Thread regarding Synopsys Inc. layoffs

@103
It feels like top management is gambling on AI replacing individual contributors in the next year or two. Maybe that’s why they don’t bother listening to the folks who actually ship the product.

@zw

Yes, that is my complaint/observation too: the decision-makers (typically upper mgt, from my experience) have little to no clue as to what actually matters, makes a difference, or is a good idea.

I think that is because those people either come from non-technical backgrounds, or at least non-coding backgrounds, or are disconnected from feedback from the people who are in a position to make those determinations, and don't seek out or listen to people with that knowledge.

The converse point has also been made, that 'technical' people who are made mgrs often lack the necessary people skills and 'EQ' to make good leaders.

It's a hard problem, but there are places and solutions that work. Those require humility by mgt and a desire to do what is right for the company and its people, rather than just advance their own interests (and even then it's hard).

Ansys Mechanical has been left without a sound leadership for too long...this is just the result of years of incompetence and managers ignorant of good software development practice

@rt Stop burying your best engineers in administrative rubble. Send them back to the code. Send them back to the lab. Let them solve the "impossible" problems they were actually trained for.

@rh

Absolute right. You don’t need a PhD in Applied Mathematics to manage a spreadsheet.

It’s always fascinating to see companies hire world-class technical PhDs only to turn them into overqualified "Spreadsheet Orchestrators. Let’s be real:
(1) Great management requires integrity and sharp judgment, not a doctorate in mechanics.
(2) Most routine oversight can (and should) be handled by AI agents who don’t get bored.
(3) Asking a top-tier engineer to spend 40 hours a week on project tracking is like using a Ferrari to deliver mail.

It’s time to stop the talent waste. Let the AI handle the busy work, and send the experts back to solving the "impossible" engineering problems they were actually trained for. It’s better for their careers, better for innovation, and much better for the company.

Ansys Mechanical needs its 'technical guys', who were promoted into management roles to be forced back into coding and testing.
This is the reality of Ansys Mechanical. The 'cash cow' stayed safe while tech stocks were bullish over the last decade, but with the economy heading toward a downturn, the cracks are starting to show and customers will slowly fail to renew.
The department is top-heavy with 'technical' managers who lack formal software training. You have PhDs in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering making software architecture decisions, and mechanical engineers trying to run SaaS projects. Meanwhile, senior engineers who haven't updated their skill sets in decades are coasting on massive paychecks.
On top of that, these guys have absolutely zero people management skills. The entire department runs on fear, with low-paid H1Bs running a slave trade. Leadership is just playing politics and paying lip service to the higher-ups, while the developers are left crashing and burning.

@r8

I wonder if it would help to have both a 'technical lead' and 'manager' on equal par for each managerial level above 1st, which would only have a technical lead.

The 'manager' could just deal with administrative, HR, policy, strategic pushes and procedural issues. The 'tech lead' could be responsible for managing and reporting on the quality of the tool and coordination of code/debug work. The tech would be the source of information and last word on feasibility/usefulness the manager would use.

@q3

This reflects the Peter Principle, where employees are promoted to their "level of incompetence." A classic example is the star salesperson who, despite their individual success, lacks the leadership skills to manage a department, ultimately dragging the team down.

In my department, this principle takes a specific, damaging form. Technical staff are often promoted as a reward for sheer hard work—hitting deadlines, "saving" deals, or firefighting urgent issues. However, many of these individuals lack formal software engineering discipline or the vision to innovate. Instead of building robust solutions, they rely on "hacks" and tedious workarounds.

Once promoted, these leaders often suppress genuine talent out of fear of being technically surpassed. The result is countless failed projects and a crumbling architecture where fixing a single bug is a nightmare. Our inefficiency is staggering: we spend months developing a feature that competitors can replicate in weeks.

To save Synopsys, we must immediately separate management roles from technical contribution.

@pt

I hear what you say, and recognize its validity: good technical people are often not good 'people people'. Motivating people and keeping them in top levels of productivity (doing useful stuff well) is hard and requires a good understanding of human psychology, group dynamics, etc...

What is also true is that the people in charge (upper mgt), who make the significant decisions about strategic directions, policy, etc... also need to either understand the technical stuff, or rely on competent technical people who do, and take them at their word when they say something will/won't work, is a good/bad idea, is important or not, something matters or not. This is my pet peeve, and what I saw the most not being done well.

@n5 I apologize for call you clown manager, that was immature. I am sure you meant well , and I should have been kinder. Wishing you goodness :)

Its just so disappointing to see Ansys/Synopsys do down the drain at such a rapid pace. We should be loosing loyal customers very soon at this rate of incompetence.

