We should all be thankful that his focus is not only on maximizing return or the survival of the company but on the employees that are his stated assets. Sure, layoffs are indicated in the preparation for sale or IPO but the fact that they haven’t happened, while the rest of the tech world pulls back, indicates he cares more about people than money. That will become a good part of his legacy.
43 replies (most recent on top)
Meanwhile Jenn Mann had the gall to stand on that stage at kickoff with her cutesy little sneakers on like the rest of them and smile. She's another one who should have been let go for the steep decline in employee morale and employees' trust in the company and its executives. She's done nothing I can see or recall to reverse it or try to fix it. What is the so-called steward of the SAS corporate culture getting paid her giant paycheck for?
"doing what innovation was allowed the rank and file, while engaging in heroic efforts to get products shipped... a game of strategy to build the correct skill set to matriculate to a different team, or get out from underneath a horrible manager. Many of us were consumed with 50 to 60 hour weeks consistently..."
Thank you for writing that. It was my career! 😜
Enough key employees throughout the history of SAS had the necessary perspective and many also had significant visibility. We often held sway, at least until a progressively more and more micromanaged and highly political culture began sweeping through by the late 1990s. Right on time with JG becoming a “super billionaire”. Within R&D the real power was concentrated in fewer than a dozen people and TBT most were self-serving and not very interested in advocating for their downline WRT training and on going professional development. A lot of the gate keeping went on.
Astute underlings continued career development using our own resources/time, while often working considerable overtime for SAS because we were the same people doing what innovation was allowed the rank and file, while engaging in heroic efforts to get products shipped. For these folk, it was a game of strategy to build the correct skill set to matriculate to a different team, or get out from underneath a horrible manager. Many of us were consumed with 50 to 60 hour weeks consistently to keep all of these plates spinning and make everything work. It was not without personal toll.
I do indeed reject the restaurant business analogy.
A restaurant with 3-10 staff member is not the same. In that environment any one of the small staff does indeed have visibility and perspective.
In a company with 10k+ employees that is not the case. Only a handful of people have the full picture.
If you aren’t one of those people you can have as many opinions as you want. But you do NOT have all the data or context for those wide scale opinions to mean much.
Excellent analysis and prescription for what is needed. Several core SAS Employees encouraged this for years and even decades. We stayed focused on trends in computing and also recognized the number of silly proprietary “rabbit trails” that SAS continued to go down WRT new products or expensive features to existing ones that had limited value or reach.
Apart from an early (mid 80s to early 90s) self-interest in building C compilers, SAS as a whole was very resistant to helping shape any industry standards. JG never seemed to like SQL and only funded the most limited R&D into the extremely difficult-to-get-right (and fabulously lucrative when done right) area of data management infrastructure. A significant portion of the quagmire we see today between version 9 and Viya Is a direct result of substandard leadership and grossly under developed engineering talent in this critical area, one thar SAS competitors like.the major cloud vendors, Databricks/Spark, Snowflake, etc. now rule.
Nor did JG seem to think that open source based languages and components could radically disrupt our analytics market share. All of this could’ve been significantly prevented by making the right investments and empowering the right “internal entrepreneurs”. Is it the case that the “business owner” did not have deep enough understanding in how outside dynamics would disrupt critical parts of his business? Did he not develop a trusted inner circle of advisers who would warn him of these things? Of course, some did, but where are they today?
"lay off loser products first" is actually not R&D-centric. it's what could help save the company from its downward slide. It would help focus the efforts of every employee toward only things that are generating revenue and growing.
Have you never watched Kitchen Nightmares? almost every restaurant that's struggling is in trouble because it strayed away from its core identity by trying to be all things to all people.
when a business does that, it naturally leads to cutting corners and spending less time focusing on the things it does best, because it's just trying to keep all the ba--s in the air. the business owner starts to ignore the signs that the business is starting to fall apart. The business owner doesnt listen to what the customers or the employees are saying because he thinks he knows better, because after all he is the business owner.
