Left Accenture this year and I don't regret it. Their leadership is non-existant, their management bloated and there is no vision whatsoever. The company just pumps back money into stock-buybacks and nobody can explain why the CEO, July Sweet, is still on top of it (spoiler, her husband works in politics).
Talent is leaving the company left and right because promotions and salary adjustments just are not happening. Your achievements don't matter because they already skipped promotions for 2 years, so there are dozens of people in front of the queue.
Juniors are getting fired if they don't have a project for 3 months, but once a surge of projects come around, there is not enough manpower to do staffing. Meanwhile, people in management are safe and get large severance packages.
Edit: Hi to my formers colleagues. I know you are reading this, feel free to disagree ;-)
> Juniors are getting fired if they don't have a project for 3 months
When I worked for Accenture, I got benched for an entire summer. It was great. At the time the only resource to find a new project was this spreadsheet uploaded to Sharepoint, and there was 0 pressure from my HR rep to actually look for a new role.
I eventually found a new job and quit, but I always wondered what would have happened if I just stayed on the bench while working at the 2nd job.
How long was that ago? I haven't seen any spreadsheet like this, but the internal tools aren't exactly the best (Accenture is too expensive to work for Accenture, haha).
But the bench also provided great opportunities to do actual good trainings, certifications and upskilling of all kinds. But the company stopped investing into its future long ago. It's just about short term gains for those on top.
> but the internal tools aren't exactly the best (Accenture is too expensive to work for Accenture, haha).
I've always found this part to be so crazy. It's seems like both a politically bad idea to not dogfood your own stuff and just also a bad business sense to not get "free" testers using the products.
Like, if you're buying a car and you ask the salesman which of these Subaru's they'd be and they respond with I'd go elsewhere and buy a Ford. Why would you buy one of their cars?
Having worked for a company of a similar profile, I can perhaps explain: the only folks working on internal tools are those who are so weak that they can’t be placed on a customer account as a billable resource… which is not a particularly high bar.
I have done several projects for Ford, one measure of the status of their employees was how many trial Ford cars they got at any one time, the most senior people that I knew were on three.
> But the bench also provided great opportunities to do actual good trainings, certifications and upskilling of all kinds.
I did spend some of the time studying new developer skills. But on my own, Accenture didn't have any learning resources for that all they had was all management training stuff.
I'm sorry, what? I run an agency (still figuring the space out), but just so I get that part: They asked a junior to "find a project" from a spreadsheet?
Don't they pair juniors up with seniors in existing projects? Before I'd "bench" anyone, I'd do that without charging for them, so they learn and can do realised billable hours later down the line. I'd feel so weird getting benched. I didn't know that was a thing anyone did frankly.
Benching is very common in any firm like Accenture, yea.
It does seem weird from the outside I agree. It can also depend on the person, skillset, etc. Some people will never get benched just because they don't have any or enough other people with equivalent skills, so there's constant demand.
(edit: skillset, not skillet, obviously your bench rate does not depend on your cookware)
My experience was 25 years ago, but back then we analysts and consultants were making around 50-60K and they were charging clients 5-15 times that when we were staffed. So I'm sure having a good buffer of people waiting and ready to go was well worth it.
Even during the dotcom crash, they didn't lay anyone off IIRC. Instead they offered up to a couple years unpaid leave with benefits and guarantees of a job afterwards.
You can't do that in most projects without breaking security guidelines.
There are contracts signed and NDAs for everyone that has access to customer systems.
Although I also do conceed many offshoring companies forget about that, until someone that wasn't supposed to exist on the project does something that ends up on an escalation.
It is very common in consulting and agencies, when not getting enough projects.
I worked at a place that was not dissimilar internally to Accenture, I find the "Juniors are getting fired if they don't have a project for 3 months," quite generous. You had a max of about 2 weeks where I worked, no matter your seniority. You could use PTO to stretch it out & then use internal re-training to stretch that quite a bit since we had approximately 40 hours of annual retraining that could be done 6 months early if needed. But after that, you got met by security at the door & your severance offer handed to you.
