McKinsey, the management consultants that brought us Enron, have been quietly involved at SAS the past few years. They worked the BS Broadcom ‘deal’ to try and set a low-end price. Are they now the ones responsible for de-SASing SAS?
30 replies (most recent on top)
And?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40148729
"Maybe a slight change of words, but seems to fit the follow-ups:
People leave bad management."
Yah, that's fair but I figured it was, you know, understood. You don't leave a good marriage, either, excepting extraordinary circumstances. But I guess one wouldn't say "he left a marriage". One would say "he left a bad marriage".
I left a bad manager. Once we got to "reduce expenses" in 2018 or so, every re-org made working at SAS worse, until I was re-orged under a career sociopath with delusions of adequacy. On one hand, he was clearly better at his job than I was. He managed up, and I got the work done. He was promoted (and finally got to get rid of his DBA), and I left SAS.
He's the perfect (modern) SAS management success story: a rat eating garbage and other rats, every day until his little rat tummy is full. The only thing the rats think about is their next meal. Who or what will it be? At the first hint of hunger, desperately searching for some little bit of garbage or another rat to eat before they're too weak to defend themselves and start looking mighty tasty to the other rats. It won't end until they've eaten as much as they can and, congratulating themselves for having stuck it out until the IPO (or whatever becomes of SAS), the ship sinks and they, all of the rats, drown too.
The joke's on him, though. I know that rat's delicious, but it's a lot of work for a little morsel of meat. I left SAS for a company that keeps the vermin under control, and puts real meat on the table.
I love using R Studio!
"People leave managers, not companies"...
Maybe a slight change of words, but seems to fit the follow-ups:
People leave bad management.
"Another issue with this strategy, besides the elimination of braintrust, was little time for knowledge transfer for the core technologies."
I don't know how much knowledge transfer happened but based on my experience, I don't think it was much. There were just a few of us who worked on profitable technologies in SAS 9 and Viya and none of us were asked to transfer any knowledge at all when we were swept away in the 2021 purge.
"But the company is generous to those laid off."
No it isn't always. That may be true for you pampered lot in Cary, but outside the gates of the SAS campus it's a different story. I know of someone recently laid off who had worked at SAS for over 10 years and received the absolute minimum SAS could legally get away with in that jurisdiction - 3 months severance.
Much easier for the SAS leadership to treat employees badly if they don't have to look them in the eye as they walk the corridors.
"That's our SAS." Yeah. Treat those who are exiting better than the fools who stay. Sigh.
I left the manager, not the company. Our work was not good, and I got blamed for everything that went wrong — including my manager’s decisions.
I found a better job, better pay, and better management. I was past 60 at the time — not “too old” 😁! But I left during the pandemic stimulus. Because of age discrimination, I doubt I could pull that off now.
I don’t believe that we who left were the top 15%. Maybe we were in the top 30%, because we were able to find better jobs. But I know people who remain at SAS, and they have enough talent to do anything they are allowed.
Unfortunately, as the previous poster says, middle managers’ hands are often tied. That’s characteristic of SAS.
On the flip side, this policy of attrition without backfill, instead of the mass layoffs the consultants advised, is also characteristic of SAS. This distributes the severance money across ~5% of employees, rather than ~25%. So with the same money, SAS can pay up to one year’s salary in severance -- well above industry standard. That’s a kinder, gentler policy — even to those laid off.
What a mixed-up place it was. Tolerance for bad managers and tying the hands of middle managers stifled innovation. Lack of innovation caused layoffs. But the company is generous to those laid off. That’s our SAS.
+@6tjk+1s5pAra9
left at about the same age. left primarily the company. manager was fine but ineffectual ... mainly due to the odd company-isms. middle managers' hands are tied.
"So instead of carefully laying off the bottom 15% we let the top 15% leave for better pay"
Another issue with this strategy, besides the elimination of braintrust, was little time for knowledge transfer for the core technologies. There was some transfer but it was insufficient. It should have been explicitly occurring for years, not months.
I believe a policy of always expanding reach into newer technologies prevented any focus on training younger people on the established technologies behind the products. Only shen it was decided to encourage the original implementors to leave, was it recognized that real knowledge transfer needed to be accomplished and, by then, it was too little and too late.
In response to...
"On the other hand, I have a nice hybrid work schedule, enjoy my coworkers, get paid a lot, enjoy my work, enjoy the cafeterias, enjoy my private office the 2 days/week I'm there.
