It is absurd that Fortune recognizes Cisco after laying off 4,100 workers during Cisco's financial success, and even more absurd that Cisco leadership then promotes it after during this to us. This is so cold-hearted!
9 replies (most recent on top)
No one believes this bs. It’s just a paid advertisement, move along.
The thing I'm suspicious of is that nothing at Cisco changed which caused us to be Fortune's best company to work for.
One could argue that the underlying metrics changed. What was a good place to work some time ago is not regarded a good place to work for anymore and vice versa.
The thing I'm suspicious of is that nothing at Cisco changed which caused us to be Fortune's best company to work for.
I mean, there wasn't any major change in policy which was the Catalyst (pun intended) for our jump to the #1 spot on Fortune's list.
I'm not going to be upset about working for the best Company in the World but the fact that Cisco didn't do anything to earn it makes it suspect.
Why people still give a dime about this? like: Did this "achievement" fire you up (assuming a current CISCO employee) or make you pu-e? I think for most current and past CISCO employee, they are numb about this.
Who do you think is one of Fortune's largest customers?
Dentist offices?
As for OP, when all the biggest names are laying off it's no longer a differentiator. If people felt there were many better companies out there they would have done what it takes to go work there and those that haven't are either too lazy or too incompetent and if they are still employed at Cisco they should be more grateful. OP might want to reconsider whether they believe the if clause is really true.
I’ve never received any of these surveys, has anyone else?
Twice.
I gave rather average ratings. I have only 1 data-point - my data-point - and I start to believe that these surveys don't count much towards the overall evaluation of the company.
I have come to the conclusion that the rankings are a crock.
First, companies have to pay to be included on the list.
Second, part of the ranking is based on a questionnaire and essays prepared by whoever is applying for the list (I.e. PR folks), so it’s a based on qualitative judgement, & also better PR team = better ranking.
Third, there is an employee survey component but whatever the process for selecting employees to survey is opaque—can a company game the system by ensuring a certain subset of employees are surveyed? Can respondents be influenced by the company to give positive answers?
I’ve never received any of these surveys, has anyone else?
These designations are bought and paid for. Why weren't we at the top when Chambers was here. I don't think he paid for that stuff. Woke Fran is changing this company and not in a good way. I fear where things are going with her running so many things now.
Fortune is owned by a Thailand based company that relies on advertising & consulting service fees. Who do you think is one of Fortune's largest customers?