Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

@3obf+1pH4BhK3

“Your manager may produce the list of trumped-up charges as a way of dealing with a situation. That's what happened in my case.”

That happened in my case too. My manager presided over duplicate code, which I advised them to consolidate. They also had a complex design, which I showed them how to simplify.

I was warned by a colleague that “some of these managers like to build complex duplicate systems. They think it gives them more power.” Unfortunately, I did not heed that warning.

I was put under a Performance Improvement Plan. HR warned me that if I did not “improve” in the opinion of my manager, I might be fired at any time. Among the trumped-up charges were that my “insubordinate behavior” in suggesting alternatives had “delayed our progress”.

That’s when the kindly HR lady privately advised that she could not help me. I needed to either please this manager, or find another job.

My manager’s Director came to me, and said, I know you have to leave. It’s best for your career if you can find an open position. But if you can’t, then just find some manager who wants you, and I’ll sign the transfer papers.

That was SAS management — as @3got+1pH4BhK3 said, a bell-shaped curve. The toxic ones were truly toxic, but the good ones were truly good.

SAS was growing at that time, so I was able to find an open position. I never saw that manager again; I hope I never do. But the Director who offered to reduce their headcount for me — I’d do anything for that person.

In a perverse twist on "trickle down economics", SAS employees provided a steady stream of income for local therapists.

"SAS made them a manager for a reason..."
Yes, they did, using specious business logic to guide those decisions.

I had one manager who was so bad, they failed upwards...twice! My therapist received a lot of business during those trying times. Some colleagues had more pernicious outcomes.

In some ways, it's probably easier to fail someone upward than it is to deal with their craziness. Get them close to seats of power so that it's easier to keep an eye on them. Just like you would if you charged with minding someone's errant child.

Only go to HR for party planning advice. They don't want to hear about what's going on in your department. Going to them to try to figure out what in the he-l's going on in a crazy situation may result in your own demise. Once called, your manager may produce the list of trumped up charges as a way of dealing with a situation. That's what happened in my case.

SAS managers tend to stay at their management positions for a very long time, almost forever. They don't ever seem to step down or step aside from their management positions even when they are not good or capable of handling their jobs.
If you have a bad manager, you need to escape and find another job within SAS or outside of SAS. HR protects the managers, not you.

@3got+1pH4BhK3

A friend left SAS for Cisco and reported back, “There’s bad management everywhere.” I know that’s true, particularly in the tech field. The Internet is full of complaints.

I also heard the same as you did, from an HR rep: ”SAS put your manager in that place and it's up to you to figure out how to work things out with them.” This philosophy of “The manager is always right” is not unique to SAS, but it’s unhealthy.

I believe that SAS promoted an unusual percentage of poorly qualified managers. This is shown by the sales. During the Internet bo-m, a time of explosive growth of data, they could not grow a company that analyzed data.

My friend got what they needed from therapy, and left their manager. That manager had 30% turnover, but retained their position. That lack of remedial action is also is an unusual feature of SAS.

Like you, I joined SAS when it it was one of the best software companies in the world. I stayed a few years too long, but that was my choice. I finally left for a better job during the pandemic stimulus bo-m, along with a lot of other people.

Thanks so much for sharing your experience. Sharing stories on this site helps others heal.

... therapy also taught:

Use negative situations to assess my own deficiencies. None of us are perfect and for the sufficiently self-aware, even bad managers can act as a "mirror" to show us where we need to grow. Do the growth while finding an opportunity to work for someone else or a strategy to cope with the bad manager (a situation that won't go on forever).

@3got+1pH4BhK3 ... continued

1. It was my personal choice to remain at SAS for as long as I did. After assessing my personal circumstances, educational background/specific technical skills, the overall tech landscape, and my already demonstrated professional capabilities, remaining at SAS seemed like the best option, given the personal insight/maturity level I had at the time (early 1990s).

2. Managers don't always show their negative attributes right away. This was the case in the situations I faced. in the first instance, I ultimately went "skip level" and used accumulated career credibility to move to a different manager.

3. I was taught from childhood not to run from difficult problems, even when they cause anxiety and seem insurmountable. I entered therapy for personal issues not related directly to work and eventually brought up the management situation and used a few sessions to gain the necessary tools to deal with them -- again, after making the personal decision to remain it SAS for stated above.

4. It is not an exaggeration to say that SAS was in the 80s and early 90s ahead of its time, WRT, workplace amenities and tech workplace culture . R&D provided an opportunity to work on projects at a level of technical depth that was very difficult to get at other companies, -- especially in my specific discipline. SAS was rapidly growing, and there was hope in the knowledge that I would not have to indeterminately remain under a bad manager.

