The management is resistant to change

It is a sad but accurate reality that the company is heavily staffed with long-term employees who are resistant to change. This mindset is ingrained throughout the organization, with a mutual agreement to protect each other from potential layoffs, which is detrimental to the company's success. In terms of talent, one highly skilled employee from an acquired company can be equivalent to ten from the existing staff. Many of the teams are now redundant and could be eliminated by implementing more modern processes and technologies used by the acquired companies. A willingness to embrace new technologies is critical to achieving success, but the old management and their favorite staff is resistant to change and appears to be comfortable in their current mindset.

Perfectly< said, @gzz+1lkZk6Dw.

Comment! It's anonymous!

7 replies (most recent on top)

Agreed there were managers and directors in their late 60s and 70s that we're entrenched and and just wouldn't retire and get the he-l out of the way. They're hanging on for dear life for retirement. More boomers past their prime hanging on for dear life. As a millennial I deal with incompetent boomers, angry gen xers and I'm stuck in the middle with id--t gen Z'ers that know no nothing. It's a total cluster fu-k.

In my opinion, the acquisitions of Solidfire, SPOT, and other companies were beneficial for Netapp. Netapp struggled to fully capitalize on the new technologies it acquired. It's important to recognize that selling new technology requires a different approach than selling older technology. Had Netapp effectively leveraged Solidfire's capabilities, we may not have seen initiatives like Beat Pure emerge.

Maybe you don't remember (or weren't here for the drama) MARS but that's exactly what MARS was -- a new approach. And it was cancelled because it threatened AFS and WAFL. SF was (by some magical thinking) not seen as threatening AFS like MARS would have??????? And then (2016 layoff) all the former MARS staff were laid off because they were deemed as insufficiently loyal and didn't kiss the WAFL ring.

I dis-agree somewhat with respect to SF acquisition - yes use the algorithms and enhance - however, taking SF, wrapping a piece of metal around it and compute, calling it HCI - very re-active(trying to play catch up) it did a lot of damage to the Netapp brand. I was embarrassed to speak about it in front of customers. Who's idea from a leadership stand point did this idea come from and why did GK let it happen.

After cancelling MARS in favor of buying SF for $750M, without sufficient due diligence to reveal that SF has some SERIOUS technical deficiencies, GK and the WAFL mafia had to do "something" with SF to CYA. So, yeah ...

I dis-agree somewhat with respect to SF acquisition - yes use the algorithms and enhance - however, taking SF, wrapping a piece of metal around it and compute, calling it HCI - very re-active(trying to play catch up) it did a lot of damage to the Netapp brand. I was embarrassed to speak about it in front of customers. Who's idea from a leadership stand point did this idea come from and why did GK let it happen.

In my opinion, the acquisitions of Solidfire, SPOT, and other companies were beneficial for Netapp. Netapp struggled to fully capitalize on the new technologies it acquired. It's important to recognize that selling new technology requires a different approach than selling older technology. Had Netapp effectively leveraged Solidfire's capabilities, we may not have seen initiatives like Beat Pure emerge.

What I can say is that all netapp acquisitions during the last 7 years are trash. Billions dollars wasted.

That’s why I left NetApp last year . The coterie of Senior Directors and their direct reports was too much to handle. Gaslighting was too rampant in my group where only 20% did their jobs but achievement were redistributed to justify the big team

Thread regarding NetApp layoffs

The management is resistant to change

7 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply