Based on goal setting and accomplishments, ten percent will be culled in the new year but with reduced severance (watch for new policy).
59 replies (most recent on top)
"https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/3778598162/?refId=IEjwM99TQPy4e41Vc%2Bi4jg%3D%3D&trackingId=IEjwM99TQPy4e41Vc%2Bi4jg%3D%3D"
This looks like a customer-rep position - someone whose job is to keep customers happy. I don't believe this is the type of position that is at risk for layoffs.
“If there are going to be layoffs, why is SAS recruiting for Cloud Delivery Managers on linkedin?”
Recruiting for the US, or Pune?
If there are going to be layoffs, why is SAS recruiting for Cloud Delivery Managers on linkedin?
CI 720 is twice as bad!
CI 360 is also cr-p.
@4wwq+1pQXhdC
Has CI 360 gained much ground in the marketplace?
It is supposedly a Viya-based Product and therefore should benefit from all of the wonderful high performance data plumbing available in CAS.
CI was a case study in incompetence. Here you had an attempt to invade the product space well covered by others. Why anyone would buy an untested technology when there were proven performers for less cost was beyond me and as we saw beyond the customers too. Poor managers were leading diva developers who had no experience in dealing with massive firehoses of data and it showed when the first client saw their sales weekend go down in flames. The predictable happened afterwards with some people made scapegoats and terminated while considerable churn resulted in other leaving the sinking ship. It ended up with them struggling to find people to manage the groups.
So the Viya thing didn't stop at that level. It was happening everywhere.
I'm no fan of the 'bu---r, but he is not the primary cause of SAS's downfall. The downfall of SAS lies squarely in the hands of the guy who runs the show; the guy who says "No". The buck stops there.
The Big German is the primary cause of SAS's downfall...but it wasn't his fault...he was just promoted to his level of incompetence.
An academic who got hired by SAS as a mid level developer. No doubt an exceptionally good one too. 14 years later he's been promoted CTO on the back of his technical prowess.
But was he a good businessman? Did he understand what his customers wanted? Did he even make much effort to ask them? All the evidence (including first hand experiences from many who post here, myself included) is the answer is a big fat NO.
The board at SingleStore obviously figured that out before he did too much damage.
And now he's back in academia, where he's best suited.
I wonder if him and JG still talk?
Or has JG finally realised the monumental mistake he made in trusting him?
Or whether JG even really gives a sh-t anymore?
"The result was that, while our market evolved, our product didn’t.
Finally, competition appeared. And we had promoted leaders who didn’t know how to build competitive products. They didn’t know how to create new revenue streams."
Exactly! Knowing how to build competitive products is best done with leaders having business knowledge. Not those having only academics in their repertoire. The Big German is an academic first. His Viya mess put SAS 15 years behind the curve. At the same time, the market sped past SAS. Who wants to buy a mess that SAS is unable to sell to most customers? Rhetorical question, which sadly has an obvious answer.
The most valuable SAS asset to a buyer appears to be an ever declining revenue stream. That is a hard sell if the expectation is a sale at 3x or higher than gross revenue.
We agree. I would say there were two main factors:
- For much of its history, SAS had no serious competition. We got fat and happy.
- The Peter Principle affects all large companies: “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence.”
Because of the first factor, our hierarchy didn’t require much competence. Most of our directors and managers weren’t required to compete against other products, or create new revenue streams, or do research. They only needed to be competent to maintain our existing revenue stream.
Because of both factors, we weren’t allowed to build the best software. Many of our managers didn’t know how. If you pushed them to do better, you got blamed for advocating change they did not understand. But in fairness, most of them weren’t being asked to create great software, but only to maintain it.
The result was that, while our market evolved, our product didn’t.
Finally, competition appeared. And we had promoted leaders who didn’t know how to build competitive products. They didn’t know how to create new revenue streams. And for years, they had neglected the research that could have supported new and competitive revenue streams.
Poor compensation was certainly a contributing factor. When I looked for work outside, I found a better salary, and so did all my friends. But we never would have looked, if SAS had enabled us to do good work.
There are many excellent managers and directors still employed at SAS. They’re outnumbered, and must compromise with others. They are in difficult and frustrating positions. All we can do is wish them well.
No, let me tell you how it really went down...
Why do you think we were not allowed to build the best software possible?
In my observation a lot of it was stodgy directors and managers who had worked for SAS so long but they were conditioned to “JG’s way or the highway”. Big man’s way was/is:
- protect the revenue renewal stream at all costs. This enabled the entrenchment of progressively less effective R&D and other product Directors who in some cases remained in their positions for 15+ years.
- keep salaries (at least among the rank and file) as low as possible—even when this means substandard hiring, inability to retain top talent, and the progressive frustration/bitterness of the best and most loyal “hard-core” folks.
- agree with JG that tech is not predictable more than two years out so exploratory R&D and research learning that feeds significant product evolution will be necessarily limited and mostly discouraged.
For reasons stated in 100+ different comments on various LO@SAS threads, this is why successful innovation declined over the past 15 years, even with a few Rockstars pushing as hard as they could to build new things with JG’s blessings.
No doubt many in middle-management had accumulated beach or mountain properties they still needed to pay for, so nobody is going to rock the SAS boat too hard.
These things help explain why hard-core folks who did formulate good ideas/innovation had to work 50+ hour weeks to do so. There were just not enough of us rowing in the right direction under effective leadership.
@1mek+1pQXhdCr
”I probably would have stayed for a 30% increase”.
I would have stayed for a 30% decrease — if they had allowed us to build good software. That was my reason for being there.
I pushed hard for improvements, but the managers did not know what I was talking about. They only understood that I was advocating change. So they blamed me for rocking the boat.
The inability to build good software pushed me out of the company. I worked 50-hour weeks, tried my best to effect change, and eventually drew the same conclusion as @1gna+1pQXhdCr:
“There comes a point within a SAS career where the number of f*cks you have left approaches zero. Hard work isn't rewarded, sloth isn't punished, and you don't make any progress. You realize that your role there is simply to be Charlie Brown, repeatedly charging at Lucy's football: ‘Aarrrgggghhh!'"
From the beginning, SAS has always invested significant profits into real estate.
When it was created, SAS was organized so that its software and its real estate are owned by separate companies. So the owners could easily IPO SAS software and keep the real estate.
Prestonwood was purchased thirty years ago. Chatham Park was acquired in pieces over many years.
The software business functioned quite well until recent years. Real estate investments don’t explain its decline, because they’ve been there from the beginning.
We're weren't referring to asset allocation in a 401k. We were referring to running a functional software business. The Jedi Mind Trick doesn't work here.
“I realized long ago that JHG was no longer in the software business, he was interested in real estate development.”
There’s nothing wrong with investing more conservatively as we get older. That’s just intelligent asset allocation.
Also, even in his 70s, JHG did not exit the software business. He made a big investment in SAS Viya. A disappointing investment, but at least the man was still in the arena.
What I can’t figure out is why SAS does not exit more of its less profitable product lines. That would be not only more conservative investing, but also better positioning for an IPO.
This thread was originally about SAS management evaluating performance. That’s hard. But they can certainly evaluate profit. It seems such an obvious move.
This. This right here:
"With all the nonsense I saw, I realized long ago that JHG was no longer in the software business, he was interested in real estate development. SAS was just a vehicle to pay for that development."
I was aggressively recruited by big tech during my final years at SAS. Kept hanging on out of a sense of loyalty to the company's historical accomplishments and because I had been a solid innovator and hard-core across a multi-decade career.
For many of the reasons repeated on this and other threads, the cognitive dissonance finally became too much. I left for an equity position totalling 2X my SAS compensation.
