Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

Sad State of Affairs

Having recently left Cisco I can say it is a company in decline. I joined very recently at the tail end of the John Chambers era. He was a fantastic leader with great vision and ability to inspire. He knew how to sell and how to appreciate technology and recognize good technology and good technology leaders. He came under justifiable criticism for some of the practices he used to enrich certain individuals at the company, including himself, but he also created an engine for innovation that built the company as it is today.

New CEO Chuck Robbins is a decent and well-intentioned guy, but sadly he is completely incapable of running the company. While he was able to sell all of the wonderful products given to him by Chambers and his leadership team, it was a fantasy to think a sales leader would somehow transform himself into the product visionary needed to leave an Innovative company into the future. He's floundering and lost without an ability to inspire his people or the ability to recognize those he could put in leadership positions who themselves would Inspire others. I don't think he understands technology in his gut and doesn't know how to recognize the ones who do.

The turmoil in the product organization is a reflection of the CEOs inability to make good choices in this area. He can't pick people and he can't pick winning solutions to invest in. The Frantic and haphazard strategy of acquiring companies is the only thing they can figure out how to do. Even that doesn't seem to have a cohesive strategy. Cisco is reduced to grabbing bright shiny objects in the hope that one of them will magically become the future.

Finally the only answer they have had of late is cutting head count. I feel that in the most recent round a death spiral has taken hold. One where the headcount reductions were so disruptive to the ongoing business that they themselves would lead to further decline and ultimately the next round of headcount cuts. The cycle will continue until the company is a shell of its former self.

Cisco hasn't invented its future yet and there's no one there to do it for them. They're coming out with silly products like a sparkboard that will eventually be a curiosity in a computer Museum. Their big Ideas used to be things like "voice over IP" which they would then proceed to dominate. There's open field for them to do the same. Cisco could create the single seamless secure end-to-end software-defined network of the future and completely eliminate the need for Hardware, dramatically reducing the costs to customers. They won't do that because they can't see the future and are too stuck in the past. A guy who spent his whole career selling networking gear is incapable of taking the steps that will make it obsolete. It's going to take that kind of courage and vision to build the Cisco of the future.

by
| 3799 views | | 15 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+LR1sbGY

15 replies (most recent on top)

Picking your poison, huh? You should set your bar for your leaders a little higher. A lot higher.

Oh, my bar is a lot higher for a leader. I was responding to this comment, which was about a choice between John & Chuckie for integrity. I'll say I liked Chambers back in the early days, but he stayed too long and started Cisco on the downhill slide that Chuckie is accelerating.

It is up to you to judge which one is worse or with less integrity.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3ogv+LR1sbGY

2vpr, Picking your poison, huh? You should set your bar for your leaders a little higher. A lot higher.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2kff+LR1sbGY

Chambers used to announce layoffs (or they call it LR) publicly. Robbins has secretly conducted "silent layoffs (LR)" over the years. It is up to you to judge which one is worse or with less integrity.

That's an easy one. I'll take Chambers over Robbins any day.

At least with Chambers, it was announced ahead of time & people could make financial decisions or put off big purchases until after the reduction. With Robbins, it's more of a bandaid removal process where they pull it off quickly with no warning. After work one day, Chuckie says we're having a reduction and 14-16 hrs later, you're having your 1:1 with your manager and you're gone.

And to say you're going to focus on some area while cutting costs in another, it makes sense only if you listen to the words. If you look at the execution, there was no need to let people go in the areas that they did and then hire in the "focus" area when the people being let go could have transitioned and done the same work. It was just an excuse to cut older, higher grade people and hire younger, lower grade people at a lower wage and therefore reduce costs. At least under Chambers, it was the worst performing people that got cut. And yes, I'm not totally naive, I'm aware that some managers knew far enough in advance to start making people they wanted gone look like they were poor performers by basically changing the tasks or priorities and then saying that you weren't performing to their expectations. But that was not as wide spread as the Aug & Nov '16 cuts were for older workers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2vpr+LR1sbGY

Having recently left Cisco I can say it is a company in decline. I joined very recently at the tail end of the John Chambers era. He was a fantastic leader with great vision and ability to inspire. He knew how to sell and how to appreciate technology and recognize good technology and good technology leaders.

