Heard from a reliable source that SS teams will be laid off next,
26 replies (most recent on top)
lol, @yjuu+1iFj1TqI ,way to try and justify your fake e-mail jerb.
Absolutely agree on the direct reports - 8+ should be the minimum and recent staffing changes means that isn’t currently always the case. Surely there will be shifts accordingly at some point. PDs and GMs who don’t think their Director is working constantly will to impact enrollments or retention - if they think that is the case in their programs they should take it to Dobbs or Brad. Again - if you don’t know the time that Directors spend ensuring programs are staffed appropriately and with the right people, digging deep into retention and enrollment issues and creating interventions and action plans that assuredly have and impact and working with their direct reports and teams to drive those interventions - and you are making judgment based only on your attendance if a meeting or two with a director in it - you aren’t getting what the role does. Suffice to say - the numbers, sure. There has been a lot of quick change in staffing numbers over the last 6 months and there is some reorg to do to ensure efficiencies. But acting like the role is not impacting enrollments/retention is a sign of lack of understanding what the role does.
These calendar walk throughs have happened with many and often times it is a SE director just being in the room… to provide “support.” Ask anyone in program management- GMs, PDs, etc…. SE Directors are not impacting revenue and enrollments like they should be at their pay rate and count. I am not saying the role should be wiped clean, but 14 or whatever is excessive. Managers have IC counts of 8-12… Directors could be made valuable if they had more direct reports and actually helped manage their programs rather than just simply be “assigned” to them. Providing “support”, attending (not even leading) cross-functional meetings, and working on a few cross-functional projects for the department here and there ain’t worth the salary they account for in the dept. They’re not even partner-facing 95% or the time, thus putting their lack of impact on revenue front and center! if cuts are to be made, it will be here.
Definitely room for fewer VPs and directors considering there are fewer managers and ics with attrition and the impact of efficiencies that have been put in place (many driven by directors, btw). However, it’s also really typical for people not in a role to not be able to fathom what that role does. I agree that people wondering what SE Directors do should set up time with one they trust and hear good things about and just ASK. Have them walk you through their calendar - heck, even ask them to screen share and literally go hour by hour. Ask your Director what they do to support the success of your team (“support” does not mean warm fuzzy - in addition to leadership development, it includes staffing planning, managing hr issues, strategizing around market trends and creating clear action plans for intervention on multiple programs in order to improve performance . . .and and and). If you don’t think your director is “worth it” without understanding truly what that individual director is doing with their time - then you are not speaking from an educated place. And if a director won’t sit with you and talk through it - then perhaps that specific director has issues and should go. But if you are saying a role is not necessary without truly knowing what the day to day looks like - that’s the same complaint people have about Chip being disconnected from the reality of the day to day.
I have never seen a company so top heavy with middle and upper management. There are way too may Directors and VP's. It obviously results in hundreds of thousand$ paid annually to a multitude of people doing the actual work only needed to be handled by only few actual Harder Workers.
There are Plenty of higher educational institutions that have a singular director overseeing an entire regional area.
2u has spent well over a decade not having an actual sustainable business plan. Too much of the plan seemed to be centered around the "feel goods." Part of the feel goods seemed to be centered around allowing certain pockets of individuals to be lifted up, by providing a fancy title and an even fancier paycheck. But there are at least 2trUths surrounding that. 1) The roles of Director and VP are not that deep and don't come close to warranting the need for the numbers of people that have been promoted 2) Look at the racial makeup of most of the people who were given those role$......
@wofe+1iFj1TqI is correct. The leadership team is doing this right now.
To the Director's point on this thread... you mention that your job is to support your Managers and without you, VPs would have 40 Managers reporting to them. Ask yourself, is that role really worth the $120-140k that each of you make? What are you really doing to influence enrollments and retention? Your Managers and ICs are the ones doing that.... and yet you all are played well into 6 figures. And why is there a need for 14 directors to manage Managers if all they need is "support"? It's definitely a layer that could use reconfiguring. Anyone with an ounce of an ability to analyze an org chart will see that.
I heard SE Directors/Sr. Directors are on the chopping block.
The fact that so many people seem to think SS is BS should be alarming. Perception often becomes reality that, in turn, results in cuts when times are tough (like now).
lol, i really enjoy all the SS people with their silly e-mail jobs trying to justify why they shouldn't be fire right before they are shown the door.
