It's a question that should be looked at closely by Cisco's board of directors given the departure of two 10-year veterans this month and the controversy swirling around the company's management by committee initiative. That controversy in no small way involves Cisco's thousands of solution provider partners since both the Cisco executives that exited the company were closely tied to channel initiatives. What's more, Cisco Senior Vice President of Worldwide Channels Keith Goodwin, who was just named Everything Channel Channel Executive of the Year, has found himself mired in the management by committee responsibilities. Let's start with the two most recent executive departures: Doug Dennerline, who oversaw Cisco's SaaS business, just left the networking leader to become executive vice president of sales for Salesforce.com, and Alex Thurber, senior director of technology go-to-market strategy for worldwide channels for Cisco, left to take a job as worldwide channel chief for McAfee.Both were seasoned , well- respected executives who had built impressive careers at Cisco. So what do their departures have to do with management by committee? More than meets the eye if you read the outstanding journalism done by Wall Street Journal Reporter Ben Worthen. Worthen set off somewhat of a firestorm on the Web earlier this month regarding Cisco's organizational structure after reporting in detail on the massive management by committee structure that has been set up by Cisco CEO John Chambers. Worthen reports that management by committee structure includes an operating committee of 15 top executives, 12 councils with 14 people on them on average, 47 boards with 14 people on average and a number of working groups. What's more, Worthen reports that Cisco plans to increase the number of employees who participate in the committees from 750 to 3,000. If that isn't enough, he points to a senior leader turnover rate of about 20 percent since the shift to the management by committee initiative began in 2007. One of the executives featured in The Wall Street Journal management by committee article by Worthen is Goodwin, who notes that managing everything under the Cisco structure is "clearly a challenge." The question: Is that challenge driving great executive talent out of Cisco? Chambers has long been viewed as one of the best CEOs in the world. No top executive has done a better job of building a company the size of Cisco through constant reinvention. It's hard to argue with success. Chambers has never been proven wrong when it comes to management strategy, structure or vision. But then again, there's a first time for everything.
Management by committee huh? So he's training for a position in Washington DC sometime soon? IMHO, this management style serves to remove personal accountability and to screw the guys at the bottom. Instead of a deep hierachy, you just have a several dozen tentacled beast.
When something fails, nobody on the committee is to blame - must be the guys who actually do real work that screwed up. If things go well, everybody in the committee are rock stars - the committee is the reason for success. It doesn't matter whose idea or work that really was the root cause for either. Also, no prize for guessing who gets the short end of the stick if cut backs are needed or rewards are doled out.