I do not understand why Xerox can’t be bold and offshore all non-direct-client roles (sales basically). It is part of the strategy but in typical Xerox way is not implement properly or fully. Always exceptions to dilute the impact. No need for anyone who does reporting or bookings or planning to be onshore. No need for service delivery unless actually at client sites as part of contract. No need for sales operations or sales support or bid management or sales specialists or solution consultants to be onshore. There’re is the technology and hybrid ways of working that can make these happen if someone would just be bold. Sounds drastic but we are in drastic times and where it been done it works.
21 replies (most recent on top)
@we LOL. Now that’s happened and it’s going Grrrrrrrrrreeeaaaaattttt! 😂😂😂😂 utterly hilarious. Unwillingness to use out of outdate systems that look like they are DOS. Unwillingness to move to a system where deliveries take months instead of a day. Unwillingness to let foreigners run our business. Unwillingness to treat their employees like a number, but to actually value them make sure we all had fun together, go on great trips together and crush our goals? Unwillingness to move to a business model that does not let employees make the best decisions for their customers and the company. Unwillingness to move to a model that has so much red tape that there’s a form (not that form, that the wrong form) and eight layers of approvals that you need to accomplish anything. Unwillingness for it to be normal for to take days if not weeks to accomplish absolutely anything. What you’re ultimately saying is GIS was not willing to be treated like children, leaders actually how power to accomplish things and was extremely successful. Thus there was no reason to move to whatever the he-l model you wanna call this sh-t show.
We need to revert to GIS business model and X wouldn't be in this dilemma.
@fj Global was selling competitors’ products up until very recently.
They were not following manufacturer service procedures.
They were running a parallel supply chain.
In other words, they were overhead that also undermined the long term business.
The unwillingness on the part of GIS companies to integrate into common systems and procedures to ultimately lower costs and improve quality of service was staggering.
Is Hadji going to fly in every time someone needs a copier fixed in person?
Outsource the board and SLT
@m9 you’re - if you’re (you are) feeling bloated then maybe you’re (you are) not doing enough to improve your fiber intake. Or maybe you’re (you are) still working at xerox.
@ah That’s right. Such a lie that customers are happy about remote solve. They aren’t, especially education and healthcare.
@m3 it’s your, not you’re.
@jm you’re
Offshore everything except sales. Sales will be Ai-shored.
@jk If offshoring is doing correctly it should only affect repeditive task that are a waste to pay an employee high pay to perform.
If your job can be offshored then your not doing enough to improve your skills and make yourself valuable to the company.
Offshoring will ruin everything. It's had and will have negative effects. I bet I won't be around in 2027.. I support Sales. Oh well, been a good run (27 years).
op
Offshoring is for low cost, minimal contribution, daily, repeditive and easily reproducable work... it's not for work that requires regular "Think out side the box" mindsets.
Anyone who has worked with offshored low cost labor is very familiar with the "Check List" mentality... it is only efficent in repeatable circumstances and at a certain point the return on investment becomes neglagable.
Remote solves actually worked in the Office environment until they started putting targets on it and brought in Production / Light Production. We were doing software upgrades and machine configurations flawlessly. Then they brought it to untrained people and overseas and pushed the people who knew their stuff out the door. They deserve the death they are having. I feel sorry for anyone still there.
I think this has already happened. Example: Xerox acquired Global in 2007. Over time, they took a well-run profitable national dealer who handled their own supplies, service and billing and gutted it. In this move, they gave all their competitors a simple talktrack - "Are you having the same issues as company abc in terms of getting xyz from Xerox?" Fast forward to 2025 - many of these dealers have lost accounts simply because the offshore back office cannot service their clients to a basic standard. Thousands of clients are switching to other vendors, because they feel abandoned. You will not retain sales talent if they are forced to become apologists for decisions that undermine relationships they have spent years developing and cultivating.
@e0 sadly this is the reality, and I am sorry for friends still there. While management is 'fighting' to cash-in as much as possible, employees and investors will be sc--wed up...
No need for anyone, anytime, anywhere in Xerox or whatever they are calling themselves today.
The boat has sailed, you are standing on the pier, and a hurricane is coming. …
Company should not be entitled to revenues from a country where they are laying off employees from. If they want to hire overseas, then they should get their revenues there instead. If they are not contributing to the working economy, then they should not benefit from that same economy either.
Xerox isn't just operating in US. Countries are different in terms of compliancy and, very often, Customers and Partners are not happy, or able, to speak with someone in english...
@OP well for a starter none of you can speak English
@OP 99.99 of my machines are under service contract. Once in a moon , it is T&M but there are disappearing very fast cause..it is just not working.
This "No need for service delivery unless actually at client sites as part of contract" is just soup words.. They tried this "remote solves" which for production/light production the real number resolution is close to zero.