JP wants platform division to catalog their skills in an AI HR system. What could possibly go wrong?
20 replies (most recent on top)
"the way it has played out is a significant reason why it is not producing relevant new products that can gain significant share in even niche markets."
That explains more than anything else why a sale or IPO might not ever happen.
@1dw+1jpayrs2g
I did talk to my manager about being overworked but nothing changed. He did not do anything and denied it.
Be careful! An ignored email may become a bullet item on your list of trumped up charges. It was for me -- an email asking me to solve a particular problem that I'd solved 3 times already.
Nobody, except for maybe a handful of executives at SAS is getting paid enough to consistently work 70 to 75 hours a week. A big irony in the history of SAS was the advertised 35 hour work week. No one I knew in R&D who was productive and successful worked less than 42 consistently and often up to 50 or 55.
If you negotiated for raises and promotions then given the job security you were getting paid decently but not great, mostly not because of a low base salary but because of lack of equity during the greatest run up of publicly traded tech companies in history.
The problem was exacerbated by the fact for most of SAS history, the majority of R&D worked on proprietary technology and homegrown libraries/APIs that made it very difficult to successfully move to another company because your primary skill set would not transfer easily. If you were already working 45 hours a week consistently and had any family commitments at all, who had the time and mental energy to spend hundreds of hours studying the successfully interview somewhere else?
In a very real sense an environment was created where the “solid citizen“ contributors to SAS’ success could not, practically speaking work less than 45 hard, focused hours most weeks in so doing made it very difficult to leave even if they wanted to. This dynamic sure seemed baked into the corporate culture and perhaps it was even by design. Crystalize the cash cow products on proprietary technology dating back 40 years and just keep the milking process moving along through progressively more micromanagement.
Reward employees with plenty of amenities, a very nice workplace, and job security as long as they play the game correctly. Give the management hierarchy more so they will “mush the troops” and keep everything moving along. SAS is certainly not the only place where this dynamic prevails, but the way it has played out is a significant reason why it is not producing relevant new products that can gain significant share in even niche markets.
Why would you not talk to your manager about the overload, and ask for a decision about which one to put off until later so that you are back to a reasonable workload? (I am asking a sincere question.)
"to take on extra projects that are not your own or from your own group but from another group is not fun because of all the extra over time."
Been in that situation several times.
If not coming from your manager, just say no or if you don't feel good doing that, then ignore those emails soliciting your free help. Do not attend any meetings hosted by the parasites who wants your free labor.
The problem with SAS is that the ones that are slow and lazy get to pass on their projects onto other co-workers that work harder and do anything to make the deadlines so the harder worker end up working overtime for their stuff and others' stuff. This doesn't happen to all of SAS, but some areas at SAS. It comes back to management not holding people responsible in some areas.
Extra projects require even more additional overtime and you don't get paid for overtime. You still have to do your own job which most of the time requires some extra over time already for some people. Then if you have extra projects, it's not like you can give up some of your current responsibilities to do the extra projects. Extra projects are just that, extra on top of your job. It happened to me and I ended up working 70 -75 hours a week for long periods of time for weeks and months. If you don't have a demanding job with deadlines all the time you may not care but if you're in R&D and already work extra over time on a regular basis, having to take on extra projects that are not your own or from your own group but from another group is not fun because of all the extra over time. So if you're already working 50-60 hours, then it can get to 70-75 hours quick.
@169+1jpayrs2g What’s wrong with extra projects? Why would you get paid extra.
You are a well compensated salaried worker.
I do whatever needs done and am happy to help
If you update your skill list with "all" the skills you actually have, don't be surprised if you get pulled into some extra projects that are not even under your job responsibilities so prepare to do some extra work (with no extra pay) that someone else doesn't want to do and claims they don't know (even if they do).
Asking for an updated skill listing is one of the strategies used to prepare for future layoffs. See "Life After Layoffs" on YouTube, along with information on how IBM uses HR Analytics platforms.
These "skills lists" detail who has been keeping up with market needs, and who hasn't. Since a few comments mention that it's been done in previous years, there is now longitudinal data on employee development. Those active in their development stand a much better chance than those who are stagnant. Ignore this at your own peril.
is that the same database you have to enter the 5 things you accomplished this week?
can the floor admins enter your skills like they could make sh*t up for RDtime? is that even a thing anymore
asking for several friends :-)
catalog their skills in an AI HR system…
I suggest waiting a short bit for the release of the OpenAI Minder, which is a productivity monitoring agent that watches and maintain metrics for everything you do while on the job. It can automatically classify the tasks you perform into skills and knowledge areas so there’s no need for an error-prone employee-maintained skills database. At $30 per employee each month, it’s projected to easily return up to ten times that much due to the insights it can provide into worker strengths and efficiency.
At the end of last year JP asked everyone to inventory skills in a different system, workday.
I remember back circa 2015ish there was a database for us to enter our skills. Seemed to coincide with the BI craze that was mega sizzle but almost zero $$$. Everyone I knew entered their skills once and mostly ignored it going forward. Best I could tell it was never used or very lightly used by management. Or maybe used quite a bit and that was a well kept secret and we all know well kept secrets at SAS are as scarce as customers embracing Viya.
I, for one, welcome our new HR AI overlords.
— Company Man
Remember when R&D had a similar survey for testers and then used that data to lay them off?
Be wary of anything from HR.
"Put in the minimum number of skills so that you don't get su-ked into something that you don't want to do."
That's a wild take at a time where companies are actively looking to downsize where possible. I'll get my popcorn.
Not just JP - I think it will be company-wide.
Put in the minimum number of skills so that you don't get su-ked into something that you don't want to do.
A lot for people that don’t have skills :)
The problem with it is people are going to say they have skills that they don’t really have. And it is never going to catch the intangible skills that make some people more valuable than the skilled people even if they don’t have that particular skill.