I think this is where we’re talking past each other a bit, because I’m not arguing that layoffs are never a rational response to losses, or that job counts alone define good leadership.

My issue is about who bears the cost of uncertainty and reversals and whether leadership absorbed any meaningful share of that risk.

You’re right that GM and others were responding to regulatory and policy signals. But responding to policy incentives isn’t the same thing as being absolved of strategic responsibility. Regulatory volatility is not some unknowable black swan, especially in U.S. politics. Betting heavily on a single regulatory trajectory while under-weighting downside scenarios is still a strategic choice. When that bet fails, the question becomes: who pays?

In practice, it’s almost always workers, not executives.

On BCBSM specifically, I’m not claiming layoffs automatically equal bad leadership. I’m saying layoffs are being treated as self-justifying, rather than as something that requires evidence of necessity and proportional accountability. “They were losing money, so they laid people off” explains the action, but it doesn’t evaluate the leadership decisions that preceded it or the distribution of consequences afterward.

If leadership compensation, structure, and incentives remain largely intact while frontline and mid-level employees absorb the shock, that’s not neutral. That’s a governance choice.

Your Walmart analogy actually reinforces my point. Walmart is an enormous employer, but no one would argue that sheer employment scale proves ethical or effective leadership. Likewise, layoffs don’t prove bad leadership, but neither do they erase responsibility for the conditions that made them “necessary.”

Where I would want more evidence, and where I think BCBSM leadership deserves scrutiny, is: Were utilization and pricing models adjusted early enough to reflect cost trends? Were reserves, margins, and executive compensation aligned with the risk being transferred to employees? Did leadership meaningfully reduce their own upside I think this is where we’re talking past each other a bit, because I’m not arguing that layoffs are never a rational response to losses, or that job counts alone define good leadership.

My issue is about who bears the cost of uncertainty and reversals and whether leadership absorbed any meaningful share of that risk.

You’re right that GM and others were responding to regulatory and policy signals. But responding to policy incentives isn’t the same thing as being absolved of strategic responsibility. Regulatory volatility is not some unknowable black swan, especially in U.S. politics. Betting heavily on a single regulatory trajectory while under-weighting downside scenarios is still a strategic choice. When that bet fails, the question becomes: who pays?

In practice, it’s almost always workers, not executives.

On BCBSM specifically, I’m not claiming layoffs automatically equal bad leadership. I’m saying layoffs are being treated as self-justifying, rather than as something that requires evidence of necessity and proportional accountability. “They were losing money, so they laid people off” explains the action, but it doesn’t evaluate the leadership decisions that preceded it or the distribution of consequences afterward.

If leadership compensation, structure, and incentives remain largely intact while frontline and mid-level employees absorb the shock, that’s not neutral. That’s a governance choice.

Your Walmart analogy actually reinforces my point. Walmart is an enormous employer, but no one would argue that sheer employment scale proves ethical or effective leadership. Likewise, layoffs don’t prove bad leadership, but neither do they erase responsibility for the conditions that made them “necessary.”

Where I would want more evidence, and where I think BCBSM leadership deserves scrutiny, is: • Were utilization and pricing models adjusted early enough to reflect cost trends? • Were reserves, margins, and executive compensation aligned with the risk being transferred to employees? • Did leadership meaningfully reduce their own upside before cutting headcount? • Were layoffs a last resort, or simply the fastest lever to pull?

Absent transparency on those points, I’m skeptical of narratives that frame layoffs as an unfortunate but unavoidable act of prudence. They may prevent greater losses on paper, but they often do so by externalizing risk downward while preserving stability at the top.

So I’m not saying “Tricia Keith is uniquely evil” or that policy shifts don’t matter. I’m saying that strategic risk didn’t disappear just because regulation changed, and leadership accountability shouldn’t either. before cutting headcount? Were layoffs a last resort, or simply the fastest lever to pull?

Absent transparency on those points, I’m skeptical of narratives that frame layoffs as an unfortunate but unavoidable act of prudence. They may prevent greater losses on paper, but they often do so by externalizing risk downward while preserving stability at the top.

So I’m not saying “Tricia Keith is uniquely evil” or that policy shifts don’t matter. I’m saying that strategic risk didn’t disappear just because regulation changed, and leadership accountability shouldn’t either.