Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

It is all bush. Names are already decided and managers/directors need fit them in the curve. Nothing matters other than numbers.

@RfY2ggr-15evl

True, though not everywhere. It's even affecting sales where the top bean counters don't care who's bringing in the money. They're blowing discounts off the wall and hiring in cheap inexperienced sales (and presales) folk, who triple the work, half the quality, mind you - for a fraction of the cost.

VP of Bean Counter's logic, I guess.

Wouldn’t it be nice if your simplistic story were true @RfY2ggr-15mal. The fact is old timers keep their skills up and contribute. They get laid off because they make more. The bean counters can’t measure productivity so they just count beans and lay off productive people. They hire cheap inexperienced visa holders and get crap products but they don’t care. It’s all about the quarterly number and nothing else.

Not really @RfY2ggr-13qgz. Product quality went down when outsourcing started. Cheap foriegn labor brought poor quality. The original America engineers built quality products. Then Cisco got greedy and disloyal and started laying off old timers who had skills and experience just to save money. Now they play to Wall Street and screw the employees and the customers. It’s a losing game.

If you're 10/10 in performance at ploughing fields with a donkey and a wooden plough - you're lines are straight, you are a guru at maintaining a sharp plough, you really know how to get the best from a donkey, and know how to read the soil and weather to ensure you only plough at optimal times... you're going to to lose out to the guy who is 2/10 at driving a tractor in all weather, who can call up the service engineer when is breaks, and doesn't really need to maintain his plough head because it's made of hardened steel.

Just because you are a high performer doesn't mean you're in a valuable part of the business. That 10/10 guy in the legacy business has been blocked by his management from learning how to drive a tractor. But if his business is a "bleed the legacy customer" business, you don't need him any more.

Most programs I’ve seen overran by factors of more than 10 and that doesn’t count the years of testing the customer has to do between FCS and actual fielding, and even then the product will fail in the field. Those programs would have been better off if the majority of people never did anything.

Statistically you have a better than 50-50 chance of winning by randomly picking people to be laid off and the odds of winning increase as you work up the ranks as they are the ones that made then perpetuated this mess in the first place.

well, if you pass alot of gas then they will lay you off, no matter how good your performance is.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2007-05-16

If you really believe that cr@p no wonder you jokers voted in Trump.

A good performance is rated according to your personal relationships with Your VP and Sr Director. Say if you are from the same village as them, then you are in good shape. My neighbors who are from India told me how their system works in Cisco these days. It is all about friends and relatives.

Why would anyone choose to work at Cisco? I know millennials like their egos stroked, but why not work for a company that appreciates you and compensates you well, and offers you the opportunity to work on the latest technology?

I asked a manager (current) at Cisco this question, he answered, "why not?"

Because they’re cheaper. They don’t give a hoot about you. And it’s no longer about having the best products. So if someone junior can come in and make the bottom line look good they can afford to buy more companies that might have a product they can make money pushing through their sales machine

Most big companies in US are doing the same. No, also the big companies outside of US. Big companies had become socialist orgas.

Laying off high-performers is a clever political strategy. Surround yourself with yes-men and nincompoops, and eliminate any evidence of all the failed strategic initiatives.

Why ignore performance when laying off?

The short answer is because they can. It started with the "People Deal , a total oxymoron because it is actually "the company getting to do what it wants to the people deal". No performance measurement , layoffs by the whim of the company.

We have now added to this the "Real Deal" whereby 17,000 employees answer a few questions that are guaranteed to return 3.5 to 4.5 out of 5 , so that's a pass then , to show that they all think things are going swimmingly.

I predict that we will next move to the "Love Deal" whereby it will not be enough to accept the company and leader but it will be required to love them. As per the final act of 1984 it will only be when you finally submit to the will of big brother that they will blow your brains out.

Cisco is not concerned about skills or performance, learn how to manipulate people and use buzzwords.

Performance does not matter especially if you are Ind$an and well connected!

The Cisco PIP process for getting rid of low performers is a long and painful process for a manager to use. It is much easier to just wait for a layoff to get rid of bad eggs.

Performance has never been a valid LR criteria. There’s a process for termination that can be used on grounds of poor performance. Why would you pay good money to rid yourself of poor performers?

