Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · People & Management · Operational decision · 2023–2026

OpenText bought Micro Focus for $5.8B — and has cut ~5% of staff every year since.

A $5.8B acquisition became a three-year optimization plan: 1,200 jobs cut in 2024, 1,600 in 2025, ~880 in 2026 — ~5% a year, recast by the CEO as an AI pivot.

OpenText · 2025-05

What happened

On 31 January 2023 OpenText, the Waterloo, Ontario software group, closed its acquisition of Micro Focus for about $5.8 billion, a deal that bundled in Micro Focus's cash and debt and made OpenText one of the largest enterprise-software companies in the world. Buying a rival that size is a multi-year task: the two product lines, workforces and cost bases have to be merged. OpenText's name for that task is a three-year "business optimization programme."

The programme has run, above all, on headcount. Chief executive Mark Barrenechea kicked it off in 2024 by cutting 1,200 employees; in May 2025 the company cut another 1,600 jobs; and in early 2026 roughly 880 more went. That is about 5 percent of the workforce removed every year for three years — a cadence employees have taken to calling a "yearly spring cleaning." Barrenechea told staff that embracing AI was a "number one priority and baseline expectation," framing the cuts as a pivot toward AI, cloud and security rather than mere cost-cutting.

The promised payoff is large: OpenText has said the optimisation will generate annual savings of roughly $490 million to $550 million. The recurring cuts, though, are the tell. A company that must reduce its staff by 5 percent every year is not fixing a one-time overlap from an acquisition; it is running restructuring as a standing operation. The acquisition bought revenue and scale; the optimization is the long, repeated bill for digesting it.

The decision error sits one layer back from the layoffs. Growth by large acquisition lets a company buy revenue quickly, but the integration cost — the redundant roles, the overlapping tools, the debt it took on — arrives in instalments over years. OpenText's annual 5 percent cuts are those instalments. The lesson is not that acquisitions fail; it is that the price quoted at closing is not the whole price, and a workforce cut every spring is a sign the real one is still being paid.

Why it happened

  • The acquisition's cost arrived in instalments. A $5.8B deal keeps costing after closing; redundant roles and overlapping cost bases must be cut over years, and the yearly layoffs are that removal.
  • Restructuring became routine. Cutting ~5% of staff every spring turns restructuring from an event into a standing operation, unsettling the workforce and signalling the integration is never finished.
  • The AI pivot doubled as the rationale. Framing the cuts as a move toward AI, cloud and security let the company cast cost reduction as strategy, but the savings target shows the cost motive beneath.
  • Buying revenue is faster than building it. Acquisition delivered scale immediately; the trade-off is that the company now spends years paying for and integrating what it bought instead of growing it.
What it cost~3,700 jobs cut over three years of 'optimization'costly

The lesson

The closing price is not the whole price of an acquisition. The integration cost arrives in years of instalments — and if you are cutting staff every spring, the real bill is still being paid.

Aftermath

OpenText has said the optimization will save $490 million to $550 million a year, and Barrenechea has cast the company's future as an AI-focused information-management business. Whether three springs of 5 percent cuts produce that business, or simply a smaller one, is the open question the programme leaves. For other acquirers the case is a ledger warning: count the integration — the roles, the overlap, the years it takes — into the price before you sign, because the workforce will be the line item that pays it.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →