What struck me in the latest round of layoffs is how many experienced and skilled workers were let go. It's even more puzzling knowing who managed to keep their jobs. It makes zero sense, given the talents and experience some laid-off workers brought to the table. How is this good for the company in the long run?
27 replies (most recent on top)
Based on what I have personally seen and experienced at Cisco, who makes it on the list is not so black and white. I’ve seen the smartest and most hardworking folks let go. At other times, I’ve seen the opposite types let go. It really depends on many factors — many of which have been mentioned here in this thread. Sometimes the decisions aren’t fair and at other times they are. It’s just life!
The bottom 20% for non-coders is probably more relationship based and how your manager feels about you.
If you are working out of your mom's basement (@Shiills guy) then you are probably out of work.
If someone gets laid off then their skills and talents are obviously not worth anything to Cisco.
There is a middle ground that this sentence allows for. I don't fly or go skydiving so a parachute isn't worth anything to me. That doesn't mean it won't be worth a lot to someone else.
I did something at another company in a matter of hours where Cisco literally wasted many engineering decades before they had a working but far worse solution to that same problem. The engineers most responsible for that failure were considered "top performers" and given promotions for sticking with it so long. This does not make me great, but it does make a lot of people WHILE AT CISCO extremely bad. That does not mean they might not be far better elsewhere, and if that potential can be realized elsewhere they really should be moved along for their own benefit if not Cisco's.
Your whole premise is wrong. If someone gets laid off then their skills and talents are obviously not worth anything to Cisco.
Hey Einstein, the Botton[sic] 20% at Cisco is not based on performance and talent.
Hey Cletus, look at how much of the development budget has gone to bug fixing, and while you're at it look at the output of static analysis of any routing and switching code base at any time in Cisco's history. More than half of the software staff is worse than useless. Flipping a coin for each person will get rid of more bad than good.
As asked multiple times here and never answered, if you're over 60 and an Engineer 4 (Senior Engineer at most other companies,) a position which kids out of college are hitting less than three years out, and the kids end up doing the job as good or better because they don't have over 30 years of making the same mistakes under their belt, is it discrimination to get rid of the higher paid employee if they aren't producing at a comparably higher level?
That's the problem at most companies. Most products and services require far more low end talent than high end talent so everyone can't march to the top of the corporate ladder together, and if you don't have both the talent and opportunity to keep growing your contribution to justify an ever increasing salary many of you will be driven out.
Make strategic relations with decision makers - you mean do that instead of real work? No wonder overall productivity and morale is low. This statement really cracks me up.its not a matter of IF but about When . Good luck with the next round that’s coming up in a few months.
The "bottom 20%" comment cracks me up. That person must be the greatest rearend kisser on their team. There are a few things that can help you make the list, being white and over 45 is a big one. Being overweight is also an issue when you have managers that like to focus on their daily run rather than the needs of their team. If your new manager is into "fitness", well, you better hit the gym. Having accounts that can easily be absorbed by someone else on your team or working on projects that can easily be outsourced would help you make the list as well as the managers, directors and VP's still have a number to make even without you helping make it.
Chuck’s buddies probably didn’t get impacted by the layoff.
"Layoffs are not relationship based"
Make strategic relationships with decision makers that have power and you don't get impacted by layoffs.
Layoffs are not relationship based . They are based on ageism, control, favoritism , politics and getting rid of people that don’t fit the bill of saying yes with no potential to perform the job but talk all day on video
Layoffs are not performance or skill based... they are relationship based
"Just because you are "experienced and skilled" does not make you indispensable. The bottom 20% are always at risk."
Hey Einstein, the Botton 20% at Cisco is not based on performance and talent. It is based on favoritism, based on your manager getting credit of your work and wants to get rid of you, based on you do not fit in because you are telling the truth against fraud, based on you are telling the truth against toxic managers that violate the BCoC, etc, etc.
No wonder a below average person like you is defending Cisco.
Just because you are "experienced and skilled" does not make you indispensable. The bottom 20% are always at risk.
