The organization faces significant challenges at the senior leadership level, particularly in how performance is assessed and managed. VP and Sr. Director leadership often rely on subjective, secondhand narratives rather than fact-based performance evaluations. Instances of firm but necessary pushback are frequently misconstrued and accepted at face value without a thorough understanding of context, scope, or strategic intent.
There appears to be an inconsistency in how feedback is interpreted—favoritism plays a notable role. When an individual is well-liked, questionable feedback is often disregarded. However, those who are merely "acceptable" but not favored may find that the same feedback is used against them, despite strong objective performance metrics. This includes achievements in target delivery, AI-driven innovation, cross-functional collaboration, direct report engagement, and standardization efforts. Unfortunately, being results-driven and professional can be undervalued if one does not actively participate in social dynamics or cultivate likability among specific leaders.
The performance management structure has become increasingly binary, with most assessments reduced to either “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations,” leaving little room to recognize high-performing individuals or differentiate talent meaningfully.
In addition, there is a concerning disconnect between some product owners and the ServiceNow platforms they are tasked with developing. A number of these stakeholders lack hands-on experience with the tools, leading to low adoption and inconsistent measurement standards across teams. As a former customer of ServiceNow, I was surprised to find I had more practical knowledge of its capabilities than many internal stakeholders responsible for product ownership. This disconnect raises questions about accountability and product effectiveness—especially when key partners do not fully engage with the solutions they are meant to champion.
