Where head of sales ends up running client PC business, and HR ends up running datacenter business? It doesn't feel like a best practice, wondering how many other companies in tech where executives get shuffled/move around to areas that might not be the best fit for their talents?
14 replies (most recent on top)
@6goq - Intel is not run like a bloated third-world bureaucracy. Intel IS a bloated third-world bureaucracy.
Intel is run like a Bangalore government inspection office. All management decisions are purely political.
Happens all over the places the cancerous executives move around business to business play the game, sell off hard assets, offshore everything to make it look like huge profit which inflates stock and then they cash out and leave the company and its employees hanging. IBM and Western Digital are similar stories as well.
@wtb: And then MIC people went to the rdma product and when that failed they went to gfx.
Another adder...
Intel is very odd in that it has a very large number of 'levels' of management. It is primarily structured as a functional organization all the way to the top.
It tends to be 'micro managed' by the CEO (and this has gone all the way back to Groove days).
The net result is that the company is slow to change, ineffective at creating actual new businesses and arguably the ELT staff has very limited ability to fix anything. There is a lot of DEI on the ELT, but little actual silicon design/manufacturing expertise.
This helps shed a bit of context on how it is that Intel can just shuffle the ELT deck chairs like they do.
Another weird example of moving people around is Stu Pann. Read Stu's bio on Intel web site and see if you can find any experience or skill that would apply to Intel building a fab business.
@dzc+1mExz4eO are you talking about a political party? Actually political parties are quite good at running business units which is not the case w Intel.
The Peter Principle is strong at Intel.
The inmates are running the Asylum.
....has been the case for several years now.
PG has been unable to change this.
It worked because of the monopoly, but that's over.
One more shock, the whole house collapses.
This is the Intel way, treating HC as interchangeable, without consideration for core competency or expertise.
For example, during LRB a lot of graphics talent and expertise were hired, but when they ended the graphics work and pivoted to compute, the d-mb mgmt kept the same people and just told them to start working on compute.
So now it's amateur hour because these graphics experts weren't competent at compute, and you wonder why the MIC product line crashed and burned and was never competitive with NVIDIA CUDA.
It takes time for even smart people to learn a new discipline, and it's just d-mb to expect these changes to take place on the fly. Butts-in-Seats (BiS) is an Intel thing, treating people like interchangeable "things," just shuffle them into the area that needs HC and it'll all just work out. It really is the d-mbest thing I've ever experienced, no other company that I've ever worked for does this.
Not a good practice. Look at the outcome, sales down 36% and nobody saw it coming... meanwhile DCAI is losing money and MSS and the roadmap is a mess.
No, this is from the d-mb school of management.
Engineering companies should put engineers in charge so that they can understand the fundamental issues that make the business operate.
Is that happening to us?
This happens if the leadership needs to insulate themselves from internal threats. You move your trusted friends around into positions of power to block out any other factions.