Hence the focus on spending money wisely and not wasting it on low roi investments. It’s a big part how you get to profitability. Do you need a business 101 class or something?
@mhfk+1iFj1TqI You can talk about your ROI when TWOU actually turns a profit.
People needing to work to distribute limited resources appropriately is part of operations. Has anyone truly ever worked at a company where you felt every individual made the right decision all the time? Humans work in companies. Humans have various priorities. SE directors help ensure the voice of students, ICs and SE managers are a part of the conversation. This is especially important as staff is cut and the company works toward running leaner. You are just telling me either you never worked in a leadership position in an operations capacity in a large company. 2u already cut a ton of staff. As the company works to align structures to the new direction and cut costs - those working to help ensure those resources have an roi based on what is happening in interactions with current and future students is important. Again - good luck in any company developing any leader that is 1 of 40 reporting into the same vp. Good luck getting managers who have they support they need to successfully support the humans on their teams - and the humans who are our students.
@jxgj+1iFj1TqI Everything you typed sounds like you are justifying these useless middle management positions because you have to deal with other people in the enterprise who also have useless middle management positions. Easy solution is to get rid of all of these useless positions so the enterprise isn't burning cash on these d-mb internal politics.
Full disclosure: I never worked at TWOU but am shorting your company. Thanks for confirming my suspicions about why your employer can't turn a profit.
So the goal then would be each SE VP (degree) managing 30-40 managers as their direct reports? That’s what removing Directors would do. I’d encourage you to set up some time with an SE Director and directly ask how they spend their 40 hours. Most would be very willing to share with you. With SE (including SS) running incredibly lean with managers and ICs- yes there is probably room to redeploy a director or 2. However- if you are a manager who thinks your director isn’t useful to your role you should escalate that. If you are an IC who doesn’t understand how the SE Director role supports your day to day - you should ask them or the VPs. You have a right to know what leadership is spending their time on and how it benefits you 100% - but you cannot deem a role useless without truly understanding what it does in the day to day. All of this demonstrates that you don’t. Trust that you do not want SE managers all reporting to a VP who is also managing 30-40 other managers. What kind of development do those managers get? What kind of support breaking down blocks to your team’s success? How will your team be prioritized for staffing? Who will push on the GMs, PDs and other internal stakeholders when a team needs more support? Who will have any time to mentor folks who want to grow in their roles? Who will advocate for reasonable goals? Who will push on HR or benefits when something is a problem for an IC or manager who needs support? 40 managers pushing on a VP to get support with problems or challenges- no way you are getting what you need simply due to the limits of face time. It’s totally understandable to wonder where Directors spend all their time - just encourage actually asking the questions vs making assumptions.
If we're really suggesting necessary changes, look closely at the department's historic success the years prior to Dobbs taking over.
The change from 2 departments (Admissions and Student Success) to one over-bloated division (SSE) all appears to be his brain child. Soooo much of the chaos, mismanagement, and all around confusion of function/application/purpose started in 2019 with that decision. The result is what has trickled down.
Agreed!
What do they do that slots them 6 figure salaries?
I've just sent an anonymous email describing my take on SE directors and the nothingness that emanates from their role. If the company wants to save money, they can make a huge impact getting rid of this ridiculous function. What a waste.
The amount of SE directors drives me nuts…and correct…I’d be hard pressed to find what they do 40 hours a week outside of group meetings and denying promotions.
This is what we mean by middle management. I don’t think team managers will or should be cut.
Oh, also the amount of VPs under Dobbs is too high. Similar to Directors.
Cut em!
If anyone, it should be the SE Directors, not Managers. I do not understand what they spend 40 hours a week on.
Yes middle management is obscene. They are not necessary.
SSAs are written into the agreements between school and 2U so they can’t just gut all SSAs. Imagine your students who had so much support now has none. Woof.
But middle management can be cut 100%
SS is incredibly bloated with middle managers. I was surprised it wasn't already cut.
I heard rumors about SS too. This person works w/ Chip but isn't in management.
Not sure where that information is coming from. Very reliable source that student success will not be involved.
The rumor mill isn't a reliable source.
Please don’t post information unless you know it to be true. This site should not cause you more anxiety than you already
Interesting take, since I was told by a reliable source that SS would not be affected by the layoffs.
What is your source?