You were there for the entire Chambers Era Mr. Chambers. How did that "we're going to have more than 100 first priorities next year!" thing work out for you? How about quality being the biggest problem for decades which didn't get any better for that entire time under your leadership? Maybe someday you can become a systems company instead of a box company. "Do you want to buy a box?" Now that there's funny!

Finally the only answer they have had of late is cutting head count.

Surely you remember cutting headcount (including contractors) from 48,000 to 35,000 in 2001 and the myriad of layoffs both reported and unreported since then. If the leadership was so effective you wouldn't have DEs so weak that they needed to be tossed during your reign.

Cisco hasn't invented its future yet and there's no one there to do it for them.

You never invented the future. Look up the origin story on Wikipedia - it talks of a company built on stolen hardware and software from Stanford. Their big history in switching? Bought in the form of Crescendo Communications even before your time. Take the time to look at all the acquisitions and you'll see that without them there would be no Cisco. Ironically the NIH attitude where everyone is wasting time reinventing commodity level stuff poorly has lead to a company where things really are Not Invented Here.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ajq+LR1sbGY

OP, you drank too much kook-aid from Chambers. To me, Chambers is a liar and he is no different from a used car sales. Do you remember that how many times he used the word "Cisco Family"? Was there really a Cisco Family for you and never? The truth is that he can say everything but doesn't really mean anything. Robbins like Chambers in many ways that both are sales. However, you are right that they do have some differences. Chambers used to announce layoffs (or they call it LR) publicly. Robbins has secretly conducted "silent layoffs (LR)" over the years. It is up to you to judge which one is worse or with less integrity.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1qeo+LR1sbGY

Webex s---s compared to Amazon Chime and Chime is what? a week old? Cisco, you can kiss that recurring revenue goodbye.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @syn+LR1sbGY

What an enlightening post

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ccy+LR1sbGY

@egm - WOW! That seems hella cheap.

"A Plus edition is $2.50 per user per month and adds some user management features, such as linking Chime to an Active Directory and retaining up to 1GB of message history per user. A Pro Plan allows screen sharing for up to 100 users and includes unlimited Voice over IP (VoIP) for $15 per user per month. There is also a rate per minute for conference call dial ins, which in the U.S. is $0.003 or $0.012 for toll-free"

How does that compare to WebEx pricing? At least now we will be able to use our Spark wall mounted TV for something.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jdv+LR1sbGY

Another dagger...

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3169618/cloud-computing/amazon-releases-chime-a-new-cloud-based-ucaas.html

but RT will continue his monkey dance, and pushing his dumb wheel-barrow.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @egm+LR1sbGY

@jur - You forgot UMI: http://www.cisco.com/cisco/web/support/umieol/index.html

....smoldering dumpster fire

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @clu+LR1sbGY

It's funny how great hindsight is whilst forgetting crap like V-Frame, CIUS, Flip and many other abortions borne out of terrible acquisitions and warring BU factions. Innovation dried up because BUs couldn't stop fighting each other to realise the market was no longer prepared to donate 90% margins to Cisco for desktop switches.

Cisco is a rudderless ship taking on water and Chuck's main objective is to persuade people it won't sink.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jur+LR1sbGY

I must also disagree. Cisco's innovation pipeline dried up on Chambers' watch.

If Cisco wants to survive, it badly needs a technologist, rather than a salesperson, at the helm.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rxc+LR1sbGY

I do kind of agree with the OP. Chuck is not as charismatic as Chambers. That shouldnt matter but it does in a CEO. I hope I'm wrong but I don't feel like he is a leader...more of a manager. I do also agree that Cisco needs to find its "thing". We seem to be thrashing about...buying companies, divesting bits of ourselves, laying off good people, having Red badges that should be Blue.

I also totally agree with the whole Sparkboard thing. I've no idea where that fits and I just can't see anyone buying it....or indeed anyone in Cisco even using it.

There is life in the old dog yet. I don't agree with the total negativity of the OP. I'm not sure we are in decline just yet but we are stagnant.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @djb+LR1sbGY

"completely eliminate the need for Hardware"? What you're saying is with proper leadership, Cisco could invent a way for packets to travel over wind currents from point to point? That would be an industry changing invention.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hpg+LR1sbGY

I must respectfully disagree with your premise that the downward spiral started under Robbins. I was there for Robbins' first day, and Cisco had clearly been rotten to the core for many years prior. But I do agree that Chuck and his ELT are completely incapable of driving the kind of turnaround Cisco needs.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @isq+LR1sbGY

Post a reply

: