News Dell reportedly cuts over 12,000 jobs as it seeks to 'streamline' its structure and boost profitability

[Admin]

An internal Dell memo says the company is "getting leaner" and "streamlining layers of management," reportedly planning to lay off 10% of its workforce or around 12,500 jobs.

Dell reportedly cuts over 12,000 jobs as it seeks to 'streamline' its structure and boost profitability : Read more

 

[tamalero]

That's a lot of words to say "We plan to give even more subpar support, services, etc.. by implementing further unwanted automation".

And as usual, workers get the brunt of CEOs mistakes and investor greed.

 

[ezst036]

Dell should have just increased the prices of their computers to cover the cost of the employees.

Nobody would ever complain about higher prices.

 

[Eximo]

I think with Dell a lot of that might be post-pandemic correction. Every IT company expanded during that time. With a return to business as usual, they probably do have excess staff. If they can't find a profitable outlet for that salary, makes sense to cut back.

 

[WDPowell]

Joy, so I will get to enjoy automated support if I have to send my laptop in for repair. Considering it's been sent to the depot twice, I would be amazed if it doesn't go again at some point.

 

[bit_user]

I find it interesting that Dell is chasing the datacenter market, since I imagine that to involve mostly low-margin, generic OCP hardware. The Dell servers I've dealt with are nice and feature-rich, but priced with seemingly generous margins for the extra functionality and refinement you get.

BTW, I'd like to buy a Dell for my next laptop, but they'd first have to bring back physical trackpad buttons.

 

[Eximo]

At my old job we had all Dell PCs and a lot of Dell infrastructure equipment and were using EMC for storage. Then Dell bought EMC, and we basically had like 60% of our spend dedicated to a single vendor. Interesting times. For a while there they also owned Quest software (Toad), which we also used heavily.

 

[-Fran-]

I have a lot of hot takes about this, but I hope those people which will lose their jobs find a new job quickly enough.

As for Dell as a Company being in this position. Not surprised or sad about it. Build and deliver crap products tied to you-know-who and you're in for a bad ride.

Regards.

 

[vanadiel007]

I noticed them bringing out a lot of products lately, which is usually not a good sign. They should concentrate on after market support and software development, instead of OEM locking everything...

 

[King_V]

This may seem like a digression, though I'm not 100% sure it really is.

Recently, Dell went through this thing where they tried to force Return To Office, then settled on saying if you don't take RTO, then you won't get promotions.

Therefore, the only staff who are getting promoted are yes-men; those who say RTO does in fact improve productivity or whatever the pre-generated rationale du jour is at the time. Whether they are just going along with it and know it's not true, or if they truly believe it, these are the people who will be promoted.

And when the management and executive level is filled ONLY with people who are true believers or yes-men, of course the decisions made are going to be relatively poor.

So, color me unsurprised that Bad Decisions were made, and now the panic response is to lay off non-decision-making staff.

 

[bit_user]

Recently, Dell went through this thing where they tried to force Return To Office, then settled on saying if you don't take RTO, then you won't get promotions.

That's nuts. You're right that such a policy can't help but shift the bias of the senior ranks more towards extroverts and sycophants.

 

[ThomasKinsley]

After selling all of those 13th and 14th gen chips, I would be cutting costs and streamlining too.

 

[Taslios]

That's a lot of words to say "Up until we released the snapdragon x Elite based laptops, we were an Intel exclusive house. As intel's share in the datacenter is rapidly declining, we are seeing a decreased user base in our most profitable segments and are over staffed for our order volume."

 

[bit_user]

That's a lot of words to say "Up until we released the snapdragon x Elite based laptops, we were an Intel exclusive house. As intel's share in the datacenter is rapidly declining, we are seeing a decreased user base in our most profitable segments and are over staffed for our order volume."

As the old saying goes: "Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel".

It's always true... until it isn't. Then, the name changes to the next behemoth. It used to be IBM. Then Microsoft. I wonder who next? Nvidia? Crowd Strike?
; )

 

[Taslios]

As the old saying goes: "Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel".

It's always true... until it isn't. Then, the name changes to the next behemoth. It used to be IBM. Then Microsoft. I wonder who next? Nvidia? Crowd Strike?
; )

Crowd Strike is opting out of that early I thinks....

 

[Taslios]

This may seem like a digression, though I'm not 100% sure it really is.

Recently, Dell went through this thing where they tried to force Return To Office, then settled on saying if you don't take RTO, then you won't get promotions.

Therefore, the only staff who are getting promoted are yes-men; those who say RTO does in fact improve productivity or whatever the pre-generated rationale du jour is at the time. Whether they are just going along with it and know it's not true, or if they truly believe it, these are the people who will be promoted.

And when the management and executive level is filled ONLY with people who are true believers or yes-men, of course the decisions made are going to be relatively poor.

So, color me unsurprised that Bad Decisions were made, and now the panic response is to lay off non-decision-making staff.

Oh for...

WFH is not some glorious thing and people who work best in an office are not simply yes men.

I manage a technical support team that covers some 300 products. No one can master that many things. While zoom/webex/skype etc are great for some things, there is no replacement for direct group think and hands on interaction with some projects.

Also i've had several employees insist they work best when wfh and have to be laid off because they cannot function when not directly supervised.