The Director of my division ask what SAS could do. Honestly, I probably would have stayed for a 30% increase (which would've seemed astronomical by SAS' calculus) but am now I'm glad didn't.
There is life outside of SAS. There are better systems of management, brilliant highly productive engineers, opportunities to travel and to further your career skills. it will feel unfamiliar at first and you will likely have to suffer some inconvenience, but if you are already hard-core, this will seem Insignificant relative to the mental clarity and perspective you gain.
I am a somewhat recent departure (left on my own, not laid off). I came in after the "great" times that are talked about so often on here and from former colleagues. I always thought maybe I was just out of touch, and just didn't get it. That is until I found this site and read some of your stories.
I've worked for a couple big tech companies, and some smaller ones. I agree that SAS needs to step up, ki-l off the under performing products/teams and areas of the business as well as make some headcount reductions across the board. SAS is way too fat with employees IMO and a 30% haircut is really what is needed. It's almost comical coming from lean companies that got far more done with far fewer people. I can't tell you how many CC's I was on with 8-10 SAS folks and 1-2 customers employees. Just scheduling calls as SAS was a full time job (clusterF if you will). What I also saw often felt like SAS trying to be everything to everyone across all industries. I saw so many science projects.
There truly are some great folks at SAS, but Dr. G and leadership need to make some hard decisions if they really want to right the ship, take the company public and have any chance of growth and survival.
I wish all my former colleagues, and others all the best and I'll always be a fan of SAS. I will tell you that there is life outside of SAS and it is quite refreshing in many areas.
"source does not specify if the cited $97m revenue figure is GROSS revenue or NET revenue."
Typically revenue per employee is GROSS revenue per employee. And that makes JMP's $243k per JMP employee look very underwhelming.
The true net revenue per JMP employee likely does not cover JMP salaries + benefits. That could be the reason JMP has not been spun off to sell separately.
Broadcom is well versed in acquisitions, which means they have top notch folks in finance and likely those folks make a living by sniffing out losers when they examine the books of a company they are considering buying. Maybe Broadcom got cold feet and walked away from buying SAS? Hot buys tend to sell fast ...
"...Three of us were Principals, but the manager was required to replace us all with Juniors. That's because SAS is not trying to retain talent; they're trying to cut costs. That's a good way to prepare for an IPO, but not a way to grow.
I don't regret working hard. We had a chance to succeed, and when you're given a fair chance, you work hard to make the most of it. And when you're no longer given a fair chance, a sensible person moves on..."
With all the nonsense I saw, I realized long ago that JHG was no longer in the software business, he was interested in real estate development. SAS was just a vehicle to pay for that development.
There comes a point within a SAS career where the number of f*cks you have left approaches zero. Hard work isn't rewarded, sloth isn't punished, and you don't make any progress. You realize that your role there is simply to be Charlie Brown, repeatedly charging at Lucy's football. "Aarrrgggghhh!"
"how do they know who is "bottom"?
Does 15 years of baking yet hardly anyone paying for it qualify as "bottom"? That product(Viya) was touted as the future. The future is here now and it doesn't look so great.
SAS needs a COO who has the ability to quickly shed non productive products as well as the staff associated with them. Nothing new, as others have said the same thing.
Loser product? Does JMP qualify? Their revenue per employee is $243k.
Supposedly JMP revenue is $97m and has 400 employees. That is $243k per employee and quite low in the software industry. Source is site below and that source does not specify if the cited $97m revenue figure is GROSS revenue or NET revenue.
https://www.zoominfo.com/c/jmp-nordics/20775103
Make that three of us. I'll bet we all know each other -- and there are many like us.
I was not as "hardcore" as some; I only averaged 50 hours per week. I finally ran into yet another manager who had his favorites, of which I was not one. I did everything he asked, and worked the 50 hours, but that was only what he asked -- not what he wanted.
So I was one of those few hundred who left during the pandemic stimulus bo-m. I got a raise, and a little equity. After I left, one by one the rest of our small team left.
