Pros
Above average compensation. It used to be the culture.... hopefully it can be recessitated.
Cons
Culture is decaying with growing pockets of toxic teams. Leadership that is being promoted have either made a pledge of loyalty to the leadership above or they are a "yes Sir" kind of person. So, it has become a norm to see toxic VPs that did not make it to their positions based on merit and see them openly exhibit some of the most outrageously toxic behaviors (condescending, see differing opinions as "falling out of line", etc.). This leads to most of the Director level being disempowered and having to balance self preservation with doing the right thing for the business & the employees. The remaining layers of management are each less empowered than the layer above them. This leads to individual contributors that are struggling to contribute because navigating the trickling down toxicity is consuming most of their time and mental cycles. The problem is not limited to VP and below. It start with the glaring void of a Head of Engineering in the C-Suite. Each Business Unit Head reports to the CEO - thus making the CEO the one to lead technology direction, prioritizations and the biggest one: getting the BUs to work together to deliver on a platform strategy. That would be great if Chuck was Elon or Jeff B. - but he is not. So, he has outsourced those decisions to be based on C-Suite consensus - the very reason why the C-Suite has resorted to running like the Senate - alliances, lobbying, trading favors, etc. Oh, and the CFO ... he runs the financials like an accountant - I bet Cisco's books have never looked better :-). But top talent is walking to the competition, moral is at an all time low, and innovation (through acquisition, "Spin In" , or internal investments) is at a stand still since Kelly left. But I bet those books look good :-). BTW, Splunk does not qualify as "innovation infusion". There are plenty of "innovation" activities talked about by BU leader turned Chief Strategy Officer (who still cannot get herself to fully perform the CSO role because she has not let go of her BU leader identity - so, she is the CSO but also leads Applications *shake head*). Activities only - no results - no successful monetization. It does not take much to understand why innovation is dead, the culture has turned highly political and toxic, and now business performance is impacted (it's not just due to macroeconomic). It is sad to see such a great company deteriorate at such a rapid pace. It's making it obvious that the #1 Place to Work ranking is a paid PR service. However, I do have to say that out of the entire C-Suite, Fran is the only executive that is delivering results (you may not like or agree with the results or approach but she is delivering). What is the CEO succession plan (as Chuck is in semi-retirement mode and focused on building personal legacy/brand vs running a company)? What is the board thinking & doing??? Fiduciary duty anyone?