We have had layoffs, reorganization of teams and verticals, and yet we have not been given a clear path or a vision for the future. As far as the degree side, nothing has changed. Other than teams spread out thin. Where is leadership? “ We are going back to basics” what the heck does that mean?
18 replies (most recent on top)
@2yan+1qWHvFbk agreed. They are on the verge of bankruptcy and will go with the cheapest price possible over quality, which is unfortunate.
Love that “radical transparency” and “developing the best talent” were going to be priorities moving forward but all we’ve seen is a bunch of shuffling and the same garbage culture. What a terrible time to overwork, under pay, and stress your employees out. It’s 2024, can we stop with micromanaging and group punishment? Can companies stop expecting employees to do two jobs for the price of less than one? Que the crusty managers and cool aide drinkers downvoting and crying “no one wants to work anymore”.
I see a world where layoffs will continue in US and impacted people will be replaced by cheaper labor in South Africa.
I also see a world where people working in departments like Admissions will be obliterated soon and replaced with automation tools like self enrollment portals.
Don’t forget - so many “investors” are just GD day traders. How sad that the entire body and function of a company is so vulnerable to their whims. Not to say a company shouldn’t have a profitability plan and be able to execute it, but isn’t it tiring.
The whole insider trading perspective/justification just serves as a reminder that we’re all just cogs in this machine. If you’re right, then investors deserve to hear a plan before the people who actually do the work. I mean - that’s the whole effed up thing isn’t it. I know I work for a public company but damn.
2 months is nothing in the grand scheme of things - you cant fix the mess that Chip made in 2 months. It takes time to really dig into what a huge mess was left behind, and Paul is taking immediate steps to get things on the right course. I'm glad the Board finally had the ba--s to get rid of Chip, in hindsight they probably should have done it sooner. Realistically you need to give Paul a few quarters, if not at least a year, to see if he can get things straightened out.
It hasn't been two months. Shifted leadership means a new CEO came into the company. The fact that people keep excusing Paul is ridiculous. Sure, maybe Chip wasn't the best CEO but the executives below him should understood the business and if they had better ways to run it. If they had any idea how to fix it, they would have by now. And not by some secretive delivery to the board but by internal shifts that would get us there. 2 months means everything when your stock is at the state it's at and the longevity of a company is more than an earning call. It's your people and your culture which has been abolished over the past two years.
You are totally wrong about my role but you do you. If people choose to remain at the company at least you could give the shifted leadership structure a freakin chance. It’s been 2 months.
@2jwz+1qWHvFbk you 1000% come off as a leader who was recently promoted at the expense of a lot of hard working people and now drink the kool-aid of pre-existing leadership.
Let's keep this is check. A lot of VPs who fail at making an impact within their first 60 days are exited shortly after.
Andrew has done nothing for years and Aaron came in strong but delivered on nothing other then layoffs. Which gives leverage to continue to cast blame on OTHER people.
You hire these roles because they should be efficient early on. No ramp up, no excuses, and yet the same old blame game continues to spin.
Where is the actual direction, strategy, and organizational structure to execute?
Oh you mean where Chip executed in what was promised? None. I am at least willing to give Andrew and Aaron a chance. I don’t participate in the Alt Cred side of the house - but based on some movement over the last few weeks I have initial confidence in Andrew’s action orientation. And his scope previously was just partner management. All I’m saying is that there are reasons that info is not shared yet that have nothing to do with conspiracy theories and shadiness. This is the first earnings call with the new structure (though based on year end 2023 under old structure - misspoke earlier - it’s a Q4 earnings call, not Q1 results). I understand the skepticism after Chip and after he expected leaders to just figure out how to split their time between business lines with no priorities or direction based on immediate ROI. For those on the degree side anyway - the renewed focus without our most powerful leaders having to worry about ACs and the “platform strategy” is welcome.
One thing I noticed is despite what seems like tons of resignations they’re not backfilling anything and it looks like we don’t have much of a recruiting team anymore. This is concerning to me because it wouldn’t single much promise from leadership.
People who continue to stay will have the workload piled on. I certainly have seen it.
@2rrw+1qWHvFbk so let's excuse their behavior to set any direction for us because it would be insider trader, which is absolutely absurd considering many companies do it very well.
What concrete example do you have of a previous earning call where they walked out and were able to execute on what they promised? Or better yet, one where their employees actually understood the vision and could rally behind it?
2u is a public company and it makes absolute sense that detailed info on next steps (ie specific financial and growth targets) likely would include non public info that could lead to insider trading violations if employees acted on them without the info being shared publicly. The earnings call is Monday. It’s reasonable that high level leadership not share all the details with every single IC/manager in advance- frankly for your own protection. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t intensive work being done to be shared soon.
100% guaranteed they'll drop some crazy plan that no one has even heard about and we're not able to execute because this company is wild. The amount of disconnect between the executives and actually running this company versus being public representation of this company is maxed. They don't operate this company. No one does. It's all smoke and mirrors
University of Phoenix is making lots of money after they were acquired by Apollo Global Management and Vistria Partners. They cut instruction and support by $105M annually.
https://www.uidaho.edu/-/media/UIdaho-Responsive/Files/president/Communications/phoenix-faq/supporting-docx/uopx-financial-information-summary.pdf
We have the 2023 earnings call on Monday (Feb 12) where they will be presenting next year's guidance, and I'm sure there will be commentary about the strategy. Investors will want clear answers.
Also, the 2024 Investor Day will be coming up soon, likely toward the end of March (last year Investor Day was March 21, which was announced on Feb 22).
Investors are as curious as employees about the future of the company, and the executive team will need to work very hard to present a compelling strategy.
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to buy the line that a seemingly predatory company like this is suddenly going to change its ways and do “what’s right for the students”. There would need to be so much deep change that they aren’t even willing to acknowledge to begin with. Anyone who actually cares about the base they want to serve knows they need to care for every sector of the business and all I’m seeing is the same siloed inconsistent or incompletely absent information, same high pressure sales behind the scenes, and the same attitude from management. If they cared, they would have listened to people over the years.
It was really hard for me to buy the whole thing from Andrew Live! that we’re going back to “is this good for the student.” Some sort of yellow stop sign he made years ago. I think we strayed from that quite some time ago. I’m sure people could cite dozens of examples of non student-centered initiatives we’ve had to swallow over the years and rejected/ignored concerns and feedback.
This skeptic is already lost.