Thread regarding Open Text Corp. layoffs

Paul, nice try :'D

@11f how do you mean "its only a dividend stock?

Go woke, go broke.

I'm short.

@10x and aiming for 1% growth is insane. While our partners are posting 15-20%+ growth. It’s only a dividend stock.

@tb
Totally agree with most of your points.
The issue with OT legacy Board Members and their tenure is .....regardless of a company's strategy (organic growth vs acquisitions) the BOD's job is to provide governance and oversite, confirm compliance with all regulatory agencies and ensure investors (especially institutional investors) get the ROI outlined by the CEO and C-Suite quarterly.
This BOD after seeing continual erosion in promised results and an increase in debt, kept in place..year after year an incompetent arrogant narcissist and his C-level reports.
That is why people continue to mention the BOD..the majority of whom are long in tenure and frankly short on action.
If OT was larger at least one activist firm (ex: Elliott) would have aquired enough shares to gain a few Board seats..then force the OT Board's hand much earlier to deal with an incompetent CEO and his merry band of bootlickers.
The ROI just wasn't there..and OT is not that strategic to the overall Technology industry.
After over 11 years the BOD finally took action. My question continues to be why have they not all (or at least some) stepped down?
In short, they are very nicely compensated for very little time and effort. That is the ROI they are most concerned with.

Nothing has changed.

It should be clear by now that the BOD supported the MB approach and he was replaced to spin the same c_r_a_p differently.

@tb the board doesn't have to great brain cells to rub together. You give them too much credit to think they'd try to gather information.... anywhere.

@tb OpenText may become the first tech company entirely run by AI bots. All we need is an ELT AI oversight committee.

I think everyone might have overlooked one possibility: this post could be authorized by the board to guide public opinion and lay the groundwork for what might happen next. So, all those people complaining about the board—making those old members resign or leave is impossible. Another point: I also agree that the company should divest all the acquired businesses, but have you ever thought about why the board chose an acquisition strategy in the first place? If I could make my own products better and better, and even create successful new ones, why would I choose the acquisition route? In the end, the decision-makers of this company are both stupid and lazy; there's no hope for the company in their hands. Wake up. You all deserve a better future, but not in this company.

@py Paul is the only ELT member worth saving. But probably it better if we just get all new executives without any baggage from the Mark tenure.

However, anyone new will probably use the Amazon playbook listed here:

https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3m47m6alxbk2i

tech companies are going to lay off tens of thousands of workers, due to AI implementation, but say it was caused by pandemic over hiring. I guess we are seeing that false narrative play out now. AI really eats jobs.

What the he-l is up with all the Paul Duggan sycophant posts? Do people really live like this?

Gawd, I hate these fu--ing AI slop posts.

@k1 Duggan is an independent thinker and was not always aligned with Mark B. The fact that the board chose to put James M in the interim CEO position shows they want an empty suit running the company. Duggan is too good for OpenText.

@jf , did Duggan came out publicly against Mark actions before or after he left?

@hy Smart people know Duggan is the best option. Crazy that some people do not see it.

@gg Paul Duggan should be the next CEO. But I noticed lately he has not been in the public with the other executives. I think he is being pushed out.

This is what happens when the company does not make good choices. A guy like Paul could step in and lead us, but unfortunately here we are.

All due respect, I just could not disagree more.

The entire stock market is up far more than OT. A high tide "lifts all boats" including dinghy's with damage to the hull.

IMHO the legacy members of the Board of Directors should stand down immediately. They are the one's 100% responsible for this (at least) 10 year (and ongoing) sh*t show. The only reason Elliott hasn't come in and taken at least two Board seats is the ROI isn't there.
They have bigger fish to fry with a better return.

Keep the talented engineers and I/C's. Get rid of long term legacy SLT and ELT members. They also are accountable for enabling a toxic, abusive workplace.

Stop blaming the businesses you acquired. You over paid and then wiped out intellectual capital (especially the people talent).

Lastly divest non-performing assets to decrease your debt and do not acquire any more businesses.
The team in place simply isn't good at negotiating a good deal and after close they are especially bad at integration.
This leads to additional unplanned cost, erodes ROI and creates unneeded chaos.
This lack of understanding how to plan and integrate is due to the arrogance of the 'we do this all the time' crowd.
They did do it all the time..and did it badly.

@ad Retaining talent? This is laughable (and so obviously AI-generated). Most of the talent from past and request acquisitions has long since left, either via RIFs by spreadsheet, or for better opportunities. There is virtually no path to grow at OT, certainly not up. Stay in your lane, play it safe, don't question the misguided decisions and direction of your leadership team (starting at the director level, automatons that merely push down the inane direction that the ELT ranks insist on). The cultural shift needed will only happen if OT brings in a growth-minded CEO, who cleans ELT house and brings in growth-minded, technically proficient leadership. If the new CEO is merely a mouthpiece for the board, expect nothing to change. OpenText is the only company I've worked for that actively discourages taking risks and developing talent, and I've been in tech for over two decades. Bell curve/vitality curve measurement, outmoded and widely regarded as a relic of past performance measurement, might have something to do with that.

As for the stock price? 'Bout time. We're still lagging all other similarly-sized tech, software, and AI companies, just pulling even with where the stock price was 5 years ago! Net zero gain in 5 years. It's an embarrassment. Shame on the board for taking this long to cut out the cancer. Time will tell and hiring decisions will show if it's for naught or may actually do some good.

Thank you for your ChatGPT generated posts.

The elephant in the room is OT prioritizing cost cutting over past contributions, customer commitment, retaining experience and expertise in house.

With a few indiscriminate past layoff waves, surprisingly nobody steps out to commit stopping the trend.

Without explicit commitment to the contrary, this company is going to be mere stepping stone for talents.

In our ongoing efforts to enhance performance and adapt to the evolving landscape of our industry, I propose a strategic approach focused on retaining our talented individual contributors while introducing a new coaching staff. This transition is essential for providing the necessary direction and vision that our players require to thrive.

Maintaining our individual contributors, who are eager and capable, allows us to preserve the valuable skills and insights that drive our success. However, relying on a coaching staff that may be resistant to change could hinder our potential for innovation and growth. As we consider integrating artificial intelligence into our operations, it is imperative that we have forward-thinking leaders who are adaptable and open to new methodologies.

In conclusion, I believe that by aligning our team with a fresh coaching perspective, we can harness the enthusiasm of our individual contributors and effectively leverage technology to achieve our goals. I welcome your thoughts on this proposed approach.