Pros
There pros to working at SAS are almost too numerous to cover. It seems trivial, but having every employee in a walled office shows a respect for the dignity of the individual that's rare in corporate America. And being surrounded by beautiful, original artwork on almost every wall in the common areas is truly inspiring. Being so focused on product quality, employee retention and keeping customers happy means that SAS is a very stable work environment, and SAS usually thrives in bad economic times when its business customers are looking for ways to save money and/or increase revenues (which it's analytics and AI solutions are designed to do). There are good employee benefits and generous perks, too. And there is a healthy respect for science, which means management has taken the pandemic seriously from day one. In mid-March 2020, any job worldwide that could go virtual did - and it happened almost overnight and no part of the company's operations skipped a beat. During 2021, access to different SAS facilities has been phased-in based on changing local conditions/mandates, and with a consistent use of mask-wearing, social distancing and a strict vaccination requirement. A return to office-based work keeps getting postponed based on changes with COVID-19 variants, but is now set for January 3, 2022 - and for only fully vaccinated employees, who need to provide proof of vaccination by November 1, 2021. Work teams have been able to customize remote/in-person/hybrid arrangements based on what their needs/abilities to accommodate dictate.
Cons
The long-term stability and strong emphasis on employee retention means career development opportunities and upward mobility both often can be limited. SAS is a privately held firm and the co-founder/owner (majority shareholder) takes an occasionally hands-on approach to running the company that often gives the impression that much of management not related to the owner never knows when they will be second-guessed or overruled. The predictable result is lots of cautious moves, decision by consensus and pockets of micromanagement. In some ways the owner's belief in creating in-house jobs for a wide variety of functions (not using contractors) is admirable, but it also means that many functions are inefficiently carried out and employees often are not allowed to use outside alternative vendors. The down-side of that is that in some-cases, software platforms, such as the CRM/sales automation system, were created in-house (we're a software company after all) and plugged into our own marketing automation software. And while using our own commercially-available solution for marketing automation is understandable, our own needs for upgrades and support have often been subordinated to that of paying customers. And then, CRM/sales automation is not SAS' competency, so that decision denies the team the ability to source and use an industry-leading solution, which also prevents our employees from developing skills and competencies using any of those industry-leading platforms.
