Employees notice, and talk about, the disconnect between stated company priorities and leadership decisions. For example:
The company emphasizes controlling SG&A costs, yet allocates over $1M for a balcony and other upgrades to the Milwaukee office while other facilities delay basic maintenance and updates. At the same time, many employees work on outdated laptops that do not hold a charge to last a meeting. These resources could be far more impactful if invested in employee needs or facility upgrades across other locations.
Leadership continues to invest heavily in short-term consultants—spending hundreds of thousands annually—despite concern over SG&A inflation. These funds could be better spent hiring high-quality, long-term talent who understand the business more deeply.
Executive compensation is misaligned with company spending concerns. In 2024, the CEO received over $6M in total compensation—$9.6M the year prior. Many employees are working multiple jobs to keep up, even some corporate employees. A marginal reduction in executive pay could rebalance spending to support business needs and potentially even modest raises across the company.
Despite concerns over inefficiency, the CEO himself is known for micromanagement of even lower-level employees—regularly bypassing direct managers to redirect employee priorities. This has led to confusion and decreased productivity as people are pulled away from more business-impacting tasks to placate the CEO.
Turnover is a stated concern, yet staffing levels remain critically low in several departments like finance and IT. Many teams are in constant “survival mode,” unable to focus on proactive or strategic improvements. Leadership must act on employee feedback and fund the roles needed to prevent burnout and attrition.
Managers often blame former employees for not being a “fit” rather than acknowledging poor direction, lack of feedback, or mismanaged expectations. This pattern points to a broader failure in people leadership and team development.
Cultural investment is touted as a priority, yet one of the most visible decisions this year was a strict dress code policy—even when people work remotely. This felt tone-deaf, poorly timed, belittling, and put unnecessary pressure on mid-level managers to enforce.
Our CEO mandated everyone globally to be in office 4 days with rare exceptions, intending to transition to a 5-day work week. His justification does not align with the productivity data, as we proved we were just as productive working remotely for the last 5 years. It is not about employee culture, because it adds a great deal of inconvenience and costs for employees. It is not about making an informed decision, because there was no input from employees. Rather, it was informed by his network of CEOs. It's not about cost savings, instead the decision to be in office was driven to justify the tens of millions of dollars he has committed to spend for the Milwaukee building sponsorship and ongoing renovations.
Meanwhile, he is rarely seen around the office, does not socialize with employees, and works remotely at his leisure.
