Fire Baldoni? Yes / No

JB has been in charge (of PD and PCD) for many years.
Should he be sacked or should he stay?

 

What's he done?

 

In PD, he was an absolute terrible manager, and has hurt the overall organization by extending his "skills" across PCD. He prides himself at being top-notch in science and new technologies, but dominates every meeting, intimidates younger staff particularly those in PD. And wastes a lot of energy, money, time on gimicks, gadgets, promises that never have a change from the get-go, but impress upper-management who don't know better.

Now, he provides "wisdom" as if from a pulpit given by a travelling preacher. Of course, many of his direct reports are no better----one guy from the UK is so insecure that he only knows a good idea if it can be maniuplated to make it look like the concept was his, but then never can acknowledge when some "very clever" idea dose not pan-out, and only promotes people who never will challenge so he can dominate/intimidate/patronize them personally and the dept as whole.

 

-has no hesitation to shake-up the entire dept/division to make things 'better', while leaving his direct reports intact: hey baldoni, if things are so screwed-up why don't you fire the people who've been in charge of PCD for the last 10 years who screwed it up?

-he continues to give examples of past PCD failures, without acknowleding that he was in charge of PCD when those decisions were made, just yesterday he criticized PCD for not being able to agree to common computer systems and thereby getting stuck with systems imposed by IT. Baldoni, you a-hole, you were in charge the entire time that chemdev and pharmdev have been fighting about computer systems. Wasn't it your job to have chemdev and pharmdev reach consensus? Similarly, yesterday he said we should have begun 7 years ago to be ready to learn how to deliver the new "RNA" molecules. Hey Baldoni, you were in charge 7 years ago!

-he conducts discusions with other people like the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) and yet he is completely unable or unwilling to answer tough questions himself

 

if for no other reason, fire Baldildo for his incomprehensible emails - like the one he just sent out about the March lay-off announcements

 

exhibit "A" example of JB's communication skills

Message from John: proposed impact of R&D changes on PCD & planning for our future


Dear Colleagues,

By now, you will have heard about the changes R&D is proposing to meet the savings GSK requires to improve return on investment to shareholders. Because R&D is proposing to reduce its facilities footprint and refocus investment in R&D for neurosciences, some Preclinical Development employees may be affected.
While the R&D proposed changes announced yesterday are driven by a corporate-wide need to save money and improve shareholder returns, they are also in line with what PCD will need to do to transform itself to deliver the R&D strategy. PCD has known that we are not optimally configured to meet the needs of R&D. Over the past year, we have been considering how to position our organization to help R&D consistently deliver five to seven significant indications for medicines every year.
You should know that the current proposals for reducing R&D facilities have been developed integrating the information generated not only by the ongoing R&D infrastructure review but also by the evaluation of PCD’s infrastructure requirements which the Preclinical Development Executive Team (PC Exec) sponsored last year as part of planning for the future. These analyses indicate that PCD has excess capacity in several areas, but particularly in facilities.
PCD is still in the process of determining the full range of changes we need to make to effectively deliver for R&D. We know we must look carefully at the cost of our work and consider the return on investment of what we do. We must determine where our work offers R&D the greatest value, then strengthen our skills and capabilities and shift our resources with that focus. We must also manage the gaps in a portfolio of medicines which will be twice its current size and will present with far greater diversity generated by Differential Development and the fact that half of our portfolio will come from external partners and in-licensing.
I have discussed with you the changes needed in PCD. PC Exec is now deliberating about the tactical direction for the organization, and we hope to come back to you in late March to provide an update. Any impact on staff will be the subject of future communication and consultation, as appropriate. Your ideas, engagement, and input, as we develop our future, are both important and appreciated.
Our company and our industry are facing a very tough external environment which means we must make some extremely difficult choices. We hope to support you through any proposals. The PC Exec and I will be speaking with you at various meetings in the days ahead to help clarify what is happening and why. Communications about those meetings will be forthcoming.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.

John

 

yes - you don't need a year and half to figure out how to reposition PCD! Too many people, too much talking, too much time spent worrying about how to be important instead of how to help.

 

Differential Development is a joke. Much of PCD still does not understand that the overall goal of the organization is to work with and for Project teams toward progressing potential drugs, not to make people in PCD look and feel as if the world revolves around them. I'm afraid that this will never change as long as JB is head of PCD, with many of the others in charge of the various departments still in their jobs.

Baldoni does not seem able to set priorities appropriately, to be able to know how to focus on the organization's needs, to choose and promote people with the right instincts for the necessary PCD support functions. This dates to the days when he was head of PD, and unfortunately now extends his influence to all of PCD.

It is inconceivable that there was no PCD plan ready to be announced at the same time as the other R&D disclosures last week. MS should have demanded a complete set of PCD actions to be available at the same time, and if not delivered then someone else would be put in place to provide such a plan. JB could then be sent away to spend time buffing and polishing his many cars.

