Some say that cuts are performance related, but I would disagree because I know several excellent performers who are cut.
Why was cutting them necessary? It's very demotivating.
14 replies (most recent on top)
In the end, they don't give a $&#* about their employees.
Oh they say they do and that they care but they are sitting on a lot of cash and could ride this through while retraining talent as needed.
But no, they wanted to copycat all the other tech companies in dumping people out in the street like garbage to show us all what we really meant to them.
It's not even overly negative or critical conversation. It's simple stuff like, what's out angle for why we want this workload on NFS vs FC, especially since the app vendor recommends FC. Suddenly you don't believe in the product. The other thing I've seen dozens of times. Someone has an idea for a sales motion or solution, and they just get thrown under the bus. Then as soon as they're gone their manager has a sudden great idea.
@3gsw+1mycrdLL : I use to work here, was good in 2005, no more 10 years later. They consider any open and sincere talks as offenses as manager are tracking like paranoid any deviation from the corporate talks and their definitions. Repeating like parrot all the language and bullsh-t to your customers. Nobody wanted to go to the office for these obvious reasons, as you will have vicious remarks with your management and going from 1 to 4 in your yearly evaluation and notation.
I'm just remembering good external events (means outside with different people and different cultures) and that's all the positive things that remain.
NetApp was a best place to work ONCE not anymore. It is a company with sh---y management and dirty politics from top to bottom
Leadership. Please be careful how you treat employees. That way, you won't have to worry about what we post.
Guys, the last few comments posted are very serious. Please be careful, I can't imagine a place like NetApp would do something like this. This company used to be "Best Places to Work For."
Please be careful what is posted here.
Getting a rep in trouble and taking an account right before a big deal closes is one of the things EMC was famous for. NetApp has done it intermittently with leaders over the years.... Usually ex EMC but quite a few others. The issue isn't that they do it, it is that they feel entitled to do it.... That is on leadership that tolerates and and tells HR to hide it.
In terms of layoffs, leaders doing things like that to their people are likely doing worse to customers and will ruin a brand. A customer likely needed that delayed project, liked their rep if they were going to buy for them. Liked the overlay that helped them adopt a new technology.
Regarding tribal politics, watch your VP's! If they need to make their numbers and you made yours by 150+, they will fire you and take your commisions/sales, to pack their bank accounts and meet their sales quotas. Yes it is that corrupt! Nerapp did not used to be that way but some of the newer VP's are not ethical. Saw it happen several times.
Lot of sales teams and middle managers were cut, mostly on performance lines but quite a few are trading people out for someone you pi---d off etc.... For sure not a radical candor place.... A 150%+ attainment individual was cut and it was for a leaders personal reasons. Had a friend their beat a sales org with an alliance deal and they made sure he was on the next layoff.... after 150% plus year.
The Tribal politics at NetApp are brutal. You are not allowed to succeed if you are not part of their tribe.... if you do succeed, they can cut you and take over your accounts/product/initiative for their friends.... It is really that corrupt.
Cut? They brought in another level of management the past year.
Greed.
The 'leaders' are not incentivized to grow revenue. Even if they mess up, they get an excellent severance bonus at the end of their stint.
This means they can cut high-performing salespeople who they have a personal bias against without much consequences. The team will perform less well but it doesn't affect the amount of $$ these leaders get at the end of the day. IMHO, cutting high performers is a clear indicator of how little they care about the business versus their own egos
Id guess they were “cost reduction” decisions. Not performance based decisions. Hey if you’re about to sell a 5 million dollar deal and NA doesn’t need to pay your commission now, who wins? 🤒
Nice to hear someone from leadership acknowledging the ‘people actions’ that were done but it wasn’t at a high enough level.