@3rmn+1pH4BhK3

Thanks for the additional details. FWIW, I was in therapy a couple of different times during my SAS career and managers were part of the reason -- so I have empathy for your friend/colleague, and others here who have had bitter experiences with SAS management.

At one point long ago, I spoke to my HR rep about what was going on and she basically said "SAS put your manager in that place and it's up to you to figure out how to work things out with them -- they have the higher ground". Apparently this was JG's management philosophy.

My HR rep was empathic and went as far as to say that she was having difficulties with her manager -- someone who now holds a very high position in the company.

I had roughly 10 different managers within R&D over a 30+ year career. They pretty much matched a bell shaped curve on the continuum of bad to good.

I have no doubt that it does not ease the pain to state this, but I have heard similar stories from other companies, especially older school industry giants like IBM, Oracle, SAP, etc. and even West Coast cloud juggernauts as they have matured.

No doubt, there are a number of reasons why poor managers exist, lacking empathy and being more occupied with self-interest than the well-being of their employees being at the top of the list.

After processing a lot of the pain and cognitive dissonance surrounding some of my own SAS management situations, the biggest takeaway from therapy was accepting personal responsibility around how to de-stress, respond, move on and trust myself to make decisions in the face of their micromanaging/controlling behavior.

This helped a lot as my SAS career continued for another 25+ years after the first incident with plenty of opportunities to test/refine the therapy lessons.

On this Thanksgiving day, I'm grateful for my now completes SAS career. Was fortunate to work with many excellent professionals around the globe.

@2pme+1pH4BhK3

When I wrote that, I had in mind a friend who went into therapy because of their manager at SAS.

I did not mean to attack anyone’s career, but only to suggest that our conversation be gentler, because some people had traumatic experiences.

My own career was not as traumatic. I moved about the company, and had both great managers and poor ones. So the “trauma bonding” theory resonates with me, because I had both positive and negative experiences.

But I had a decent career. For me, the story of SAS is more about lost potential than trauma. The Internet boomed, the world got flooded with data, and we had one of the best products for data analysis. Sales should have grown.

SAS didn’t screen their managers for qualifications, or give them much training. That partly explains both the trauma and the sales.

@1xiu+1pH4BhK3

I agree with your general sentiment. However' personal pain is not justification to 💩 on the SAS careers of others who had different experiences ... or were otherwise able to separate the 🐂💩 from the good they got out of working for SAS.

@1xkz+1pH4BhK3

Much respect and thank you for sharing!

In spite of all of the SAS negatives being truthfully expressed in these many threads, gratitude that the company did not initiate significant layoffs sooner is also in order.

Whether realized or not, over the past decade many SAS employees traded increased job security for lower pay and being allowed to continue in jobs that required skill sets very difficult to "sell" outside of SAS ... especially R&D employees.

JG has historically stated that it's very difficult to predict tech trends past about two years out. Perhaps he's been iterating over that for the past decade, thinking that somehow SAS can continue plodding along with natural attrition forestalling significant layoffs. Reality is finally coming home to roost.

"I hurt for those who I care about that are still there in that difficult window of 55-69."

I'd put the ages I feel for at around 40-58'ish. Having put in 15-25+ years in at SAS and then forced to find something new has to be pretty tough.

If you're 69 .. well ... I'd say be thankful for such a good run.

Donald & Walter splain’n it to us like only they can … listen carefully cause’ the whole story is right here:

https://youtu.be/FiK2qICPP4o?si=vLXCreE9HEZIBEdG

Really interesting discussion - as one who reached 25 years at SAS 2 weeks after being laid off (technically still on the payroll so SAS recognized me on the internal website and I got my framed 25 year congratulatory letter from JHG), it is interesting to see what people are saying here.

My work career spanned 43 years and 3 employers... 4 years Teaching, 14 in IT for a manufacturing company and 25 at SAS. Contrasting the IT/Manufacturing job with the SAS job - the IT/Manufacturing job was MUCH more demanding...

Manufacturing is a 24x7x365 world - and the IT work supported that, so it was harsh and demanding. 45-50 hour weeks with night and weekend work was typical and I doubt I would have made it the last 25 years of my career in that environment. But it was there that I learned SAS and used it to develop QC applications in Manufacturing. That led to the opportunity to work for SAS.

At SAS I was first in Sales - the most stressful job I've ever had... Those who say SAS had no competition for a long time just do not know what they are talking about. SAS had MANY competitors - because SAS had many uses, and each area where SAS could be used had its own competitors who specialized in that area. This made selling SAS much more difficult than people imagine.

The majority of my SAS career was spent in R&D - in various testing roles. The job was challenging and required lots of time and effort. It never was as hard as the IT/Manufacturing job - so it seemed great to me. But it was still demanding and while I didn't work 50 hours a week, nights and weekends - it was still hard work.