I personally think people management should never be forced on someone just because they’re technical geniuses. A guy who is god-tier at debugging should stay in the code and be paid way more than the person managing his calendar.
The problem at Ansys/Synopsys is that the 'Technical Elite' have all migrated into management roles where they are completely out of their depth. These guys have PhDs and have spent thirty years talking to machines, not humans. They’re brilliant solo players, but as leaders, they’re a disaster.
We promote these guys to their level of incompetence and then act surprised when the company starts rotting. Once they’re in that seat, they realize they have no idea what they’re doing, so they lose their nerve. They become spineless 'yes-men' to the executives because they’re too afraid to push back. Then, to compensate for that fear, they act like total dictators to their teams. They run a system based on ego and intimidation because, deep down, they’re insecure little bi--hes who know they’ve traded their talent for a title they don’t deserve.
Having said all that, I think the Senior Director who commented here most likely has a PhD and was likely an amazing technical talent once, but he hardly codes now. He is operating from a swamp of fear and laying people off with zero pushback against the C-suite because this is not the role he is meant to do, nor was he ever meant to do it. Get this a-s out of here.

@kr

My first two levels of management were very 'technical': extremely knowledgeable about the details and overall issues in our tools. They were very good programmers and debuggers, and had a firm grasp of the overall issues.

They were also very focused on the success of individuals and the group, and consistently looked out for our interests and that of the project.

They were not the problem.

The problem was the people above them who shared none of those positive attributes: they understood little to nothing about the actual real challenges or obstacles, what matters in delivering effective solutions, or even basic software issues, since they mostly didn't come from a technical (software) background. They ignored the input of lower mgt and just did what they thought sounded cool.

It isn't that upper mgt are stupid, is that they dont care to rely on actual knowledge and truth over their ill-informed 'gut'.

@k0 anonymous message permits reaction like that… sad
For clarification, we get information as everyone about layoffs, about the PSE and… and you know what? Nothing else. As mid manager we are just in the middle and completely useless in such kind of situation. Top said it is like this… and we discover it the day before.
Continue to blame people, it’s hard for everyone and everyone is impacted actually.

Don't be so harsh on that senior director. His abilities are also limited, and there are many things he can't control. His willingness to share some truths and suggestions is helpful to us.

The funniest comment is from the senior director claiming to be under pressure. If you think your hardship will find empathy here, think again, if its so hard, go find another job, and if you're under so much pressure, give up your position and quit. I'm certain the people whom you laid off with mortgages, kids in college, and families, will be more than happy doing yoir job at lower compensation than you currently earn. You have no sympathy here, go away

so true, these senior guys have no problem saying no to people under them. And, they turn into rabbits when it someone above them. They are yes men. Spineless a--holes.

What a joke. I can’t say this to your face, but you're a coward with zero self-esteem who’s destined to be a low-life. What are you even doing snooping around these forums? Don't you have anything better to do? It just proves how 'busy' the higher-ups actually are.
Hire me to do your job and pay me a quarter of what you make, I guarantee I’d be more efficient. Most of these senior directors are technical hacks with pi-s-poor man management skills. Rather than focusing on what matters, you spend half your time in meetings boot-licking the layer above you. Not one of you has the spine to stand up and say 'no.'
That’s the problem when you have technical guys leading people. We should pay the actual technical talent what a senior director makes, and pay the 'people managers' a fraction of that. The entire system is upside down. I don't know how these corporate moochers sleep at night.

I'm a senior director based in North America. I have a say in how layoff lists are created, working alongside HR. My understanding is that, depending on geographic location, there are also local factors that come into play.
Managers are not explicitly required to provide a list, but in some cases they do. However, a manager’s feedback on employees throughout the year is taken into consideration.
So if you don’t want a target on your reportee, be mindful of the information you share that might suggest someone is a poor performer.
If you’ve been around for a while and are on a higher salary, unfortunately you may be more at risk unless you have strong backing from someone higher up in the chain of command. It’s uncomfortable to admit this, but there is often bias toward letting go of higher earners and more senior employees. No one in leadership will openly acknowledge it, but it is an unfortunate reality in the industry.
Whether we like it or not, companies often find it cheaper to hire and train newer employees than to retain experienced ones with higher salaries.
You can call it harsh, but the reality is that everyone, including myself and those above me, is under pressure. We are not your friends. We have an obligation to deliver results for the company, just as each of you does in your roles.
If you’re expecting decisions to be driven purely by justice, honor, or empathy, the reality is more complicated. Everyone is dealing with their own pressures.
In my opinion, we are in a difficult position. Synopsys appears to be under significant strain, and the trajectory is concerning

@jd Managers do not have a say in who is let go. Decisions are made by senior leaders of each group, HR is only provided with a list of names and managers of those people are not notified ahead of time. Managers are often notified at the same time as their people, depending on the skip level manager, or those people are the ones notifying their manager. The criteria is not consistent across each group.

