplyDeleteNeed 1-2 volunteers to help deliver the ITS Crisis Report to
leadership (MDs, CRO, EDs).
The Report: 240+ form submissions and 500+ comments compiled
into a detailed executive report documenting staff concerns about
the transformation.
Your Task:
- Receive the report (secure link)
- Print it out
- Deliver or mail to front offices of MDs, CRO, and EDs
How to Volunteer:
Fill the existing form: https://forms.gle/kV64rBBokWhhp2NA7
In the form, share your personal email address. I'll contact you
privately with the report and delivery instructions.
Timeline: Need volunteers this week.
Please share this message across the house. Leadership needs to
hear what 240+ staff documented.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to making this possible.
— The Chronicler
Grateful to all who came forward. CO colleagues - we see your courage, but the miles between us make delivery impossible from your end. King's Landing volunteers - you hold the key. A few more from HQ and we're ready. Link and instructions sent. The rest of you know what to do.
ReplyDelete— The Chronicler