Why does it seem that we've gone from being a good workplace where everybody wanted to join and build a career to a transitional company where people only join while they're waiting for something better to come up? At least that's the impression I've been getting lately.
35 replies (most recent on top)
The vast majority of managers at SAS are good people just trying to do their jobs.
However, incompetent and/or toxic managers are tolerated in all departments. If you have the bad fortune to get under one, HR can’t help you. Their job is to support the manager.
SAS was set up that way from the beginning. As long as managers say “yes” to their superiors, they may do as they please with their subordinates. HR has no power to require them to manage well, or fairly, or even humanely.
This policy did not produce a toxic culture, just a culture of “yes-men” and “yes-women”, with a toxic minority. These people did not know how to innovate and create new revenue streams. Without innovation, revenues declined, so now we get layoffs.
The post about Marketing being 90%+ women raises a good point. Most of them are there not by competence or understanding how the work gets done (or doesn’t get done) but because they are friends with the right other women. And they kiss up and are “so nice.”
One manager’s cognitive impairment is getting so bad that people around her are starting to question dementia. She creates chaos by what she does or does not do. But the other out-of-touch women leaders keep her around because they pretend not to see the havoc and… you guessed it… “but she’s so nice.”
It sounds like management at SAS is toxic no matter what division you work in... R&D, Marketing, and Pubs? Yowza.
The now defunct division of Publications truly had the worst managers at SAS. There are still a few of those managers there now in R&D. Feel sorry for the folks that inherited these people as their manager.
If you think R&D management is toxic, then you haven’t worked in SAS Marketing.
Every observation the previous poster spelled out about R&D managers is true for marketing, but on steroids.
My experience was similar.
In SAS R&D, about 25% of my managers were good people with a deep understanding of technology. This was in the ‘80s and ‘90s, when the company was young.
Starting in the ‘90s, about 25% were toxic: not just bad managers, but bad people. Ignorant of technology, they made mistakes, and blamed their subordinates. They backstabbed, and some of them smiled as they did it. They should never have been managing animals, certainly not people. HR had no power to stop them; all you could do was leave.
I also worked elsewhere in industry, before and after SAS. There’s bad management everywhere. But I never saw such toxic management anywhere else but SAS.
The rest of my managers, about 50%, were good people, but not technically deep. They were results of the Peter Principle: business majors, history majors, and psych majors. They were in charge of software R&D, without the background to do it. Because they did not understand the technology, as you say, their decisions were usually political.
That was the beginning of the end. That benign 50% of R&D managers were good enough to maintain the original SAS Foundation revenue stream. But like the toxic 25%, they were unable to innovate and create new revenue streams.
That’s how we got here. If you stop doing R&D, then, a few years later, you must start doing layoffs.
SAS Marketing is 90%+ women. You’re more likely to find Bigfoot in Bldg C than a male employee. It’s the truth we aren’t allowed to talk about.
Former SAS employee here, who has also worked at a couple other large tech companies.
SAS is BY FAR the most toxic workplace I have ever heard of or experienced, and this is in R&D. Developers from other companies simply don't believe me when I tell the stories of internal politics, childishness and backbiting. The elderly employees falling asleep during meetings, with no consequences. The vast majority of employees being non-conversant (and completely and aggressively uninterested) in the most basic technology of the 21st century, leaving them only with their political machinations to occupy their days. The first several tiers of management being occupied by walking talking dictionary definitions of the Peter Principle with a sprinkle of Dunning-Kruger, with literally zero understanding of the work being done. The few developers interested in doing work have created fiefdoms of their own, and stay working on the same products for decades, in a bizarre parody of actual learners and doers in tech. The ownership is a clown show - insane, bizarre decision-making (remember re-implementing every client in Flash even as the entire rest of the industry was sunsetting it for its well-known-to-literally-everyone-not-working-at-SAS security and stability issues?), with a series of tech leaders being promoted and then, usually within a year, realizing what the place is and leaving.
No one who wants to grow a career, who wants to stay anywhere near the edge of technology, who wants a workplace free of backstabbers and passive-aggressive do-nothings, would ever choose to work here unless they really want an easy easy glide for a few years. To anyone actually interested in working in tech, it's a death of the spirit. It may destroy your career irrevocably if you stay too long in the SAS inertia field.
(Caveat: the folks in support are generally excellent, as they have to be, since having native English speakers in support is the main reason customers stay signed on to an ancient boutique legacy product, no matter how much lipstick has been slapped atop it).
I think a lot of it is just the way the generic employee/employer relationship has changed over the last decade or so. Nothing specific to SAS.
I wen through the NCSU IAA program and because the alumni are pretty tight and well-networked I get to see career paths of new employees at a wide variety of companies. If anything, I'd say SAS still holds them a bit longer than most companies.
But yeah, salaries are low and the attraction of benefits/ work-life is not what it once was - anyone noticing the silence following the Best Place To Work survey results the last few years can see that.