I get that you can’t subsidize people without work. But at from what I saw, good juniors got sacked and bad managers were kept. I take that personal and it is one of the reasons I left.
I'm not even being provocative, it's just the facts. If you want a hot take it would be that:
The only reason the current management is still in place is because the CEO's husband is in politics and institutional investors want to keep their allies in place. In turn, Accenture keeps their friends happy by syphoning money from the bottom to the top, at the cost of their own consultancy and delivery capabilities. Meanwhile, the C-suit cashes out big-time.
The CEO is fundamentally incapable of changing even a light bulb, let alone address strategic problems. As a lawyer and Harvard MBA, she provided "growth" by buying shitty IT-companies where key-experts left the company immediately. She doesn't have the knowledge or intellectual capability or create "value" or "operational efficiency". Instead, they chase trends and make one terrible decision after another. This burns money faster than a conveyor belt can transport into a furnace (like selling off most offices during covid at low prices and having to buy new ones when prices are up).
> Chad Sweet is a Republican political consultant based in Washington, D.C., and co-founder of the Chertoff Group, a business and security consulting firm.
> Sweet was the campaign chairman for Ted Cruz's 2016 presidential campaign and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, several financial institutions, Department of Homeland Security, and the Texas Lyceum. In 2012, Sweet served as finance chairman for Cruz's Senate campaign.
Thanks for fact-checking, I appreciate it. People inside the company told me he's a democrat and should have double checked myself. Thanks for pointing that out.
Lol just go to r/accenture. Compared to those guys this is mild. Reddit is the place where employees refer to their company and CEO in the most vivid and colorful of ways.
My POV of consulting (as a former IBEW electrician) is that the consultants interview us underlings (and actually listen) and then make powerpoint slides of these communal ideas to present to executives as novel ideas. Our bosses eat this shit up shit-eating-grin-ily.
But I just twisted wires for a living so what the hell could I know about white collars?
One of the most dramatic job effects of AI is a brutal market for lemons effect. Carl wants to buy a widget, and the going rate for a widget was 150 dollars pre ai, and carl pays someone reputablish (accenture say) 150 for a widget and gets 70 cents of tokens.
Carl is not going to try another $150 with another provider, he’s just going to leave the market. The pre-ai widgeters all lose their jobs whether or not ai actually is able to solve Carl’s problem.
Looks like this is just an empty excuse to justify their margins at the expense of people:
> The cuts allowed Accenture to say it would continue to expand operating profit margins at its historic annual rate of at least 10 basis points in the next fiscal year, a target that some analysts had worried might have to be dropped given the tough industry conditions.
The company itself is doing just fine, thanks for asking.
> The company said revenues grew 7 per cent to $69.7bn in the year to August, for a net income of $7.83bn, up 6 per cent.
They’re citing internal data to prop-up this AI narrative, too, and claim - like everyone else doing layoffs - that headcount is expected to grow in the coming year.
It’s basically a giant celebratory puff piece for Accenture. Nothing of substance in there if you’re immune to the usual corporate doublespeak.
> Looks like this is just an empty excuse to justify their margins at the expense of people:
All tech companies are doing layoffs [1], Accenture are just trying to sell it as a good thing.
> They’re citing internal data to prop-up this AI narrative, too, and claim - like everyone else doing layoffs - that headcount is expected to grow in the coming year.
As everybody who has tested this stuff knows, the AI does not lead to massive gains in productivity. They may regret getting rid of safety critical engineers, or testing engineers.
Serious question I’d like you and others to consider: why shouldn’t they be [a jobs program]?
Seriously, think about it for a moment. We have built a global society on the singular foundation that one must work to survive, yet we do not provide guarantees of work to provide the wages needed for survival of the labor class. It effectively condemns the unluckiest among us to suffering and an early death solely because they could not find gainful employment for whatever reason - disability, illness, lack of skills, insufficient wages, missing credentials, regime policies, the list goes on.
