Using last names so this post doesn't get taken down
Any I missed whos Raul gonna axe next??
Where did Finchy land? Possibly in the same place as Grinchy Kristie?
"DXC currently has a culture of a one way communications channel with the execs. Debate or criticism or even questions is not possible. This is why this place and others have grown up - because the criticism doesn't stop just because they won't engage with it."
Even the town halls these days support this, the duration has dropped and the only questions addressed are carefully curated ones submitted in advance. They are not town halls they are internal advertising.
"its what will drive re-invention of business through Gen AI"
Ah yes.... the magic beans that will save everyone
To clarify what I meant in the most recent post below - supply chain removed the PC memory from the catalog in the DXC ERP system so you couldn’t order it. Even though there was still a huge number of those in use within the company. Not in the catalog meant it was now a non-standard part for a standard piece of equipment. To get a non standard part means effectively putting it out to bid for a supplier to provide an estimate to procure, and VP level approval. It ended up in a vicious circle. Because people would think it should be a standard catalog item.
Don’t get me started about the ERP systems. They were a complete mess. An employee would have to understand the internal company codes, know the codes for their legacy company, and the legacy company the customer financials were booked under. Then have to logon to the correct, code named, version of the same system. If you logged on to the wrong version it would still let you enter the requisition but it would eventually hit a road block with misleading error messages. Sal preached One DXC but most of the internal systems, especially ERP, worked within legacy companies, and required secret decoder rings. My favorite funny story was trying to get memory upgrades for employee PCs. Trying to get an 8GB upgrade for a standard issue laptop so software engineers could use the laptops. I learned that Supply Chain removed all the memory for 3 year old laptops when they chose a new standard, even though most employees had older than 3 year old equipment, and there were 50,000 of this model laptop still in used within the company. DXC always reissued old equipment and sometimes it came back with only 4GB of RAM - for an IT employee. I couldn’t make that up when I saw that happening. I ended up getting it from Amazon rather than fill out very complicated forms for non-standard parts that required VP approval. I spent over a week just trying to order PC memory with the help of a supply chain expert. They were the one who suggested Amazon. DXC would have been better off to choose one of the legacy ERPs and move to it on day one then trying to merge multiple.
"Grinnell as CIO was supposed to take on the payroll/erp mess. It also explains why the new CIO works for the newly created Cheif Administrative Officer"
That's not quite true about the former cio's exit nor the reason for the current one....
Think we need a CHIEF KINDNESS OFFICER!
@1nr+1jm31hy30 This comment explained why Grinell and Finch where let go. Finch is obvious but Grinnell as CIO was supposed to take on the payroll/erp mess. It also explains why the new CIO works for the newly created Cheif Administrative Officer. As for the regions Juan Parra is a good promotion so hopefully he can get EMEA straightened out. Seelan in APAC is the only one who seems to get positive feed back here, so id imagine hes ok. Art seems like the wrong guy for UKI & NA but jury is still out. But as all posters have said here something needs to be done to catch everyone's salaries up to the market rate. There have been some tiny hikes by Raul and according to the conference call they plan to continue. But I fear it's to little to late.
@1nr+1jm31hy30 It's not changed. Except most people have now given up. Hanging on until the ship finally hits the rocks and we can all get off. Nobody thinks it can be turned round now. So nobody is making the effort to even try.
