Who agrees and why?
25 replies (most recent on top)
That's true: this thread is not about vaccines.
But also: people who don't read this entire thread are making better use of their time :-)
Some of you are not reading the entire threads and also making very hyperbolic hot takes. There was a grand total of one comment made about the vaccine mandate, and it was supplemental rather than being the subject matter.
“What wokeness? People keep writing essays about these alleged issues, and I've yet to see a single person explain how our minimal diversity programs have actually led to SAS's downfall or how the issue is worth this many threads being posted. Some supposedly really smart people left because it was too woke? Like... what?! I mean, is this actually all about vaccines?... if so, I don't think the people who left over that are as bright as they think they are.”
Strongly agree. I cannot believe how much time has been dedicated to this complete non-issue on this forum.
It's so confusing reading these threads. I feel like these people don't even work at the same company as I do. I keep my head down and do my work, and I have had short training videos I've taken every year just like at every other company I've worked for. In fact, the ones I've taken here are much more minimal than others I've seen.
What wokeness? People keep writing essays about these alleged issues, and I've yet to see a single person explain how our minimal diversity programs have actually led to SAS's downfall or how the issue is worth this many threads being posted. Some supposedly really smart people left because it was too woke? Like... what?! I mean, is this actually all about vaccines?... if so, I don't think the people who left over that are as bright as they think they are.
"Do it with the most minimal corporate footprint possible." We can agree on that.
"Real transformation rarely occurs from the status quo." We agree on that too. Now, if we could just see that transformation...
OK then.
Play the game but do it with the most minimal corporate footprint possible. Is an entire DEI department with a “global head” really needed? Stop paying LinkedIn in to virtue signal. Be about the business of hiring and retaining the best and brightest most qualified, no matter what they look like or where they’re from. Pay them enough to keep them.
Real transformation rarely occurs from the status quo. Who says West Coast Tech got DEI right? Bezos himself said Amazon will eventually become a “day 2” company and no longer be as successful.
Dare to be different and shape the standard. That’s what made SAS successful in the first place. At this point it’s likely the only thing that’s going to return them to being successful.
I’m sure SAS management agrees that HR’s implementation of “wokeness” is not an optimal use of resources.
But they’re not doing it because it’s optimal. They’re doing it because they have to.
Management may not like hybrid work either. But they’re not doing it because they like it. They’re doing it because they have to.
For software companies in the US at this time, these are the rules. We don’t have to like them. But if we’re losing the game, we don’t get to blame the rules.
SAS does not enjoy the financial bounty that woke West Coast tech mostly does. The optimal expenditure of resources and the fomentation of productive work ethic and attitudes are critical to the company’s survival at this point.
Fact, there will always be people who have racist/s-xiest attitudes, no matter the color of their skin or their gender identity, etc.. No amount of cringy corporate HR indoctrination will change this.
Most of us who were/are part of SAS Culture for many years or decades experienced it as a very friendly place where people of diverse backgrounds, personal identities, etc. generally get along well. We don’t need an HR nanny to define morality for us or tell us how to treat others. Many of us have had “crucial conversations” with SAS coworkers of different racial, se-ual orientation, religious, etc. backgrounds that going back to the 1980s. This is what mature, educated adults do.
SAS employees need to use their energy and intelligence bandwidth to help pull the company out its current slump. Having to deal with the potential of being accused of a “micro aggression” or a “his/her/they/zer” etc, makes me “uncomfortable” accusation is unproductive and silly. Anyone capable of getting hired at SAS or any other tech company should be emotionally mature enough to operate on a continuum from simple avoidance to setting-a-firm-verbal-boundary to recognizing that maybe just maybe THEY have the problem and need to grow thicker skin. We don’t need more HR bureaucracy to teach us that.
It is HR’s place to handle the truly apoplectic raging abusive hotheads, the suggestive harassment types, etc. — the wolves. Historically they’ve not always done this and now that want to lecture the “sheep” (metaphor ending now) ….
Woke is part of SAS’ decline because it’s taking away focus and monetary resources from the real problems and attempting to transfer leftist shame onto productive employees, no matter what their political orientation. If you must know, this commenter supports reparations for black Americans who are descendants of slavery or otherwise legitimately impacted by Jim Crow, etc. See, you can’t put sensitive, thinking people in a box.
Some would argue that hybrid work hurts productivity. But we can’t argue that it contributes to the decline of SAS.
Like “wokeness”, hybrid work is a nationwide trend. So as it affects SAS, it also affects SAS competitors.
We don’t have to like “wokeness”. We don’t have to like hybrid work. None of us likes all the rules of this game.
But we can’t argue that certain rules we dislike contribute to our loss of market share — while, under the same rules, competitors gain market share.
When we’re losing a game, we’re not allowed to blame the rules.
A lot of ideologues spouting outraged propaganda catchphrases in this thread (I see one of them even slipped in anti-vax nonsense) - but I can't help noticing that none of them have even attempted to explain an actual causal relationship between 'woke' and corporate decline.