In that context, shouldn’t we be mandating companies at least abstain from layoffs when they’re posting profits or engaging in share buybacks, for a set period of time? Should we not be mandating governments provide job guarantees and minimum wages that enable every worker to have a safe, livable home and nutritious food?
Just something to chew on, because you’re right in that companies aren’t a jobs program.
"Accenture has reduced its global workforce by more than 11,000 in the past three months [...] The IT consulting group on Thursday detailed an $865mn restructuring programme and an outlook for the year ahead that reflects continuing sluggish corporate demand for consulting projects and a clampdown on spending within the US federal government."
The big story here is that Accenture are losing a TON of work. The AI part of this headline isn't particularly interesting IMO.
No, but if the only piece we have to go off of is that my revenue from table increased 7%, are you going to assume or believe someone that says my total table sales are WAY down?
That may be. The point remains - revenue and amount of work are not necessarily directly correlated. It's not uncommon for a business that's struggling to increase prices to boost revenue short-term, but screw themselves long-term.
Former management consultant here from a long, long time ago. It blows my mind when I see the consultancies cheer how they are adopting Gen AI to automate deck building, Excel analysis, etc.
... like, don't you see that your clients are READING your announcements and wondering "What the hell am I paying for?"
If I pay you $10K/month (let alone $100K+) and you're sending me anything AI generated, you will never work for me again.
But do clients really care that the spreadsheets and slide decks are artisanal, hand crafted by humans? My impression, mostly from HN cynics, is that companies hire consultants as air cover to have an outside party justify business decisions they want to make. So what do they care how the supporting data was generated, as long as it comes with the Accenture logo?
Did my Accenture stint a long time ago, spent about a year there, was 'pimped' out to a banks at a crazy day rate and saw a tiny fraction of that. Had to build decks during lunch and evenings for the partners. It was very much about shipping more people to clients not making existing ones and capabilities more productive and in the end realized it was not for me so left. Its a dead model imho.
“We are exiting on a compressed timeline people where reskilling, based on our experience, is not a viable path for the skills we need,” chief executive Julie Sweet told analysts on a conference call."
If you feed that into HR-GPT, it translates it like thus:
“We’re exiting older staff as quickly as possible to avoid a sueball like IBM, because we do not feel it’s worthwhile reskilling them versus hiring cheaper, younger people.”
Just my speculative translation based on prior experiences. If you use my comment in a sueball against Accenture for age discrimination, boy howdy will you be disappointed in the outcome.
>In 2023, Sweet's total compensation at Accenture was $31.6 million, or 1,526 times what the median employee at Accenture earned that same year without a cost-of-living adjustment.
I’m very bearish on Accenture for the following reason: the business model is a levered flywheel (high-paid salespeople and aggressive M&A buyouts powered by share price appreciation and low wage outsourcing). This is kicking into reverse due to revenue growth deceleration
Unlike a partnerships model, Accenture taps the public markets for financing to do M&A and pays its star salespeople with stock. Declining revenue growth rerates the stock price lower, which then makes the market more competitive (can’t buyout others) and acts as a disincentive to the salespeople, which then lowers the stock price further. This alone may be survivable, but at the same time, the company has more than half a million staff (!) employed in India/Philippines/etc at exactly the time when the market wants SOTA-level AI work instead of legacy ‘managed services’, and the federal government is cutting many $B of ACN contracts
Tl;dr: these guys aren’t getting IBM’d, they’re getting Xerox’d
“We are exiting on a compressed timeline people where reskilling, based on our experience, is not a viable path for the skills we need,” chief executive Julie Sweet told analysts on a conference call.
Julie Sweet could be replaced by an "AI", or even a 20 year old Markov chain.
