I spent several years with the company, and I’ve also worked for Sherwin-Williams, which gave me a clear perspective on how different organizations approach leadership and execution.
A recurring issue here is the presence of family-connected leadership operating in roles that directly influence store-level execution without the experience to support it. These individuals are given authority quickly, and their decisions often create unnecessary operational strain due to a disconnect from how stores actually function.
What stands out even more is how regional operational leadership responds when things go wrong. There is a noticeable tendency to focus on former employees — discussing them, referencing them, or using them as explanations — rather than addressing the decisions and structure that exist today. Over time, this creates a culture where accountability is redirected instead of owned.
Having worked at Sherwin-Williams, the contrast is clear. The emphasis there is on structure, accountability, and internal execution. Here, there is a disproportionate focus on competing with Sherwin, but without consistently building the internal systems needed to actually compete.
The reality is, Sherwin-Williams is focused on its own execution at scale. It is not focused on this company. That imbalance becomes obvious quickly to anyone who has seen both environments.
There are good people here. Many of them leave once they recognize the pattern.