DELIVERING WITH DECENCY? (3/3)

🔥 UPDATE (Feb 08 2026, 11:30): 14,630 views | 252 forms | Fill the form →

🔥 NEW POST: The Post They Hoped I Wouldn't Write

Six posts ago, I was scared. Alone. Expecting maybe 50 people would read what I wrote.

Today: 56,000+ views. 230+ submissions. 470+ comments. Readers from 132+ countries.

This isn't my blog anymore. This is ours.

You trusted me with your stories. Your fears. Your evidence. Some of you wrote at 2am because you had nowhere else to go.

I owe you more than another post. I owe you action.

I'm writing this with Hans Zimmer's "Time" on repeat. You know the piece. That slow build. That weight of consequence. That feeling when you know there's no going back.

And today, we're escalating to the Hand-of-the-King.

FIRST, LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THIS ISN'T

This is not resistance to change.

When COVID hit in March 2020, the world shut down. Governments scrambled. Organizations panicked.

ITS had the entire Westeros Group working remotely instantly.

Zero disruption. Full operations. Some ITS staff came to the office during shutdown to support critical services. While others took weeks or months to figure it out, we were already running.

Resilient. Adaptive. Battle-tested.

That wasn't luck. That was this workforce – the same people now being told we can't adapt, we resist change, we need to be "transformed."

We've been through several re-orgs. We adapted every time.

What we're experiencing now isn't transformation. It's pure chaos.

Remember when the God-Mother announced cost cuts – then opened eight new director positions? The math never added up. Neither did what followed.

WHAT WE FOUND: THE FOUR ISSUES

I read 230+ submissions. I analyzed 470+ comments. Hundreds of voices. I identified patterns. Here's what rose to the top.

ISSUE 1: SAFe AGILE – MANDATED WITHOUT BUSINESS BUY-IN

What's Broken:

We serve dozens of clients across the Westeros. Some projects suit Agile. Others suit Waterfall. The right approach depends on the work, the client, and the context.

Instead, SAFe was mandated for everyone. No exceptions. No flexibility. Why? Because the God-Mother "doesn't believe in hybrid."

Even the highly-paid SAFe consultant acknowledged that SAFe cannot be implemented for all projects and teams. Yet the mandate continued.

The result? Staff got certified – then never practiced what they learned. Teams run ceremonies to tick boxes, not to deliver value.

One submission captured it: "SAFe certifications done but not practiced. People doing ceremonies just to tick a box."

Meanwhile, business units – our actual clients – weren't consulted. They don't want SAFe. They're asking "why change what was working?"

If leadership truly believed in SAFe, they would push for adoption across other VPUs. Get business buy-in first. Partner with clients instead of mandating to staff.

What Must Happen:

Pause current SAFe implementation immediately. Stop spending dollars on a framework that isn't delivering value.

Get business buy-in BEFORE mandating to staff. If clients don't want it, why are we forcing it?

Implement in phases – pilot with teams where it actually fits, learn, then expand only if it works.

Audit where the SAFe money went. Every training dollar. Every consultant contract. Match spending against outcomes.

ISSUE 2: SKILLS ASSESSMENT & JOB ARCHITECTURE

What's Broken:

You hired us for specific skills. You gave us performance reviews for years. You promoted us, trusted us with critical systems.

Now you want to test us on roles we didn't choose, with criteria you won't share, and consequences you won't define. And you wanted us to sign a consent form to accept termination if we failed. At least that's dead now – killed because of this blog and the Hand's intervention.

Let me be clear about what happened: Leadership announced a skills assessment test. They didn't tell us what it covers. They didn't share the passing criteria. They didn't explain the consequences of failing. They just said – you'll take it, you get two attempts.

This isn't how any industry handles workforce planning. This is how you create chaos, anxiety, and stress among staff. And that's exactly what happened – 73% of submissions flagged Skills Assessment, Job Architecture, and the Consent Form as causing severe anxiety and stress.

Two attempts. That's what we get. Decades of institutional knowledge, client relationships, successful deliveries – all reduced to two shots at a test designed by people who've never done our jobs.

Job Architecture mapped us to roles that don't reflect what we actually do. Many of us perform three, four, five functions. You compressed that into one title to meet SAFe needs and said "this is what you'll be tested on."

Pick the wrong role? Tested on skills you don't have. Fail. Gone.

