execs are getting 🪂 offers
expect more churn and larger LR than originally planned
17 replies (most recent on top)
Ok boomer
Hope D&I folks are seeing these absolutely horrendous racist comments towards specific ethnicities. This is a company whose employees are predominantly white males (according to Cisco’s most recent demographic reports). Maybe these posters should spend more time understanding deficiencies in their own skill set or cost to the company, rather than lodge insults based on race. If you can’t look beyond race, then maybe you aren’t intelligent enough to be here.
Hope D&I folks are seeing these absolutely horrendous racist comments towards specific ethnicities. This is a company whose employees are predominantly white males (according to Cisco’s most recent demographic reports). Maybe these posters should spend more time understanding deficiencies in their own skill set or cost to the company, rather than lodge insults based on race. If you can’t look beyond race, then maybe you aren’t intelligent enough to be here.
Yet the 'Patel' mafias thrive
This point made above doesn't follow common sense and logic, Let's say for example, a VP's Org has 300 people and the org is closed down, Cisco would still need to have LR's across the board to meet the 5000 target.
Most of the org's I've been part of number in the thousands, not hundreds. You point is valid, but in the past Cisco has made flat cuts of 20% across the company instead of cutting dead wood and keeping people that provide valuable services which is what I was talking about. Cut the org that's not needed, and then reduce the percentage of the rest of the required cuts by whatever amount was taken from the dead org.
Remember Cisco is a relationship based culture. Some Directors reporting to an eliminated VP might have friends to save their department. Move their department into a different organization and rename the department.
Rinse and repeat.
"Oh, wait...I'm using logic and common sense. Never mind. "
The poster says this (above) at the end of his post, but there is a clear illogical statement in his post, namely
"If the org is so bad that Cisco doesn't need it, why would they have LR's across the board and not just cut the org and leave the other orgs alone?"
This point made above doesn't follow common sense and logic, Let's say for example, a VP's Org has 300 people and the org is closed down, Cisco would still need to have LR's across the board to meet the 5000 target.
vp existing is a clear signal of an area likely to see substantial and significant cuts
OP meant exiting no doubt
vp existing is a clear signal of an area likely to see substantial and significant cuts.
Cut the company down to 40k and rehire people through temp agencies. Retirement benefits and health insurance are not necessary.
It turns out the exec version of the ER had a higher service requirement than the one for the peons.
Oh, wait...I'm using logic and common sense. Never mind.
Anyone who has to tell you that they are “using logic” show just how weak their original argument really is.
Just cut this company down to 60k, and let's get over all the drama. Do it and be done with it.
larger LR has me concerned my boss is a vp and probably will leave which puts my entire org at risk
Why? Wouldn't that be a great opportunity for you to promote into the VP's role? Or they'll just hire a new VP. Why would any VP be "at risk" unless they're blatantly performing terribly? In that case, cut the VP and bring in new blood who can turn the org around.
Slashing an org that under performs only means that it will perform even worse as there will be too few people to handle the work. If the org is so bad that Cisco doesn't need it, why would they have LR's across the board and not just cut the org and leave the other orgs alone? I don't mean they should throw money into an under performing org either, but they certainly need to make management changes and hold upper managers to their goals.
The days of just letting a VP or SVP make bad decisions and miss their goals badly and just sweeping it under the rug or moving them to another org need to end. There needs to be performance accountability all the way up the food chain.
Oh, wait...I'm using logic and common sense. Never mind.
larger LR has me concerned my boss is a vp and probably will leave which puts my entire org at risk
Why? Wouldn't that be a great opportunity for you to promote into the VP's role? Or they'll just hire a new VP. Why would any VP be "at risk" unless they're blatantly performing terribly? In that case, cut the VP and bring in new blood who can turn the org around.
Slashing an org that under performs only means that it will perform even worse as there will be too few people to handle the work. If the org is so bad that Cisco doesn't need it, why would they have LR's across the board and not just cut the org and leave the other orgs alone? I don't mean they should throw money into an under performing org either, but they certainly need to make management changes and hold upper managers to their goals.
The days of just letting a VP or SVP make bad decisions and miss their goals badly and just sweeping it under the rug or moving them to another org need to end. There needs to be performance accountability all the way up the food chain.
Oh, wait...I'm using logic and common sense. Never mind.
larger LR has me concerned my boss is a vp and probably will leave which puts my entire org at risk
what a shock .... said no one