Three of us were Principals, but the manager was required to replace us all with Juniors. That's because SAS is not trying to retain talent; they're trying to cut costs. That's a good way to prepare for an IPO, but not a way to grow.
I don't regret working hard. We had a chance to succeed, and when you're given a fair chance, you work hard to make the most of it. And when you're no longer given a fair chance, a sensible person moves on.
good theories, but how do they know who is "bottom"? by stack rankings from inept (except for the company specific political game of survivor) managers? you'll be left with their inept lackies doing the same. by inputs with "hard core" = hours worked (which is a stupid definition plus how will they know)? how do they know what is a "loser" product when the revenue allocation is unclear and gamed by sales depending on the incentives? or does it even matter at all and the answer can be very rough guesses with some "justification", all in the name of boosting revenue per employee?
"Corporate compassion for loser products is a big reason that revenue is flat."
Would someone identify and rank the loser products with the worst offenders at the top of the list?
"Unfortunately for SAS, I finally realized SAS was beyond hope and redemption with incompetent managers and management ignoring the quiet quitting employees but overworked the hardcore ones without compensating the hardcore and taking advantage of them and no matter all the extra hours I worked, nothing was ever going to change for the better."
I am glad you left on your terms and don't appear to hold too much of a grudge in consideration of your work ethics. What you said above is a very common theme that I hear from other co-workers and friends. The feeling of not being recognized verbally and financially, while others do the bare minimum which possibly creates resentment. In some cases, the dynamics between those who have hard wired work ethics & those who do the bare minimum can unfortunately be rationalized, as they probably see that nothing is going to change too. Catch 22. I can only blame this situation on poor management that enables this virus to flourish.
@1rpg+1pQXhdCr cont.
I pushed so hard to innovate in the final decade of my career, especially WRT getting SAS positioned technologically for * **** infrastructure. Unfortunately, the correct strategy mostly seemed above management’s comprehension. A few got it but we’re not in a position to influence JG and the bureaucracy to move in what could’ve been a much more productive direction.
You and I have virtually identical stories and we likely know each other.
SAS hasn't had a true "formal" performance reviews in years, at least for 10 years. I was told once it was because Millennials and Gen Z do not like to get negative feedback or criticism because it hurt their feelings. How crazy is that! Management is afraid to give true performance reviews with negative or constructive criticisms.
"True, a lot of employees were forced out -- but not the "hardcore". That refers to hard-working employees whom SAS was not pressuring to leave."
Correct. The hardcore employees were never forced or pressured to leave no matter their age. SAS does not know who are the good vs bad employees but they always know who the hardcore employees are. I ought to know because I was one of those very hardcore employees that they depended on. I left SAS after 30 years recently because SAS was beyond hopeless.
I never once worked 35 hours a week at SAS. I always worked 45-65 hours a week at SAS on a regular basis. That's right. The very first week I started at SAS I worked 45 hours a week (while the rest of my co-workers worked 35 hours a week) every week. Several years later I went to other groups in R&D where I worked 45 hours a week every week, then later in another group I worked 55 hours a week every week for years. Then in the last 3 months at SAS I was working 65 hours a week every week at SAS. I had to take on additional work from other groups and my own co-workers because they could not make the deadlines. I did all the work and made all the deadlines, my own and some of my co-workers and even my manager's over the years because I worked ungodly hours but with not additional pay or rewards or even recognition. You'd think they would treat me right to keep me but no.
Why did I work hardcore like that for so long at SAS while most people did not? Because I am just a hardcore person who put in all the efforts and then some no matter where I work or what I do and I am also a very loyal person. Unfortunately for SAS, I finally realized SAS was beyond hope and redemption with incompetent managers and management ignoring the quiet quitting employees but overworked the hardcore ones without compensating the hardcore and taking advantage of them and no matter all the extra hours I worked, nothing was ever going to change for the better.