Staff on G4 visas face the worst of it. Fail twice, visa status at risk. People who raised children here, bought homes here, built lives over 20-30 years – suddenly two attempts away from losing everything.

Meanwhile, leadership is exempt. If skills assessment measures what matters, why doesn't leadership take it first?

What Must Happen:

Cancel the Skills Assessment Test. It was designed without consulting the people who actually do the work. No communication. No transparency.

Improve the existing performance management system instead. We already have annual reviews – strengthen that process rather than introducing a flawed new one.

Improve the feedback loop between staff and leadership.

If assessment is truly needed, introduce it only when Job Architecture and SAFe are mature and actually working – not while everything is still chaos.

ISSUE 3: THE 75% RULE – SAME POLICY, DIFFERENT OUTCOMES

What's Broken:

The God-Mother made everyone acting. Directors first, then managers. She promised clarity in six months. It took over two years.

During multiple townhalls, she stated the rule clearly: If you retain 75% of your portfolio after restructuring, you will be confirmed as manager of your unit.

This rule was not applied consistently.

Under the Master-of-Coin's directorship: Managers with 75% or more were retained without competition. One manager fell below 75% – and was still retained.

Under other directors: Managers with 75% or more were forced to compete. Some weren't even shortlisted for their own jobs.

Same rule. Same transformation. Different outcomes depending on which director you report to.

It gets worse. Under the Sultan's dictatorship, a second restructuring was done – specifically to shuffle teams so that incumbent managers would fall below 75%. A team that worked together for 20+ years was broken apart in the name of buzzwords. Once below threshold, the position could be posted externally – and the Sultan had 1-on-1s with his favorites encouraging them to apply. This is a known fact.

The ITSCO recruitment proved something important: when someone with authority actually reviewed the process, it was cancelled for irregularities. Some internal job postings have since been confirmed to existing managers. How many other hiring decisions would fail the same scrutiny?

Acting managers served 18, 20, 24 months – far exceeding standard limits. They carried full responsibility without permanent status. They delivered results. They held teams together through chaos. Then they were told to compete for their own jobs. Many weren't shortlisted.

What Must Happen:

Provide documentation showing how each manager's portfolio was calculated and why the 75% rule was applied differently across departments.

Investigate who approved the second restructuring in the Sultan's department that conveniently pushed incumbents below 75%.

Compensate acting managers who served beyond standard limits. This includes GG staff who acted as managers.

Conduct an independent review of all manager hiring decisions due to inconsistency in following rules and policies.

ISSUE 4: PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY & COMMUNICATION FAILURES

What's Broken:

When 8,000+ unique visitors cling to an anonymous blog because official channels failed them, psychological safety doesn't exist.

When the only honest conversation about transformation happens on a blog at 2am, your feedback channels have failed.

When staff say "I don't feel proud of myself anymore" and "I don't feel happy anymore" – that's not resistance. That's damage.

Prior to the God-Mother, staff could flag issues early, push back respectfully, solve problems before they exploded. That culture took years to build. 29 months to destroy.

One submission captured what many feel: "After more than 15 years working in ITS, the period from June 2024 to 2025 has been the most stressful and anxiety-filled year of my entire career."

What Must Happen:

Release the psychological safety survey results. Share them with staff – the actual results by unit.

SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS DOCUMENTED

Beyond these four systemic issues, staff documented specific allegations that require formal investigation. The detailed evidence goes to appropriate authorities.

SAFe SPENDING: Millions spent on one framework. No business buy-in. Minimal adoption. Where did the money go?

OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT SPENDING: Multiple submissions flagged the Operations department, previously led by the Sultan, for circumventing shared services to build a separate empire. One submission noted: "Estimated $150M+ spent over several years on systems now being ripped out and replaced." What was the return on that investment? Why wasn't this built with existing teams?

RECRUITING FIRM CONFLICTS: The same executive search firm that placed the God-Mother received contracts to place all directors.

VENDOR PREFERENCE PATTERNS: Staff documented single-vendor arrangements without competitive process. One submission noted: "Vendor with insider information getting contracts. More access to plans than actual managers."

There are additional allegations that go directly to investigative authorities.

TO THE HAND-OF-THE-KING

You've already acted three times when the evidence demanded it:

You killed the consent form when pressure made it impossible to ignore.
You cancelled the ITSCO recruitment when irregularities were undeniable.
When the Prince of Persia was pushed out—when the God-Mother couldn't even be bothered to attend his farewell—you showed up. And spoke.