The pay is far behind industry. It doesn't take long for folks to realize they can make significantly more jumping ship. I also wouldn't be surprised if the constant reorgs aren't demoralizing to newer employees as well.
These arguments are not interesting to those of us who spent careers at SAS. We saw many people of different races, genders, and gender preferences rise to Director level and above. SAS has its problems, but diversity was never one of them.
The OP’s original question is much more interesting. In my Division, between 2018 and 2020, we hired four people straight out of college. Only one is still there.
The other three stayed for a couple of years and then left. One went to Atlassian; one to a FAANG, and one to SalesForce. This was during the pandemic stimulus, so I’m sure they all got raises.
Wish I had more data. Maybe others do? These were bright kids, so it seemed to me the hiring process was working. The retention, not so much 😞.
@2ikg+1rgnkceD “especially for BIPOC employees”
So, it boils down to... do you want 'equal treatment' or 'special treatment'?
Just wondering.
I don’t read the posts you reference as making assumptions that everyone is “young“ or “not working hard“.
I don’t care what your age is. I’m just not reading reasoned arguments based on real evidence in your posts. Starting off with things like “almost hilarious the assumptions“, without even beginning the sentence correctly is a good example. Not capitalizing the first word at the beginning of sentences is not something standard American public education taught boomer-aged people when we were children. You write more like a millennial female in your early 40s. That said, I fully acknowledge people of various identities in generations younger than boomer have made fabulous contributions to tech worldwide, on the West Coast, and certainly at SAS.
FWIW, there are/were plenty of boomer-aged professionals at SAS working very hard to challenge and change the status quo. Many were aware of the demise years and years ago and warned executives all the way up to JG himself.
Why everyone here so mad?
Treat people with kindness, yo
almost hilarious the assumptions from the "boomer" replies. why would you assume the people are young, and why would you assume they aren't "working hard"? a little like the old meme that went around saying millennials cannot afford housing due to eating too many avocados? as another old person, i don't want to be called "boomer" either, but the "ok boomer" response is so spot on, unfortunately. saying "West Coast tech" had fewer women managers doesn't exactly make SAS look impressive in the grand scheme of things. if these points aren't obvious, it's no wonder the incompetent yes men and yes women seemed asleep at the wheel. absolutely zero awareness of the world around them.
To your point, it also seems like the downvotes on @2kug+1rgnkceD and @2sml+1rgnkceD indicate there are folks here who just don’t want their narrative challenged.
Yet, the growth and relevance of SAS during most of its history no doubt provided the opportunity for them to be hired in the first place. That growth and relevance was established on the hard work of thousands of people across the globe — women, men and people of diverse ethnic backgrounds.
Their narrative is made clearer by the assertion that relatively recent SAS DEI or internal mobility Initiatives (given SAS’ nearly 50 years of incorporation) have yet to deliver what they want.
Life is hard and the tech workplace is competitive. If you move from one team to another where you need significant skill development to really “step up” to the job requirements then isn’t it perfectly reasonable to take a step down in title? I guarantee you the people who have been on that team for 5 to 10 years busting @SS to gain the title think so.
@3bod+1rgnkceD "I love how presumptuous that you are of me with your narrow-minded view..."
The person who posted @2qbt+1rgnkceD stated "the entirety of what I know about you is limited to what you wrote".
Your response to that person shows that your negative attitude and lack of personal accountability are among your largest barriers to your success. Until you choose to make some personal changes, a management team is wise to not promote you, and it has nothing to do with any label.
I love how presumptuous that you are of me with your narrow-minded view. A new employee to a company does not equal early in career, nor do you know what level or position I hold within the company. You are probably one of the people who have been at the company for three decades who have hindered progress and just waiting around for a retirement package without adding any real value.
Please provide some evidence demonstrating “competitors are eating SAS’ lunch” that correlates with women not being promoted. The history of SAS demonstrates many competent women getting promoted to high level (especially IC) positions and being influential in areas across the company. Even in some of the more technically demanding R&D groups there were/are plenty of women at the Senior and Principal level as well as managers — even more so than I witnessed in West Coast Big Tech as percentage of total tech employees in any given company.
In an very long SAS/tech career I witnessed many “people of color” and many others . (insert your favorite identity group) succeed. They did it the “old fashioned way” …, by being competent, patient, focused, playing well with others, working hard and going the extra mile often, not just when it was demanded.
For a significant number of teams at SAS, It has always been difficult to get promoted — no matter what you look like or identify as. It’s a reflection of the company culture and a very frugal-to-the-point-of-being-miserly approach to recognition and compensation. There were a few divisions/teams where seemingly promotions and greater compensation were more prevalent. I don’t even want to know the politics and interpersonal dealings that made this so.
In any case, JG and early corporate culture innovators at SAS built a beautiful workplace that was a model in tech for at least the first 25 years. Many of us got to enjoy that, along with having private offices, etc. that enhanced our work experience and general quality of life. If this came at a 10% to 20% less annual monetary compensation then the bottom line is we chose to stay and for a very long time we’re rewarded with better than decent employment and virtually no layoffs.
