#leadership

These days, it's fashionable not even to attempt retaining talent. Cost-cutting is the go-to strategy for propping up the share price and securing leadership bonuses. In the long term, they're cutting the branch they're sitting on. I'm not sure any of this is sustainable. The two groups most targeted in layoffs have been veterans, the well of knowledge and experience, and the younger talent that any company would ki-l for under normal circumstances. It's a recipe for disaster.

https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/xing-citi-jon-lofthouse

1) Current leadership appears to believe staffing levels expanded too aggressively during prior growth periods. Recent layoffs and return-to-office initiatives are being framed around AI and efficiency concerns, although many employees do not view the reductions as directly connected to AI adoption.

2) A broader organizational issue remains unresolved despite restructuring efforts. Cost reduction initiatives continue to focus primarily on headcount reduction, particularly among contractors and remote employees, because those areas are easier to target operationally.

3) The challenge with this approach is that it may not address underlying performance issues. During the pandemic, the company significantly expanded access to national talent pools through remote hiring. If productivity metrics such as revenue per employee are declining despite broader access to highly qualified technical talent, the more important question may be why the organization has struggled to convert that talent into stronger business outcomes. Cost cutting can improve short-term financial optics, but it does not necessarily resolve structural execution problems.

4) Recent operational and strategic missteps suggest that many issues originate at higher management layers rather than within technical teams themselves. Even after workforce reductions, competitive challenges are likely to remain if leadership and organizational alignment issues are not addressed. Managing distributed teams effectively requires different operating models, and return-to-office mandates alone may not solve coordination or productivity concerns.

5) A stricter return-to-office policy may also reduce access to specialized talent that competitors continue to recruit nationally. “But Amazon is doing RTO also” is a failure of leadership to understand their competitor - Amazon has headquarters in every tech capital
of America. RTO does not affect their access to this pool of talent. An alternative strategy could have been deeper investment in fully remote corporate operations alongside stronger management accountability, clearer execution priorities, and improved organizational communication. Employees generally respond more positively to leadership engagement that produces measurable business outcomes rather than highly polished internal presentations with limited operational impact.

6) Many employees joined the company because it was perceived as having a stable culture and experienced workforce. However, there appears to be growing disconnect between leadership and technical staff. Compensation structures and long-term incentives that may have retained prior generations of employees do not necessarily create the same loyalty among newer talent pools. Leadership may benefit from evaluating how effectively the organization supports, retains, and empowers the employees responsible for maintaining and building critical systems. After this abject failure of management, it will take years to earn any trust at all.

Billionaire Jim Goodnight Built An Analytics Profit Machine. AI Is Forcing Its Reinvention.

ByPhoebe Liu,Reporter.

May 15, 2026, 06:30am EDT
Updated May 15, 2026, 10:36am EDT

Unlike most of today’s biggest AI companies, SAS—once America’s largest privately held software company—has always operated slowly, steadily and profitably. Competition from all sides and an upcoming leadership transition will test the company’s longstanding strategy.

Clad in a plain white shirt, Jim Goodnight, billionaire cofounder and CEO of analytics firm SAS, eases into a leather rolling chair in a Cary, North Carolina, meeting room that looks less like a corner office than a geology exhibit. Behind him are glistening gemstones. A clump of pyrite. Purple amethysts. A fossilized dinosaur egg—a 69-million-year-old Hadrosaurus found in the Gobi Desert. A meteorite. “It’s not something you want to get hit in the head by,” he deadpans.

SAS is 50. Its CEO is 83. And like the rocks on display, both are artifacts from an earlier time long before fast-growing, deeply-unprofitable AI shook the world. SAS analyzes large troves of data from its customers in real-time to help them make better business decisions.

“People like to dismiss us by saying, ‘well, that’s legacy software,’” says Goodnight, a statistics pioneer who helped define what analytics would be long before AI became an umbrella term for everything. “But it’s not. We’ve been improving it for 50 years.”

Now SAS has to prove that endurance isn’t the same thing as stagnation.

The company generates just over $3 billion in annual revenue from most of the Fortune 100—including 90% of the financial services companies and all of the health and life sciences firms, plus most every government department. It has stayed private, profitable and debt free.

The AI bo-m is stress-testing that posture. OpenAI, Anthropic and a swarm of newer data-and-analytics rivals are selling the future as a clean break from “legacy” incumbents. Hyperscalers like Microsoft and Amazon are bundling data and AI into cloud contracts. Public-sector competition is heating up. And inside SAS, the next chapter is no longer theoretical: Goodnight has been hinting for years at a leadership transition, including an IPO as a possible succession plan. “When we go public, we need a different CEO,” he says. “You don’t want an old fa-t like me going around trying to sell stock.”