The business owner becomes defensive and resistant to change, even though it's clear that things are not going well. the business owner refuses to listen to customers and employees, usually because the business owner can't handle the truth. people have bills to pay, so the employees stop trying to make things better. They pretend everything is fine, even though there are more and more complaints about the food and the service and the experience. they don't even bother telling the owner about any of it because they've tried it for so long and no one wanted to hear it.
That's when the customers and employees either stop caring or they actively turn against the business. that's how the business collapses.
Gordon Ramsey turns all those places around by drastically slimming down their offerings so that each business is focusing its efforts on a manageable number of things and executing them flawlessly. He also forces them to focus on customer service, because even at a mediocre restaurant, people will put up with a lot if they feel taken care of.
Ramsey makes the business pick a niche so that it can be the go-to spot for XYZ -- and he tells them that the minute they start to stray from the core identity, that's the beginning of the end for good. Focus turns to scatter, which erodes quality and confuses customers. ultimately the business can't recover.
Reject the parallels to the restaurant business if you want to. But it's not rocket science.
“Lay off loser products first” …
Sure, but this is very R&D-centric
“A workforce that skews heavily older is expensive and more prone to health problems and more prone to quitting if the company is acquired and changes most or all of how the company is run.”
Counterpoint:
In addition to knowledge gained through years of experience, older workers are incentivized to stay current and be productive, knowing they are vulnerable.
Younger workers, like interns, are looking for experience, and more willing to look for greener pastures once established
Lay off loser products first. As that product is being unwound, give those who worked on that product the option to find another job at SAS(within N days). If that can not happen, then politely thank them for their service, wish them well, and lay them off with a decent severance.
Getting rid of loser products AND staff associated with them is a much more effective way to boost revenue per employee than just laying off people and allowing the loser products to live on.
Seems so simple that one must wonder why it has not happened. Could it be because one or more of the losers is a pet to a founder???
"Would people prefer to have...[one mass layoff and that's it or rolling small layoffs"
Mostly a false dichotomy.
Most tech companies that do the mass layoff have no compunction at all about following it with rolling small (or even large) layoffs.....the first one makes the rest easier.
The first, also, by the way makes the people you WANT to keep more likely to always be keeping an eye on what's available elsewhere.
'Don’t get me wrong, NOT blaming long-term SAS employees for placing a high value on their job security. Instead, simply pointing out that historical company culture and an air of “Cary royalty” has significantly conditioned these attitudes over many decades.'
Precise opposite here - SAS is my fourth tech company. It's the experiences at the OTHER three - not the experiences at SAS - that lead me to highly prioritize job security. Not just two of the companies going under completely and all three rarely using merit in layoff decisions.....but also just the psychic toll of going in every single day wondering is this as the day.
It's an exceedingly rare thing not to have to deal with that weight every day in a modern tech company. Especially in public ones driven entirely by quarter-to-quarter decisions and in start-ups driven entirely by playing the IPO lottery with 80 hour weeks.
"The UNC system cites SAS as the example of how to never again let a business spin off from the university system."
UNC is exhibiting sour grapes because the feather in the cap went somewhere other than UNC. Any college or university that can seed a successful business idea is doing exactly what they should be doing.
"Option 1 may seem harsh now but actually is the better option for the company in the long run."
I think management knows that.
Option 2 makes sense, if they are only planning for a short run.
Option 1 may seem harsh now but actually is the better option for the company in the long run.
Option 2 may seem kinder now but actually is not a good option for a company to be stable.
Would people prefer to have
- A big mass layoff all at once and then the company gets down to serious work with no more layoffs for a long time (say for 5 years or more). Eliminated employees can accept their fate immediately and try to find other jobs elsewhere and move on with their lives.
or
- A small layoff every month, every quarter, every year for years leaving people anxious about their fate. Would the survivors be able to concentrate at work or would they keep wondering when the chopping block will come for them? Would they try to jump ship before the ship goes down or would they stay until the end?
