5 ms·

Quick math: This means that about 975 VP or higher are being laid off. Assuming that you are right about it being half their VP+, it means that one person in 3

Quick math: This means that about 975 VP or higher are being laid off. Assuming that you are right about it being half their VP+, it means that one person in 37 is (before layoffs) VP at Cisco. I haven't work in such large firms, but it seems excessive to call VP someone who is in charge of 30 people, no?

rednaught 15y ago
Yes it is excessive. It is also "enterprisey." And finally it is a reason why they are having their lunch eaten by their rivals.
- lrm242 15y ago
  Not really sure what this means, but Cisco is losing because they lost sight of what they were really good at: core networking and applications that fundamentally rely at on really good core networking (for example, IP telelphony: go ask Nortel and Avaya whether they're eating Cisco's lunch). Internally, Cisco has serious Apple envy. They desperately wanted to be seen as a cutting edge consumer company, to the point of hiring some well known former Apple UX designers. They entered markets where they had no business being (Flip) and starved their core business units (can you believe the guys who build the work group Catalyst switches could almost NEVER hire anyone because of budget) to pay for it.
  - sgrossman 15y ago
    This. Off the top of my head, I can think of the following areas where Cisco has fallen off or missed the boat in the last decade: optical transport, MetroE/mobile backhaul, carrier VoIP(BTS and the like, not IP PBX), metro IP routing. I can't really comment on their enterprise products, but I have heard rumblings that their partner programs have been getting worse and worse, leading VARs and re-sellers to seek better margins from HP and the like.
roel_v 15y ago
Doesn't Goldman Sachs have Vice Presidents who have no people reporting to them? Back in the Golden Days I used to read about programmers, who actually programmed all day, who were Vice Presidents. Of course they made several 100k but still, they weren't in charge of anyone. (All of this IIRC)
- lrm242 15y ago
  A VP at a financial services firm is not a VP at Cisco or really any "non financial services firm". Firms like Goldman hand out Assistant VP and VP to, essentially, 3-5 year tenured employees. Directory and Managing Director are where the rubber really meets the road in these organizations.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  I believe all Wall St firms are alike in this regard.
lrm242 15y ago
I am a recovering Cisco engineering Director. It is excessive and it isn't typically done at Cisco. I'll speak to the engineering organization since that's what I know (reminder: Cisco is not organized by product at the top level, they are organized by function: engineer, sales, etc). A typical senior manager will have approximately 30 people under them: 3-4 managers with 7-10 employees each. A Directory rolls up 3-4 managers, a Senior Director 3-4 Directors, and a VP 5-10 Directors and Sr. Directors. A VP would typically have several hundred employees under them. Cisco is actually quite regimented about how it does this. Part of the yearly evaluation is (or was, when I was there ~ 3 years ago, not sure if it is still done this way) essentially "does this personal manage enough people to warrant their title". They will make exceptions and won't punish you explicitly if you don't, but it will be harder to compete for bonus and promotion dollars. They typically like for you to be managing beyond your level in terms of people before being promoted.

rednaught 15y ago

Yes it is excessive. It is also "enterprisey." And finally it is a reason why they are having their lunch eaten by their rivals.

lrm242 15y ago
Not really sure what this means, but Cisco is losing because they lost sight of what they were really good at: core networking and applications that fundamentally rely at on really good core networking (for example, IP telelphony: go ask Nortel and Avaya whether they're eating Cisco's lunch). Internally, Cisco has serious Apple envy. They desperately wanted to be seen as a cutting edge consumer company, to the point of hiring some well known former Apple UX designers. They entered markets where they had no business being (Flip) and starved their core business units (can you believe the guys who build the work group Catalyst switches could almost NEVER hire anyone because of budget) to pay for it.
- sgrossman 15y ago
  This. Off the top of my head, I can think of the following areas where Cisco has fallen off or missed the boat in the last decade: optical transport, MetroE/mobile backhaul, carrier VoIP(BTS and the like, not IP PBX), metro IP routing. I can't really comment on their enterprise products, but I have heard rumblings that their partner programs have been getting worse and worse, leading VARs and re-sellers to seek better margins from HP and the like.

roel_v 15y ago

Doesn't Goldman Sachs have Vice Presidents who have no people reporting to them? Back in the Golden Days I used to read about programmers, who actually programmed all day, who were Vice Presidents. Of course they made several 100k but still, they weren't in charge of anyone. (All of this IIRC)

lrm242 15y ago
A VP at a financial services firm is not a VP at Cisco or really any "non financial services firm". Firms like Goldman hand out Assistant VP and VP to, essentially, 3-5 year tenured employees. Directory and Managing Director are where the rubber really meets the road in these organizations.
brown9-2 15y ago
I believe all Wall St firms are alike in this regard.

lrm242 15y ago

I am a recovering Cisco engineering Director. It is excessive and it isn't typically done at Cisco. I'll speak to the engineering organization since that's what I know (reminder: Cisco is not organized by product at the top level, they are organized by function: engineer, sales, etc). A typical senior manager will have approximately 30 people under them: 3-4 managers with 7-10 employees each. A Directory rolls up 3-4 managers, a Senior Director 3-4 Directors, and a VP 5-10 Directors and Sr. Directors. A VP would typically have several hundred employees under them. Cisco is actually quite regimented about how it does this. Part of the yearly evaluation is (or was, when I was there ~ 3 years ago, not sure if it is still done this way) essentially "does this personal manage enough people to warrant their title". They will make exceptions and won't punish you explicitly if you don't, but it will be harder to compete for bonus and promotion dollars. They typically like for you to be managing beyond your level in terms of people before being promoted.