Until the last few years, SAS was a good place to work. Yes there were difficult managers, but nothing like I experienced in the IT/Manufacturing job. You've never experienced any stress until a plant manager calls the Corporate IT director 15 minutes after you started working on a problem at his plant - wanting to know why he's still down... or when you are in a meeting with a plant manager and multiple vendors working together on a project - all pointing fingers at each other to explain why the project is failing... screaming/yelling... everything just short of physical violence. I had NOTHING at SAS that came close to those experiences.

Not long after I came to work at SAS - I figured out that at some point down the road this would be the fate of SAS - it was clear that they could never quite get ahead of the technology curve, were always just a step or two behind. I am acutally surprised that it survived as long as it did without decline (well visible decline). I expected it to happen when I was 58, not 68. I was one of the lucky ones - I survived it. I hurt for those who I care about that are still there in that difficult window of 55-69. I hope they make it but doubt it will be a smoothe road.

I’m grateful for this conversation; I never heard of “trauma bonding” before, and would not have applied it to a relationship between a person and a company. It fits, though.

Folks, please keep the conversation gentle. One way to recover from trauma bonding is to talk with others who shared the experience. Remember that, for those with recent experience, the pain is fresh.

@1yig+1pH4BhK3

Perhaps you’ve already sought professional help for your trauma. If not, that might be a great goal for 2024.

Mentally healthy adults regularly access their situation, risks. etc., WRT to the acquisition of income (employment, entrepreneurship, etc.), allocation of resources and ultimately survival — frequently making corresponding decisions and taking responsibility for them.

Apparently, you chose to do these things while remaining in the employ of SAS. Perhaps instead you could have chosen other, more optimal employment circumstances, returned to the university to better your chances of success on interviews at companies you presently perceive to be better for you, etc..

YOU, however, chose to remain at SAS for a protracted period of time and now YOU have regrets. These are yours to deal with as an adult. Please give yourself permission (and grace) to do so.

Happy Thanksgiving from someone who wadded through a lot of SAS company sh-t for 30+ years and still came out OK 👌

What a defensive response. Again, "trauma bonded".

SAS is nothing more than a poorly-managed software company where many of us worked. We were sold one story, while we experienced another. SAS is long past its apogee, regardless of how hard we did or did not work, the POC's won or lost, etc. None of us "carried the day".

Here's an exercise that may be helpful. Say it to yourself out loud in the mirror, it's perfectly okay:
"SAS is simply a company, nothing more. The company was poorly managed, and its employees weren't unique and special. It is a work environment much like many others. With this realization, I give myself permission to be released from the SAS trance."

Then snap your fingers, shake your head and clear your mind, then go about your day.

@1mnu+1pH4BhK3

I'm well aware of what "trauma bonding" is and personally experienced much of it at SAS, having work for some of the most controlling, difficult managers (as recognized by others, not merely myself), will continuing to "carry the flag" for how great SAS was.

However, I maintain the core of employees, who went far beyond the "extra mile" for years and decades significantly carried the company forward and helped to balance productivity drain caused by the 30 to 35 hour per weekers who collected salaries while doing the minimum to remain employed.

As to your assertion that SAS' lack of competition is the principal reason why the company succeeded for so long. It is certain that collectively a few thousand sales/pre-sales/tech-support/R&D leaders who regularly engaged with customers, worked on strategic POCs (that SAS won), etc. would disagree with your assertion.

SAS has had significant competition across many areas since the late 90s. The fact that SAS succeeded in head-to-head competitive situations is a testimony to the loyalty, intelligence and hard work of many employees.

Open source analytics/data management, and the transition of enterprise software technology to the cloud are the biggest reasons why SAS is currently in decline. The company just was not able to keep up for many reasons already stated across SAS threads on this website.

“Trauma bonding” is certainly descriptive. Many of us with long careers at SAS developed an emotional attachment to the place, and experienced a cycle of both positive and abusive managers.

In the early days, the abuse was mitigated by the steadily growing revenue stream. There was always hiring, and new projects being started. So if you had a bad manager, it was easy to move. That’s difficult nowadays.

Nowadays there’s also more trauma, because of the constant threat of layoffs. This puts pressure on managers as well as employees, and people under pressure don’t always do the right thing.

When SAS was growing, it was worth the risk of getting a toxic manager. Now that it’s shrinking, I could not recommend anyone joining it. And as @qlb+1pH4BhK3 said, “If you are there now, plan your exit.”

Oh ge-z. Now there's an argument as to who did what. Typical SAS politics after the fact.
SAS enjoyed success because there were no competitors. It was a moment in time that won't be repeated.

Again, we're back to "trauma bonding". Look it up.

@1kuc+1pH4BhK3

And without those of us who worked 50+ hour weeks and kept our skills up, SAS would not have sustained its place as long as it did. We carried what others were unwilling or unable to do.