There are definitely still some very good people and teams in DXC. These are the people I still worry about. I used to have one of the best teams. Some of the executives did come with some good contacts and have helped in client discussions and with sales. I give credit to ML2 because he did clean up a lot, but he really checked out with the rank-and-file staff near the end of his tenure. He let the regional leads takeover, and most were not that good. You cannot effectively run a global company with contradicting regional strategies, and no support from global systems and teams. His head of HR didn't help him either as she too was in a bubble when it came to understanding the internal health of the company. I actually met with her after a failed CEO townhall to explain where it went south and why. She seemed stunned at what I told her and said I taught her a few things. She asked her staff to involve me in their plans going forward. Most of them were new to DXC. They had one meeting with me, were equally stunned about the situation, but then they ghosted me. I followed up a year later with the head of HR. She assumed I was still working with her staff. I told them they ghosted me and she said that will not do. I never heard from her or them again, other than my direct HR contact who was just as upset with the situation as I was. I left after that having spent more than 5 years with DXC, but more than 25 with the previous companies. I also hadn't seen an increase in many years despite a track record of success. I landed a new role in a couple of months with a 30% pay increase. My DXC staff and I were in constant firefighting mode for more than 3 years, fixing broken account situations. Even though I made my numbers and had high performing staff, the cuts still came. Those staff cuts also cut revenue and profit. It was proven but ignored. Execs could not tell me what their strategy was, and I kept seeing the downhill slide. At times I was embarrassed to be in front of customers, but I worked hard to get them what they needed. Every promotion and compensation action took months if not years, with often approvals and then rejections after approvals. Even payroll at DXC was a mess. I had more problems with payroll in 5+ years with DXC than my entire career before - missed pay, miscalculated taxes, miscalculated withholding, just a mess that took days or weeks to fix while money was missing from my account. DXC hired too quickly in low cost, did not hire experience or give training. Even today people in India are complaining on message boards that they are waiting 2 years for onboarding and training. What you find on the message boards is the pulse of a large part of the company and the poor company culture. There are pockets of really good teams, but overall support is still poor, and internal company systems still a mess, at least it was when I left not too long ago. From the people with the company posting here, and colleagues I know still working for DXC, it seems there is still a lot of work to do. The fact that they are still not growing after all this time also points to some serious problems. I hope that my posts will help them actually find some their problems and fix them. I still have a lot of good friends working for DXC and do wish them the best.
There is no "cyber bullying" in this thread.
There is well measured critique of several publicly known executives however.
This thread is one of the most measured debates I've seen on here and the critique is well placed.
As for "anonymous" well of course it is. Even if you could say any of the TRUE things in this thread to their faces they would fire you just for saying them, because they can.
DXC currently has a culture of a one way communications channel with the execs. Debate or criticism or even questions is not possible. This is why this place and others have grown up - because the criticism doesn't stop just because they won't engage with it.
@1jq+1jm31hy30 Your words are true I must admit. I do sincerely apologize.
@1gz+1jm31hy30 He's never singled it out as something they where going to sell off. Atleast not publicly. Yes behind closed doors they've been making it increasingly autonomous which does imply a sale or spinoff maybe coming. But this is different different from what you're claiming.
I left DXC as a client partner recently because of the toxic and bullying culture. I checked back on here because I heard in the market that DXC was going to have more layoffs. Based on this thread, I see the culture toxicity continues. The cyber bullying comments about past leaders that I worked with for years is completely inaccurate, and there are more of us that respect them and would work for them than the negative individuals on this thread.
Factually, a number of these leaders delivered the impact, leadership and critical thinking that helped me and my team deliver strong growth results at my three accounts for 3 years. I can stand behind this because I worked with them daily and they worked with my clients to win and deliver new work and to fix delivery problems that other leaders could not...which saved us from being fired at a couple of DXC's largest clients.
I expect the individuals making these negative comments did not actually work with the leaders. I also expect you are not working with DXC any longer and had something negative happen to you that you are blaming on the leaders you are cyber bullying. I went and watched the referenced video and you are completely mis-charactering it. It used a reference to an Immelt's comment from many years ago that 'all companies will become software companies'. My take-away is it was a reference to the trend of software taking over the world. It was not characterized as positive of Immelt or GE based on my watch of the video. Based on my experience over the last couple of years and what I see with my new clients, the statement and trend positioning that all companies are becoming software companies is accurate...and its what will drive re-invention of business through Gen AI.
I hope the best for DXC as it is a great company and it had unique capabilities to help my clients alot, but its culture as demonstrated here by the cyber bullying and mischaracterization of leaders I respect (and know a ton of other client leaders also do) and would work for when you don't have to stand behind your comments with a face is an example of DXC's #1 problem.