MBAs at the leadership level have no money making ideas they all just ride some trend wave until they can make an excise to fire you for it and collect your operational capital as a yearly bonus. The LLM hype wave is the perfect scape goat.
We essentially are empowering small businesses to run like the Dept of Government Efficiency (which is a joke and used to shift tax payer dollars to wealthy Trump supporters).
“Over 30? We don’t think you can be trained to use AI.”
Feels like another form of age discrimination in tech. Anyone who had a good idea how to do things costs too much money, and it’s better to hire people who blindly trust the AI to do the work. If you can’t spot hallucinations or bad code, do they exist? =P
Left Accenture this year and I don't regret it. Their leadership is non-existant, their management bloated and there is no vision whatsoever. The company just pumps back money into stock-buybacks and nobody can explain why the CEO, July Sweet, is still on top of it (spoiler, her husband works in politics).
Talent is leaving the company left and right because promotions and salary adjustments just are not happening. Your achievements don't matter because they already skipped promotions for 2 years, so there are dozens of people in front of the queue.
Juniors are getting fired if they don't have a project for 3 months, but once a surge of projects come around, there is not enough manpower to do staffing. Meanwhile, people in management are safe and get large severance packages.
Edit: Hi to my formers colleagues. I know you are reading this, feel free to disagree ;-)
> Juniors are getting fired if they don't have a project for 3 months
When I worked for Accenture, I got benched for an entire summer. It was great. At the time the only resource to find a new project was this spreadsheet uploaded to Sharepoint, and there was 0 pressure from my HR rep to actually look for a new role.
I eventually found a new job and quit, but I always wondered what would have happened if I just stayed on the bench while working at the 2nd job.
How long was that ago? I haven't seen any spreadsheet like this, but the internal tools aren't exactly the best (Accenture is too expensive to work for Accenture, haha).
But the bench also provided great opportunities to do actual good trainings, certifications and upskilling of all kinds. But the company stopped investing into its future long ago. It's just about short term gains for those on top.
> but the internal tools aren't exactly the best (Accenture is too expensive to work for Accenture, haha).
I've always found this part to be so crazy. It's seems like both a politically bad idea to not dogfood your own stuff and just also a bad business sense to not get "free" testers using the products.
Like, if you're buying a car and you ask the salesman which of these Subaru's they'd be and they respond with I'd go elsewhere and buy a Ford. Why would you buy one of their cars?
Having worked for a company of a similar profile, I can perhaps explain: the only folks working on internal tools are those who are so weak that they can’t be placed on a customer account as a billable resource… which is not a particularly high bar.
I have done several projects for Ford, one measure of the status of their employees was how many trial Ford cars they got at any one time, the most senior people that I knew were on three.
> How long was that ago?
2009
> But the bench also provided great opportunities to do actual good trainings, certifications and upskilling of all kinds.
I did spend some of the time studying new developer skills. But on my own, Accenture didn't have any learning resources for that all they had was all management training stuff.
I'm sorry, what? I run an agency (still figuring the space out), but just so I get that part: They asked a junior to "find a project" from a spreadsheet?
Don't they pair juniors up with seniors in existing projects? Before I'd "bench" anyone, I'd do that without charging for them, so they learn and can do realised billable hours later down the line. I'd feel so weird getting benched. I didn't know that was a thing anyone did frankly.
Benching is very common in any firm like Accenture, yea.
It does seem weird from the outside I agree. It can also depend on the person, skillset, etc. Some people will never get benched just because they don't have any or enough other people with equivalent skills, so there's constant demand.
(edit: skillset, not skillet, obviously your bench rate does not depend on your cookware)
My experience was 25 years ago, but back then we analysts and consultants were making around 50-60K and they were charging clients 5-15 times that when we were staffed. So I'm sure having a good buffer of people waiting and ready to go was well worth it.
Even during the dotcom crash, they didn't lay anyone off IIRC. Instead they offered up to a couple years unpaid leave with benefits and guarantees of a job afterwards.
You can't do that in most projects without breaking security guidelines.
