We Embrace Change. We Reject Incompetence.

🔥 UPDATE (Feb 08 2026, 11:30): 8,458 views | 260 forms | Fill the form →
🔥 NEW POST: The Post They Hoped I Wouldn't Write

Let's try something different.

Instead of staff defending themselves against accusations of "resisting change," let's ask a different question: What exactly has ITS leadership changed?

SAFe Agile? Trained everyone, implemented nothing.

Director recruitment? Promised six months, took over a year.

Skills Assessment? Announced it, still can't define it.

Master Card says development delayed is development denied. He's right. So who's doing the delaying?

We are with you, Master Card. But we need you to see what's happening in your name.

So why are thousands of staff reading an anonymous blog instead of celebrating a successful transformation?

Because somewhere between the vision and the execution, something broke. And that something has a timeline: it started when the current leadership arrived.

This is the story of how.

Chapter 1: The SAFe Agile Promise

It started with a promise: we would become Agile. Faster. More responsive. Better at delivering for clients.

ITS would adopt SAFe Agile, the Scaled Agile Framework used by enterprises worldwide. Millions were allocated. External consultants were hired. Mandatory training rolled out. Everyone got certified. We learned new words: "PI Planning," "Release Train," "Value Stream."

The promise was transformation.

The reality?

Implementation: Zero.

We spent the money. We attended the training. We got the certificates. And then... nothing. The old ways continued. The new framework gathered dust. The God-Mother moved on to the next initiative.

But here's what no one apparently researched before committing millions:

Source	Finding
Jeff Sutherland (Scrum co-creator)	47% of Agile transformations fail outright
Kainos Research	90% struggle with enterprise-wide adoption
State of Agile Survey	96% fail to achieve actual business agility

Ninety percent failure rate for enterprise-wide SAFe adoption. Ninety percent.

And it gets worse. Here's what industry experts say:

"Our advice is 'don't do SAFe'... It's an autocracy, full of top-down approvals and cross-team handoffs."
— Equal Experts, December 2024

"SAFe subordinates agile teams to the bureaucracy, rather than doing what is necessary to achieve business agility."
— Steve Denning, Forbes

Even Scaled Agile's own website admits:

"Leaders don't take the time to understand what SAFe is... How can you lead what you don't know?"

We bought a framework that fails nine times out of ten. We spent millions. We implemented nothing.

Questions that deserve answers:

Why SAFe? Why was it rolled out across all of ITS instead of piloting with a few teams first? Why weren't business partners consulted before a framework was imposed on how we deliver to them? Who conducted the due diligence? And who is accountable for the outcome?

Chapter 2: The Hiring Paralysis

Transformation requires leadership. So we needed directors. Managers. People to guide the change.

Premium executive recruiters were engaged — the same firm that placed the God-Mother, now awarded all director recruitment contracts. "Six months," she told us. The timeline was clear.

The reality:

• Took over a year to fill 8 positions
• External firm paid monthly throughout — whether positions filled or not
• A year of leadership vacuum while the transformation supposedly "accelerated"

The result:

• External hires unfamiliar with how Westeros serves its clients
• Internal candidates — people with decades of institutional knowledge — passed over
• Staff now spend more time educating new directors than delivering work

And the ITSCO recruitment? A masterclass in chaos:

Posted → Interviewed → Cancelled → TOR modified → Reposted → Cancelled again → Ordered reposted by MDCAO after escalation

Staff who applied in good faith? Months of limbo. No explanation. No accountability.

Meanwhile, 20+ managers remain in "acting" status — 18 to 24 months and counting. The Staff Manual limits acting assignments to 12 months. This is a documented policy violation that leadership continues to ignore.

Question for leadership: If staff violated policy for two years, there would be consequences. Why are there none here?

Chapter 3: The Skills Assessment Mystery

We were told to prepare. We were told our careers depend on it. Two attempts. Fail both, and you're separated.

Month after month, we waited for clarity.

What we know today:

• Assessments are coming
• External tools have been selected
• Failure means separation

What we still don't know:

• The passing criteria
• The evaluation methodology
• How it applies to non-technical roles
• The appeals process

Industry platforms for skills assessment are designed for one thing: hiring. They screen strangers applying for jobs. They test if candidates can code.

They were never designed to evaluate long-tenured employees whose value lies in client relationships, institutional knowledge, and expertise that doesn't fit in a multiple-choice box.

From actual reviews of assessment platforms in this space:

"This has to be the most disgraceful excuse for an online assessment I have ever seen... half-baked AI-generated garbage."

And from employment law guidance on skills-based workforce decisions:

"Employers should avoid subjective or inconsistent criteria that could give rise to allegations of bias or discrimination."

We have no published criteria. No transparent methodology. Two attempts and you're out.

Question for the God-Mother: Is this legally defensible? Has anyone stress-tested this process? And why, after all this time, can you still not answer basic questions about how your own staff will be evaluated?

Chapter 4: The Accountability Equation

Here's the math that doesn't add up:

Staff accountability:

• Must pass assessments with undefined criteria
• Two attempts, then separation
• Performance managed for policy violations
• Careers on the line

Leadership accountability:

• SAFe investment with zero implementation → No consequences
• Acting manager violations for 2 years → Still waiting for answers
• Consent form requiring staff to waive rights → Withdrawn after exposure, no one held responsible
• Director recruitment that took a year instead of six months → Business as usual

The rules apply to us. They don't apply to them.

And about that consent form — let's be clear about what happened. It wasn't "just a discussion." Printouts were distributed. HR walked managers through it. Staff were being prepared to sign away their employment rights for an assessment with no published criteria. Then this blog exposed it, and suddenly leadership claimed it was only being "discussed."

That's not miscommunication. That's revisionist history.

You want to know what would change this overnight?

Bring back 360 reviews.

Let staff evaluate the VP. Let staff evaluate the transformation team. Let staff evaluate the directors. If we're being assessed, everyone should be assessed.

We had 360 reviews before. They stopped when the current leadership arrived. Funny timing.

Question for the 12th Floor: If transformation requires accountability, why does accountability only flow downward?

What The Silent Sentinel Said

And we're not alone in seeing this.

On January 13th, the Silent Sentinel sent their own raven:

"Each VPU appears to be operating according to its own informal set of rules. This has resulted in confusion, diminished trust, heightened anxiety, declining morale, and outright fear."

"We need to stop the ad-hoc, inconsistent, opaque, and top-down processes that are being implemented across units."

They mentioned ITS specifically. They called out the consent form.

This isn't one blogger's opinion. This is the institutional voice of staff finally breaking its silence.

To The 12th Floor

We know you're navigating pressures we can't see. We know transformation is necessary. We know the stakes for Westeros.

We're not the obstacle. We want to help.

But we need you to see what's happening in ITS under the current leadership:

• Millions spent on frameworks with 90% failure rates — implemented zero percent
• Directors hired through premium recruiters who don't understand how Westeros serves its clients
• Skills assessments announced without criteria — and still undefined after all this time
• Policy violations that continue uncorrected while staff are threatened with separation
• Directors rejecting internal candidates from departments they've never worked in — and can't explain why

This isn't transformation. This is expensive chaos.

Master Card's vision isn't the problem. The execution in ITS is.

What We're Asking For

We're not asking to avoid change. We're asking for change done competently:

1. Publish the assessment criteria. If our careers depend on it, we deserve to know the standard.
2. Audit the SAFe investment. Where did the money go? What was delivered? Who's accountable?
3. Resolve the acting manager violations. Follow the policy or change it — but stop pretending it doesn't exist.
4. Restore 360 reviews. If staff are assessed, leadership should be too.
5. Hold someone accountable. Not staff. The people making these decisions.

That's not resistance. That's partnership.

The Report

A comprehensive report documenting 245 staff submissions, 500+ public comments, and months of documented concerns has been compiled.

It will reach senior leadership this week.

It's not an attack. It's not resistance. It's documentation from staff who believe in the mission — and who are watching the transformation fail it.

We hope it leads to questions. We hope it leads to accountability. We hope it leads to change.

Because we're still here. Still committed. Still serving the mission we signed up for.

The question is: Is leadership?

We Are ITS.

— The Chronicler

The raven has flown. The report is coming. Winter isn't coming — it's already here.

Comments open. Your voice matters.

The form is still available — share your concerns or send me a message.