Insurance has definitely been packaged for sell off, including with sacrificial leader.
That it hasn't been sold or even sniffed at is probably simply because nobody is interested...
Read the transcripts of previous earnings call, Raul singled out Insurance several times as something they were looking to sell off.
They've done lots of restructuring in insurance and making sure all the staff working on Insurance projects are in the Insurance org, wonder why? Not even DXC managers move hundreds of staff just for the fun of it.
@18f+1jm31hy30 I'm looking at the Q3 earnings data sheet from DXC's website and it shows that insurance has grown every quarter since FY22. The YoY growth for insurance is roughly at 5%. So what youre saying there is just not true. Also I'm 99% sure Raul never directly stated that they where going to sell insurance. As far as GBS goes I can't disprove what you're saying but I do know for a fact that Corcran was an id--t is if you're telling me he's no longer leading the charge on deals then I see that as a net positive.
Insurance is not doing better in the 3 quarters of FY25 vs last fiscal year....look at the public filings. Sales and revenue are at the same book to bill and growth rate in FY25 vs FY24. Salvino hired the Insurance leadership team and according to my discussions with the insurance sales leader, the new IBM leadership team has not yet touched insurance....so is that the reason its the only offering in DXC that has not gone backwards under the new leadership team? More than a year ago Raul told investors he was a deal expert and was selling insurance to unlock its value.....nothing has ever been said since then to the investors about what happened with selling insurance, but it was not sold. Analytics & engineering and insurance were the only businesses that grew in DXC over the last 4 years according to our public filings. As a sales person in GBS, I never see our GBS senior leadership selling deals other than 1 time show and tell meetings with client senior leadership and then they disappear. Our previous GBS leadership led from the front on deals and client relationships to drive wins and client relationships. Based on the 3 quarters of FY25 results, GBS sales are flat (not better) and revenue is negative growth vs last fiscal year's growth. Based on what I see for deals and sales, I expect it is because analytics & engineering's results are worse than the past couple of years...it was the offering that that drove GBS to positive growth. We sold as much consulting and data & analytics deals as Luxoft and almost all of the leaders who delivered the growth across consulting, data & analytics and Luxoft in analytics & engineering have left DXC after last fiscal year. How will we get to $100 stock price with these results?
Yes, insurance is doing better, but where do you think some of the insurance services run? Financial Services too. I'm just throwing that out there, industry software needs somewhere to actually run. Luxoft has been the shining star in this and DXC is doing it's best to eliminate the talent. This is a Layoff forum and the reason the accurate revenue attribution is so important is because the executives believe the numbers in the systems even though there are a lot of problems. The numbers tell them to cut in areas that are actually supporting some of the growth, or cut areas that are growing. They cut based on the numbers and then they are surprised that they don't get the expected results. Or, they price in infrastructure services at breakeven, or a loss, intentionally to get a deal, and forget that, then complain it's not hitting an arbitrary profit target, and cut the teams ability to deliver to the contract. The switch to low cost labor has not been as positive because all of the sales and delivery models are based on cost plus, rather than value. They pat themselves on the back when they replace a high cost resource with a low cost resource, but then are confused when the revenue/profit goes down because they end up giving the savings to the accounts and eventually the customer. It's all connected and the executives are simple too ignorant about how the internals of the company really work. Nobody is really doing an end to end business process transformation internally. Sal worked on eliminating obvious deadwood, consolidating internal systems, and lowering the cost of internal systems. He even fixed some of the internal issues to get equipment in the hands of employees. But, nobody has really fixed the internal business model. Until they put a real effort on that they will continue the spiral, or not make as much progress towards growth and industry standard profit as they could.
@11m+1jm31hy30 Rauls book to bill is better than Sals in GBS though no? Insurance seems to be far better under Raul too. Some decent talent brought in there
@11m+1jm31hy30 Wow I didn't belive this but Raul and Racine went to the same highscool.... are there others?