WFH is great for some, terrible for others. Until a balance is reached where the Types of jobs/People who are best suited for Office/WFH is better understood base platitudes like "only yes men who buy into the company line" are woefully short sighted.

 

[King_V]

Oh for...

WFH is not some glorious thing and people who work best in an office are not simply yes men.

I manage a technical support team that covers some 300 products. No one can master that many things. While zoom/webex/skype etc are great for some things, there is no replacement for direct group think and hands on interaction with some projects.

Also i've had several employees insist they work best when wfh and have to be laid off because they cannot function when not directly supervised.

WFH is great for some, terrible for others. Until a balance is reached where the Types of jobs/People who are best suited for Office/WFH is better understood base platitudes like "only yes men who buy into the company line" are woefully short sighted.

I stand by what I said. And, I'm not sure you understood my post.

What happens to a company that only promotes people who return to office, and refuses to promote those who work from home, regardless of how talented they are?

EDIT: typo

 

[Taslios]

I stand by what I said. And, in not sure you understood my post.

What happens to a company that only promotes people who return to office, and refuses to promote those who work from home, regardless of how talented they are?

Shortsighted leadership is shortsighted. I'm not disputing that. I will die on my hill that SOME people/jobs need to be in office to get the best out of them... wfh is not some perfect utopia. I'm glad it works for some but there are legitimate reasons beyond just... cost of office space and leases that have to be paid, for why companies want employees to return to office.

At the same time there is no reason for companies to expect ALL jobs/people to return... and those that do are going to short themselves of talent they would otherwise have.

 

[bit_user]

WFH is not some glorious thing and people who work best in an office are not simply yes men.

Look at it from the other side. When someone is a corporate ladder "climber", they tend to prioritize getting lots of face time with people they're trying to impress. So, while working from the office doesn't necessarily mean you're this type, they are likely to seize on return-to-office at a higher rate than run-of-the-mill employees. This can lead to an overrepresentation of them in your office-based population, thus skewing the population of those who get promoted (which was already somewhat biased towards them).

I manage a technical support team

That's a certain kind of work. Maybe not much like those of us whose work involves lots of time quietly thinking and typing away, in solitude. When I had to work in the office 100% of the time, I would often have to set aside my "deep thinking" work for late in the day/evening, until the office quieted down. When I'm working from home, I can more easily do this type of work at any time of the day.

WFH is great for some, terrible for others.

Fair point.

platitudes like "only yes men who buy into the company line" are woefully short sighted.

That's a more absolute position than needs to be true for there to be selection pressure exerted by the hiring policy @King_V mentioned.

I think this isn't one of those zero-sum type of arguments. Each of us can have valid points, without negating the idea that promotions applying only to work-from-office employees is going to have some kind & magnitude of effect on what type of people are getting promoted.

Please keep in mind that women are traditionally underrepresented in the upper ranks of management, and flexible work-from-home policies favor those with childcare and elder care responsibilities (which, sad to say, are still disproportionately fulfilled by women).

 

[King_V]

Shortsighted leadership is shortsighted. I'm not disputing that. I will die on my hill that SOME people/jobs need to be in office to get the best out of them... wfh is not some perfect utopia. I'm glad it works for some but there are legitimate reasons beyond just... cost of office space and leases that have to be paid, for why companies want employees to return to office.

At the same time there is no reason for companies to expect ALL jobs/people to return... and those that do are going to short themselves of talent they would otherwise have.

So, please tell me where I was advocating forcing everyone to work remotely, and refusing to allow people to return to the office?

I wasn't. Neither was Dell. Dell was just fine with the people who chose to return to the office. But Dell was also trying to force remote workers to return to the office, and then, realizing how that might go poorly, begrudgingly allowed people to continue to work from home, but penalized them by disallowing any promotions for people who continued to be remote workers.

Now, instead of only having workers in the office who want to be there, they have some who don't want to be there, or are afraid to gamble that remote workers will eventually be let go, or who will tell the boss whatever it is the boss wants to hear.

Plus, studies have already determined that RTO hasn't done anything to improve morale or productivity, so, there is that to contend with, along with what it says about the people in charge and their motivation to try and force the issue.

 

[King_V]

That's a more absolute position than needs to be true for there to be selection pressure exerted by the hiring policy @King_V mentioned.

"Selection pressure" - that's the phrase I wish I would've come up with in my comment.

 

[bit_user]

studies have already determined that RTO hasn't done anything to improve morale or productivity, so, there is that to contend with, along with what it says about the people in charge and their motivation to try and force the issue.

A Standford economist has been studying this extensively (i.e. since well before the pandemic). Among his key findings:

• "employees who work from home for two days a week are just as productive and as likely to be promoted as their fully office-based peers."
• "hybrid work had zero effect on workers’ productivity or career advancement and dramatically boosted retention rates."

Here's a nice article, detailing the research and its implications:

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/06/hybrid-work-is-a-win-win-win-for-companies-workers
​

 

[King_V]

The only question I'm left with, and they sort of touch on it, but don't really fully engage it, is: is this compared to fully on-site?

Because, I'm willing to bet that when transitioning from fully remote to a hybrid situation, productivity takes a dive. I imagine this would be most especially the case if "relocate to be able to the office, or start looking for another job" was the situation.