Basing it on performance would mean having a transparent performance rating system, which in turn calls for having managers with balls to be transparent and actually lead teams rather than just "i follow what I'm told, and pass the you off sh-- to the chaps reporting to me"

This is particularly interesting because ever since the people deal, HR has been promoting balls-free managers into position.

You see, once that layer has been saturated with this type of incompetent managers, it becomes easy - eliminate the ones who haven't fully absorbed the koolaid, and the rest can sing either of the songs below

1 Rock on John

2 Don't f---, Chuck

3 We are the software champions of the world

4 Higher stock means we're doing it right

5 Praise be to the beat

We have in our BU layoffs from time to time. They target deadwood. I don't have a problem with that.

I have a PhD and I am Principal Engineer here at Cisco. Brains!!

Don't worry, as we follow the trajectory of IBM this will be next: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/07/why-ibm-wants-to-hire-employees-who-dont-have-a-4-year-college-degree.html

Just more justification for shifting your role to a far off hut in Asia

Actually, Cisco does still rate performance, but it's done behind closed doors, and with no communication to 99% of the employees on how they were rated. It's called 9 box. The 9-box grid is a simple table graph that rates “potential” on the Y, or vertical axis, and “performance” on the X, or horizontal axis. "Potential" is a subjective rating at the mercy of your mgrs/Dirs/VPs. IE "their perception" of your potential.

Then they factor in how much you cost (salary, benefits). If you are expensive, you automatically get put on the list. Then if addition data is needed to push you out the door, your dept looks at your 9 box rating. Of course, you'll never know any of this, unless you are high up the foodchain.

LRs are probably justified by cost reduction. The question is HOW an individual is selected.

If it were performance related, let go employees would probably have a solid ground to sue for unfair dismissal, as long as they weren't warned about their poor performance.

I think age might be a factor in some places, but a whole lot of it is the direct manager's incompetence and insecurity, plus a bit of personal agendas. Many talented ones are let go, very few deadwood.

LR is possibly the best thing that can happen to an employee. Unless that employee is the clingy emotional "never wants to leave" type.

Young or old, once you leave that ship, don't look back. Save your emotions for the ones who matter.

Everyone leaves Cisco, by choice or by force. It all boils down to how prepared and willing you are to accept life after Cisco.

The one thing that has not been pointed out yet is cost. The more expensive you are, the more likely the axe falls. Why keep competent when we can go young.

People Deal = free license to send the anarchists to the LR-Gulag; then use the cash to hire more offshore resource kindling; to tee up for the next restructure...

For being such a environmentally and society changing company, the "People" sure seem to be fine with abiding by the "Deal".

How much money is this company making each quarter? At least give people the decency to get a performance review. It's one thing to get the boot from the "Cisco Family"; it's another thing to get the can because you are bottom 5% or not doing the job.

People protest the police when arresting people without due process, violating first amendment rights, or singling out ethnically. Is the People Deal any different? If Cisco were the government, a LR through the people deal would be considered Constitutionally illegal.

Sorry Cisco. Too late now. Our parting was like a crappy divorce, no reason, no reconciliation, no closure.

The problem is that In any country that has a concept of wrongful termination, giving a performance justification for termination, opens the door to a legal fight since the person being laid off can argue that the performance was adequate and that he is being picked on for some unfair reason.

It is actually a moral quandary that all Cisco managers face when they are told to layoff a certain number of people and are basically told to justify it in terms of downsizing (i.e. "the position is no longer required") even though the real decision is often based on perceived performance.

In many countries performance is not a legal reason for redundancy so even if still had ratings couldn't use that everywhere

Performance is no longer measured since performance reviews went out the window and replaced by "the people deal". So, if you're no measuring performance, you can't really take performance into account when laying off people.

And, in answer to your question about who is in charge of layoffs, you are correct, it's a financial decision... not always the correct decision but it is motivated by reporting better numbers to boost the share price and thus market share. You have to understand that, while you believe you are playing by the rules of the game, there is another game being played and it is much bigger than you are.... and that game follows other rules designed by analysts. The game revolves around their forecasts and expectations. Gains in profits, revenue, and sales are not considered gains unless they meet or exceed the forecast. A 6% growth, for example is a failure for a company if the expected growth is greater than 6%. Compound this failure if, in fact, there was a posted loss.

Work for another company if you care about performance or job security. Some of us are proud to be working for complete morons.