Rumor of major change in ANZ. Tweedle d-mb (CEO) and tweedle dee (CFO) are traveling again; shipped out to Dubai and are no longer across APAC. Reorganization that will expose the d-mber and incompetent middle managers below who couldn't grow a culture in a bacteria bowl. Has anyone heard these rumors too?
Absolutely comical moves by Rahul! We are performing worse now than the same time last year. At least Sal understood the business and when he hired from his network they were people that ACTUALLY understood IT services. People that had worked for the best Consulting companies in the world. Now??? We have a CEO who doesn’t know what he is doing and is literally hiring people from his family foundation. Hiring SVPs who have NEVER been in services. Hiring VPs who have never worked for this type of company. The guy can not answer basic questions from analysts.
Last year GBS was on the right track. We finally had people building out real competitive practices in Enterprise Apps and we’re bringing in talent from the right companies.
We have now gone backwards and the only thing working are things the current team had nothing to do with.
The board will do nothing because half went to the same high-school as the CEO… explain how that is even possible.
How does a CEO justify paying himself 25m a year while driving the stock down 30%?
His divisions will lead to more cost cutting and layoffs but don’t worry because he will still make millions.
You know who hasn’t been rotated out is the board. I would be embarrassed if I was them and would resign imminently.
How they allowed this to happen and how they allowed these IBM washouts like Cameron to be hired is amazingly sad.
There are no incentives to tag correctly other than for your service line credit. So if a deal is predominantly GBS led they will want to tag as all GBS. Unfortunately there is more competition among service lines than cooperation. What’s worse is the deal could be tagged correctly in the sales but then the account sets up the charge codes that people use during delivery to the wrong service line. They use whatever they are familiar with instead of setting them up to the proflile of the solution. Multiple points of failure with nobody validating. Employees just want a charge code that they can expense time and material to. In delivery they don’t care which financial org it’s charged to. So if an existing account is largely GID or GBS then it stays that way, right or wrong.
DXC had sizable private cloud services. Some is shared and some is customer specific infrastructure. They also have a decent amount of managed hosting of Linux/Unix and Windows environments
Never said custom app work was tagged as GIS. Custom app work has been in decline for years as another poster stated. GIS work is tagged as enterprise apps and other software hosted services. Security, storage, and network too. Sales is comp’d on numbers for overall solution, which can be delivered by a mix of service lines. Revenue tagging is attributed ongoing revenue to specific service lines. Errors in tagging have been a problem for years. Even alignment of charge codes is often incorrect. It’s complex and nobody takes the time to get it right. Execs don’t really understand it nor the consequences. They believe the data which is inherently inaccurate. They need to force accounts to do it right and penalize to those who don’t.
@q7+1jm31hy30 This raises a number of questions. If a significant amount of revenue in custom apps is really GIS work then why don't we see more margin compression in the publicly reported numbers? Also why doesn't the tagging make a difference in a sales person's compensation. Every other company I've worked at ties sales compensation to revenue. Is DXC not using any sort of CRM software?
@pw+1jm31hy30 On the basis it typically makes no odds if they do it properly or not in DXC. And the staff involved either don't understand or care. This is what you get.
@jf+1jm31hy30 Don't the sales people tag the deals? Aren't they incentivised to tag it correctly so they get credit for the revenue?
@jf+1jm31hy30 is private cloud still hosted by DXC? Or is it mostly passed through to companies like Equinix?
@j8+1jm31hy30 It’s not about accounting practices. It’s all about deal tagging which is done by accounts and sales. These are just people without any consequences if it’s wrong. Also there are plenty of deals with more than one offering. So let’s say if some large consumer product company account sells an SAP solution on DXC managed private cloud then part of that sale and ongoing support should go to GBS and part goes to GIS. But in practice that’s too much work for the account and they simply tag it to GBS in the system. The amount of inaccurate deal tagging is a big problem in DXC with a few of the better service leaders putting full time people on it to try to correct it. But it’s a constant struggle and a majority goes uncorrected. Then the knock on effect is services that may actually be making money don’t show it and are starved. Another example is when security services are sold in a larger deal with say End User Computing. GBS gets the sale and financial attribution. Without accurate data you have the DXC problem - bad data drives bad decisions. Bad decisions lead to poor business results.