For a company designed to outlast market volatility, an uncomfortable question is suddenly immediate: can SAS modernize fast enough to matter in the AI era—without abandoning the slow, profitable discipline that made it an outlier in the first place? And can it do it without Goodnight?

Goodnight is confident it can; he’s seen this cycle before: the dot-com bo-m, when he considered outside money and passed; the dot-com bust, which rewarded that restraint; failed investments, including an airline; and the 2022 market correction which may have forced SAS to delay its IPO plans. He’s unmoved by the idea that generative AI has rewritten the laws of business.

AI is “just picking the next word in a sentence based on probability,” Goodnight says, correctly, of large language models. “How’s that going to solve anything?” He thinks SAS’ decades of customer trust and “domain expertise,” particularly in finance, healthcare and government services, will help it retain its edge.

Yet Goodnight will likely leave SAS’ future in the age of AI to younger hands.

In recent years, he has ceded more of the daily operating work to a new generation of executives, especially chief technology officer Bryan Harris and chief operating officer Gavin Day. Goodnight says he’s training Harris and Day to take over, though he hasn’t yet decided which of the two he would like as CEO.

The plan they are inheriting is simple to describe and hard to execute: persuade customers that SAS is not the same company it was 50 years ago, sell them on AI that helps them make smarter business decisions instead of merely sounding like it might, and mold the products to meet every customer where it’s needed.

“Incumbency is our biggest headwind,” says Harris.

That incumbency can be seen in SAS’ sprawling North Carolina headquarters. Its 300-acre tree-lined property boasts a day care and doctor’s office, fields dotted with employees playing intramural soccer at lunchtime, one of the state’s few five-star hotels and dozens of docile sheep grazing underneath the company’s solar panels. Turn left from Analytics Drive onto Research Drive and walk down Binary Way, and you’ll be blinded by a shining silver sculpture of the mathematical constant pi. The company’s campus, as they call it, reflects Goodnight’s vision and SAS’ academic origins.

SAS, short for Statistical Analysis System, was born out of North Carolina State University where Goodnight—then a young faculty member fresh out of a statistics PhD—teamed up with Tony Barr in the late 1960s to create software that sifted through and analyzed N.C. State’s agriculture department data. After the tool attracted more than 100 outside customers, Goodnight, Barr, John Sall and Jane Helwig incorporated SAS Institute in 1976. Barr sold his 40% stake for $340,000 in 1979. Helwig, who died in 2021, left and sold her stake a couple of years later. Goodnight now owns two-thirds of SAS, making him worth $13.3 billion and the richest man in North Carolina; Sall owns the remaining third, a $6.5 billion stake.

From the beginning, the company was bootstrapped. Back when SAS software was sold as physical books, all staff—including the founders—would form an assembly line every time a new shipment of books arrived to unload the books into an employee’s basement, a tradition cofounder Sall recalls as “book brigades.”

When the phones from prospective customers stopped ringing, Sall says Goodnight—in keeping with his upbringing as a hardware shopkeeper’s son—forced the cofounders to split up SAS’ potential customers into four (grouped alphabetically) and do the marketing themselves.

The approach worked. SAS was cash-flow positive from day one and generated $600 million (revenue) on an estimated $300 million in operating income by 1996, Forbes previously reported. SAS grew steadily, always prioritizing profitability over the fastest possible growth, Sall says.

Along the way, as evidenced by its campus, SAS built up a reputation as a company that takes care of its employees. Extensive benefits—beginning with free M&Ms (11,000 pounds per week, company-wide) then expanding to on-site doctors and a pharmacy, subsidized on-site childcare and a hair salon—weren’t common in the ’80s and ’90s. It was Goodnight's retention strategy: keep employees happy, keep turnover low and avoid the expensive churn of bonuses and dilutive stock options.

He used to joke that 95% of SAS’ assets, its people, drove out the front gate every night. After the pandemic and a remote-work policy, the line no longer works quite the same way. “I can’t even get ’em to come in,” he says.

Three years ago, Harris brought Goodnight an idea he loved. SAS could use computer vision to analyze video feeds from farms and determine how illnesses spread among chickens. The tool would help farmers keep their flocks healthy. Goodnight ki-led it with a single question: “How much do the cameras cost? The farmers would never pay for that.”

