Seriously, why no one brings this up during check in? Layoff maybe once a year might be acceptable. With the employee churn so high, don't the upper management think it's a bad strategy? How about the board of directors? If new grads don't join, I think it will change.
No promo/hike. It's terrible. I can confidently say that in Cisco there is no transparency whatsoever.
I worked for DEC across several continents from 1980 until its sale to Compaq. It went from boom to bust in about, what, 7-8 years?
I worked at Cisco for many years as a manager and learned first-hand how difficult it is to be transparent with employees. It's why I started www.transparencyimperative.com to give employees a voice to challenge leaders and managers to do better with the truth.
This is what walking dead companies look like.
Wow, haven't seen Sun, DEC and Wang mentioned in ages. Only someone who worked in the 80s would remember those companies. I worked for DEC for 10 years. CEO Ken Olsen was quoted in 1977 as saying ""There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." One of the biggest gaffes in tech history.
You know people get fired for saying things at the check-in?
Really? Wow, for a company that supposedly hires bright people, there are some stupid people who make comments best left for an anonymous forum instead of having it tagged with your name for all to see.
It's also cringe-worthy to read all the s—up comments praising the ELT. Personally, I just don't comment and try to stay off the radar while I do my job.
why no one brings this up during check in?
You know people get fired for saying things at the check-in?
A clear sign of a managed decline.
Look no farther than Sun DEC or Wang
Wang being the greatest example of missed opportunities
Where was JC from originally? Wang
once a loser always a loser
Are u therefore surprised cisco missed cloud?
chuck is the dr wang of cisco, managing it to zero
Because Execs only have to worry about share price and nothing else. They only report to a Board and the Board's direction is to increase share price. That is done by reducing expenses and shell game revenue. When earning reports don't look good, they can paint the picture that a $1B charge corrects the issue so investors hold shares. What do you think happens if the Top 100 shareholders all dump their shares at the same time? The stock would go to $20 or less in a matter of hours. That would lead to more layoffs and artificially increase share price.
This is the cycle of a company in a no innovations cycle. You can follow what IBM has done because Cisco is in the same boat now for the next 10-15 years.
investors love layoffs
Stock buybacks, dividends, and acquisitions are expensive. It's getting more difficult to hide debt and declining revenue to Wall Street.
Cisco has a government created monopoly in switching and routing. Layoff full-time employees and replace with contract workers.
Two points: raising a question like that on a check-in paints a massive target on your back. I think there’s a check-in today, give it a go.
Second: In the years I’ve been here it seems that Cisco’s optimum* size is 70k employees. We make a few acquisitions, grow the number to 75k+, and then have an LR programme to get back to 70k.
To make room for new acquisitions. Otherwise the total headcount can explode. Then the next question is why so many new acquisitions. It is not necessarily for acquiring new talents and "innovation"...