DXC's SEC government filings say that our leadership has always followed the same accounting principles for the whole history of DXC - leadership has always used the same principles to allocate sales and revenue to GIS and GBS and the disclosed offering-level results. We also know from working on deals and clients that GBS and GIS do not sell each other's services, and they compete with each other to push their services at the client. GBS (SAP) does not sell infrastructure and infrastructure does not sell SAP. So, for the question if we should expect more layoffs the historical growth trend for GBS and GIS accurately represent results for what is being sold and by whom because the 2025 results have always been allocated the same way they are being allocated in 2025. The only thing we don't know is the underlying performance in consulting & engineering services because analytics & engineering grew last year (the previous post is right that it was DXC's highest growth) under its leadership (that seems to have left DXC) and applications did not grow under its leadership and now those two offerings are merged in consulting & engineering services and the combined results are negative growth under the new leadership for 2025.
Custom Apps was losing quite big before they pulled Luxoft in to improve it. Also, something has always been fishy about revenue recognition by EAS (SAP, et al), as they book GIS & Security revenue as Enterprise Apps instead of GIS. If SAP is running on cloud, private or public, that part should be tagged to GIS. Security is also a muddy one. Network and storage too. Apps don't run all by themselves. GIS is often sold as a loss leader because it's seen as a commodity so it shouldn't be a surprise. DXC has always had terrible internal data visibility. Now I think they are making up what they want the market to see. It's not what it seems, and if DXC was split up and sold the buyers will likely be in for a shock. The only true measure is at the top where DXC overall continues to shrink, and revenues and profit not nearly in line with the industry.
@f6+1jm31hy30 For what its worth if you double click into Consulting & Engineering services you'll see that it's being dragged down by custom apps. They pulled Luxoft into this to try and mask that. The rest of that buisness is growing and even in apps SAP and Service Now are doing OK. Though I will say you point still stands preformance has deteriorated in the buisness.
Should we expect more layoffs? If so, where? Under our new leadership our fiscal year 2025 sales and revenue results are worse than fiscal year 2024. Look at the earnings results on our website. Last year (2024) GBS grew 3.4% because analytics & engineering led our company's growth at 3.7% and insurance grew 3.4%...applications had negative growth. GIS continued to have huge negative growth in 2024. Three quarters into 2025 GBS has not grown. Insurance is growing at the same rate it grew in 2024. So with the new consulting & engineering services leadership team what part of it (analytics & engineering or applications) is causing the problem for GBS vs 2024. GIS continues to shrink at the same rate as 2024.
All these executives were hired for their proven track record and praised quarter after quarter for their laser precise execution of the strategy!. LOL. Did you notice the Q3FY25 only contains the bare minimum of slides? Nothing on the engagement of employees (response rate on GLINT was complete disaster) and zero non GAAP slides.
Pretty much standard corporate control swap going on here just as it did in the two previous regime changes I've seen.
New ceo brings all of his mates along and fires the old guard.
Doesn't make any difference, they just bring expensive direction change for no other reason than it's the only direction they know from their former company. If an Accenture style didn't save this place then an IBM one certainly won't!
Maybe DXC can't afford all those high exec salaries any more. Or even perhaps those execs are subject to the same DXC policy as everyone else that you negotiate your salary when you join and it's fixed until you resign. Or they know it's a sinking ship! The company needs to change direction to re-engage it's staff. Most here have told them what that looks like - it's market rate and rewards for those who contribute, dismissal for those who don't. But if you cannot afford it, then at least tell people what they have to do to fix it. I suspect on the latter front - they just don't know...
But the company is making money, DXC is profitable.....
The CEO is just changing executive positions so he has an excuse of why the company is not making money. The CEO the board and all the executives don’t have a clue on how to run a business.
they just know how to steal money from the stockholders and the employees until the company is no more