The age thing is a separate issue. Because turnover was so low for so long the average age of the company's employees is very high. Compared to the average age of employees at competitor orgs, it's extremely high. That does not look good for IPO. A workforce that skews heavily older is expensive and more prone to health problems and more prone to quitting if the company is acquired and changes most or all of how the company is run.
A large round of VRB would solve this problem pretty quick. If it's true that we have seen the last of the buyouts then we can expect to see more people retiring or being laid off a little here and a little there. The pockets of layoffs will create a climate of fear and distrust if the leadership is not transparent about what is going on and why. someone posted a link in another thread that described very well the effects of this approach and remaining employees. It might feel kind or look gentle, but it is not the solution.
“it should never be acceptable for anyone to remain employed long term if they can't do what they are paid to do” ..,
Of course, but unfortunately it’s just easier to layoff older, high paid employees, even if they remain productive and still contribute to the success of the company
This 'gentle' approach is a blessing and a curse. Too much care for safeguarding feelings has created massive bloat. regardless of industry or business it should never be acceptable for anyone to remain employed long term if they can't do what they are paid to do. Allowing this to go on for decades demotivates people who work hard. It runs off the rock stars just like lack of communication and transparency do.
News headline: EM reportedly quizzed Tesla managers on which staff could be fired—the last time he did that it didn’t end well for Twitter employees.
Would JG do the same at SAS? Or would he just let his managers decide on their own who to eliminate?
What do you mean layoffs havent happened? There are countless number of employees who have been laid off. Job elimination is a polite way to say layoff, and sure, its not a mass amount at once. But it is quietly being done. And most share the same in age, years of service, salary, etc.
So dont be blind and think layoffs arent being done at SAS. They are indeed
@2fsg+1qWwYHtW writes: "The owners took the initial risk of starting a business."
In the case of SAS, the risk was minimal. All the initial development work was financed by NCSU. The four founders started a business with both a product and a customer base. The UNC system cites SAS as the example of how to never again let a business spin off from the university system.
American capitalism also creates many corporations who reward their best and brightest employees/innovators with high compensation and some form of equity. The founders get fabulously wealthy --- often an order of magnitude beyond JG and JS and thousands of others who sacrificed to help build these corporations, also get considerably more wealthy than the average American employee.
Yes, there is risk involved in being a "internal entreprener" and many SAS employees took those risks and put long term hard work behind their efforts. However, they were not rewarded commensurate with what they produced. Now many if not most of them are gone.
Given the current state at SAS, it seems that the "law of sewing and reaping" is going on.
“If he cared for his people would he not have shared his corporate wealth he has gained off their backs for the last almost 50 years?”
There’s no obligation for an owner to share his wealth. The owners took the initial risk of starting a business. When it succeeded, and created jobs, they got richly rewarded.
American capitalism rewards risk. If you don’t want to take a risk, you can only hope to work for someone who treats you well. SAS did that, for many people, for many years.
“Many of SAS’ best and brightest “internal entrepreneurs” have departed after putting in years of heroic efforts and working past burnout to make SAS software successful … only to be denied justifiably higher salaries and some form of equity.”
SAS could have been a stronger company if it had rewarded its high performers and laid off its low performers. Those high performers might have answered the competitive threat from open source. We’ll never know , because they never had the chance.
Now the gravy train is ending, in the way the owners want, with minimal layoffs. That’s no comfort to those laid off, and it’s unfair that a few more of the best and brightest will be affected. Some of these layoffs are clearly managed by people who never managed a layoff before.
Still, minimizing layoffs is consistent with the paternalistic care SAS historically gave its employees. SAS owners are giving up millions of dollars to buy their employees time to make their own decisions.
As the OP says, this relatively gentle treatment, when most tech companies are doing mass layoffs, will become a good part of the SAS legacy.
Golden handcuffs, outdated skills, health insurance, age bias, etc.