What a loser I am!! Wish I was young and confident :-("
- no, you're just one of the lucky ones who's probably close enough to retirement, and financially secure enough, not to give a sh-t anymore. Good for you.
I'd do the same if I were in that position but I wasn't. I left SAS because at age 49 I figured I was running out of time to find another good job before ageism kicked in and the doors started closing. And I sure as he-l couldn't imagine working at SAS for another 15 years!
In response to @6hpr+1s5pAra9 who claims that "People leave managers, not companies"...
Bullsh-t. My manager was great, generally speaking all the people I worked closely with were great.
I left because SAS was failing, and I blame that on the global leadership of the company, primarily based on Cary (I was not based in Cary).
I posted @5tka+1s5pAra9
In response to...
"Additionally I would love to do a carnival game and try to guess your identity. I feel like I would hit it in 8 or fewer tries :)"
I don't think you would...I suspect you imagine I worked in Building R, or Building Q or Building Whatever....but I wasn't one of the pampered lot in Cary...I wasn't even based in the US.
My post (the long one), was not a slight on those who stayed. Subtract the bottom 15% and the top 15% and there is still a solid 70% at SAS that I enjoyed working with. However, there was easily 15% that we could have trimmed without a huge hit to productivity rather than letting the good performers decide to leave.
There's nothing wrong with staying at SAS if you are happy. You're leaving money on the table, but money isn't everything.
"Only those lacking in confidence or too old seem to have remained."
Ha ha ha ... guilty on both counts!
On the other hand, I have a nice hybrid work schedule, enjoy my coworkers, get paid a lot, enjoy my work, enjoy the cafeterias, enjoy my private office the 2 days/week I'm there.
What a loser I am!! Wish I was young and confident :-(
@5tka+1s5pAra9 Additionally I would love to do a carnival game and try to guess your identity. I feel like I would hit it in 8 or fewer tries :)
@5tka+1s5pAra9 Well sh-t. Now I have to determine which of the following applies
- Not GOOD
- Not Confident
- Too Old
I’m going with too old although it is more that I’m just comfortable right where I am and still like it here.
What is too old in your mind assuming that one is plenty GOOD and doesn’t lack confidence?
"So instead of carefully laying off the bottom 15% we let the top 15% leave for better pay"
Spot on. I did that, and pretty much all of the GOOD people I knew did that too. Only those lacking in confidence or too old seem to have remained.
I was gonna say it's hardly kind and gentle to anyone except those who are furniture at SAS. The retired in place people just hanging out and hoping for a VRBP that isn't coming.
In reply to this comment:
"I was told that about five years ago, McKinsey recommended a 25% mass layoff. I was told that SAS rejected the recommendation. Both rumors are quite believable.
During that time period, SAS has reduced headcount by over 15%. Apparently, they got near where the consultants recommended, but did it mostly by attrition — a kinder gentler way."
I'm not sure if the numbers are accurate but I was in management at the time and can 100% attest that they decided not to do mass layoffs and instead lowered the budgets of all departments and let attrition (without backfills) lead to the correct numbers.
Kindler and gentler? yes, but at what cost? Nearly everyone we lost between 2020 and 2022 were top performers capable of going to higher paying, more prestigious companies. So instead of carefully laying off the bottom 15% we let the top 15% leave for better pay? Quite the strategy.
I was told that about five years ago, McKinsey recommended a 25% mass layoff. I was told that SAS rejected the recommendation. Both rumors are quite believable.
During that time period, SAS has reduced headcount by over 15%. Apparently, they got near where the consultants recommended, but did it mostly by attrition — a kinder gentler way.
I can't remember when - it was quite a while ago - but McKinsey was in SAS, and there was a lot of woo-woo fear about some secret report. Maybe this jogs someone else's memory.
If they are it wouldn't be the first time. consultants from such places have advised the company on and off over the years but usually end up getting fired when they don't sugarcoat the list of what needs to be done. maybe it's different now idk.
I would also be surprised. There would be many more layoffs. There is much fat to be cut out.
I would be surprised if they were. We would be seeing more changes deeper, broader and faster across the company if a consultant of that level was on the scene. If they are, SAS is not getting its money's worth.
I've been told that both McKinsey and DeLoitte have been advising SAS.
I can't tell that they've been "de-SASing" the company. The good points and bad points of SAS all seem intact.
Both firms advise companies looking to sell or IPO.
What is de-SASing SAS? Getting the books and accounting to be legit and untangling the corporate entanglements of the last decades?
So the 27 Year old MBAs Big G didn’t want to answer to on Wall St is who’s helping now?
Strange days indeed