The glaring issue? The Delivery leadership in Singapore and Australia is one of the weakest I’ve seen in a company of this caliber. Rather than fostering collaboration, they operate in silos, resist cooperation with Services, and actively sideline high-performing contributors who challenge their disjointed narratives. There’s no accountability, no ownership of delivery gaps, and a culture of blame-shifting when things fall apart.
They also exhibit a defensive and dismissive attitude when challenged on delivery risks, resourcing shortfalls, or customer escalations. Instead of taking ownership, they focus on controlling the narrative to manipulate CSAT scores and portray “flawless delivery” – even when engagements are clearly struggling. Delivery feedback is carefully filtered or dismissed altogether, especially when it threatens their personal optics.
Worse still, their approach erodes trust—not just with customers, but with internal teams across Engagement Management, Architecture, Technical Consulting, and Partner channels. Instead of driving alignment, they undermine the very people responsible for successful delivery. Morale suffers, good talent leaves, and poor leadership remains protected.
