From reading this website, I gain the impression that Cisco lay offs used to focus on bottom 5% but now age.
When, in which year, did that shift from bottom 5% to age happen?
25 replies (most recent on top)
OK. You were not let go because of age.
You were let go because you did not have a unique skill set required by Cisco.
You were expensive.
So in effect you were let go because you had average skills and were too expensive?
Sounds a perfectly reasonable way to run a business. I wouldn't want to be the CEO who has to justify to shareholders a workforce of expensive, average Joe's
The fact is that guy who has been at Cisco for ages with the tired skill set is probably older than the ambitious bloke with the up to date skill set.
I have to call BS on that statement. Just because you've been at Cisco for more than 5 yrs doesn't mean your skill set is tired & not as up-to-date as the young guy.
If my skill set was tired, I wouldn't have found a new job as quickly as I did (less than 45 days) for better money. I wouldn't be still getting contacted about my resume on Indeed even though I haven't touched it in 6 mo or more.
My manager said it wasn't based on performance, but was based on least impact. The two of us had the skills with the most overlap with others on our team while others had some unique skill/experience that made them more critical to keep. We were the most expensive workers with the least critical skills. We may have been the SME's on some areas, but those areas were either being phased out, so it didn't matter that we were the SME's or those areas had been around so long that most of the team could be considered an SME. Or, at least, knew enough to be able to figure it out in our absence.
While it may appear to be age based and in a round about way is, it is more a cost issue. What I mean is they are taking out more expensive employees (folks who have more experience and have been in the industry longer) and replacing them if they do replace them with college grads! Ie: we lay off the grade 10, 11 and 12 and replace them with grade 6, 7 and 8.
Get out while you can, There are so many Cisco resumes out there no one wants to hire from them anymore. If you stayed this long you are viewed as someone who is not motivated and comfortable.
It is never "announced." It is in the yearly proxy statement. This should be out sometime this week. Check out the ELT IPF scores. Always a good laugh.
Where was it announced that the ELT team got raises during the layoffs? I'd like to see this. Totally believe it. A--holes.
What kind of leadership team gives themselves a raise while laying others off with the intent of lowering costs with cheaper labor?
1boz - if you were to expensive what does that make the overpaid elt and ch@ck?
It is, without a doubt, ageism. Cisco never really purged the bottom-performing 5%. Chambers lamented this publicly a few years back. There is no formal review process anyway -- so, how can you cull the low performers? It's all politics and whether you are in your manager's good graces. The People Deal should be called the Soylent Green is People (Deal)! What a joke. You are a job title, grade level and age in a chart in the LR separation package. It's not about performance. I was let go. 950 RSUs lost. I was a high performer. But, I was also too expensive. I was given unsolicited promotions and raises. I was given a sh!+ ton of RSUs over the years. It s---s to be LRed and it s---s to be a survivor. Live and learn.
The reason is seems like it's about ageism, is that Cisco is laying off the high level grades. So of course someone that is a 11/12/13 is going to be older than a grade 6/8/10. If you're in your 40s and have been around cisco for 10-15 years and are still a grade 8. There's something wrong.
Most of the dead wood is in the management, they're the ones responsible for the fact that nobody in the valley wants to work for Cisco since the dotcom era. Ask anybody if they'd rather work for Cisco, Apple, Netflix, Amazon, Google or Tesla. You'd never find them rank Cisco at the top.
Plausible deniability <= that’s it. I’ve known a couple of Grade 11s who were L&R’d. One asked manager for feedback. Manager was at a loss for words. It wasn’t a personal reason... and yet it wasn’t a professional reason. It was all about the bottom line. (This person had received a promotion and RSUs in the last cycle to Grade 11.)
But it’s not the worst thing that could happen... they found out in the last two weeks, took the package, and already have a handful of opportunities and interviews with great companies.
Going through this is tough. It was tough for me to sit down and come up with a contingency plan. Layoffs impact individuals, and families. They impact physical health, and they definitely impact mental health. I talked to a colleague who is battling anxiety, noting this has impacted their self-esteem... The levels of anxiety in my group are so high that people are fighting to show their boss and that boss’s boss that they should be spared.
Rest assured: There is no shortage of good paying jobs with awesome companies. If you’re not happy, take the steps to get to a place where you are. Life is too short for mediocre.
A good thread.
@kco: Fukn’ nailed it! HR should be ashamed of themselves for actually branding something so grossly subversive and toxic. FU, Fran!
Plausible Deniability = People Deal
Innovative method to layoff thousands of high-performing employees without a paper trail.
Zah - this is a strong inaccurate statement - “All the executives and managers who got laid off Cisco, have not got any job outside.” Do your research. I think if you did, you will find that the majority who actively searched for employment found a job. Many of them better. Sure some retired and left the workforce.
I really can’t get my head around how people genuinely attempt to blame individuals who were laid off since the “people deal” and actively defend csco actions. Pre people deal I sort of get it. that involved performance management, but that has been gone for many years. That “people deal” kool aid must taste good.
So it sounds like the lesson is, if it's something new...be sure to use all the buzzwords and associate yourself with the trendy new things that are hot in the market.
If it's something standardized or a stable product...don't align yourself with it because you are old and stale...doesn't matter if it makes money for the company...you are a dinosaur...
