Within your management chain, from Director down, which level management you feel is not needed?
11 replies (most recent on top)
I have seven levels to CR. BUT, I’m a PE and therefore report to a Snr director. So there are 2-3 levels below me. So yup, they’d have 10-11 levels to CR.
Why aren’t we demanding that Cisco report how many laid off in the management structure and what the goal of its future structure.
Struggles to manage a team of fewer than 20 engineers.
Holy cr-p! When I was there too many managers had 4-6 reports which was still way beyond their capability.
Cisco could be flattened into a very simple structure>
Executive Level> Overall business direction
SVP / VP Level> Segment strategy decisions
Director Level> Segment strategy execution
Leader level> Team Management
Individual Contributors> Workload management
If there is more than one VP/SVP, more than one director layer, more than one leader level - someone in that chain is un-needed.
We should keep in mind that all those layers of unnecessary managers are fully aware of their lack of utility and profitability. However, as with most large IT companies, they remain in place to protect their own positions.
They operate collectively like a vast mafia system, paralyzing the business. They don’t care if the company loses money because it isn’t their money. Their primary focus is self-preservation and safeguarding their roles, regardless of whether the company is on the brink of collapse. This is the reality of many big IT companies—crippled by an excess of redundant layers.
The issue with these unnecessary layers isn’t just that they fail to advance the business. The real problem is that these layers are driven by personal ambition and ego. They will go to great lengths to undermine any coworkers who don’t align with their career plans.
The best approach is to maintain one foot as an employee and the other in your own business, avoiding wasted time with these hypocrites.
I count 12 layers of useless management. Each layer down to the first line manager is just talking for the sake of talking. They have no real work. The engineers are doing the bulk of the work and they are severely burnt out. If the market wasn't this bad people would be leaving in droves.
Any org, sales, cx etc same issue
After the latest reorg announcement, we got some additional layers of management. Currently, we engineers in my team, counted ten levels of management above us including CR. That's insane !
To make things even worst, believe it or not, we are struggling with some big errors in managing time and human resources. Our plans are failing, we can't manage workload etc...
How many layers here are unneeded I don't know, but I believe that there is plenty of opportunity for thinning it.
This type of leader is ineffective:
Struggles to manage a team of fewer than 20 engineers.
Lacks a technical background.
Has a poor understanding of Cisco products.
Does not have the necessary skills to allocate resources and staff projects appropriately.
Increases the number of team meetings without providing useful information (e.g., "pizza parties"), reducing engineers' time to focus on actual projects.
Shows bias by discriminating against team members based on their nationality.
Engages in workplace bullying (mobbing) against engineers who do not align with the office's unprofessional politics.
Which director are you talking about? As useless as our team is it looks like we have more than 1 layer of directors.
Above and below
CEO