From the perspectives of both customers like those farmers and SAS itself, Goodnight has been laser-focused on cost and profitability for decades. He criticized AI innovation for being 90% wasted dollars, and repeatedly emphasized SAS’ need to get further into the green.

The CEO credits SAS’ durability to that desire to stay profitable, even at the expense of rapid growth. While Anthropic has reportedly grown revenue at roughly 10 times year over year for three years, SAS’ revenue rose 9% last quarter, roughly in line with Morningstar's prediction that software companies will grow at around 10% per year through 2029.

Goodnight thinks the AI companies’ pace “needs to slow down.” But that doesn’t mean SAS has ignored the market. In 2023, the company announced a three-year, $1 billion investment to develop AI-powered products. “It looked like we were going to spend that much anyway, so we announced it,” Goodnight says flatly.

The problem is that SAS is hardly alone here. It is up against rivals that bet on AI first, and more heavily. On the mega-cap side, there’s Microsoft, Amazon and Oracle. Slightly newer entrants: Snowflake, Databricks, Alteryx and others. On the public sector side, Palantir has been siphoning U.S. government contracts from SAS and others. (Palantir’s U.S. government revenue grew by around double SAS’ total government revenue last year.)

SAS’ modus operandi is to meet customers wherever they are most anxious. The company works with nearly every major bank and the Big Four accounting firms, helping them use AI in ways that are secure, traceable and useful for fraud detection and financial risk. Healthcare, government, finance and other regulated industries are natural terrain for a company that has spent decades selling caution as a feature. Even there, the pressure is rising. Anthropic has been hiring industry experts and in May announced a suite of financial-services products that compete directly for the same customers.

“Everyone is in ‘coopetition,’” Harris says. Customers have asked SAS to integrate with its rivals, and the company has happily obliged.

That has made SAS uniquely malleable among its peers. If customers want their data analysis done in the cloud (Microsoft, Amazon, you name it), SAS can do it. If they want it done on premises, SAS will do that too—and in the programming language of your choice. That matters in hospitals and government agencies, especially when sensitive data and regulation collide here and abroad. In the executive building where customers are flown in for meetings, one screen recently read, “Welcome, U.A.E. Government Delegation.”

Harris thinks new revenue streams can come from digital twins—AI-rendered versions of complex physical facilities like manufacturing plants that are used to figure out a facility’s most efficient layout, predict safety incidents without putting workers at risk, and perform virtual testing—via a partnership with Epic Games. Paper products manufacturer Georgia Pacific, for example, uses them to test and train robots in its Savannah River Mill facility, keeping costs down and employees safe. Digital twins currently generate single-digit millions in revenue, but Harris believes the business can grow to $500 million within three or four years.

SAS is also experimenting with quantum computing for ultra-complex transactions, like in fraud detection for banks, that traditional computers can’t handle. Also in SAS’ plans: using data and AI to help sports teams. In December, SAS announced a partnership with Liverpool to use its products to market to the soccer team’s fans better. At SAS’ 50th anniversary conference, the company announced a smattering of new tools that incorporate AI agents.

“SAS has never met a problem they didn’t want to go after,” says IDC research director Kathy Lange, who previously worked at SAS and suggested that the company could benefit from more focus. “It’s a double-edged sword.”

Believing it’s the best way to sell some of his stake without needing to sell SAS for parts, Goodnight still wants an IPO. But five years after SAS first said it was preparing to go public, the window has narrowed, shifted and occasionally looked like a regret chute.“We don't want to go when all the money has been already used for SpaceX,”

The numbers also need work. Before hitting the roadshow, Goodnight wants to meet the Rule of 40, a common software company benchmark in which revenue growth rate and profit margin sum to 40. That might help the company defend its share price in public markets, especially when pitted against fast-growing competition. But with both components sitting at around 10%, Goodnight says SAS isn’t even halfway there.

For CFO Matt Parson, it’s optionality that’s the key here. SAS has to be ready for the public markets, but they can’t be the only path to helping Goodnight and Sall sell some of their stake. Why sell? The founders’ children aren’t planning to take over, but Goodnight and Sall might still like to leave them with some cash. They’ve yet to take much out of SAS: the company pays out a small dividend, but has invested most profits—“many billions of dollars”—back into the business over its lifetime.

In case an IPO isn’t possible, Parson thus wants to prepare the firm for other solutions: an acquisition or outside investment. The company routinely gets acquisition offers, but Goodnight hasn’t entertained any of them. (The last publicly reported bid was Broadcom’s $15-20 billion offer in 2021; it was progressing until Goodnight changed his mind.) A minority investment could be in the cards, according to Parson, if the right partner came along. If SAS can remain profitable, it can also stay as-is for the foreseeable future: private and founder-owned.