If you all are so unhappy with the way things currently are, then why are you staying around? Leave if it's that miserable to you! But you won't because you're being cowardly and rather ridiculously complain anonymously while also benefiting from stability and JG legacy. If you don't believe in the vision of the company or that there won't be a company left soon because of Dr. Goodnight "mismanagement", then leave.
Yes, I’d like one of those too.
I think a voluntary retirement package with the same payout as a layoff would get rid of some of the reluctant older staff...myself included.
The tragedy is that there are so many people who should be laid off for the health of the company, but they haven't been. The continued presence of people who draw a salary and benefits but who do not generate anything positive for the business is a slap in the face to people who work hard.
@gsq+1qWwYHtWn —FTW
Precisely. JG cares about a good bargain first and foremost. He’s never been willing to share equity and historically, going back to 1984 (ironic year huh), many of SAS’ best and brightest “internal entrepreneurs” have departed after putting in years of heroic efforts and working past burnout to make SAS software successful … only to be denied justifiably higher salaries and some form of equity.
The result is seen today and sadly it’s reflected in this thread —i.e. personal job security is more important than the need for a radically overhauled company vision and structural implementation for true growth and success.
Don’t get me wrong, NOT blaming long-term SAS employees for placing a high value on their job security. Instead, simply pointing out that historical company culture and an air of “Cary royalty” has significantly conditioned these attitudes over many decades.
@nys+1qWwYHtW “Would you rather work at SAS for 40 years or at Google at some point in the past and made your millions”
By that logic why would anyone ever work at any company other than Google/Meta/Apple?
Because there are limited jobs there and a very small % will ever get in. Why would anyone work at Costco when they can just go make millions at Google?
“Would you rather work at SAS for 40 years or at Google at some point in the past and made your millions” ..,
I’d rather work at SAS, and not be laid off (expendable) for being old and having a good salary
Would you rather work at SAS for 40 years or at Google at some point in the past and made your millions (does that still happen today outside of startups) and then do something else? But you are right, its a nice place to be in your 50s and 60s if you are not already rich enough to quit!
Hear, Hear!
“Sure, layoffs are indicated in the preparation for sale or IPO but the fact that they haven’t happened, while the rest of the tech world pulls back, indicates he cares more about people than money”
Or maybe it simply indicates a desire to maintain the reputation of a company that doesn’t do layoffs
"On the Risk vs Reward spectrum, SAS is low risk, low reward, again, for a software company."
Depends on how you define 'reward'.
For those of us in our 50s and 60s - a not insignificant part of the employee base - the (relative, of course, always relative) stability and safety is much more important than more compensation rewards.
For many of is the Low Risk IS the High Reward.
That risk is clearly rising. But just as clearly remains a great deal lower than most other software companies - public or private.
We have moved from the old chestnut of SAS never lays anyone off to they lay off some, but less than they could, or less than comparable software companies might. On the Risk vs Reward spectrum, SAS is low risk, low reward, again, for a software company.
@igj+1qWwYHtW True enough. And nobody expects the small number of people who did get laid off to be happy about it. I feel deeply for them.
But it doesn’t change the fact that SAS has been, and so far remains, a very stable place for most.
That could change next week and if so I’ll grump about it but I’ll remain grateful for the amount of safety it has provided for a very long time.
“Sure, layoffs are indicated in the preparation for sale or IPO but the fact that they haven’t happened, while the rest of the tech world pulls back, indicates he cares more about people than money”
Little comfort for those already laid off, not for poor performance but simply to cut expenses
Control, image and reputation is everything to him and we can't blame him since it is his private company. He doesn't need to make more money since he has more than he can spend in his lifetime and his children and grandchildren's lifetimes. SAS doesn't even have to be profitable anymore. Just break even from now on until the end comes. Layoff here and there spreading it out throughout the whole year and year after year, seems to be the modus operandi of the last few years. Ride the train to the end. Good luck!
It is interesting. SAS seems to be taking a measured, slow burn approach. Staying below the WARN threshold, preserving the image of the CEO, etc. I guess there is more to SAS than the bottom line for said individual. It must remain profitable but not overly so.