We give you credit for all three.

Now we're bringing you more evidence. Not rumors – documented patterns from 230+ staff members who trusted this process enough to share what they've witnessed.

We're not asking you to take our word for it. We're asking you to look.

Audit the SAFe spending. Review how the 75% rule was applied differently. Examine the psychological safety results. Look into the vendor patterns and recruiting firm conflicts.

Conduct a 360 review of the God-Mother and all directors. Let staff provide feedback on leadership performance – the same way leadership evaluates staff.

If we're wrong, the audits will show it. If we're right, you'll understand why 56,000+ views happened.

We're also asking for a townhall. From you. Not from ITS leadership who are subjects of these concerns.

A detailed evidence document with all submission data and comments accompanies this post. It's being sent by email, and hardcopies will be delivered to your office.

TO ITS STAFF

You did this. The consent form is dead because you refused to accept it. ITSCO was cancelled because the pressure became undeniable. 56,000+ views happened because you shared, you commented, you refused to stay silent.

Six posts ago, I was alone. Now we're a movement. They designed a system to silence 1,300+ people. You broke it.

WE ARE ITS

We kept Westeros running when the world shut down. We are the institutional knowledge that can't be replaced by certifications. We are the client relationships built over decades.

We're not against transformation. We proved that in March 2020.

We're against chaos disguised as strategy. We're against rules that apply to some and not others. We're against being tested on skills we weren't hired for while leadership exempts itself.

— Your Friendly Neighborhood Chronicler

P.S. — To the 230+ who submitted: Your words are now with people who can act.

P.P.S. — To staff on G4 visas: Your situation is documented. You are not forgotten.

P.P.P.S. — The form stays open. Keep them coming: https://forms.gle/kV64rBBokWhhp2NA7

ANNEXURE: WHAT 230+ SUBMISSIONS TOLD US

For the Hand-of-the-King and those conducting investigations, here are the major themes from staff submissions, organized by category:

SAFe AGILE (77% flagged):
• Mandatory framework doesn't fit most ITS work (infrastructure, services, support, library, publishing)
• Trainers admitted SAFe unsuitable for non-software development roles
• 200+ person PI planning meetings created confusion, not alignment
• Business partners frustrated – "why change what was working?"
• Teams spending 2-3x effort on meetings vs actual delivery
• Certifications done but not practiced – "ceremonies just to tick a box"

SKILLS ASSESSMENT (73% flagged):
• No clear criteria, SMEs, or evaluation framework disclosed
• Two attempts then "talk to HR about exit options"
• Contradicts decades of performance evaluations
• G4 visa holders face deportation risk
• Leadership exempt from assessment
• No appeals process defined

HIRING IRREGULARITIES (64% flagged):
• Acting managers 18-24+ months without compensation
• 75% rule applied inconsistently across departments
• Some managers not shortlisted for their own positions
• External preference despite qualified internal candidates
• Same executive search firm placed God-Mother and all directors

COMMUNICATION FAILURES (71% flagged):
• Constant changes to messaging
• Staff learn about changes via informal channels
• Different messages to different teams
• Psychological safety surveys while fear of retaliation remains high

DIRECTOR/MANAGER PERFORMANCE (53% flagged):
• Multiple directors lack institutional knowledge
• 120-day roadmaps missing or inadequate
• Acting managers given scripted talking points
• No clear vision articulated in staff meetings

WASTEFUL SPENDING (77% flagged):
• SAFe consultants (millions spent, minimal adoption)
• Executive search firm contracts for 8 director positions
• System developed for Operations ($150M+ investment now being replaced)
• Unused training and certifications
• Assessment tool purchased before process defined

STAFF IMPACT (documented across submissions):
• "Most stressful and anxiety-filled year of my entire career" (15+ year employee)
• "I don't feel proud of myself anymore. I don't feel happy anymore."
• Mental health hospitalizations documented
• Experienced staff considering exit
• Institutional knowledge loss accelerating

VENDOR ISSUES (documented):
• Single-source contracting without competitive process
• Vendor representatives with more access to plans than actual managers
• Appearance of conflicts between consulting contracts and hiring decisions

The full evidence package with specific examples accompanies this document.