When I compare Intel with other companies I worked for before, I think that Intel is definitely the leader in the number of unnecessary employees. These are the people who do almost nothing, and are paid incomparably more than those who do most of the work here. I would like to see the company start cutting them, but I still think the target will be mostly those who are the best and most useful?
10 replies (most recent on top)
Okay, @4oha, do tell where you see the wickedly specific 36,586 employees, or 12,195 employees work. :-) Meaning what groups or what products?
If Intel was a somewhat reasonably managed company, they would have ~ 36,586 employees. If they were extremely well managed they would have a headcount of 12,195 employees.
Just a dino company looking up at the meteors in the sky.
Layoffs at Intel don’t have anything to do with who is or is not contributing. It’s entirely up to whether you have the favor of those making the decisions.
There is zero reason to believe this has changed, because most of the decision makers are the same political actors who survived the last round of major layoffs. Even if you think Pat is a different animal, he can only act based on the information he receives from his underlings, and that’s where the worst rot is.
Lots of fat that can be cut in upper management.
It's true. The good performers will get fired/laid off for making the rest of the team look bad. If the team is lazy, you need to be lazy too to move with the flow. You do not want to stand out and outshine your manager or teammates.
I'm not at Intel but at a "tier 2" company. One of the engineers on my team was an extremely poor performer. They produced nothing and for the rare times there was output the work product was too flawed to be used. Due to spineless HR policies it took over two years for me to PIP this person. When I finally got this person out, as part of a larger layoff, they were unemployed for over a year. Without any knowledge or skills it would be impossible for them to clear any interviews. It came to my attention that this person ended up being hired by Intel. That tells me all I need to know.
I genuinely believe that you could lay-off 70% of employees with no (or even positive!) impact. But that would rely on keeping the right 30%…
More likely Intel would fire all the top performers because they likely do the least politicking and PowerPoint engineering
Welcome to Intel and be part of inefficiency. BK laid of employees and brought down headcount to 90 and now it swelled to 128.7k in just 4 years. Intel only needs 40% of current staff but layoffs won't happen. You will get used to it and embrace govt organization.
Won't happen. At well managed highly effective companies (ie FAANG) there is a strict, even inhumane, perf review system where employees are measured against very competent workers. Slackers are easily identified and PIP'ed. When a company starts to rot the top workers leave and low performers back fill. Managers try to fight this but can't recruit top talent. Eventually managers quit and these positions are replaced with lazy and incompetent people who focus on empire building. They hire friends and family who support their lazy ways such that the team can collective steal an easy paycheck from the company. In this environment it's not the lazy workers that get fired but the ambitious ones who try to disrupt the lazy team and make the look bad. This company rot continues until even the executives leave and are back filled with incompetent people. After years of downward spiral the company has become far too disfunctional to be competitive. The board may replace the CEO but what can PG do ? He can try to replace executives or managers here and there but there are far too many incompetent people embedded in the company for this to make any difference.