Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

CEO's and senior executives suffering consequences....LOL!

Clearly the rank and file still can’t produce the most basic requirements or design.

There are some awesome small companies out there where you can grow and do ever greater work. Of course they don’t have infinite margins like the few market leaders so you won’t bank as much (that’s what’s known as a “tradeoff.”) If you’re here whining that Cisco is bad for your career meaning you know it’s not where you should be working the onus is on you to make changes and if you get laid off like many tens of thousands at Cisco over the past 22 years those are your consequences for your decisions.

To play devils advocate the execs at Cisco do real work. I'll list a few valuable things

• outsource jobs to countries without labor laws
• establish government relationships to enable blank check contracts
• replace full-time employees with contract workers without benefits
• convince Wall Street that Cisco is an innovative technology company
• convince employees Cisco is a great place to work, enabling Cisco to pay lower salaries compared to competitors
• laying off over 50,000 people without negatively impacting the brand

Execs at Cisco are very skilled. They weren't hired to create a new Cloud Platform or Security technology, but to further create shareholder value from existing products.

By law, management should be forced to face consequences, not the employees

So, all of them did and laid the "workers" off. All they need was to "FACE". Sometimes, the consequences are the board kicked them out but with a golden parachute. They will face it and counting the money, then sent out this "I will be focused with my family bla bla bla...BS". Large tech company executives have so many connections so that someone, somewhere will give them another chance to sc--w up. Just look at ex-CISCO exec (SVP or up). Too many names to list here.

(workers == people do real work - engineers or managers)

"I won't honor them w/ the term "worker""

Yikes, do you actually think this way? That the term worker has honor associated with it? Good grief, you need help...

Worker = su---r

@kfl+1kSbMSSV It's not JD. More likely CP . Been posting all day since morning UK time. JD was fast asleep at that time and likely nor cares about comments here neither has the time to respond. Tells you how busy Directors are in Cisco UK and the attitude of entitlement and implied threat ("move on"). Management by fear.

@yzw+1kSbMSSV thank you, JD.

@wcv+1kSbMSSV

Technology is now a commodity skillset; specialization and advanced knowledge is no longer required.

Managerial (business management) decision making is not required for those outside the Executive Team. It is the classic business model that has repeated itself over the centuries; when a new business is developed, there is a niche skillset requirement to evolve and scale that new line of business.

When a line of business enters later stages of lifecycle, a company’s Executive Team has to be the main decision maker for the overall organization, due to decreasing margins, and lower innovation requirements for the products. This model repeats itself over and over in business.

Getting feedback, approval and sanctioned decision inclusion, outside of the Executive Team; has it’s place in startup businesses, especially for example in innovative products (first in industry). In lines of business such as Cisco; the products are stable; so our job is to maximize the return and cost lifecycle for mature lines of business.
If you think differently on above, that is understandable.

The job of upper management is to maximize the return of the lines of business. If you are not happy with the business model, overall the choice recommendation I would put forward to you is to migrate to a startup type business where there is more risk and reward.

The tough thing now is many people want both, to be included in decisions, to have visibility to future decisions that only the Executive Team is privy to (because of fiscal considerations), and to also be part of an innovative company.

The reality is (and Cisco really won’t truly say this; we can’t); is we aren’t a ground-breaking innovation company. That is old news.

I hope this helps a bit; just understand that much of this just the way it is, wish it was different.

Hope this helps; and thanks for everyone’s work at Cisco.

"Only certain people are entrusted and empowered to oversee overall business, if you aren't one of them; choose messaging wisely."

• Wow! The sense of entitlement is strong among the Supreme Leadership I see! And the theme of "management by fear" is strong as well. Thank you for proving some points that many have been writing here for a while Mr. "Exec". "Entrusted" by whom? Not the employees for sure! Just a collective few who have had your lips to their ears.

"The problem regretfully nowadays is not everyone can accept the role they need to play for our collective success."

• Exactly! And the Management is at the top of the list for messing up success due to poor business decisions. They are the leader and the buck stops with them. No matter which you pitch it, Mr Exec, you cannot deflect from the point that management should pay for their decisions as well, but they get away every time with the millions of minions left to pay the price.

