“The Fixer”
Welcome to The Fixer, a weekly newsletter from The WayFinders Group.
We’re organisational repair specialists who repair damage, rebuild trust, and restore performance after crises, disputes, or disruptive change. On Fridays, we examine the corporate crises and missteps unfolding right now — breakdowns that reveal what happens when damage goes unrepaired – so that you don’t make headlines for all the wrong reasons. We also share our agony aunt column, a weekly poll and fodder from the floor!
FRIDAY FIASCO: when your stock price depends on customers you’ve offended
A former security analyst is suing Campbell’s Soup for employment discrimination and retaliation after allegedly being fired for reporting inappropriate conduct by a senior executive. . The case centres on a secretly recorded tirade in which a senior vice president allegedly mocked the company’s products, its customers as “poor people,” and made derogatory comments about Indian employees. Garza kept the recording private for several weeks before reporting it in January 2025. Campbell’s has placed the executive on leave pending investigation, calling the comments (if legitimate) unacceptable and inconsistent with company values.
When one of your leaders is recorded slagging off both your customers and your colleagues, and the person who eventually reported it gets sacked, the employment tribunal should be the least of your worries.
If Campbell’s Soup Company asked for our advice, here’s what we’d recommend:
Understand that winning the legal case isn’t winning here. Even if you successfully defend the retaliation claim, you’ve still got a senior executive on record mocking the people who buy your products and discriminating against your workforce. Your customers now know what leadership really thinks of them. Your employees know what happens when you report wrongdoing. That damage doesn’t disappear with a legal victory.
Ask more questions. Why did Garza sit on the recording for weeks before reporting it? What made him wait? What signals convinced him that immediate reporting would be career-ending? What can you commit to to change that for other current employees?
Drop the “if the recording was legitimate” hedge. You’ve already put the executive on leave. That qualifier signals you’re still deciding whether to believe your own employee over your VP, which is exactly the problem that created this mess.
Map the real damage. A senior vice president doesn’t develop open contempt for customers and discriminatory attitudes in isolation. What signals has your leadership been sending? What behaviours have been tolerated or rewarded? And critically: how many other employees are sitting on evidence of wrongdoing because they’ve watched what happened to Garza?
Recognise the importance of repair. Your customers (publicly held in contempt) deserve to know this isn’t who you are. Your employees deserve to know they can report wrongdoing without career suicide. Your investors deserve to know you’re managing material cultural and legal risk. None of that gets fixed by winning in court.
The employment tribunal will eventually end but the damage to trust, culture, and performance won’t, unless you actually take steps to put things right.
We’re organisational repair specialists. We repair damage, rebuild trust, and restore performance after M&A, crises, disputes, and other disruptive change.
Face the facts
When damage has been done in your organisation, what’s the biggest barrier to actually repairing it?
- Leadership won’t acknowledge the full extent of what happened
- We move on too quickly before addressing the human cost
- We focus on being technically/legally correct rather than genuinely accountable
- People are too afraid of consequences to tell the truth
- We declare it “fixed” when we’ve only completed a process
- We acknowledge the problem but never actually make amends
Fix me!
Dear Leah,
Our most promising investment is unravelling. Eighteen months ago, we led a Series A in a mission-driven startup with an exceptional founder and passionate team. We agreed to be “founder-friendly” and support their vision.
But as growth pressures mounted, we pushed for a “seasoned” COO and introduced “professional” management processes. The founder feels we’ve “taken over their company,” the original team is demoralised, and three key engineers just left to start a competing venture. Our new COO keeps complaining the team is “resistant to growth” and “too emotionally attached to legacy ways of working.”
Last week the founder asked if we’d consider letting them buy us out—they’d rather fail on their terms than succeed on ours. We’ve invested £5 million and our ownership stake is now threatening to destroy the investment. How do we support growth without killing what made this company investable?
— The cure is killing the patient
Dear the cure is killing the patient,
INITIAL RESPONSE: Your “professional management” destroyed what you paid £5 million for. The founder is correct: this was your deal, not theirs, and your seasoned COO is killing the company.
READ MORE
Fodder from the floor
We need your help! Why not vote for Leah’s fireside chat with Professor Kate Devlin, Professor of Artificial Intelligence & Society at Kings College London at SXSW London entitled:
Sorry, not sorry: AI and the death of genuine apologies
You can now help choose which conference sessions take the spotlight at SXSW London!
Here’s what to do:
- Sign in to your account (or create one if you’re new)
- You’ll have a 5-minute window to cast your votes
- Vote for as many sessions as you like during that time
Your voice has a huge impact on who takes the stage, so be sure to get involved. Have your say and influence the conversations that will shape the future. Voting closes on 23 December, so don’t miss your chance!
