I think that almost everyone here agrees that there are too many layers of management. It impedes organizational growth and change. It explains demotivated employees and staff turnover. Do you think it is possible that Intel will become less top heavy in the near future? I ask, although personally I doubt it.
7 replies (most recent on top)
70% of Intel could not show up tomorrow and not affect productivity or profits at all.
It's been a problem for over 25 years.
1 - A good employee who does his job well is not appreciated. He has to be a "fast runner" and advance or be axed.
2 - Now that he's advanced he has to have things to put on his focal. Anything he can spin to look good. So he "drives" this program or that improvement that really aren't quantifiable. What he really does is create more work for others that detracts from productive activity.
3 - Higher management rewards him because it looks good, and they aren't going to take the time to discover if it's really beneficial or not. They're happy to claim credit for the "improvements" coming from their department and the cycle goes on.
Multiply this by thousands and you see disaster as it builds.
Why they went on a hiring spree? It never made any sense. Once Pat green signalled hiring, the empire builders, of which there is never a shortage, stepped in and filled the company with flab. If Pat was any good, he would have made sure only hiring is done for essential roles and skills.
Management bloat is the #1 problem holding Intel back.
Intel has been top heavy for the past 15+ years. You know when you have mobile managers because there is no office space that you are top heavy.
Everybody knows that but dufus intel CEO is not doing layoff instead hiring.
Turnover is a feature not a bug.
Intel technology, management (Pat is back), and share price are regressing. Their share price is back where they started 5 years ago.
All those RSU stocks look d-mb now.