There are contracts signed and NDAs for everyone that has access to customer systems.
Although I also do conceed many offshoring companies forget about that, until someone that wasn't supposed to exist on the project does something that ends up on an escalation.
It is very common in consulting and agencies, when not getting enough projects.
I worked at a place that was not dissimilar internally to Accenture, I find the "Juniors are getting fired if they don't have a project for 3 months," quite generous. You had a max of about 2 weeks where I worked, no matter your seniority. You could use PTO to stretch it out & then use internal re-training to stretch that quite a bit since we had approximately 40 hours of annual retraining that could be done 6 months early if needed. But after that, you got met by security at the door & your severance offer handed to you.
I get that you can’t subsidize people without work. But at from what I saw, good juniors got sacked and bad managers were kept. I take that personal and it is one of the reasons I left.
God, I love this kind of hot take. It fills in the blanks that the website’s design leaves out.
I'm not even being provocative, it's just the facts. If you want a hot take it would be that:
The only reason the current management is still in place is because the CEO's husband is in politics and institutional investors want to keep their allies in place. In turn, Accenture keeps their friends happy by syphoning money from the bottom to the top, at the cost of their own consultancy and delivery capabilities. Meanwhile, the C-suit cashes out big-time.
The CEO is fundamentally incapable of changing even a light bulb, let alone address strategic problems. As a lawyer and Harvard MBA, she provided "growth" by buying shitty IT-companies where key-experts left the company immediately. She doesn't have the knowledge or intellectual capability or create "value" or "operational efficiency". Instead, they chase trends and make one terrible decision after another. This burns money faster than a conveyor belt can transport into a furnace (like selling off most offices during covid at low prices and having to buy new ones when prices are up).
> the CEO's husband is a democrat
Perhaps my Google-fu is dying, but isn't this the CEO's husband?
https://ballotpedia.org/Chad_Sweet
> Chad Sweet is a Republican political consultant based in Washington, D.C., and co-founder of the Chertoff Group, a business and security consulting firm.
> Sweet was the campaign chairman for Ted Cruz's 2016 presidential campaign and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, several financial institutions, Department of Homeland Security, and the Texas Lyceum. In 2012, Sweet served as finance chairman for Cruz's Senate campaign.
Thanks for fact-checking, I appreciate it. People inside the company told me he's a democrat and should have double checked myself. Thanks for pointing that out.
what's the saying about every accusation being projection?
I hereby call for a forum that is exclusively verified current and former employees of big companies spilling the tea like this.
Lol just go to r/accenture. Compared to those guys this is mild. Reddit is the place where employees refer to their company and CEO in the most vivid and colorful of ways.
I doubt it's her husband. She's more powerful than he is.
"Former" CIA
Generative AI seems like a perfect fit for Accenture, a company whose business depends primarily on generating PowerPoint decks.
My POV of consulting (as a former IBEW electrician) is that the consultants interview us underlings (and actually listen) and then make powerpoint slides of these communal ideas to present to executives as novel ideas. Our bosses eat this shit up shit-eating-grin-ily.
But I just twisted wires for a living so what the hell could I know about white collars?
One of the most dramatic job effects of AI is a brutal market for lemons effect. Carl wants to buy a widget, and the going rate for a widget was 150 dollars pre ai, and carl pays someone reputablish (accenture say) 150 for a widget and gets 70 cents of tokens.
Carl is not going to try another $150 with another provider, he’s just going to leave the market. The pre-ai widgeters all lose their jobs whether or not ai actually is able to solve Carl’s problem.
Looks like this is just an empty excuse to justify their margins at the expense of people:
> The cuts allowed Accenture to say it would continue to expand operating profit margins at its historic annual rate of at least 10 basis points in the next fiscal year, a target that some analysts had worried might have to be dropped given the tough industry conditions.
The company itself is doing just fine, thanks for asking.
