Bad results equal layoffs, which is one I can understand. But good results also mean layoffs, because the leadership wants to sustain growth. The leadership sc--ws up and instead of resigning, we get laid off to fix their mistakes. But when they do well, we get laid off again because they want to see their bonuses grow. Is there any scenario in which we are not the biggest losers?
9 replies (most recent on top)
Remember, companies always have a bottom 10% that have to go.
For the unaware, this comes from Jack Welch's "vitality curve," aka stack ranking, forced ranking or rank-and-yank. The acolytes of John Chambers (who himself was an acolyte of Welch) don't seem to remember when he tried to apply this at Cisco with a 5% threshold.
You might want to read a document known at the Powell Memo. You'll learn how your sedition is "the cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics."
You get laid off no matter what because you are the b!tches of the ELT, the useless mouthpieces of directors and managers. No matter what, when they need a fekk, you get sc--wed 16 different ways. For them to get a lay, you need to be laid off. If you don’t like that, then move on, find another job that lets you live in peace and not sc--w you everytime. Do what I did and leave. Then you can visit this site every quarter to check out the panic among the sheep being herded to the sla-ghterhouse.
@acx+1r32JgcE Being a publicly traded company is what doomed Cisco. The need for growth is what led to things like subscriptions, random new technology spaces/aquisitons.
The ELT at Cisco are sociopaths. That’s why. They dgaf about anyone.
Unfortunately, since Chuck showed up, he and the ELT have watched the company become more and more irrelevant to customers. Personally, they collected a lot of money while failing to protect the hard-won customer relationships that made Cisco so successful years ago.
The crazy thing is that, if you actually listen to them, customers will tell you exactly what problems they need to solve to make their business successful. Cisco's hubris doomed it to be a one hit wonder in the networking space.
The problem is that good or bad results according to Wall Street does not translate to the actual situation within Cisco. Our numbers are frequently reshuffled and adjusted for earnings calls to window dress the severity of the situation. Quarterly beat on EPS etc does not mean anything long term on our strategic position in the IT marketplace. The real problem is yet to be addressed.
Lack of product innovation
Losing relevance with C suite
Support is worsening each day
Licensing (and so called subscriptions) are not understood nor liked by our customers
Acquisitions are poorly integrated
Pricing that is not matching premium expectations
A lot of talent have moved on
Culture is presented as highly regarded, but underneath its a fear based one. Lack of motivation/ fatigue. One man for himself.
ELT talks about anything but the important topics
Competition is everywhere and complete lack of focus and vision
Cisco reps still believe they are highly relevant, but the market states otherwise. Wake up
Remember, companies always have a bottom 10% that have to go.
Remember, there was no over-hiring done during the pandemic and LRs have been happening more frequently. Yet the ELT continues to receive massive amounts of stock and bonuses.