A little bit of vague handwaving about the (relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things) costs of training is as far as they've gotten with an actual argument. As with most reflexive, mindless 'anti-woke' beating...there's no actual there there.
This is my not-at-all-surprised face.
“
The decline of SAS can't be blamed on a trend that affects all companies.
“
The OP is not suggesting this is where all blame for SAS’ decline lies but rather that wokeness is a contributing factor.
Important employees left SAS voluntarily for reasons that include excessive wokeness. They recognized its implementation and emphasizes as a link in a chain of significant errors collectively diminishing SAS’ success.
'SAS' competitors are also "woke"... Wokeness could also be hindering those competitors.'
That's the point: if wokeness causes decline, they'd all decline.
Instead, SAS' market share has declined, while competitors have gained.
The decline of SAS can't be blamed on a trend that affects all companies.
The playing field's level. We just haven't played well.
I agree that corporate bias training is a little bit cringey but personally I don’t mind my employer trying to make minority employees feel welcome. I have personally witnessed both racism and s-xism at SAS.
A pivotal moment for me was when SAS made all employees take that “educational course” post George Floyd/BLM. Hey, SAS - I’m an adult, I already have parents, I know right from wrong, I know the composition of what makes a decent human being, I have a moral compass. No corporate pulpit video series/programs necessary. I personally saw this “educational course” as a way to shame employees and empower HR in some false sense or morality. Perhaps even deflect from their own shame for not hiring enough “diversity”. My trust in leadership quickly eroded when they pushed out this nonsense, and the covid mandates was just the last nail in the coffin. SAS, bravely following the government/media talking points, who re-define science and basic human decency on a daily basis.
Well, let's just say that JHG is heavily influenced to do this, because woke corporate virtue signaling has become all but a mandate in the current tech/biz economic climate.
I agree that JHG is not personally woke, and neither are several members of the current senior leadership, but that doesn't mean they don't have to tow a certain line.
It's a delicate dance at SAS. There are certain forces who will never think the company is woke enough, but thankfully they don't old the purse strings. Most of the greatest innovators and biz folks in SAS history we're far from woke by current definitions/standards.
The mandatory training three years ago was a major wake up call for me as well and I left within a few months. The interesting and ironic thing is the training was broken into two major modules. The first one was developed internally, and was very "woke/progressive"--parts of it could've been a playbook right out of BLM.
The second module on "bias" was licensed from Franklin Covey, an HR consultancy of Mormon extraction that looks VERY white patriarchical from the outside. It featured a slick young couple, I believe it was a white woman and an East Indian man. Extremely polished corporate actors who came across in a much more amiable way than the internally developed first module from SAS.
The contrast between the two modules couldn't be more stark to anyone with a modicum come of critical thinking skills. The kicker was the couple from the second module, defining the term "Intersectionality". I can't quite it verbatim, but it was something like:
"Intersectionality is the combination of all the various parts of YOU".
This definition is very far from how Miriam Webster defines it"
": the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, s-xism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups".
It was almost like the second module on bias was attempting to somehow I apologize for the first
I see the people offended by people disagreeing with workism are hoping to silence and remove comments of differing opinions.
Yes woke-ism is destructive, Along with the CRT cr-p. Sorry if this also offends. But the decline is more than just this, it’s also the product is not “new” nor the idea. There have been some really bad management decisions.
So I’m sure people that agree with the initial comment, are the ones y’all want to replace. Which is why we keep our mouth shut.
Wokeness was eating sas (and other tech companies) alive when I left last year. It creates overhead burden/waste, distracts from productive work, and makes most people uncomfortable. I wasn’t willing to be brainwashed with Newspeak, which was part of the training they forced us to take a couple years ago. I clicked through the nonsensical training just to get through it and keep my job, but that was just another sign I needed to leave.
100% Agree. Depending the department, some are sheltered from it while others have it shoved in their face. Where I work…it’s in my face. But can’t say a word because I’d be “non conforming” and that won’t fly.
Dr. Goodnight is many things - good and bad - but 'excessively woke' is absolutely not one of them. And everything that happens at SAS flows from him.
This is just absurd.
"wokeness" can't explain SAS' decline -- because SAS' competitors are also "woke".
False assumption because.... Wokeness could also be hindering those competitors.
I disagree as well. This is a ridiculous thing to complain about. Also, being “woke”’ (aka trying to be inclusive and respective of everyone, no matter their gender, race, religion, etc) actually also means being opposed to ageism, despite what another commenter said below.
"Wokeness" is a national phenomenon. It's not happening at only one company in North Carolina.
Therefore, "wokeness" can't explain SAS' decline -- because SAS' competitors are also "woke".
The idea that 'woke' is negatively impacting SAS is facially ridiculous.
I disagree also, and I hope the moderators remove all these political discussions, because they are irrelevant to the decline of SAS.
I worked with every minority you can name, at SAS, 30 years ago. It's no more "woke" now than it was then.
I disagree. SAS has always been more "woke" than other companies in the Triangle.
This thread has been archived. Posting is disabled.