Too many managers and directors layers in Cisco. There are no reasons to have so many layers of un-productive people managers while pressure is on to cut resources who are responsible for products, services or support.
17 replies (most recent on top)
Remember CX is the stepchild when it comes to costs - sales org is way more expensive. Compare salaries between SEs and NCEs - same grades and HUGE discrepancies.
Whats wrong with cutting extra fat like managers directors….
Look at Broadcom model… their CEO (great guy) do the same. Look at their stock price
config t
int managers
shut
int directors
shut
exit
exit
wri mem
Cut the management levels and have the different groups reporting back to CX. Let us handle all aspects as part of our life cycle of the customers.
so am i correct that upselling to higher levels of SmartNet is not the answer?
We, CX are the new way. What do you think happened to the dinosaurs?
What is CX? CX is a support organization. CX is a low hanging fruit chain. Funding of CX are coming from each vertical they're supporting. CX has no money that's why all these support staffs are outsourcing.
They have to cut the many levels of management to reduce cost. The biggest drag is CX, but CX is not going anywhere. Probably growing after this.
CX here. Watch and see. We will barely be touch. CX strong! Should have join us. Money flowing in the bank while sipping margaritas
Any cisco remote worker (today) that was at any of the facilities and onsite previously is probably about 50% as productive now. Most can't work remotely. No one in bgl or mx should be remote. Mainly newer in career or repeatable functions that can be done by those if trained and led correctly. US is a little better but the remote habits aren't great there either. A lot of people have been found out or have skated for years. Next whack is going to start showing that. That said, chuckie, mm, and the rest of the check box hires down to sr director level need to be plowed under. Your dei experiment is an absolute business failure.
Actually, the many layers of management are what’s holding Cisco back.
It sounds it is almost bad to be a Top Talent.
Does that Critical talent to retain even mean anything?
We have managers with less than 6 direct reports.
Don't forget there are also "people management" Tech Leads jumping in the middle, which have no working skills
Some will be affected. Top talent will be affected too. The more you see it the more you realize it’s not the bottom percentage. They aren’t trimming fat. Managers were asked to rank all direct reports.
There is a lot of speculation about how many will be affected. Management doesn’t know how many until the night before. This is why many look like they a saw ghost, can’t look you in the eye, look rough, spend a lot of time in the bathroom, avoid contact, tasks are overlooked, and have hangovers.
- There are no reasons to have so many layers of un-productive people managers-
I agree. But Cisco is built on management. For every 3 ICs there is 1 manager. It's ridiculous to see how long it takes to get to a Director or Principal Engineer position and here we have Directors with no direct reportees or 1 or 2 or 3 in some cases. The ICs will get the boot and we will end up with Directors/managers with even less direct reportees.
Totally. I don’t need a manager. I can go figure out things on my own. Matter of fact, Cisco will be LRing ALL Managers and Directors and ALL levels of leadership all the way to CR. Finally we will be one big flat organization so that we can run the business however we want. The shareholders will rejoice for Cisco trimming all of the fat middle men/women/whatevers.
That's not gonna happen.