At the same time, too many PCD area VPs (and hence managers) think that their jobs are to organize outside scientific meetings, try to set policies for Regulatory agencies (which tends to make things worse in terms of regulatory expectastion), promote the writing of papers to "influence" the industry, to try to have the neon lights shine on them. None of this helps GSK in what is needed toward making drugs. This ill-focus needs to change, now, or the people need to be changed.

 

well said - PCD US should have announced its lay off plans same time as UK/Europe. Silly to think they needed another 4 weeks to do whatever they're gonna do in US when they were able to make such drastic cuts in UK/Europe much more quickly

can only guess that some legalities and negotiations may still be in play - for example the attempted sale / divestment of CD-SFS in RTP. Just as we've seen with mergers - wrapping up the details for those sort of business transactions usually take longer than expected. We've been told that the devestment of CD-SFS-RTP is what's holding up the building 2 consolidation

my suggestion for improving RTP productivity: fire everyone who doesn't wear a lab coat (or who doesn't even knows where to find one)

the groups in RTP are very small with a 'mgr' leading groups of 2-4 people, most of these 'manager' do no real science work (no lab work) and most are usually too far down the totem pole to do any real business work (allocating big chunks of resources and making concrete plans for the future). these managers just bounce from meeting to meeting regurgitating what they've been told and leaning on the real workers to make the managers look good

solution is simple; cut most of people in mgt band (i wouldn't miss 'em) - and form larger groups

go with 80% rule: 80% of people in R&D group should be doing lab work (or pilot plant work)

....but obviously GSK is going the other direction - shedding lab jobs so that we can 'manage' compounds we buy

but i digress, fire Baldoni? hell yes - his complete lack of leadership during current round of layoffs is only recent example of his uselessness

seems he can only come up with some sort of catch phrase to describe his poorly described latest phase/fad

 

NO F*N WAY THIS POLL IS REAL. SOME LOSER IS JUST PUSHING YES BUTTON. LOSERS. CAN ANY OF YOU DO A BETTER JOB THAN JB?

 

Of course the poll is fake. No way that Baldorarse can get so may positive votes. Some bozo must be repeatedly pushing the no button.

 

Have to agree entirely - having some experience here I think some people are more interested in publishing papers than developing drugs. This is what academia is for (publishing papers) but I guess most folks prefer industry pay rates. I think some people think they are still at University and have yet to wake up and smell the coffee. A radical change is needed and I think it is coming and a lot of folks are going to find it hard to swallow. A lot of internal empires/silos will have to be removed (middle management take note) for this to happen. Unfortunately the world changes all the time and it can be very unforgiving to everyone, including those who have tried their best.

 

I was only able to register one vote, so perhaps there are some real supporters.

 

So I guess that means results are accurate?

<10 % want him to stay?

pathetic

 

See post no. 10.

How many people could really do a better job?

I've met plenty of folks who think they know it all when in reality they're just protecting their empire. They just shout louder than the quiet people who get on with it - and tend to know what they're doing.

Unfortunately the golden days are over; just think of what happened to the following - coal, steel & cars all now in big decline. The unthinkable has happened, but at least there are people trying to arrest the slide and try to turn things around. I can understand why people are unhappy, after all the past situation was able to offer good secure employment with almost a "job for life" with good prospects for promotion. However, times have changed (for all in Pharma industry) which means attitudes have to change as well.

I think the people still employed have to make the best of it or all of the layoff's and associated heartache of those unlucky people would be for nothing.

 

You're missing the point.

The thread is about Baldoni's performance, not everyone else's.

So what exactly has Baldoni done well that warrants his remaining in charge?

What leadership abilities has he demonstrated that gives us any hope that he can steer PCD through the tough times we are in?

I've seen lots of negative posts that have specific complaints about Baldoni's demeanor and actions.

I've seen very few (any?) posts with specific examples of his achievements.

I'm listening....

 

You're missing the point.

The thread is about Baldoni's performance, not everyone else's.

So what exactly has Baldoni done well that warrants his remaining in charge?

What leadership abilities has he demonstrated that gives us any hope that he can steer PCD through the tough times we are in?

I've seen lots of negative posts that have specific complaints about Baldoni's demeanor and actions.

I've seen very few (any?) posts with specific examples of his achievements.

I'm listening....

 

the overwhelming majority of folks in PCD despise baldoni

this is not even up for debate

with every meeting he hosts, he repulses more people

he wastes everyone's time with redundant rambling 'mgt speak'

he provides absolutely no new info

he is rude to everyone

 

Someone rates him or else what is the reason behind the latest announcements?

 

What latest announcements ?
I''m missing something ?