Was it wrong for SS to offer one of his directors a two for one deal on headcount? Two US full time positions traded for 4 off-shore consultants full time.
One CIO leaves a legacy of offering internships to local university students, another starts a practice of giving our jobs to graduates in other countries.
Will Follett save money?
This is very true. Either hire new and then layoff older employee, or layoff older, change the title a little and hire new employee.
Compromise your integrity and kiss the department head's ass, you know, the one you secretly trash.
No one actually shrinks their own head count. They may claim this, on paper. It never happens. The VP will find reasons to re-add the head count. To answer your question: NO! It will not save money.
Not only is the name mud they are too expensive.
The only business strategy this leadership knows how to execute is the reduction of head count. You (and customers) couldn't run away from Follett fast enough. The family name is mud these days, no integrity left.
It comes down to values. The previous CIO was ethical,focused on improving follett, cared about the company and its employees and was very intelligent. He defined leadership. Unfortunately that is 360 degrees from the new leadership team.
This is a confirmed statement. ML via the Accenture study will destroy IT at Follett. They will continue with all work moved offshore but ultimately it won't save significant money. SS provides updates to the board each meeting on progress to the Accenture plan.