Cisco shareholders win say-on-pay Cisco shareholders have narrowly approved a right to shake their tiny fists at the company's executive payroll. The networking equipment giant is the latest tech vendor to be enamored by "say-on-pay" schemes amidst public outrage over enormous corporate potentate payouts in the crap economy. Notables like Microsoft, Apple, …
to think they are doing this out of some form of enlightened utilitarianism, an understanding that the flow of money is what creates a strong economy, and that hiring 10 over 1, especially where the 1 is normally some toadying MBA who hasn't got a clue how to add real value.
But who knows, maybe they just want a better dividend, but even there that makes more sense than paying management.
This is whole concept that some make good leaders is very flawed, what makes a good business is having the finance to get a foothold and people who actually make the business a profit, and that doesn't really include management.
There was time when it was applicable, when people were badly educated, but now most companies have manager managing experts, and you don't get to become an expert without knowing basic numeracy or how to organise your time, so management without skills seems rather defunct.
In fact, you could probably start to value companies on this basis, just look for the companies where the management is taking a hugely disproportionate share over the actual money makers, and make sure you sell or don't invest there.
And those companies which are lean and mean in management but place responsibilities on their experts, need to make a bit of a song and dance about it, because those are quite tasty prospects for investment.
I think general management is going the way of the dodo, and really management of a company should be by the shareholders, and mechanisms should be put in place to make that simpler to achieve, sure some shareholders won't want to do it, but in many cases it is quite useful to have a bigger say in the day to day running of a company.
Ever heard of herding cats?
And by the way, in Cisco case it is real experts that can walk across the street to 4 different other suppliers and get a pay rise in the process just because you as a manager have pissed them off. No BT in Ipswich or Ericsson in Manchester "experts" (quotes intended).
In fact managing them to deliver anything that exactly fits the bill of requirements is way harder than managing the shop floor workers of yesteryear. The graveyard trail of dead silly valley companies is a testament to that.
'public outrage over enormous corporate potentate payouts in the crap economy'
What do Cisco shareholders have to be outraged about?
The company has remained massively in profit throughout the whole 'credit crunch' and have even used it to their advantage, positioning themselves to move into new markets and cutting dead wood from their organisational structure.
If they want to vote on something how about voting to give those of us that don't work in senior management big payrises for helping safeguard their investment? Hmmm. Thought not.
Anon, cos I work for 'em.
I noted that the head of the BBC is "worth" around 800K pa and his deputy around £400K.
It seems to me that logically if a deputy is worth having he has to be able to take over the business in an emergency and do a competent job. Lets assume that few of these senior executives are actually underpaid for their competence level. Therefore either the deputy is massively incompetent for the job, as demonstrated by approx half pay, or else the boss is hugely overpaid.
As you seem to work for them but dont actually have a clue..like most people at Cisco
1) Share holders dont recieve dividends from Cisco shares
2) Yes Cisco may not have made too many people redundant offically but what about all the contractors Cisco cut (some 2 weeks before Christmas last year)
3) All the extreme cost saving measures No plants, no milk for your coffee, no drinks, above inflation rises in the staff canteen's
+ lots more
And Execs give themselve bigger bonuses than Cisco FY08 and then you can start to feel as to why Shareholders are against pay rises
Cisco Exec's knew this day would come, why do you think they have been trying to buy back as many shares as possible over the last couple of years
lol
1) Where did I say that they did?
2) You are correct that quite a few contractor positions were cut in the last year. I can't comment globally but in our division pretty much all the ones that were any good (and a few that weren't) were offered alternative roles. The rest were the aforementioned 'dead wood' - I assume from your vitriol you may have been one of them.
3) No milk for coffee. Really? Still got plenty in our offices. And free freshly ground coffee, hot chocolate and teabags etc. They did cut out the free fresh fruit and the free cans of coke - You'd think there was a global recession or something! I'm not going to defend the canteens... The prices would be ok if the food was better, but it's just rubbish. To be fair it always was though.
My intention was not to defend huge executive pay rises in general, just to point out that compared to the vast majority of investors, people with Cisco stock have had a lot less to complain about over the last year. That fact alone should surely imply that someone deserves a bonus… and while I’m not sure Mr. Chambers really needs one, an extra few quid would help me out no end…
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
