Cisco Reorgs Development (again)

If John Chambers has a flaw it might be executive development and succession planning. Cisco management is undoubtedly a meritocracy (you don't get promoted without hard work and success) and has nurtured a continuing string of strong leaders, many of whom however left when they got near the top. This leadership "fluidity" could be an asset (moves people around, enable upward growth even in a non-growing organization), and Chambers increasingly depends on virtual and dynamic management structures ("councils" and "boards"). Nonetheless in our experience every time there is a reorg a lot of effort goes into learning about your new boss and positioning yourself in the new organization at the cost of business.  There were some clear "winners" in the reorg: as the number of members of the Development Council (there is no head of development) was roughly halved, Marthin De Beer who runs Emerging Technology (small in revenue and size) is one of the survivors and clearly favored. Don Proctor‘s top level software organization was a clear loser (the constituent groups were moved back into other organizations -- so much for software as a top level focus). Kathy Hill‘s rapid ascendency seems to have stopped. Other than the end to the brief life of a software organization and the continuing importance of video we're not sure what to read into all of this — maybe we need to sacrifice a goat and read the entrails.