Q1.
6 replies (most recent on top)
Talk about poor performers:
I seriously think the board should seek a new CEO if they are looking to grow to $10B. George has been at NTAP 10 years and the revenue has been in the $5-$6B range. There will likely be layoffs but the problem isn't at the bottom-it's at the leadership level. They are not producing and the numbers show it, and the decisions being made are not moving the needle.
If your manager labels you an underperformer you will more than likely be part of the layoff. The new culture will be used an excuse.
Well, that's the problem, right? Some of them are grossly incompetent and also extremely disliked.
For example, take a look at VPs leading projects such Kubernetes (just to name one and not mention the product's name). In a very short time, he caused an exodus of talented experienced engineers, architects, managers and even directors, severely damaged the projects that he was supposed to build or fix, etc. Yet, people like him, will never be impacted by "performance" cuts.
If NetApp was serious about "thriving" and improving productivity, these roles should also be included. But of course, this will not happen because, as someone else mentioned, they all protect each other.
Yep, we're getting asked those Elon Musk questions all of a sudden...
VPs, Directors, Sr Managers, etc. always protect each other.
Unless they make a huge mistake or they are truly imbecile or disliked by their peers.
That sounds reasonable to me. However, it better include a few (or several) VPs and directors who seem to be immune to this "performance evaluation". Their chaotic re-orgs, lack of leadership, and clueless decisions, hurt the company a lot more than the "underperformers".