It is not about performance, it is not personal. It is called running a business. Only certain people possess the mindset and confidence to perform Senior Management duties.

As a nation, the US is going to pay the consequences of the "mindset & confidence" certain people possess, i.e. greed. Capitalism is all about the bottom line and profits, so that means getting rid of as many expensive, i.e. experienced, employees as they can get away with. It's one thing to try to document the institutional knowledge, but actually knowing it over having to go find it and then find out that it's out-of-date and figure out what's changed since it was last updated is what makes the business run smoothly. If all the older people won't be hired, or paid appropriately for their experience, it's going to end up where only the deeply in debt college grads, and early 30's workers will be employed along with an elite group of C-suite people (I won't honor them w/ the term "worker"). With Social Security being attacked, and it's starting age ever increasing, what are the 40-somethings and 50-somethings going to do? Where will they work? If they end up selling fries with your burger, where will the HS kids end up working?

Yes, when leadership makes bad decisions, they need to pay the price and lose bonuses or be replaced. They're quick to let project managers and individual contributors go when they mess up.

Cheeky Sods exhibiting disruptive office norms should perhaps consider other career choices for 2023.

Only certain people are entrusted and empowered to oversee overall business, if you aren't one of them; choose messaging wisely.

The problem regretfully nowadays is not everyone can accept the role they need to play for our collective success.

Appreciate your position, but if alignment is not a possibility; please do move on, for all our sakes.

Respectfully.

More word salad by some beta male talking head...

A CEO's compensation is not tied to any performance metrics, it is by virtue of being at the top of the food chain in this concrete jungle. Gazelles do not get to complain about getting slaughtered and eaten.

The solution is to stop being a gazelle.

Nice try at deflection Mr. @Exec (we at Cisco UK know who you are)!

"There is nothing illegal about being hired or fired. Employees are paid for work being performed."

• No one is talking about legality! Why are the execs, directors, Sr. Directors etc. NOT fired for obviously wrong business decision making and hiring? Why are their positions sacrosanct? Why do they never face consequences for their inaction and inefficiency?

"When the work product is no longer required, the quantities of employees necessary to perform the remaining work must be adjusted accordingly."

• Agree! So why fire the employees alone? Why not retrain them for newer positions in the newer business model?! Why not fire the overfed fat layers of managers, directors, Sr. directors who do nothing but call useless webex meetings for hours and politicise the environment in the name of "confidence to manage? Why layoff productive people who actually get the business done and generate revenue? The answer is easy: because the management needs to appease the shareholders and the management cronies need to protect their back-slappers.

"Without these classic business foundational themes, an employee will never gain the mindset necessary for performance of Senior Management roles and responsibilities."

• How can they ever perform at Senior Management role if top performers are laid off anyway, sometimes, because a Director or Manager will see them as threats to their own positions? The capable employees often are not allowed to progress to that level ever through their achievement without having to hang from coat-tails of their management. A platoon of dedicated, loyal, high-performers have been managed out of our business unit in UK since 2020. These practices do not generate confidence in company policy or management. The mindset that appears to be necessary is that of a narcissist psychopath.

"Only certain people possess the mindset and confidence to perform Senior Management duties."

• To use your own words, "The definition of work is subjective, just as the definition of success or failure is subjective." - applies as well to the mindset to "perform" Senior Management duties! Who is the judge of that performance? Which takes us back to the original post: why do employees pay and Managers get away scottfree when a business decision fails?

Confidence to manage is an irrelevant topic here, poor attempt at deflection. The topic is CONSEQUENCES to management! Why do the management still get their bonuses and RSUs when the business is taking a hit due to their own poor performance and impotency to lead?

There is nothing illegal about being hired or fired.

Employees are paid for work being performed.

The definition of work is subjective, just as the definition of success or failure is subjective.

When the work product is no longer required, the quantities of employees necessary to perform the remaining work must be adjusted accordingly.

Without these classic business foundational themes, an employee will never gain the mindset necessary for performance of Senior Management roles and responsibilities.

It is not about performance, it is not personal. It is called running a business. Only certain people possess the mindset and confidence to perform Senior Management duties.