@rih+1v0PrLwU I keep hearing this same thing. But who created the lists? Front line managers. Maybe even you had some input. At a minimum you must have seen a list get floated up the chain. It wasn’t just VPs randomly deciding who to cut.
Paying $28 Billions was only good for Splunk investors and VCs. They got the most benefit, and laughing their way to the bank and happy to became Splunkers :-)
You could see in CR postures post acquisition showing he made a bad deal. But he got $34 Millions, and will get lot more on his way out. Does he really care?
First line managers absolutely had a say on who needs to be sacrificed. It’s nothing to do with talent or delivering results . More about keeping who they like irrespective of if they are qualified or can even do the job .
AI can do only 5% of what humans are capable at present. This is according to MIT professor. Not my opinion.
Tech always need humans to take care of difficult or unknown scenarios.
Splunk is good but not $28 billion good.
I see a 50% writedown on Splunk as inevitable, but will be an issue for a future CEO
The answer is obvious.
They continue to do the layoffs they've been doing for more than 23 years and most of the revered I worked with were worse than useless and needed to go.
Just another year of riding in the Cisco Clown Car.
Buckle up, Buttercup. The road is bumpy and no one is driving.
It's been the same way for a decade, people that shouldn't be cut, are and people that should have never been hired, are retained. Sometimes even promoted.
The answer is obvious.
The Cisco ELT bought into the AI hype. They used ChatGPT and were amazed by the BS it could generate and since 80% of their job is generating BS, they were mesmerized.
This is not a specific criticism of Cisco ELT since it is widespread.
sensing that they missed yet another major market transition, the Cisco ELT scrambled to acquire their way out of the hole they dug.
with so many options to choose from, they decided to spend $28 billion dollars on an old tech data company called Splunk. Splunk would bring all the wonderous promises of AI into the Cisco ecosytem, they thought.
Once the deal closed and summer drew to a close (many executives were in Paris for the Olympics) the horror of their mistake set in. The numbers just didn't work. $28 billion? what about the reams of spaghetti code in all the silos Cisco had? would the AI LLMs fix that? How are we going to pay for this?
the thinking goes like this "Since ChatGPT is so good, we can just replace everyone with it and offshore the rest to India"
So they announced layoffs mid August and made the employees wait for an excruciating month to know if they had a job or not. pulled PTO away and reset sales goals to astronomical numbers.
but ChatGPT is not that great and Cisco is now dealing with a MAJOR security and data breach with fewer employees and the ones who stayed are extremely unhappy. Splunk is good but not $28 billion good.
The decision on who to fire was made at the very top. it was a spreadsheet exercise. Many of the key employees who provided the most value were fired. there are now huge gaping holes in almost every team and morale is very, very low.
the randomness creates learned helplessness.
Layoffs this time round were kept at a VP level, as a director i've given feedback towards previous LRs. Being kept at a VP level meant that decisions were made when VPs don't have the knowledge to make the informed decision. This is why it is so baffling
From the perspective of SBG, so many services are just in maintenance mode now...this work can be offshored
Offshore employees are just thrilled to have employment with what they perceive as a good US tech brand. They'll happily eat the cr-p work of maintaining old rotting codebases for low pay
It's crazy how quickly most of Cisco's security portfolio went from "this is the future" to "this is outsourced maintenance"
Clearly this was a cost reduction effort and very little to do with performance, knowledge or experience. So many good folks gone.
At the end of the day, they are laying off to save the company money and hire in India 4 engineers vs. 1 usa engineer. Same thing that happened 10 years ago when they hired cheap China engineer labor. But now with geopolitical issues, and the rising cost of China labor salary, the next best move was to India until AI is ready to take over.
USA tech jobs are leaving by the hundreds and don't matter how talented you are. Basically, if you want to continue with the company and still use your talent, the only choice you have is to move to India and get paid the India's salary (1/5th what you make today or less). Give it a few years, and AI will have taken over most tech jobs even in India. Automation, AI/ML everything is on it's way.