How can they speak of eliminating redundancy when they add regional operations people to do the role do the COO who has yet to make appearances or even calls to the campuses? Redundancy?.... There are two FA leaders and it is obvious that one of them can do the entire job with one hand tied behind his back. SAE has a ginormous marketing team to support only a division of SAE. Look at other school systems and their marketing team is half the size with double the campuses or campus size. There were only two group people In the Compliance department and even only one person supporting Career Services from the group level. How was that redundant? Those two functions did not increase staffing disproportionately at the campus nor group level and were able to get the job done. Yet those two functions are listed as important initiatives and we dismiss those leaders who actually communicated effectively and produced improvements without breaking the bank. How many CFO and accounting people are there to make sure we do NOT pay the bills on time? Or balance the checkbook? Where is there redundancy when there was only one Veteran Affairs person? I appreciate the communication but some of the layoff decisions completely contradict the stated important initiatives. I actually do not put all the blame on SAE global or Navitas. They probably only communicated with certain people at the Group level. They should find out how often they interacted with the campuses to even know what was going on. SAE US was blinded by its own agendas that they forgot to do their main job which was to support the campuses.
15 replies (most recent on top)
We all figured that
I heard that HR was the most influential contributor in the layoff discussions. And she doesn't have a clue about educational operations or what people actually did. What a shame. Wrong person to listen to
I like Robert. He knows his stuff. I think that was the only smart move by the other guy ... Was to hire someone he knew how to actually do his job. I wonder if Robert knows that.
What does Jerry Rivera do that Robertt Zelaya can't ? Oh wait. That's why they had to hire Robert ... Because Jerry can't do much.
Interesting insights
I'm onto the trend too. Marketing couldn't generate enough leads, so add more people to do more of the same. Admissions couldn't hit their goals, so take out the new National Director who had direct experience and give it back to the CRO who has never once enrolled a student (anywhere) High School Admissions was cut because it was not doing what was expected (and maybe too soon) but leave the HS leader in there, FA always complained about packaging in a timely manner, but keep the FA leaders there so one can watch the other actually do the job, HR doesn't even have goals, because there is no way in hell someone can work like that and fly under the radar unnoticed for being ineffective. I don't think Navitas were given the right information. And I do know that some of the high level Group people could have fought harder, but instead they cowered.
"How many CFO and accounting people are there to make sure we do NOT pay the bills on time? Or balance the checkbook?" - Whoever posted this... That was CLASSIC! I think there are 5 in total, but they needed the CFO to approve all payments because of how they were spending, or should I say, overspending.
51052-That particular decision made no sense. When our CS department hit the goal, we celebrated with him. Hell, we even celebrated when we heard of other campuses CS departments hitting their goals and above. I think all the campuses actually hit it even cuz all of us on campus heard it from our CS person. They all had some friendly ass competition going on. I've never worked at another school before but I do hear that this is why people come to our school... To get a job. So how is it that if you don't hit your goals, you get to keep your job, but when you hit or blow out your goals, you get canned?
That's why I say those who made these decisions are complete idiots. Have they ever run a major company? If they have I can't tell. You get rid of the key departments that here in the U.S. will keep the feds off your butts. Career Services......I've been working for several for profit schools and Career Services is one of the most important in terms of whether a school keeps or loses it's ability to receive federal fin aid and keep ACICS. Your placement drops below a certain percentage then its a wrap. But you cut these positions....really?
SAE wiped out Expression management and redundant positions.... Then they turn around and eliminate them at SAE as well? Both SAE and Expression got rid of CompliAnce, placement, CEO, Academics,... Honestly, our marketing was stronger, and you all knew it. Our website and materials are top notch compared to SAE. Your new website was not created by your US team. Your brochures suck. You seriously would not use material created by a digital visual arts college ?
If not for the assistance of compliance, those ACICS visits would have had harsher outcomes and more findings for sure. And campuses like NYC or Nashville would not be positioned for ACICS. Who else would have done the prep visits with us? The compliance person set us up for that success. And it seemed like the only person who knew how to navigate through that hell of a program CampusVue (please bring back SAAD) and pull the accreditation reporting was the corporate person from career services. I've been here 4 years and it always took us several days and several people to do that report for just our campus. I heard she did it for all campuses within a matter of hours. If anything some of these hires fixed redundancy or alleviated the campuses.
I appreciate the email communication from the interim CEO, but I do have to agree that recent layoffs contradicts the initiatives he stated were important. I only can believe that he consulted with the wrong people at the Group level when deciding who stays or goes.
Decisions without due diligence. That's all I can assume here. It's illogical.
The layoff was also a way to easily, legally dismiss employees they no longer wanted or could afford on their payroll. This is a common practice, one we even exercised with Expression. When it becomes a matter of cost is when a company no longer realizes or understands the value that some of these individuals provided (which ends up costing the company more after those employees have been dismissed). These employees were rags: People who are hired to come in and do a job or clean up a mess, then tossed into the garbage without a sincere thank you. High school ambassadors were brought in to generate the leads that will come to fruition next year (if followed through appropriately) , or compliance assisting with standardizing the policies or getting campuses ACICS ready and approved, or placement taking 3 campuses off of reporting for placement stats and achieving milestones where all campuses are in compliance and beating competitors. If These "rags" had known were only temporary assignments, they should have charged SAE a contractor /consultant rate of $100 - $150 an hour for their time and expertise.
Exactly