Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

Entire BU got cut, so there is also probably more to it than described above.

Our entire department was reduced from 75 to 3 so I don't think they have any understanding of the customer support or demand on what we do.

That's why the layoff and the mid long term plan:

http://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/ericsson-plans-3000-job-cuts-report/?utm_campaign=MWL_20160922%20A%2FB%20EMEA%20A&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

As a PSS I have been let go , good luck to any account team that wants to do my job ! The point is they will not be able to and will leave it alone, the Business unit will miss its numbers and will get cut next year, advance services will not implement anything because nothing is sold and will get cut next year. Account Team's will sell less , so will get cut next years. In the mean time ELT will be OK and go on another charm offensive with the market like the stunt today SFDC and Cisco join in the cloud, last year Apple and Cisco joined in the Enterprise. "Run with the hares and fly with the kites", reduce headcount, increase share price who gives a **** what happens in 3 years time !

LRs are not based on performance it has been proven countless times.

Whilst the 'numbers' analysis below is a fair approximation, i'd have to add as well that organisational restructuring is happening. Philisophical statements from leaders like 'Centralised Overlay add no value' means those teams get cut hard. Case in point... in Centralised EMEAR, some teams cut by 40-60%..its been a bloodbath.

In general CEO/SVP/VP is a numbers game, while names are Director/Manager driven. Here is the algorithm:

1. Company wants to reduce total operating expenses by X% plus reinvest Y% in new businesses. So total cut is X%+Y%=Z%

2. All functions and business start with a pro-rata share - so everyone is assumed to get cut Z%. Then the executive staff (mostly CEO+CFO) tweak those numbers up and down based on productivity and investment goals... e.g sales gets cut a little less, since it is a productivity model, whereas finance get cuts more since it is just a cost center. This swing is relatively small - say +/- 2 or 3 % incremental cut or savings. So if the average is 5%, some groups get 8%, some get 2%, most get 5%.

3. EVP/SVP of each function gets a budget, in both $ of target HC elimination. The functional head goes through the same algorithm, but typically with a much greater swing based on the portfolio view - a legacy or failing product team could get cut 40 or 50%, or eliminated altogether, while an investment area could receive no cut, and be guaranteed net new $$$ (from the 'Y' above). Some groups punt at his stage, and just take a pro-rata (aka peanut butter) approach.

4. The subordinate VP/SVP's in the functions then get their resulting cuts. They complain, politic, pound the table and so on, but typically don't get much relief. They allocate their cuts, which will look like a repeat of step 3 in many cases.

5. At some point, you get to director / first line managers. Typically the budget cuts are then distributed more uniformly where every manager takes the bottom X out, or a director pools the team and identifies individuals who are in roles that are not required, or lower performance relative to peers. Director and below are almost always in a tough spot here, without much flexibility. Individual people decisions get made by Director with VP oversight and manager input.

This is all best case, assuming rational decision makers, good judgement and understanding of the business. Unfortunately, those assumptions are not always true, so weird stuff happens, good people get cut, bad projects saved, and so on.

The Indians get together. Some clucking sounds are made. Feelings are shared. Decisions are made. Code loads are checked in.

Excellent question. Surprised to find out no one asked this so far since LR.

Any insights on how the decision to layoff someone is made ? At engg level, mgr level, dir level.