Fortunately for me I was able to leave SAS on my own terms with no regrets (no package, no VRBP, no layoff). I simply finally had enough of SAS and its toxic environment in the last few years. SAS did not want to lose me but I was just so ready to lose SAS. You know what they say...I need to lose you to love me.
I actually love SAS and only wish the best for SAS going forward. SAS has made so many mistakes. It's not too late to change course and right the ship but I doubt SAS will ever do the right thing anymore to make it another 10 years.
Thank you for the mention of the 9-Square. That was enlightening.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/whatsa9boxgridandhowcananhrdepartmentuseit.aspx
The trouble with that system is that you need competent, professional management staff in order to use this properly. Otherwise, the box ratings will be based on subjective, non-quantifiable political metrics. SAS doesn't possess competent, professional management staff, and they dare not collect objective, quantifiable metrics like other organizations do. Collecting those would reveal much and collapse the whole facade.
It would have been nice to know where I fell on that grid and to have had a manager who engaged in productive conversations about rankings and improvement strategies. Professionalism was simply too much to ask for.
This has been going on for years but they never tell the rating to employees. Ask your manager after the review cycle about your OTR rating (where do you fall in the "nine square")? Then watch them squirm as they are totally unprepared to talk about it with employees. They are put in the awkward position of rating employees without the ability to share that with employees. Absolutely awful system.
"Does that mean at this year's review you will be assigned a rank or at least a number based on your performance? And will you know this number? New policy, probably capping the weeks they pay out. I am guessing this will be in leu of a voluntary retirement, as it would be cheaper."
The VMWare acquisition is what Broadcom always does. They acquire enterprise software companies with bloated workforces and declining revenue streams. They’ve done this so many times, they’re quite efficient at it.
Acquired employees are placed in one of three buckets: retained, laid off, or laid off after n months. Those laid off after n months work in areas where Broadcom needs the time to transfer their technical knowledge.
Broadcom retains just enough employees to maintain the declining revenue stream —usually around 50%.
Acquired employees are notified which bucket they’re in soon after the acquisition closes. It’s brutal, but professional.
It’s also quite profitable. The previous exemplar of this business model was CA Technologies. Broadcom acquired them five years ago.
This is how the software industry always works. A few companies innovate and grow, like Microsoft and Google. Those that don’t innovate and grow, get acquired, by Broadcom or someone like them.
True, a lot of employees were forced out -- but not the "hardcore". That refers to hard-working employees whom SAS was not pressuring to leave.
Unfortunately, SAS wasn't paying them well enough to stay, either. During the pandemic stimulus, lots of companies were hiring, and paying well. SAS lost several hundred of its best employees during that "brain drain".
Late in 2021, there was a salary adjustment for "top performers". Most of the horses were out of the barn and down the road by then.
"Why did many-if-not-most of these hardcore employees leave? At the top of the list: substandard pay (given their skills and productivity), no equity, and time/effort wasted dealing with too much mediocre BS around them. "
Weren't a lot of them forced out?
Vmware has 38,300 employees before the layoff by Broadcom.
They axed 7% of the workforce in one day (2837 out of 38,300) today.
If they layoff the planned 20,000 out of 38,300 in the next several months that's 52% of the employees gone. Wow!
Any new buyer of SAS will most likely layoff a large number of SAS employees in the future
They'll have to ... it's the only way to salvage future profit and any possibility of ongoing innovation that actually matters.
Broadcom bought VMware for $69 Billion and is now laying off at least 2837 as of today's afternoon. VMware workers from VA, MA, TX, WA, NY, GA, CO, CA ... got cut. 1267 jobs got cut at VMware headquarters in Palo Alto, CA alone. More VMware layoffs will be coming. A source inside VMware said the total number of cuts will number between 10,000 and 20,000 with many of the layoffs are staggered up to nine months out.
Good thing Broadcom did not buy SAS three years ago or else SAS would suffer the same fate as VMware. Any new buyer of SAS will most likely layoff a large number of SAS employees in the future.