Many on this site, myself included, feel that we were badly managed at SAS Institute.
However, a Web search will show that such complaints are common throughout the software industry.
Management of software, and technology in general, requires both technical skills and people skills. That combination is rare, so good technical management is rare.
So: are our complaints about problems specific to SAS? or about the software industry in general?
The founders of SAS Institute were “A” talent. But they consistently promoted “B” and “C” talent. The layers of sycophancy and incompetence were always there.
In the first decades of SAS, it didn’t matter. The company grew each year. So if you got under a horrible manager, it was easy to move. And the mix of strong and weak managers was competent to maintain the existing revenue stream.
Then ,open source became a competitor. Most of the people who had been promoted did not know what to do. So growth slowed; the decline began. And if you were caught under a horrible manager, you were stuck.
The inability to establish a culture of top talent was constant. The rise of open source was a change. The two collided, and that’s the basic story of SAS.
In its first decades, SAS was better than other companies. In its recent decades, it was worse. “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.”
"JP is a recent new hire to SAS (within the last 3 years), right? What is JP background and experience?"
If JP refers to Jared (I don't get the obfuscation of leadership names here - is that a site thing) he's been around a pretty good while. Was in the text analytics org at R&D before it became the machine learning org.
Just ran over to LinkedIn to look. He came to SAS in 2012.
about the same as far as direct mgmt from a people management point of view compared to other tech companies. never much process, pros/cons in reviews, criteria for promotion, next steps to consider, mentorship, visibility into career paths, etc. some great training on presentation skills and other topics. work/life balance fantastic.
not as good as far as rational financial/economic management as we can see from the commets on all threads. one of the tech companies i worked for was also bad at HR aspects, but far superior at monetization topics and discussions and rational plans, how to make business decisions, how to prioritize what questions we would answer, segments to target for growth, working with resellers, much more.
not nearly as good from a people management point of view compared to my current industry. has the process, reviews, training, mentorship, career path suggestions, Q&A on everything, HR is fairly transparent, good raises, bonuses, feedback.
overall, SAS was great at some aspects, bad at others in my experience.
JP is a recent new hire to SAS (within the last 3 years), right? What is JP background and experience?
After that question, did JP then say "Stop all this negativity! It's ruining my mojo!" ?
"No one mentions the current turnover rate, so draw you own conclusions that if it is not worth bragging then it must not be good."
I don't remember when - maybe just before or during COVID - but there was a town hall meeting where the question of turnover was raised. JP stood up and spun some tale that turnover at SAS was no worse than any other software company. Of course, he neglected that the historic SAS 2% turnover was something like 5x that at the time question was raised. And so continued the gaslighting.
“SAS is unique in that they don't dump losing products or bad managers.”
This was true during both the “great” and “good” years at SAS. During the “great” years, this flaw was masked by steadily growing revenues.
Outside SAS, the world was riskier. I had stock options at three different companies; but two of those failed. SAS offered no stock options, but it was a safe place. When we had a recession, we never noticed, because we worked at SAS.
To pay for that safety, we had to work on some bad products under bad managers. Many managers were technically unskilled, so new ideas were threatening, and decisions were political. I did not see so many of these problems on the outside.
That was the trade we made. If you joined early, and your goal was to take care of your family and retire, SAS was truly a great place to work. If your goal was to innovate and build great software, SAS was a long exercise in frustration.
For many years, family considerations required me to work in North Carolina. SAS was the best job I could find, so I never regretted joining. I only regret that my career did not produce more useful work.
“We cannot live our dreams. We are lucky enough if we can give a sample of our best.” — O. W. Holmes, Jr.
SAS is unique in that they don't dump losing products or bad managers.
Oh, why bother?
"So: are our complaints about problems specific to SAS? or about the software industry in general?"
Depends on which SAS you are talking about, the great SAS or the merely good SAS.
SAS greatness peaked during the years that SAS was keen on making the top 10 list of "Great Places to Work". During those years, the biggest complainers were those who had never worked anywhere else, thus the SAS culture was all they knew. Me coming to SAS from previous jobs where I used SAS extensively and knew how corporate America outside of SAS operated, I felt like I had landed in paradise when I got a job at SAS. Many times I told those having no work experience besides SAS how good they had it. A few got it but most did not. Having plenty of SAS experience helped me assimilate quicker. Were my managers perfect? No. But they did try and certainly cared. I felt that my hard work was appreciated and was paid fairly.
How about the current SAS, the SAS that is no longer great but merely good? For me it was hard seeing great tail spin to good. Morw and more folks either did not care or just siloed to a mode of "every man for himself". As time went on, more and more loser products were kept on life support. Solutions and the increasing and hard to understand turning of the back to the cash cows are just a couple examples of how greatness spiraled down to merely good.
Long story short, the current SAS is the good SAS and my opinion is that is has become just like most other software companies where most of the employees are merely checking a box towards retirement or towards an exit. Suspect the average years of service at the good SAS is way less than the average years of employment at that great SAS. The turn over rate bragged on during the great years was 2 percent, an awesome metric for a software company. No one mentions the current turnover rate, so draw you own conclusions that if it is not worth bragging then it must not be good.
I was lucky to experience the great years and unlucky to have ended with the good years. Those who came after the great years have no idea what they missed.
I really miss the great SAS and am relieved that I no longer have to cope with the good SAS.
Greatness can become merely good much faster than goodness can become greatness. That is just the way it is. It is a shame that so much effort got dismissively pi---d away.
Bad managers can be everywhere but SAS being private somehow tolerate bad managers more so.
Software industry in general… Not a SAS thing at all.
What many of you here fail to realize is that are plenty of areas of the company that are not technical at all. This site skews heavily R&D which is understandable but also indicates part of the overall problem. It's been a LONG time since this was a clubby little place where devs had good times and m&ms.