Nortel bashers had a field day last Friday, as they took the stock on a roller coaster ride (down, for the most part) on a negative sentiment due to the resignation of recently-hired COO Gary Daichendt (followed by the departure of his handpicked CTO and ex-Cisco colleague, Gary Kunis - likely a solidarity move).  As usual, there has been a lot of speculation (including today's interesting story on the Globe - hat tip: Mark Evans) on the reasons that led the two Garys to leave.

So why so much turmoil?  Well, Mr. Daichendt came with high accolades since he ran the worldwide sales organization at Cisco during the period of phenomenal growth in the company back in the 1990s.  No doubt about it, Gary's credentials were unquestionable, as he not only ran sales, but also played an instrumental role in shaping up Cisco's manufacturing.  However, as the Globe article states, Mr. Daichendt might have committed the ultimate faux pas right after being hired, making public his plans to eventually become Nortel's CEO.  Granted that might not have gone over very well with the hierarchical culture instilled by a military officer such as CEO Bill Owens. 

But from what I have heard (from some insider Nortel sources), it was the aggressiveness of Daichendt's plan that ultimately sealed his fate.  Apparently, it was the proverbial CLM (Career Limiting Move) - not only audacious in strategic terms, but also perhaps a bit unrealistic in terms of timeline (and the hint was that apparently the board agreed more or less with about 80 percent of what was proposed, but just could not come to terms with the overly ambitious time milestones).  Perhaps an interesting question is whether or not Mr. Daichendt egregiously established such an aggressive restructuring plan, being fully aware of the consequences, just to gauge how much support he would receive from the Nortel board, or to assess how long it would take him to become the CEO.  In case he would not get the board's buy-in, then he would have the excuse needed to leave the scene. 

That has been the subject of a lot of speculation around the Internet, but regardless of the motives, the truth is that perhaps Daichendt might have not been the best suited exec for the job, and in all fairness, perhaps way too much was expected of him.  Remember this is a gentleman that was out of the telecom business since late 2000, and while he was a great exec in his previous life, what works for Cisco does not necessarily work for Nortel.  Nortel right now is seeking a turn-around, emphasizing operating income, profit and strategy rationalization.  An aggressive strategic mind whose previous modus operandi was shaped in a company set to always be the number one or number two in any market it competes might not quite be the best fit.

So why was Gary hired in the first place?  Well, the mystery remains, but regardless of the soundness of that decision, and all the negativity of Bay and Wall Street, the fact is that during his short stay at Nortel, Daichendt's mandate was to explore the organization and come up with a plan.  Three months into his mission, Gary did indeed propose a plan that proved to be a bit too much ambitious.  So he is gone after a short stint, but the flip side is that perhaps it is better that his departure happened sooner rather than later given the big gap in culture that existed.  Also, chances are pretty good that 90 days was hardly enough time for him to begin implementing his own ideas.

As far as Kunis' departure, undoubtedly, he is a sharp technology strategist who will be missed.  The board has placed this position under review (given that Brian McFadden, the previous Nortel CTO is now Chief Research Officer.  My suggestion for that particular CTO role is to promote from within, and my vote would be for Phil Edholm, who is currently the CTO and VP of Network Architecture for the Enterprise Networks Division.  And the search for the new COO goes on...