Heard HPEM Aruba, Cray and few divisions pay exceptionally well.
7 replies (most recent on top)
I worked there in the past in IT and it’s not a great place to stay very long. Mediocre pay, and it’s in the constant state of outsourcing.
The takeaway here is HPE is an absolute sweat shop. Always has been, always will be. Question is whether what you are doing today ad the environment will be better at HPE or not. Unless it is mid/upper management I would say no.
Since you picked up one sentence and failed to read the sentences immediately after it, let me help you out:
The corollary is if I can't keep delivering the opportunity and commensurate pay increases for contribution the best should move on. Since infinite growth doesn't exist, over time the best will move on and a lower level of capability comes in to maintain what is no longer really growing. It's the natural lifecycle of companies.
Cisco is past it's big growth stage. As pointed out relentlessly most of its development budget goes to bug fixing so the work is of extremely low quality. The best moved on in 2001 and the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, etc... left the buildings forever. A lower level of capability came in decades ago to do maintenance. This is the reasoning behind your quote:
The sad truth however from my experience at Cisco the cult of visibility and narcissism is what isseeing[seen] as being effective and passionate.
In Cisco's go-go days most were focused on money. It started by stealing code and hardware designs from Stanford, and according to the CEO emeritus who told this story they didn't even take Stanford's copyright off anything including the PC boards, and less than a decade later they had to go to an acquisition model. The software quality was "you didn't pass high school intro to programming" bad, but the money flowed and everyone drank the HR Koolaid saying we were "all the top 10%!" A 90% stock drop ($82 to just over $8) and a layoff of 27% of the employees and contractors (48,000 to 35,000 bodies) drove off most of the few with a clue who survived both. This is the reasoning behind the following quote from the post you replied to:
When I interview if the lead goal of the applicant is money I send them on their way.
Neither HPE nor Cisco is very interesting to the IB community. Cisco has made very poor ELT hiring and strategy decisions the past decade so live on the longer term margin generated dollars especially from TS.
HPE and Juniper have delivered lackluster performances the last few years so combined will have no impact on Cisco. The Splunk acquisition is a poor decision in a long line of bad acquisitions and will not create an advantage as Arista continues to grow its business.
Cisco
@@pfp+1rVWSMun
I really like this:
I want someone with passion, skill, and a willingness to keep getting better, which allows my company to grow which provides better opportunity, pay and job stability over time
The sad truth however from my experience at Cisco the cult of visibility and narcissism is what is seeing as being effective and passionate. Simply put, appearing busy, Vs caring and executing.
I am certain Cisco is not isolated as a company with the above, however I somewhat do feel Cisco due to the historical prestige of the brand has attracted and cultivated the culture above.
People are not there out of passion and making and difference, they are there for exposure and a basic payday.
Case and point put a CSAP grad in a Land Rover and you cultivate entitlement and rotten apples from the start
HPE and Juniper are both in debt before borrowing $14B to finance the merger and their operating margins are far worse than Cisco. They're also shrinking faster than Cisco. The actual merger is still a ways away which makes Aruba risky until they sort out the redundancies with Juniper.
There are tiny pockets of greatness at Cisco, HPE and Juniper but in a larger sense they're slowly collapsing legacy companies, and such companies are very good at bait and switch when it comes to the work you'll be allowed to do for them. When I interview if the lead goal of the applicant is money I send them on their way. I want someone with passion, skill, and a willingness to keep getting better, which allows my company to grow which provides better opportunity, pay and job stability over time. The corollary is if I can't keep delivering the opportunity and commensurate pay increases for contribution the best should move on. Since infinite growth doesn't exist, over time the best will move on and a lower level of capability comes in to maintain what is no longer really growing. It's the natural lifecycle of companies. Figure out what you want to do to justify your income, then spend some serious time understand where companies succeed and fail at that kind of work, and interview the companies you're applying to as hard as they interview you.
HPE
All the back end for sales is optimised
Cisco everything is so manual to get discounts approved you have to beg across 4 timezones