Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

Isn't this similar to the previous question?

We can believe they're id--ts, or that they're working toward a goal.

Under what conditions would status quo be a goal?

When planning to sell or IPO.

I believe the entire premise that the company is being “led” is a false narrative. From my perspective, there is little evidence of meaningful leadership within the organization. The senior management team appears largely aligned around maintaining the status quo rather than addressing the significant challenges the company is facing (all 'Yes' men in key roles).

There seems to be little willingness to communicate candidly with JG about the realities in the marketplace. In many cases, customers have lost confidence in SAS, and a growing number are actively exploring or implementing plans to replace our solutions. This trend is likely to accelerate in the near future.

At the same time, the company lacks a clearly defined competitive strategy and the VIYA platform has not resonated with many customers in the way it was intended. Unless these issues are acknowledged and addressed directly, the gap between leadership’s perception and the market’s reality will continue to widen. Just look at the SAS revenues at being flat or declining and one of our biggest competitors, Databricks, has 60-70% revenue growth and over 100% market valuation Y/Y growth. Not once during the company kick-off meetings did our senior management team even acknowledge the competitive battle we are facing in the marketplace nor was any type of competitive strategy discussed/presented. How is that possible? How can management present a revenue growth plan for SAS when we are clearly losing market share rapidly and there is no competitive strategy to address it?

If SAS were a publicly traded company, the current trajectory would likely invite significant scrutiny from the market and there would be rampant short selling. It's a very sad story playing out in front of so many great employees. I wish I could do more but, unfortunately, no one in power cares to listen.

@g5 I concede: "id--ts" is too strong a word for this decision. It is, as you say, a rational decision if the goal is short-term profitability.

SAS headcount is down ~2500 from its peak. By definition, everyone who left had some experience, and the buyouts targeted hundreds with the most experience.

I hope SAS has enough experience remaining to reverse its decline.

@g4 you are probably the same people that in other threads criticise people who resort to name calling as lacking any real arguments…

Id--ts they are not.

And very few good experienced IC engineering types have actually been let go.

Yes they are only hiring inexperienced which su-ks and is short sighted. But not id--tic if their main goal is currently profitability.

From the cheap or expensive seats, the view is the same:

They traded experience for cheap labor, and the company has declined.

Definitely not id--ts, but easy to say stuff like that from the anonymous cheap seats.

"While I don’t entirely disagree with the sentiment I will ask the question (again). Why would you stay somewhere you feel that way about?"

There are potentially many reasons -- family/friends all live in the area, limited opportunities for other employment, fear of the unknown after working for 25 years at SAS, decent salary and benefits at SAS, work colleagues that you like and respect, potential big payout with IPO, ...

(Okay, the last one was a joke.)

There was an HR policy, to replace seniors with juniors, about 5 years ago. This was before the AI breakthroughs. Now, companies need experienced seniors to manage the AIs. So an opposite policy should be in place.

If SAS is still replacing seniors with juniors, it means either a) they don't understand that experience is valuable or b) they don't understand that experience is required to manage AIs, or c) their only goal is to cut costs, experience be damned.

“I don't know whether they were surprised the quality of the work suffered...Or whether they even noticed...Or whether they even cared.”

One thing if for sure - in order for management to be effective, they must understand the capabilities (including knowledge and skill levels) of their people so that assigned tasks are reasonably scoped and achievable. This is not likely with three new juniors on a team.

@b3 it is a tough job market. But there were the exact same complaints when we were in red hot job markets.

With all the talent available coupled with AI it is a great time to start up your own thing.
You may still have the same scenario described by @op but who knows.

This is a tough economy, at least at software companies. Many are laying off or reducing hiring. If I were at SAS, I'd stay put...

...and I'd make the same complaint as the @OP. When I left SAS, 3/4 of my small team were Principal Developers. All three of us left. And they replaced all three of us with juniors.

My boss had no choice; it was an HR policy, to cut costs.

I don't know whether they were surprised the quality of the work suffered...

...Or whether they even noticed...

...Or whether they even cared.

While I don’t entirely disagree with the sentiment I will ask the question (again). Why would you stay somewhere you feel that way about?

Prior generations of leadership were at least able to understand a direction, convey the intent, induce some level of acceptance if not enthusiasm, and then coordinate efforts across departments and the whole company if necessary. That level of orchestration is now sorely lacking. A pile of tasks plopped onto an Agile sprint in isolated departments is no substitute.

Of course, that's back when management actually understood the products because they were involved in the design and creation of them.

Daddy, I earned it!