Is there anyone more objective who could explain to me how many managers are too many managers? Intel’s organization’s structure is creating obstacles that compromise workforce’s performance and someone has made an excellent remark that fewer managers would increase productivity. I know that this problem is not unique to Intel, but it seems to me that this company is becoming notorious for this.
7 replies (most recent on top)
It's not a new problem. In the 90's I had a discussion with my manager that there were a lot of mid level managers around who's existence depended on "Driving this" or "implementing that." Rarely was there any value to their new programs and they inevitably chewed up time and resources.
He agreed with me and actually did try deflect his group from these things but the weight of the c-ap coming down was just too much and he moved on. I stayed on another 15 years and saw how bad it progressed and can only wonder how there's time to complete a volume of useful work
I worked with 10+ HIGH TECH companies right before joined Intel, 100% non-tech managers are only seen in Intel.
Some companies are very flat nowadays, especially start-ups.
lol that video called murthy an "essential executive" 🤡
I feel ill when faking positivity around my loser bosses. They're s-xist macho a–holes, have no integrity, and only slow us down and nitpick everything. I have never met a good manager mentor ever that mentored someone that stayed at intel, never. The most talented leave first.
Absolutely! I have a powerpoint to RTL compiler that would be totally useless without them! I’m working on an outlook to RTL plug-in for HR. All intel managers are essential workers!!
Their incompetence, combined with people in HR with social studies degrees from 4th rate colleges, will decide the fate of our technical talent.
obviously not... intel management is full of bloviating jackasses whose sole purpose is to fill a box in an org chart and collect a paycheck.