Sipping a cup of black coffee, this time in front of a piece of the Berlin Wall he helped smash, Goodnight is risk-adverse as ever. He is ready to stop being the face of the story he created.

“I wish people knew nothing about me,” he says, with a wink

Companies like these get doomed because they don’t recognize people’s background, capabilities and experience. They have one lens of cost reduction. The truth is person in lower level can only make their contributions that are aligned with their pay grade. You may have heard some people say “ it is above their pay grade”. Person may have abilities but so many people may have thrown stones on someone’s career that title wise you will not see the growth. And the person may stay in the lower role because another phrase you may have heard “it pays the bills”. Do the right thing. Put people in right roles. Re-interview everyone. Listen to them. Then give them roles based on their abilities. Then watch your company reach new heights.

They won’t apply to higher positions because they don’t want to be laughed at. You have to make effort to re-recruit within the company.

Transformation does not happen using traditional methods. Think different, do things differently, re-structure differently.

I did my part, you do yours.

Time to simplify and monetize Oxy asap. The games and PowerPoints no longer work…serious integrity issues in the field coupled with disappointing performance results. New CEO will soon need to create a vision and reduce company footprint to only the highest performing assets. The rest need divestment asap.

Time to clean the rot and remove these parasites now. bp deserves new people (internal and external) to ascend and take bp to a new level. Meg will not have the luxury of time…similar to Woodside there are cracks in the edifice and challenges midterm…cheerleading because trading got a massive gain while the average gains by trading the last 20 years is a paltry 4% ROC

It began with Lowell.

His first real big mis step was the 5G mm bandwidth we purchased in in May 2017. This kind of data idle, as ww got itvyhrough purchase of another company.

He hired Infosys in 2018 to outsource the IT, which was huge. He laid off 2500 IT workers, and rumor spread that some of them intentionally created system issues to plague the new outsourced IT. Back end systems have been cr-p ever since, and it is not spreading to the network..and customers are taking notice. That IT model has failed tremendously.

What really did in Verizon was about 1 month later when the Swedish Meatball, Hans Vestberg, became CEO. There was a litany of red flags, such as the fact he was let go of his prior CEO position for misappropriation of funds. And then there is that fact that he and his coalition of leaders had veey little understanding of American culture.

His huge failing was again the 5G spectrum he purchased in 2021. We had prime 4G market leverage, but we now owned the worst spectrum that 5G any company would purchase. You literally need fiber optic everywhere to use it, which defeats the point of "wireless". He tried roleversge that in yhe same manner as the 4G, but it was cr-p quality. We soon became the #3 carrier due to lack of network quality and price.

And now cometh Dan the man. His job is clean up. Seen it a thousand times. Jobs will be outsourced, and he claims AI will change things...but it won't. He is there ri gutvyhe company. Offices will also be outsourced, not just front line. All the brick and mortor will disappear, and then the next thing yiu know...

"Thanks for calling Verizon by T-Mobile".

So, what do you think?

because they dont know whats going on... and not feeling the heat because they are more engaged in retiring than managing.

Begone!

Please let the next round of layoffs happen to all the useless MDs

Look, we know you're monitoring this website. Shoot, it wouldn't be at all surprising if one of your VPs spent half the day refreshing this... or if you paid someone a Store Director's salary to do the same.

So, seriously, just between us: what's your plan?

We all have families, obligations... pets. We're doing our best to support our campuses, support our teams and continue our lives while you keep doing your best to make those things impossible.

So, again...what's your plan?

Asking for a friend.

How did my HGO OD not get impacted. He does not live in the operation. He is out of touch. He states everyone that does not agree with him or do what he says should be fired. Maybe he is should be fired. It is his way or the highway. He does not play well with others. My RM says he needs to go. My SE gets little support from SEM and SSEM. JA, look at the HGO numbers. New leadership is needed in HGO.

Like AI, Crypto, or whatever fad tech is in style to talk about.

I keep seeing some certain white dudes who never rose above Sr. Director at Nike (or anywhere!) promote themselves on LinkedIn as having been a Vice-President. Nothing says executive presence like a title from the imagination department. Anyone else see this out there??? WTF???

Why does C suite not get any punishment for tanking the stock price? All they know how to do is cut headcount and make objectively bad decisions.