I want to add a clarification as the original writer of this post. My intention was not to blame middle management.
From what I have seen, they are going through the same situation as the rest of us. They are trying to support their teams, keep people motivated, and manage uncertainty, while also being impacted themselves. They are not the ones driving these decisions.
The real question is about direction and strategy.
The decisions that led to this situation come from a higher level. They reflect strategic choices about products, priorities, and organization. And this is where the disconnect seems to be.

At least in France, layoffs are structured and regulated. It is not about individual managers choosing who stays or leaves. People are grouped by category, and selection is based on legal and social criteria. This can lead to outcomes that do not align with the actual needs of the product.

What is difficult to understand is how we can say we want to focus on key products, while at the same time removing a large part of the engineers who carry the knowledge of those same products.

Blaming middle managers does not reflect the reality of how these decisions are made. They are, in many ways, in the same position as their teams.

Let’s try to support each other through this. We are not the only ones going through situations like this, and we will not be the last. Spreading blame, or confusion will not help anyone, especially when people are already feeling demotivated.

Let’s try to help each other instead of making things harder :)

@hz What a clown. This con artist wants us to believe managers have no say in layoffs. As developers, we can’t even check in code without proxies and oversight, yet he wants us to believe layoffs happen at random with zero supervision? Okay, 'Mister Manager,' what’s the next fairy tale? That there are no pay gaps among your reports and that everyone is compensated with perfect equity?

If you are truly as helpless as you claim, and merely a spectator as a manager, then share more information. There was clearly a precedent that layoffs were happening, so go ahead, put your honor on the line and be transparent.
What do you mean by “the information asked was based on pure expectation”? If layoffs were happening and you, as a manager, were being asked for information, then it’s clear you provided something. What exactly did you supply?
You’re acting as if everything was sunshine and rainbows, while still admitting that you shared information. This sounds like yet another hollow excuse from a manager.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Try to have some backbone. Support the people who rely on you instead of blindly following the whims of your superiors.

If you are truly as helpless as you claim, and merely a spectator as a manager, then share more information. There was clearly a precedent that layoffs were happening, so go ahead, put your honor on the line and be transparent.
What do you mean by “the information asked was based on pure expectation”? If layoffs were happening and you, as a manager, were being asked for information, then it’s clear you provided something. What exactly did you supply?
You’re acting as if everything was sunshine and rainbows, while still admitting that you shared information. This sounds like yet another hollow excuse from a manager.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Try to have some backbone. Support the people who rely on you instead of blindly following the whims of your superiors.

I saw some ambiguous comments in this section. I’m a manager from this company and located in FR. And I never had something to say, information asked was based on pure expectation and most of us were informed last minute (the day before the announcement) about it. Please don’t comment when you don’t know, having assumption and sharing fact is quite different, even in hard situations transparency and sharing real info is more important.

@dr I just wanted to ask, are you based out of France?

I am a manager, and I have had to lay people off. I knew who it was going to be because I provided the names. It’s hard to let people go. Our job is difficult too. We try to reason with upper management, but we are told that it’s part of our responsibilities and what’s best for the department. I cannot reveal much more at the moment.

I agree. I think it’s easier for managers to say they don’t know, because they don’t want to appear as though they’re not on your side. There’s no real advantage for a manager to admit they know who is getting laid off to the people who report to them.
In many cases, it feels like managers gave up their self-respect a long time ago. Unfortunately, it’s a rat race, and once people feel insecure, no one hesitates to pull the ladder up behind them.

Managers/Skip-Managers like to pretend they aren't aware of names. Make no mistake, your manager knows, no decision is made on the roll of a die. It's calculated, and it's meant to increase profits.

I have no idea how they even picked the names for these layoffs. A friend told me his skip manager, an Executive Director, didn’t see the list until it was announced. It’s obvious HR was just calling all the shots. A colleague even said they cut the people who actually do the work and kept the ones that barely do the work. It’s a total mess.

This is such a real take. OP, whoever you are, this is a very thoughtful and beautifully written piece.
Investors need to see this. The fundamentals of the company are not the same as they used to be. When tremors are felt so far down the food chain, it is a symptom of systemic failure. The stock price needs to fall, management needs to be shaken up, and this message needs to be echoed more widely for a better future to emerge.
One can hope. Wishing everyone reading this goodness and calmness.

Sad to hear that. We got hit in last December in the bay area. Now my office floor becomes almost empty after 4:00pm. I believe many of us are very upset.