> The company said revenues grew 7 per cent to $69.7bn in the year to August, for a net income of $7.83bn, up 6 per cent.
They’re citing internal data to prop-up this AI narrative, too, and claim - like everyone else doing layoffs - that headcount is expected to grow in the coming year.
It’s basically a giant celebratory puff piece for Accenture. Nothing of substance in there if you’re immune to the usual corporate doublespeak.
> Looks like this is just an empty excuse to justify their margins at the expense of people:
All tech companies are doing layoffs [1], Accenture are just trying to sell it as a good thing.
> They’re citing internal data to prop-up this AI narrative, too, and claim - like everyone else doing layoffs - that headcount is expected to grow in the coming year.
As everybody who has tested this stuff knows, the AI does not lead to massive gains in productivity. They may regret getting rid of safety critical engineers, or testing engineers.
[1] https://www.trueup.io/layoffs
> Accenture are just trying to sell it as a good thing.
Layoffs to increase profits are a good thing for shareholders. Not so much for those laid off of course, but who cares about those?
That's kind of a one-sided view. Yes, you need to treat your employees honorably, but a company isn't a jobs program, either.
Serious question I’d like you and others to consider: why shouldn’t they be [a jobs program]?
Seriously, think about it for a moment. We have built a global society on the singular foundation that one must work to survive, yet we do not provide guarantees of work to provide the wages needed for survival of the labor class. It effectively condemns the unluckiest among us to suffering and an early death solely because they could not find gainful employment for whatever reason - disability, illness, lack of skills, insufficient wages, missing credentials, regime policies, the list goes on.
In that context, shouldn’t we be mandating companies at least abstain from layoffs when they’re posting profits or engaging in share buybacks, for a set period of time? Should we not be mandating governments provide job guarantees and minimum wages that enable every worker to have a safe, livable home and nutritious food?
Just something to chew on, because you’re right in that companies aren’t a jobs program.
But maybe they should be.
"Accenture has reduced its global workforce by more than 11,000 in the past three months [...] The IT consulting group on Thursday detailed an $865mn restructuring programme and an outlook for the year ahead that reflects continuing sluggish corporate demand for consulting projects and a clampdown on spending within the US federal government."
The big story here is that Accenture are losing a TON of work. The AI part of this headline isn't particularly interesting IMO.
> The big story here is that Accenture are losing a TON of work. The AI part of this headline isn't particularly interesting IMO.
And from the article:
> The company said revenues grew 7 per cent to $69.7bn in the year to August, for a net income of $7.83bn, up 6 per cent.
Where's it talk about the TON of work they lost?
If I sell you a table for $100, and sell you another one later for $107, did that second table automatically take more work to make?
No, but if the only piece we have to go off of is that my revenue from table increased 7%, are you going to assume or believe someone that says my total table sales are WAY down?
But that isn't the only piece we have to go on; they're laying off 11k people.
That has less than 0 to do with how many tables a company sells.
If you can buy a table making machine and lay off 100% of your table makers, you could sell 3x as many tables, and have 20x as much profit.
That may be. The point remains - revenue and amount of work are not necessarily directly correlated. It's not uncommon for a business that's struggling to increase prices to boost revenue short-term, but screw themselves long-term.
Is the second one Table+ or Table Pro?
Table Copilot.
Former management consultant here from a long, long time ago. It blows my mind when I see the consultancies cheer how they are adopting Gen AI to automate deck building, Excel analysis, etc.
... like, don't you see that your clients are READING your announcements and wondering "What the hell am I paying for?"
If I pay you $10K/month (let alone $100K+) and you're sending me anything AI generated, you will never work for me again.
But do clients really care that the spreadsheets and slide decks are artisanal, hand crafted by humans? My impression, mostly from HN cynics, is that companies hire consultants as air cover to have an outside party justify business decisions they want to make. So what do they care how the supporting data was generated, as long as it comes with the Accenture logo?
But it's also too big a grift for them not to be a part of. There's no good move so they're just running towards the ball like everyone else is.