We’re going to spend 2B on building this Plano Campus for no fu---n reason. Wow!! Why do we not have any money?? Guess we’ll have to make employee cuts ! We’re going to spend billions on RTO, wow, why do we not have any money? Time to cull the cattle again! We’re going to buy TWD, we’re going to give tmobile 4 billion dollars, we’re going to buy directv! Oh, I’m actually stupid?? Let’s go cut more cattle and give myself a raise for my hard work.

The layoffs in June are going to be nuclear. PoliSci Legg’s d-mb as fu-k AI push has the whole company on Microsoft’s leash, and co pilot is getting 6x more expensive starting in June. It is an abhorrent failure. He has successfully capped top performer’s usage, and given too much usage to pea brains that ask AI what the weather is today. The cost and mismanagement will be insurmountable, so layoffs of at least 10% will happen.

And all the while, the guy making 30 mil for je-king off in his office and saying “Fiber” all day is perfectly safe, somehow. The stock is down 17% in 10 years, what does he even do? Why do these guys have jobs? They contribute nothing to society but leach from the money made by employees.

It's been so helpful when managers explain processes in this debacle. It's a risk for them to do so, but it is much appreciated. The struggle here is real, your perspective is invaluable.

How is it that the largest US nat gas company missed the boat on the ai/data center bo-m? Sounds like there’s lots of high level people working to get something moving who don’t have a clue, go figure, all the while, their E&P operations are struggling, planning is awful, lack of high level leadership and planning, get your act together, your PM stock has been worthless since the previous bankruptcy which is most likely happe i g again, smh…

A commenter said: “leadership needs to be realistic about the culture issue. There are people on both sides who clearly don’t even want to be here anymore. Fine — give those people strong packages and let them move on. That is not the reality at VZ. It was demomstrated that VZ is a cliquish club. They downsize those who they dont like. They dis not care about performance.

Verizon’s side of the house seriously needs to adapt some of the ways Frontier operates because, frankly, Frontier has always done certain things better. Faster execution, scrappier teams, less bureaucracy, and way less unnecessary process wrapped around every tiny initiative.

If I get added to one more Slack channel for something that could’ve been a two-sentence message, I’m going to scream. The amount of overcomplication is exactly why work slows down.

And leadership needs to be realistic about the culture issue. There are people on both sides who clearly don’t even want to be here anymore. Fine — give those people strong packages and let them move on. But keep the people who actually care, execute, innovate, and know how to get things done without turning every task into a 40-slide deck and six approvals.

Not everything has to be “the Verizon way.” Sometimes the better answer is already sitting right in front of you.

One of richest American now, but CR is not satisfied, his goal is 1 Trillion, so next 5 LR are planning now.

Why does John Stankey's teams status right now show last seen yesterday? It does not show he is out of office or anything like that. Why is the CEO of a Fortune 50 company not working on a Friday that he is scheduled to work?

I had to do a 1 hour commute to the office and back in the middle of a busy workday so that my presence report shows that I was there. Why does the CEO get a free pass and I cannot? Is he playing at the Highland Park links today?

That tells you a lot about the 'executive' ability of the lineup that steers this ship.

Thanks for sitting down with the Houston Business Journal, M@rk. Another example of time away from the office to manage your image while the CEOs at MPC and VLO are in the office leading.

And “responding to what the world needs” is an example of M@rk overestimating the company he is supposed to be leading. Phillips contributes, sure, but the tone shows arrogance and lack of awareness of the real scope of this domestic mid con business. At the moment, all supplying the world has done is ki-l earnings and increase volatility and led to MASSIVE underperformance vs peers

Long ago MDT was all about patients and customers and everyone lined up to support that. Then they started to get functional leaders who thought their functions were more important than the mission.

HR used to be a support function with a generalist per dept or function that knew people, helped hire, fire, promote, set pay..... then HR decided they were too important to work that way and needed to specialize to be more efficient., so they pulled all the features apart and created leaders for each.

Now you have, maybe, a generalist who might know you but they are spread across many teams.

You also have recruiters, who are called "talent acquisition" with all their own rules.

You have job leveling experts who review individuals against the job family rubrics to decide if they agree someone can be promoted.

You have compensation experts who decided what people can be paid.

You have "human capital insights" who run the global voices survey.

You have the Org design experts who know how you should be structured, spans and layers and such.

You have data teams, HR systems teams, who hold all the info.

You have pay disparity teams that go through your organization and send you a mandate to change someones pay to make things more fair (though never with any incremental funding to implement, you need to find it in your own cost center)

And you of course have D&I considerations.