The toxicity I saw was not "consistent with human experience". Maybe you were lucky. I also worked "50+ hour weeks". In return, I was treated badly -- and friends were treated worse.

35-hour weeks, under poorly qualified managers, are not a sustainable business model. If SAS Foundation products had not enjoyed a near-monopoly, this would not have worked for so many years.

In spite of dealing with periodic toxicity (which is pretty consistent with human experience everywhere), I actually had an excellent long-term career at SAS and developed a rare and valuable skill set within R&D that served me well after leaving. This came at a cost of many 50+ hour weeks between working past the SAS mandated 35, along with nearly constant technical upskilling (much of this research learning in service of the project I was working on at the time) in the evenings and on weekends. Historically, I knew this to be the case for several top performers within R&D.

That whole "Best Place to Work" was cultism at its finest. Like the original poster, I too was the object of envy from my peers. "You work at SAS!?! You're so lucky!" I'm not convinced the honor was worthy of the praise.

This praise, along with the "we never lay anyone off" myth created additional traps in which many of us were caught. The public belief of the "no layoffs" myth, along with the myth that "few at SAS actually do work", was really damaging. To do good work and then get laid off from Shangri La paints your image in a negative light, increasing the difficulty of finding other opportunities.

In reality, SAS was just a job, it wasn't a career. When you reality test the "Best Place to Work" against jobs at other companies, you find that SAS is better than some, but falls short of others. There are other companies that provide better benefits, better equity, and better work-life balance, all without all cult-like atmosphere.

With all the praise and nonsense that came with SAS, many of find ourselves "trauma bonded" to this lousy company. We read and write these posts to make sense of those feelings. SAS is nothing more than an albatross around our necks that many would gladly be free of.

Software management is tough: it requires both technical skills and management skills. That combination is rare. So on the Internet, you can find plenty of complaints about software management.

As others have written, SAS did not pay the best, or provide equity. So although we hired some top talent, they were a minority. And we generally promoted from within.

This meant that our managers were often lacking in technical skills or management skills. So it was easy for them to create toxic environments. After several horrible experiences, I realized that they didn’t mean to -- they just weren't good at their jobs.

Nonetheless, the SAS model worked — and the 35-hour week worked — and even the toxic management worked — as long as the SAS Foundation products had no competitors.

But once you acquire competitors — and they work more than 35-hour weeks — under professional managers — then the SAS model doesn’t work anymore.

Here is an opportunity to see the future: China just approved Broadcom’s acquisition. Broadcom is a serial acquirer, one of the best in our industry. Watch what happens to VMWare.
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1gTMqgMW

As @qlb+1pH4BhK3 said, “plan your exit.”

@qlb+1pH4BhK3

… as someone who was a SAS user in the early 80s and then came to work at SAS for over 35 years, I can attest to the “we are SAS family” vibe that our early culture, especially , inculcated in many of us. So many SAS folk, especially within R&D (because the historically built unique proprietary skills can be difficult to transfer to another company), remained at SAS for decades and naturally passed this cultural vibe on as younger folks joined. The truth is JG and his natural family encouraged this sort of loyalty/fealty. The extremely low turnover was advertised as profitable portion of their business model, because they did not have to continually retrain people.

Many tech companies have similar cultural attributes, even more so among their longer-term veteran employees. It’s not necessarily a bad thing and I suspect it’s the reality for many who post here, including me. SAS was “like family” in a very real sense for a whole lot of us. For a long time the SAS culture certainly support of that belief. I mean, someone with 20 years in the company can tolerate a toxic manager when said employee’s house in Cary is paid for, they work 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM and make their teenager’s after school events, and pretty much be guaranteed ongoing employment as long as they deliver a solid 35-hour work week and rarely question their manager’s “authority”. For a significant swath of the SAS employee population, this sort of work life dynamic existed for 25 or 30 years and most folks have only awakened to find it in jeopardy in the past 3-5 years.

While working at SAS, I had the advantage of working at a satellite office, away from the Cary bubble. It gave me a healthy perspective on the company. When I told people I worked there, I would only get the blank stare and follow-up question, "where? what's 'saas'?". I also didn't get the benefits available to staff on campus, including the campus itself. When you strip the employee experience of all the on-campus frills, you are left with below-market pay, and benefits that only match the market--and a company with no brand recognition.
If you are there now, plan your exit. Build your skills and your resume--get certifications, earn that next degree, etc.--so that your interview for that next job is successful. Also, don't get caught up in being 'part of SAS' as a company. At the end of the day, it's just a job, not a mission or family or whatever other garbage HR tells you to inspire you to stay. Just stay as long as it benefits you, and then move on.

I always shake my head in wonder when interns and other young people start their jobs at SAS.