Thread regarding Follett layoffs

Imagine a boat race.

Company A has 8 people rowing and 1 person steering.

Company B has 1 person rowing and 8 people steering.

Company B loses the race.

So what do they do? They fire the rower.

Take a guess which company is Follett in this scenario.

Word salad written beside a thesaurus. Visits store, work the reg, receive cartons, and then say what needs to be said.

@2zm

A whole lotta words and not once did you mention the importance of your people. The one’s facility your “vision”. Your priority is the investors, not us, and we get that.

@24k
Vision isn’t loud is a statement of operational fact.

Leadership does not engage in reactive discourse, nor do we calibrate strategy based on the emotional intensity of external commentary. The organization’s direction is established through defined governance processes, not through informal feedback channels.

References to suffering have been noted. They do not alter our assessment of current conditions or our prioritization framework. Transitional strain is an expected variable in system‑level change and does not constitute grounds for strategic revision.

Our focus remains on execution. Vision is neither amplified nor negotiated. It proceeds.

@20f shut the fu-k up???

@22n da man da myth

@24a Too funny, I needed a laugh :) no not BS. It was JE, someone who actually did his homework, focused on the consumer strategy of GM and got results.

Go ahead, isn’t this where someone jumps in and says oh, he was too mean, too nice, unpredictable, too predictable, this or that. That’s all, I’m out. SF

@20f

"Vision isn’t loud".

What does that even mean?

Hearing isn't visible, either.

OTC f*ckwads: you're so steeped in your own corporatespeak and delusion and cruelty you wouldn't know a decent metaphor if it bit you in the a**.

Point is, you don't see, and you don't listen and you don't care.

Our campus communities are suffering as a result.

Suffering is loud.

@22n WTF? BS, no way he was tactical at best. Follower of the CW playbook, but ring kisser definitely:)

@20f Get that guy that built up convenience and technology into OTC, there was more excitement and stood up to ol’ CW!

@20f What a bunch of BS. Follett isn't losing because of competitors, they are losing because of their own leadership inabilities. Hiring a SVP of cheif of staff/head of strategy to help guide the CEO. What does that tell you about the quality of leadership we have.

When you fired the people who knew what they were doing, you shouldn’t be surprised when they go help someone else dominate the market. Bibliu and eCampus didn’t bo-m by accident. They boomed because they hired the talent Follett leadership treated as disposable.

@1jp We’re aware of the commentary about OTC’s direction, and we understand the frustration. Growth requires vision, but it also requires discipline, data, and a strategy that extends beyond nostalgia for how the industry used to operate.

We didn’t set out to be a big‑box retailer; we set out to modernize a legacy model that had been stagnant for years. Not every decision has been perfect, and not every talent departure was ideal, but competitors growing on the backs of former employees doesn’t automatically mean their strategy is superior, it means they’re benefiting from investments we made first.

We’re focused on building a sustainable future, not chasing short‑term spikes. And while others may be celebrating 150% YOY growth, we’re building the infrastructure to ensure we’re still here when the market corrects.

Vision isn’t loud. It’s consistent

The OTC leaders have driven this business into the ground. It's a shame to. With the right leadership and vison, the company could have exploded with growth. Too busy trying to be a big box retailer instead of a visonary industry disruptor. Too bad they got rid of all the industry talent, who have now went to competitors and helping them with 150% YOY growth. Bibliu and ecampus are booming.

Post ID: @ea+1krs8hv8w

Bingo!!!
It looks like JRC miscalculated. Not making a profit for it's wealthy investors and no one interested in buying a dying business. That's why the Follett family divested itself. However Follett Library/Software seems to be doing gangbusters!

The goal for this current group has always been to make the investment worth significantly more in a relatively short window — think 3–7 years — then sell it or take it public for a profit. Can’t you see the writing on the wall? Private equity firms whole model is optimizing for investment return first — not employee happiness, loyalty, or long-term culture.

What’s the plan here? Continue hiring overpaid GVPs and executives who add little value to the day-to-day business. Continue cutting payroll while demanding higher sales. Continue rewarding the people who kiss the ring while pushing out the few willing to speak up.

Business as usual for a private equity-driven company where the priority is maximizing dollars at the top, regardless of the impact on the people actually running the business every day.

What a novel thought-HQ monitoring this gripe portal! One would think some words of encouragement could be tossed into the word salad we watch daily. No blatant praise, but a thanks for staying on board.

Surely my martini has addled my brain ..