When your head of corp communications knows nothing about her job because she was sent there as punishment for watching Barbie sales slump 3 years in a row, mistakes are bound to happen. But why should she pay attention now when she didn't for three years as SVP marketing for girls?
9 replies (most recent on top)
Anonymous90326 - since HR is part of the team "punishing" her by giving her the corp comm job instead of letting her go, why would they help her? Not Mattel's style - they hope by transferring poor-performing employees they'll quit or get the hint, neither of which usually works. So yes, you're still clueless.
Typical Mattel...fail as a VP in one group, they promote you or transfer you to another group...so you can screw up that business, too. Meanwhile, the worker bees get screwed - no promotions, layoffs, forced to leave.
Both Legal and HR realize that there is a novice in Corp. Comm., not to mention Finance/Investor Relations, if thinking for the company they should make sure they help the novice handle properly for the company and employees, but I guess I am clueless. Unlike yourself.
Actually, a change of c-level management is a very significant event that is incredibly well documented since it takes an act by the Board of Directors. It's also the kind of Corporate event that is well documented by Legal and HR. As the previous poster mentioned, Stephanie Cota as head of Corp Communications knows nothing about her job - it's her "reward" for slumping Barbie sales 3 years in a row. So not getting the facts straight, forgetting to include as part of the announcement his severance agreement are all part and parcel of her being clueless. A real Corp Comm team would have ensured they had their facts straight and issued 1 release when Stockton was fired.
Instead, it feels like the Keystone Cops.
Case in point - for all the clueless people, Mattel didn't hire Stockton back - this consulting agreement is part of his severance agreement. All CEO's have negotiated severance agreements that include things like a monthly salary for 2 years, etc. Again, because Corp Comm didn't know their ass from their elbow, they didn't include it in the original document and then came up with a lame ass press release that made it sound far worse - and that the company needed Bryan for information only he had...
I think the She that is being referred to (Based on the positions they are saying) would be Stephanie Cota. The only odd part I see is the current admission by Mattel that he was "fired" (Involuntary Separation) Sounds like a layoff. Based on the news article, he gets two years of severance payments (Wish I had gotten that much)
But the question should be is will the severance payments be delayed or cancelled since he is being paid directly by Mattel again, like all the rest of us had written into the termination agreement, or does he just get paid twice.
I still can't believe they hired him back like this.
I'm not sure I understand the OP. Yes, Bryan was fired...'resigned' means fired. But, then you go on about a SHE in corporate communication...and SHE this, and SHE that. Who are you talking about, very confusing. Also, we all know when someone high up leaves (usually by force and not choice), the 'official' reason is that they "are going to spend time with family" and/or "pursue new adventures".
Nobody in leadership is good at their job at Mattel which is exactly why the company is in the mess it's in. Call it upper mismanagement. The downward spiral will continue so just wait until the Q1 numbers are announced as the propaganda will be entertaining to say the least. Why is Playground Productions still there and all those worthless minions who do absolutely nothing under Voss still employed? All they did was managed to do was to destroy what was once 3 years ago a healthy Latin American Max Steel Line generating 100 million in the toilet? Oh, they also launched BoomCo? Go HeMan.......? Not. What a joke that place has become. Lego & Hasbro are laughing all the way to the bank at these fools as they are doing it right.
You must be kidding. Maybe she isn't good at her job, I wouldn't know, but she was probably just trying to follow the poor and confusing direction she was given by the board, HR, top mgt. etc. Just look at the entire path of this PR debacle...he resigned, comes back high paid consultant (after 19 year board member says company created its own problems), now fired, 19 year board member is made perm CEO, possible seat warmer for internal candidate who may be far more ambitious than talented (remains to be seen, track record seems sketchy except ability to be right place right time). This seems a good insight into how the co. is being run.