Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

But they also need to cut the executives who are leading these unprofitable BU's ?>because it's their mistakes that made it unprofitable in the first place.

Unfortunately, for 2+ years, J and J had very little to show for, and they are cutting people working for them not themselves because of the revenue shortfalls. That is how this industrial work. Fair? never a fair game.

@1lpk+1jTPWQcO 💯 spot on. Little to no customer research on specifics.

In all seriousness, why do you care how many jobs somebody works as long as they’re getting their responsibilities completed in a timely manner? If someone wants to work 13 hours a day and I get what I need from them to be able to complete my own job, I really don’t care what the he-l they’re doing otherwise. By my guest. Either you do you work on time or you don’t. That’s the real question.

Cisco's reality is that decisions at the senior executive level are made based on the narrative that reverberates through the ELT echo chamber. Very few, if any, of the ELT actually know what technology solutions businesses want to buy because they never talk to them at that level of detail. Because of this, decisions aren't based on objective facts, but on subjective stories created, and then amplified, in the echo chamber.

The emperor truly has no clothes, and they're not even embarrassed by it.

@1wuu+1jTPWQcO Totally agree. Our VP in UK has been AWOL in recent months. Did absolutely nothing to generate business. His cost cutting paranoia lasted much longer after that was lifted Cisco-wise by JS in sales. But I am sure he will be will be back writing his emails for LRs soon.

Same goes for the UK SED. Useless, only focused on his own career - no investment behind SEs and SAs. Even if you ask for an internal training for a relevant product or solution, you are challenged to give a "business reason". Why does Cisco UK hire technology consultants if they have to give "business reasons"? Bizarre, psychopathic behaviour. More cost he cuts, more his own career path looks promising because the OPEX saving makes him a hero in the eyes of the management. He does not have the minimum vision that SEs without an insight to products and solution cannot continue to do their jobs as expected. Hence, career of his SEs and SAs goes to nothing and Cisco's interest, similarly, does not goa anywhere. But at the end of the day, it's the little people who gets LRed.

These fats needs to be cut. Otherwise Cisco is destined to belong in a museum.

I remember Nortel a fantastic company with great innovation, ground into the ground by execs who were out of their depth and this impacted peoples lives through no fault of their own.
Now Cisco is not quite in that category, but as an ex employee who had good memories of Cisco but who when complained about an exec and then found himself on the at risk pile and made redundant later when no retaliation is written into the code of business conduct then you have to consider Cisco is not really that great a place to be. I'm glad Im out of it and so are many of those I worked with at Cisco who have left. I don't think there are any that would go back. The problem being you have this highly publicised best place in the world to work message yet there is a deep sense of unfairness and injustice.

"There's zero accountability at the SVP level."

Or at the VP or Sr Director level. It's a social club, not a business.

"But they also need to cut the executives who are leading these unprofitable BU's"

And this is the crux of the problem. There's zero accountability at the SVP level. It's not limited to Cisco, it's everywhere. What baffles me is that truly clueless people such as our one-time CTO Biri always bounce back. There's always another company willing to hire them. LRs hurt the people doing the actual work, not the leadership.

"If Cisco is doing what they say they're doing and letting people go based on redundancy, lack of profitability of a product or service, etc., then Cisco is finally doing what it should be doing for its shareholders"

Technically Cisco is doing this. Although it's very easy to move around friends to profitable products or services. Or rename a failing product or service to something new... or bundle a failing service/product with a popular product

There are so many tricks at Cisco.

Thanks for sharing this, I sure hope is a majority sentiment. Not sure what's to come, but completely agree Cisco has given me some of the best memories and a comfortable life, not to mention some exceptional mentors and friends. Business is business, hoping for the best outcome for all.

@kok+1jTPWQcO, who ever said life is fair? I agree that those who are violating Cisco's Code of Business Conduct should faces the consequences of those violations, you can't count of fairness to level the playing field. Is it fair that men make more money for the same role than women do? But it's a fact.

@mvi+1jTPWQcO, I think you're asking too much of Fran's skillset. She could order it done, but she won't.

Be careful what you both are asking for. How will Fran/Cisco know if you're working two jobs? If they're smart, they're doing it on two completely separate laptops connected to their home network and keeping all work / network traffic for each job on each job's computer/VPN connection. If they're not smart, then they might do other work on Cisco's laptop. Given the push to get stuff accessible without a VPN connection on "trusted devices", some people don't even have to use their VPN and run their web searches through Cisco's DNS servers / network. That means that Cisco would have to install additional spyware / monitoring software on our laptops that will further slow them down and I, for one, don't need that.

If Cisco is doing what they say they're doing and letting people go based on redundancy, lack of profitability of a product or service, etc., then Cisco is finally doing what it should be doing for its shareholders instead of just cutting people for being expensive and having to re-hire 2 younger, earlier-in-career workers to replace them and hope the loss of institutional knowledge doesn't hurt the company too much. I don't like the annual culls, but I'd rather it be cutting unprofitable business units. Or cutting redundancies so that extra money can be put into fixing unprofitable business units to make them profitable. But they also need to cut the executives who are leading these unprofitable BU's because it's their mistakes that made it unprofitable in the first place.

whats problem work 2 job? is you not gets 2 job?
nothing problems, i makes money family happy.

Is it asking too much for Fran to identify the employees working two jobs before Dec 12th list is released, so ethical employees who play by the rules will still have their jobs?

Is it fair that someone is ethical and moral and gets fired, while their fellow employees are working two jobs and do not get fired?