Sounds like some people haven't experienced what commitment means, and even perhaps even what overall integrity mean...especially if they aren't living in the bright shiny limelight of new stuff...
High school is over...Cisco isn't a popularity content...but in many ways...it's turning back into one.
Sorry, no PM. Cisco is currently run on emotions of the manager. If you massage his ego, you get to stay in.
It is the truth.
This is because, in early 2000, Cisco hired and promoted people who are not fit to be managers and Directors.
Unfortunately, people who didnt do politics were left at the mercy of these "managers".
It is not only about Indians, there are chinese and Whites who banded together, to bring about this mismanagement so that they could be promoted when their svp buddy goes up.
These guys are definitely 40+ , some having joined cisco in early 1990s ( like 1993).
Till now, cisco was a huge ocean and all these things got lost in translation. And HR was actively trying to cover it up and get rid of the complainant
One good thing about cisco now is Chuck. He is dismantling all this buddy-system... so these c---roaches are running scared. All the executives and managers who got laid off Cisco, have not got any job outside. That should tell you about their skills.
Your alias of Ghost of Cisco Past kind of says it all. Its what most of the posters on this site focus on...what Cisco was. The past has gone. You cannot go back. Cisco does not need folks that dream of days gone by. But ask yourself if you know people that have been in the same job, doing the same thing, day after day with little ambition. They dream of the good old days but have no desire to stretch themselves. If a company has to make cuts who would you keep? The comfy old sofa in the corner or the person who still has ambition and up to date skills?
The fact is that guy who has been at Cisco for ages with the tired skill set is probably older than the ambitious bloke with the up to date skill set.
That's different from having a policy of getting shot of the over 40s. Its about having a dynamic workforce.
So the original poster is fundamentally wrong. The shift from bottom 5% to age has not happened. Its a combination of business need and no longer carrying dead wood.
Mvy - The “red line” is done based on cost. It happens to be that the older workers are more expensive because they EARNED that higher pay thru their contributions and thru many many years of high performance and promotion cycles. In most cases that high performance continued to exist and to perform at that higher level the skill set was maintained. Cisco decided to ignore that high performance and the many years of contributions that actually built the company to a 50b annual revenue and focus on costs. Why is this important? It is important because I would advise any younger person looking at Cisco to spend their valuable time else where. Why perform at a high level and maintain your skills if the company has shown it will cut you later for it. No go to a start up or look at other companies...the payback is better long term. Don’t waste your time at Cisco.
@PQK9Cne-mvy obviously has limited or no exposure to 1990s/2000s Cisco culture. Performance management was deliberate, structured, and somewhat meaningful. You did not want to be in bottom 5%, be warned on heading towards a PIP, be the recipient of being "flamed" on an alias, or receive multiple low-bingos from your customers. If you were a low-performer, good managers would have team leaders help you make improvements. It was a painful at times and stressful process, but if the person truly wanted to improve, they could. Nowadays, there is no warning, even if marginal performance; but even more work culture destructive, good performers can be targets simply because of age and tenure.
To @PQK9Cne-mvy, it sounds more like you perhaps haven't truly stepped up to challenge yourself to take on a completely new job with serious uncertainties about your own success.
Early Cisco was built on thousands of individual stories of people making sometimes insane time, troubleshooting, and customer support commitments to make a new technology work; and to retain and grow a customer relationship.
People aren't willing to take big chances to get something to work, even if it might have a few hiccups along the way; if that struggle is politically damaging.
If you disagree with the above, perhaps a job in government or television news anchor aligns more than working in Information Technology.
Ignoring all the moaning about moaners from Wmvy, but taking these pieces
Look, if you have someone in a role for years who's (sic) skill set hasn't kept pace with the wider world then as Cisco moves into new areas that person will be become vulnerable. Its not rocket science.
People need to take ownership of their careers and make sure they have the same drive, capability for innovation and skills as the youngsters.
So, you do all that and get laid off anyway. I know people in that situation who got laid off back in 2009 when we exited businesses (like voice products) but since then it's been far more random, with a definite tilt towards the older employees.
And for evidence, you only have to take the quotations from execs themselves.
It didn't. Its just the usual moaners wanting to find something to whinge about and posts like this just perpetuate the myth,
Look, if you have someone in a role for years who's skill set hasn't kept pace with the wider world then as Cisco moves into new areas that person will be become vulnerable. Its not rocket science.
Now listen out for all the moaners...
People need to take ownership of their careers and make sure they have the same drive, capability for innovation and skills as the youngsters.
So if there is a correlation with age then that is the rationale.
If you genuinely think that management gets a red pen out and crosses through names based on their age then you are living in a world of make believe and you and all the other posters who go onabout Cisco ageism need to get a grip.
If you have a good connection with your dir you'll be safe. All these people/culture messages that they are trying to spread is BS,,,, the most unprofessional environment that I ever experienced.
Layoffs and promotions at Cisco are 100% determined by your relationships.
Age, Race, and Performance are all irrelevant.
2006 sounds right. Around that time Randy Pond and Charlie G. both publicly stated Cisco needed to get rid of older employees. By this point it be American pretty clear that Cisco had a lot of dead wood. Problem was age was not the right metric for determining who the dead wood was.
2006