As a manager, this has made work so much more complicated and difficult, but its done in the name of excellence in HR?

Now you see it repeating in Operations, etc...... All at the expense of the mission, patients and customers.

Amongst all the doom and gloom I think leadership has finally started to talk about doing the basics right. 10 years wasted on trying to be a tech company and now that tech is ubiquitous thanks to AI, the leadership can finally focus on building decent cars again. Here's to hoping for better years after demise of phony leaders 🙏

It’s very evident that ConocoPhillips has created a real niche and is running on automatic. The companies top leadership and enforcement arm…HR has manufactured a false reality with pretty impressive results. What happens when timelines and realities converge and expose or challenge this fragile ecosystem? Is COP a quarterly darling or do real reality and fragility intersect?

Nike increased women in VP+ roles from 39% to 45% and minorities at Director+ level from 26% to 36% between 2021 and 2025. Considering how few senior leader roles open up each year, that’s a big change in a short time. Has the company become stronger because of it? Would Nike be in an even worse position if it hadn’t invested in DEI?

I've been in "corporate america" long enough to understand that the decision to surplus you often goes beyond just performance or willingness to improve, it often hinges on the fact if your supervisor or leadership chain like you. If they don't like you or you're always seeming to cause a problem, you're likely one of the first to be selected.

15 hour days and weekends. No breaks. Leadership does not care.

I wish I would have been in SVP or D level to not get axed. So far what I have seen only these levels are in decision panel and only vp avp getting cut. Which makes no sense though because they again hire new resources for those positions once the wave is crossed. They don't have any idea what are they doing (an ordinary VP has better understanding) just thinking themselves as king and cutting people they don't like not on merit.

He only cares about numbers. He ruins many people’s life. He destroys families.

“All managers are mandated to be in the office logged into the LAN 11 hours per day or they will be terminated.”

We can’t make this place rules up!

Bookmark it.

PNC Bank retains key leadership as 777 FirstBank employees face summer layoffs

Of the 777 FirstBank employees at 12345 West Colfax Ave. who will be laid off beginning on June 30, the company’s market presidents will not be among them.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2026/05/14/pnc-keeping-firstbank-presidents-amid-layoffs.html

Asking for a friend.

I can't remember the last time I was able to just sit down and do my job without thinking about performance rankings or future opportunities or whatever new process they've invented this month. Leadership seems obsessed with things that don't matter, and the constant distraction means nothing important ever gets done. It's counterproductive and it's ki-ling the little morale we've got left.

It makes HCSC look stupid. Just wow.
A healthcare company that doesn't sweat the details when communicating with 30 million people.
Stupid.

I think about all the talented people who have left this place not through layoffs but on their own. So many of them left because of ego clashes or small misunderstandings that could have been resolved if anyone had just acted like an adult. Treating people with respect works so much better than ruling through fear. EJ never figured that out.

Economic opportunity is one of the societal issues of our time, and Linkedin has been and will continue to be the platform that professionals and companies turn to as they navigate the changing world of work. For us to meet this moment, we must ready ourselves to deliver a step change in impact across our products, businesses, and platforms, while continuing to operate more profitably. We need to reinvent how we work, with agile teams focused on our highest priorities, and by shifting investments toward areas such as infrastructure to fulfill our mission and vision over the long term. This requires hard prioritization and tradeoffs.

Today I'm sharing the difficult decision that I, along with our leadership team, have made to reduce roles across GBO, Marketing, Engineering and Product. If you are impacted, or proposed to be impacted in EMEA & APAC, by these changes, you will receive a calendar invite to a notification meeting within the next hour. For impacted teams, you'll learn more about your org-specific information from your leaders shortly, and updates will be added to go/CompanyExchange throughout today.

In addition to role reductions, we are scaling back investments in some areas including marketing campaigns, vendor spend, customer events, and underutilized office space, so we can focus teams on priorities that have the broadest impact with the highest ROl. You will receive details about these changes from respective functional leaders.

I want to acknowledge and thank those who will be leaving Linkedin. You have helped build LinkedIn's culture and platform into what it is today, and I hope you are proud of the lasting impact your work will continue to have on our members, customers, and colleagues.
For those staying, first and foremost, I would like to invite you to support our impacted colleagues. We will move forward together with focus and clear priorities to reach our potential as the platform that the world's professionals and companies increasingly turn to.

Thank you, again, to our teammates who are departing, and to everyone across LinkedIn who continues to show up and support each other.

Dan

BCC: All Global Employees