Did my Accenture stint a long time ago, spent about a year there, was 'pimped' out to a banks at a crazy day rate and saw a tiny fraction of that. Had to build decks during lunch and evenings for the partners. It was very much about shipping more people to clients not making existing ones and capabilities more productive and in the end realized it was not for me so left. Its a dead model imho.
The core sentence from the article:
“We are exiting on a compressed timeline people where reskilling, based on our experience, is not a viable path for the skills we need,” chief executive Julie Sweet told analysts on a conference call."
If you feed that into HR-GPT, it translates it like thus:
“We’re exiting older staff as quickly as possible to avoid a sueball like IBM, because we do not feel it’s worthwhile reskilling them versus hiring cheaper, younger people.”
Just my speculative translation based on prior experiences. If you use my comment in a sueball against Accenture for age discrimination, boy howdy will you be disappointed in the outcome.
>In 2023, Sweet's total compensation at Accenture was $31.6 million, or 1,526 times what the median employee at Accenture earned that same year without a cost-of-living adjustment.
It's amazing what you can learn on a conference call to analysts.
I'm not surprised that Accucenture is making the announcement to be the first to throw down the gauntlet on the race to the bottom.
I’m very bearish on Accenture for the following reason: the business model is a levered flywheel (high-paid salespeople and aggressive M&A buyouts powered by share price appreciation and low wage outsourcing). This is kicking into reverse due to revenue growth deceleration
Unlike a partnerships model, Accenture taps the public markets for financing to do M&A and pays its star salespeople with stock. Declining revenue growth rerates the stock price lower, which then makes the market more competitive (can’t buyout others) and acts as a disincentive to the salespeople, which then lowers the stock price further. This alone may be survivable, but at the same time, the company has more than half a million staff (!) employed in India/Philippines/etc at exactly the time when the market wants SOTA-level AI work instead of legacy ‘managed services’, and the federal government is cutting many $B of ACN contracts
Tl;dr: these guys aren’t getting IBM’d, they’re getting Xerox’d
https://archive.ph/GMB11
“We are exiting on a compressed timeline people where reskilling, based on our experience, is not a viable path for the skills we need,” chief executive Julie Sweet told analysts on a conference call.
Julie Sweet could be replaced by an "AI", or even a 20 year old Markov chain.
Related to new H1B rules possibly?
A lot of H1B visas go to people brought in to create billable hours at these consultancies.
MBAs at the leadership level have no money making ideas they all just ride some trend wave until they can make an excise to fire you for it and collect your operational capital as a yearly bonus. The LLM hype wave is the perfect scape goat.
We essentially are empowering small businesses to run like the Dept of Government Efficiency (which is a joke and used to shift tax payer dollars to wealthy Trump supporters).
You're not wrong, but I have one nit to pick: let's not dignify what MBAs do by calling it "leadership". They're barely "management".
If you use MBA as anything other than a slur, it's probably incorrect.
Julie Sweet was on CNBC this morning. It's hard to decide whether she's particularly pointless or just the last one holding the bag.
“Over 30? We don’t think you can be trained to use AI.”
Feels like another form of age discrimination in tech. Anyone who had a good idea how to do things costs too much money, and it’s better to hire people who blindly trust the AI to do the work. If you can’t spot hallucinations or bad code, do they exist? =P
> If you can’t spot hallucinations or bad code, do they exist? =P
Literally where we’re at in the AI bubble: blind faith and willful ignorance.
I think this applies to the economy at large at the moment. Get to the top, cash out and don't look down.
100% this. Very much a “fuck you, got mine” kind of era.
I Cmd-F'd that quote in the archive link but couldn't find it. Was this from the article?
Paywalled
I posted it as a separate message before I saw yours, but you can view it here https://archive.ph/GMB11
in case helpful - https://on.ft.com/4mvAlfN - can only be viewed three times though
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.ft.com/...