@2ikg+1rgnkceD “especially for BIPOC employees”
Oh please. I don’t believe for a second that you are treated differently at SAS because of that. I do believe that you think the world is out to get you.
Be excepcional and see what happens…. Good things.
bracing for the ok boomer comment coming in 3....2....1....
I have been in the business for over three decades, and I very much enjoy seeing young professionals grow and succeed. It is from this perspective that I make the following constructive criticisms about what you wrote (the entirety of what I know about you is limited to what you wrote).
- Instead of blaming some kind of label, drop the attitude, and accept self-accountability. Be that person who puts in the extra work, makes the extra effort, takes the tasks that nobody else wants, and build your personal reputation as a successful contributor. You will be seen by the value that you add.
- - Move past a participation-trophy public education system, and be prepared to spend years earning bonuses, raises, and promotions. Do not expect to start where others have already spent years building. You will advance with perseverance, and that takes your time and commitment. You will create your own growth opportunities. Build early in your career so that your growth compounds.
- - Don't step into a process that has existed for years and expect everyone to suddenly drop it for your inexperienced idea. Take the time to learn the existing system thoroughly, demonstrate your understanding of the system, and then present your ideas for improvement. Be humble enough to remember that your idea is only one piece of something that is much larger. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, then you must improve your punctuation and spelling - it reads like you are a freshman. Turn off the identity baiting videos, and become a voracious reader of classics, of ideas that you support, and of causes that you oppose. You will become a much better writer, and people will be more inclined to listen to your ideas.
Be a success!
Or, just complain.
Look at the statistics for so-called internal mobility. Why are 98% of those who have pursued opportunities for internal mobility women? Hmmmm. Maybe because they can't advance any other way? Except these women aren't advancing. They're either moved laterally or forced to go backwards. Yes, that's right. Backwards.
Apply for internal-only job postings and see if it doesn't happen to you too. It's disgusting and it's wrong. "Best Places to Work for Women" my ar-e. Maybe if you're related to people in power. That's about it. This whole place is a farce. No wonder competitors are eating SAS's lunch.
I would have to be desperate to accept an offer from SAS - especially so in R&D. Give the talent team some credit for getting folks to sign-up but once in the door it's easy to see the place is in a serious decline. People - before taking an offer try connecting with some current SAS employees and get honest feedback. It will be time well spent.
As a new employee, I see zero growth opportunities here, especially for BIPOC employees. Diversity and inclusion is laughable here. There really is no point to staying when the same people have been in higher level positions for 10 - 15 years and are so used to doing things "the SAS way", that new people are truly waisting their talents here. Why would someone who just joined stay here when you are always faced with opposition from those who've been here for decades and in a long queue behind them for growth and development. There are no paths for promotion that exist in other companies and the market. And as BIPOC, especially women, good luck at even being seen or valued.
Why? Because all the same people who have been in charge for the past 10-20 years are still in charge. they used to call that low turnover and stability. Now it's stagnation and complacency.
I was in the audience when he gave that talk (to R&D specifically from what I remember). The inflection point I remember was when climbing costs eclipsed stagnating revenues. That our long term profitability would be called into question then.
IIRC Dave Mac warned about revenue per employee.
What did he mean by "inflection point"?
@ukb+1rgnkceD Please. All these whiners aren’t going anywhere unless shown the door.
There wiii be another huge exodus after bonus payout. Especially since it probably will be a garbage bonus year.
The best days of this company are behind it. Only people who have no other possibilties accept jobs here.
The "perks" of working at SAS are no longer all that special, and do not offset the low pay. You can get many or all of the perks that really matter elsewhere, along with a better salary.
Several things:
"Why does it seem that we've gone from being a good workplace where everybody wanted to join and build a career..."
This hasn't been true for many years. Most people seem to be of the opinion that it started in the late 2000s, but the company was twice (back-to-back years) number one in the "Great Places to Work" survey (yes, I know this survey is not objective) since then. I think it really started when Viya wasn't the immediate success it was expected to be and the first VRBP was announced (2018 or so?), confirming Dave Mac's warning, and evidence that the inflection point was in the past. Everyone had to start asking what else the company would do to reduce headcount and cut expenses more generally.
"...where people only join while they're waiting for something better to come up? At least that's the impression I've been getting lately."
Do you have any concrete examples of this happening, or only heresay? I'm actually surprised there haven't been more people leaving SAS, and I think the strategy of eliminating the most experienced (and therefore highest-salaried) employees is going to backfire spectacularly. Those employees had a lot of loyalty to SAS, but things have changed. And most of the people still working at SAS already have an exit strategy in place and are actively looking for their opportunity. At first glance, that appears to speak to your point but the vast majority of the people still working at SAS can't be described as "new hires".
It is what it is.