Be honest, please.
12 replies (most recent on top)
Loss from VMware’s image perspective.
He lost control on the exec team and upper management as a result are very disorganized. They keep changing things just for the sake of it, not to help the employees.
I would say he failed miserably on that part.
When you see their income went up 40-80% while regular employees barely had 3%, they aren’t looking out for the employees.
Pat was great for us, but it’s time for some new thought leadership. We are struggling to move to subscription model. Morale of field sales teams are low because of massive quotas and large backlogs of shelf ware.
Also, there is an exodus of c-appy people from Cisco and they end up in droves at VMware and bring even more ... it is k–ling the culture.
At some level, someone needs to stop and review the flurry of acquisitions and see how they fit in. Overall, I hope we hire a smart leader who knows what is at stake and can address the market trends.
Post ID: @1erc+18VqKy3S
That's because there is not a binary Yes/No answer to the
question. It is all relative to how the company does after Pat
leaves and his replacement comes on board.
The question is very clear, and it is binary.
The question was:
Is Pat leaving a loss or gain for VMware?
The question was NOT:
How will Pat's replacement alter vmware's fortunes?
Gain.
(+1 with @aha)
The path and patterns VMW has headed down with Pat isn’t positive. Hoping the business will turnaround through acquisitions isn’t a strategy than a risk. For that reason, Pat placed people and the business at risk with feeble strategies that failed. In general, the culture hasn’t improved either, something the CEO can reinforce through qualitative initiative like diversity hiring and management structure. In general, change is a good thing given where we were headed with pat. Whether it’s a good one or not, I can’t tell ya
That's because there is not a binary Yes/No answer to the question. It is all relative to how the company does after Pat leaves and his replacement comes on board. If the company does better, then it will look like a gain. More likely, the Dell-ification and grasping for relevancy will continue; and that will make PG's departure look like a loss. This will be misleading because that's probably what would have happened even if he stayed.
The question posed is not being answered by the most recent responses.
The question is about Pat's departure being a gain or a loss.
The answers are focusing on opportunities that lie ahead, but that was not the question.
I think the most obvious answer is that Pat's departure is an indication of the road ahead. There are headwinds from public cloud and public cloud expansion to on-prem and new software development patterns that aren't VMware's strong suit. So I'd imagine Pat left for opportunity and also weighing in the road ahead as the Dellification of VMware continues to plod along. Given the course being plotted by Dell for VMware I'd imagine they will be hiring someone from Dell Corporate or at least someone with a lot of bottom line focus. Top line not going to grow in line with the public cloud so will have to focus on the bottom line to make earnings...
For companies where VMware was from 2012 until now, the CEO is less of a factor than most folks think they are. VMware was already going to keep milking the maturing cow of server virtualization, the Dell/EMC alliance would have happened anyway, and the Nicira guys would have built a network virtualization company for VMware to buy regardless.
Now that VMware is hitting some serious external and internal headwinds, the choice of CEO will indeed be key in determining what happens with the company moving forward. If they get a technical visionary type, there could be some potential for continued growth. If they get a stereotypical Wall Street financial tweaker, then they will cost-cut the cow until the milk runs totally out.
I mean, it really depends on who they get to replace him. Keep in mind we could end up back in a Paul Maritz era situation where the company has no direction and is just twiddling its thumbs.
hit the nail on the head
Gain.
Focusing only on growing the company while letting it rot within isn't a good plan for longevity or keeping quality high.
I personally think it's a loss but I can see many don't agree with me. I'm now curious about why.