“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."
“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.
> 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.
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.
Layoffs to increase profits are a good thing for shareholders. Not so much for those laid off of course, but who cares about those?
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?
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
Literally where we’re at in the AI bubble: blind faith and willful ignorance.
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).
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 ;-)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
The only reason the current management is still in place is because the CEO's husband is a democrat 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.
Julie Sweet could be replaced by an "AI", or even a 20 year old Markov chain.
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.
Our_Benefactors•1h ago
John2022•1h ago
Sheepsteak•59m ago