Have not heard a thing from anyone which leafs me to think they will be pretty small. Anyone?
60 replies (most recent on top)
@2kb+1jn495rnt You are correct that he/she sounds like an ahole.
But if you look past their tone the message is valid. If people speak for themselves and stop acting like they speak for everyone else then the messages carry at least some weight.
Most people think people on this site are whiny malcontents.
“Since you seem ok speaking for “most” people please cite your sources. How did you collect that information? How many were polled? Oh wait I forgot it was “most” of the peoples”
Most people agree that you sound like an a$$hole.
“Cite your sources”.
Oh, get real. No sources are needed — just common sense.
This is a shrinking company. That is reality. SAS will give VRBPs, or layoffs, or both, this year and next.
When management warns that they’re hiring “outside help to cut costs”, that’s what that always means.
“Save it for the rainy day” is good advice. The person who said it is only trying to help.
“ Save it for the rainy day that most agree is coming.”.
Since you seem ok speaking for “most” people please cite your sources. How did you collect that information? How many were polled? Oh wait I forgot it was “most” of the peoples.
If you continue to speak for more than just yourself you should always post that kind of data so “most” people reading I don’t question whether you are projecting how you ”feel” on “most” peoples.
We’ve graduated to anonymous financial advice now.
If you get/got a bonus, do not spend a cent of it. Save it for the rainy day that most agree is coming.
Good luck to all.
Can we please get back on track? This discussion is supposed to be about bonuses - a useful topic for current employees. If you would like to have meaningless arguments, please do so in another thread.
I got my bonus!
For everything else here...wtf?
Hmm.
"their": "of, belonging to, made by, or done by them"
"them": "used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified"
"they": "used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified"
so: "them": used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to "they"
Maybe in this case I should have said "them" not "they" since it was "their" games you were referring to. Or you could, you know, not be so obtuse as not to understand that if there's a "their" there must be a "they".
If anonymity is such an existential threat to the truth, start signing your name to every post. You have nothing to fear. But we both know you won't do it, my friend.
Tiinfoil hats have gone up in price due to tarrifs!
Oh sure, let's call anonymous ranting "empirical data." That’s like calling gossip at the water cooler "peer-reviewed research." If you’re building arguments on anonymous posts, congratulations—you’ve officially graduated from the University of Baseless Claims. Hope the diploma looks nice next to your tinfoil hat.
“ No, that's my "teacher" voice. I only use it here to correct the record.”
Well done sir. Let the record stand corrected because you (anonymous) repeated yourself.
@242+1jn495rnt oddly the word “they” didn’t even appear in the thread you responded to. But yes they are “they”. Thanks for adding clarity for “they”.
Who's "they"? Is it anyone you don't agree with? Are they "they"?
No, that's my "teacher" voice. I only use it here to correct the record.
The Peter Principle and the Dunning-Kruger Effect completely explain the current position of SAS Institute.
@23v+1jn495rnt What he is saying is that when him and others diagnose Dunning-Kroger it is based on empirical evidence. When you diagnose them for the same thing it is lack of self awareness.
Don’t bother playing their games.
@23t+1jn495rnt You didn’t use all caps but sure sounded like you were shouting :)
Easy grandpa.
When you have to resort to shouting you've lost the argument my friend.
The important bit of information you're missing is the shared personal experience and observations of the people who make these kinds of comments, and which we call "empirical evidence". You seem to be of the opinion that if all the evidence isn't available for you to review and approve, then nothing anyone says that is based on that evidence can be true. But of course that's ridiculous and is, in fact, a logical fallacy. Other people know things you don't know, and none of them owe it to you to explain it to you in terms that you understand. Frankly, your assumptions here are insulting and you should be ashamed of yourself. But we both know that's not going to happen because that is literally the "lack of self-awareness" I referred to above, proving that Dunning-Kruger is real in this very thread. HAND.
“ It should be self-evident that the "people on here" that you believe "overestimate their ability" may, in fact, be right, and your lack of self-awareness is the thing contributing to your (mistaken) belief that they are the ones with the problem”
The ANONYMOUS people on here judging UNNAMED people may in fact be right as you say. They may also be wrong. Give the lack on details on the people doing the judging (they could be jealous, id--ts, geniuses, shrinks, wtf knows) coupled with no details on the people they are judging tells me that it is all horsesh-t until those things are filled in. That isn’t lack of self-awareness. It is knowing what I don’t know. Try it sometime.
"This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills."
It should be self-evident that the "people on here" that you believe "overestimate their ability" may, in fact, be right, and your lack of self-awareness is the thing contributing to your (mistaken) belief that they are the ones with the problem.
No. That is the definition of Dunning-Kruger. Go and read.
SAS was founded by academics skilled in statistics — and pretty good at software development, as it was understood at the time.
They believed that anyone could pick up coding, as they did. But they were much smarter than the people they hired.
They thought that the people they hired were good.
The people they hired thought they were good also.
That explains a lot.
Psychobabble nonsense
Dunning-Kruger comprises two effects:
- people with low ability overestimate their competence.
- people with high ability think others have similar.
SAS shows both effects. People with high ability promoted people with low ability, thinking they could handle the job. This explains a lot.
irony: "the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."
That is a decent generic definition but doesn’t catch many cases of irony.
What I’m talking about is a layered example of irony. Dunning-Kruger where people with low ability overestimate their competence. But then, when people on here overestimate their ability to diagnoses others as having Dunning-Kroger. It’s meta irony.
@1w6+1jn495rnt
"Probably thinking up new scenarios for using the term Dunning-Kruger…. Each one more ironic than the last."
irony: "the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."
So it's not ironic if it's true. That's coincidence. I learned this from Family Guy.
Retired manager here, been gone for nearly a decade. But when I was there, I communicated bonus information the same day we were greenlighted to do so. I wanted my team to hear if from me prior to hearing about bonus scuttlebutt via the grapevine.
Having said that, as the years rolled on, the trend was less empowerment at the manager level with more and more of the decision making (for bonus distribution etc) being in the hands of HR.
If even a tenth of the cr-p I read on here is true, I am relieved to be gone.
A sincere good luck wish to all who are still at SAS.
A Nightmare on SAS Street
"Probably thinking up new scenarios for using the term Dunning-Kruger…. Each one more ironic than the last."
I don't know about Dunning-Kruger but it was a shame that Steve Krueger left SAS.
It is quiet because everyone is zonked by the time change.
It is sooo quiet on here. I’m guessing that means all the chicken little people got bonuses and don’t have anything immediate to say.
Probably thinking up new scenarios for using the term Dunning-Kruger…. Each one more ironic than the last.
In that position, I would talk with my manager.
It could mean they view your performance as sub-par -- or maybe they only got 30-odd percent of last year, because their performance was viewed as sub-par.
If you keep the conversation respectful, making it clear that you want to improve, you can ask in a way that does you no harm.
- for those that got nothing, sorry to hear that.
- for those that matched last year, I hope last year was a good one.
Mine was about 30-odd percent of prior year. Not sure how to read that as a tea leave.
Obviously if it had matched last year or was much closer, I'd take that as much more positive sign,.
Finally got notification late yesterday. Same as last year which was pretty good.
Still nothing.
Jelly of the Month Club
@15b+1jn495rnt "Most lower level managers were likely pressured to put at least one person in that category this year."
Did you hear something that suggests that they were?
Or they just haven’t gotten to you yet. The announcement said this week. It is only Wednesday.