Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

Worth a repost

Did Paul Jacobs destroy QCOM?

Let's try to be fair to SM in this situation. I think we can all agree he is nothing short of a powerpoint presentation in human form and a shit leader, but he is not clueless. He is probably well aware, as many of us are, that QCOM is on life support and will slowly decline to obscurity. So in a sense it's very rational of him to line his pockets before the ship sinks (though he could have substituted a bit of greed for some illusion of leadership). But let's talk about the real culprit here.

With all the talk about nepotism and how it's corrupting the company, I think many of us never think about what institutionalized it in the first place: Irwin handing the reigns to his son, Paul. We follow by example, and this is where Irwin, who we should all admire and who has made many of us very, very rich, had made his tragic misstep. Not only did this cement QCOM as a monarchy rather than a meritocracy, but the empire was handed down to a Caligula.

For all of Paul's faults, one thing to his credit is his CEO-like presence. He is tall, good looking, white, and charming. With silver spoon in hand, it isn't a far stretch to assume that papa Jacobs groomed Paul to one day inherit the throne. But this was all done without the consideration of what Paul had achieved besides being the founder's progeny.

Whispers in the hall never reflected him as a man of integrity. He is rumored to be a generally uninterested, unsociable, out of touch, and cold person. His personal affairs were also afflicted by dramatic streaks. As CEO, people did his work for him and he made appearances as required. He lacked vision, and every venture Qualcomm undertook under his command has been a dismal failure. The modem has been Qualcomm's bread and butter before his reign, and it remains so well after his "resignation". The company failed to expand, the company failed to diversify. The company got complacent, and the competition is now eating our lunches. Adding insult to injury, PJ saw it upon himself to handsomely reward his efforts in reducing the company to rubble, with him and SM being some of the highest paid executives of 2015.

So how can QCOM successfully move forward under this sort of leadership? The answer is it cannot, unless Qualcomm chairmen and senior executives are disposed of, top to bottom. The likelihood of that happening is marginal, unfortunately, so it behooves one to seek other employment. Working a deadend job is one thing, but I cannot under good conscience work for a company being looted by those in command. The thought of them making another penny off the sweat of my brow makes my stomach turn.

I bid thee farewell Qualcomm, I gave you some of the best years of my life, and it crushes me to leave you in a worse spot than how I found you.

2 months ago by Manbearpig | Post ID: @F3ajtnD

2045 views | 30 replies (last 2 months ago)

Comment! It's anonymous!

by
| 2598 views | | 10 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+FX0o206

10 replies (most recent on top)

@FX0o206-2hqp, I enjoyed my time on CBS (Commercial Base Station, Could've Been Simpler, Can't Be Shipped). Without CBS, IS-95 might never have spread beyond South Korea and Qualcomm would be a footnote. By the time CBS enabled Nortel and by the time CBS implemented IS-634, CBS development could have been scaled back, contrary to Irwin's desire. Irwin wanted us to develop a switch even though we did not need to develop one.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3ghs+FX0o206

@1pdh As incompetent as we think these guys are, they have thick skin.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3oks+FX0o206

Thank you OP for an excellent and what I would consider an accurate description of what has happened to QC.

I gave QC 20 years of my life and remember when Irwin sat in the lab with us in the early days of CBS. Exciting times indeed, we practically worked 24/7 and none of us complained. I was recently effected by the layoffs and am greatly saddened by what has happened to OUR dream for the company. I sincerely hope that we are wrong and QC is raised from the ashes and is once again great!. Good luck to everyone!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2hqp+FX0o206

Hey, I wrote that.

Ok maybe I did a hatchet job on Paul, but he fumbled big time on the layoffs/exec compensation, like @FX0o206-1hvf mentioned.

What initially sparked my interest in Paul was the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7qTHbOEiDY

I could not believe people OKed this and Paul appeared legitimately oblivious to how awkward the entire thing is. I heard around the watercooler that he spaced out during meetings and took little interest in the "executive" part of the job. I concluded that he's a high functioning autist, which would also provide context for his terrible leadership skills and aforementioned fumbles -- I don't believe they were of malice. SM, on the other hand, is an opportunist and a giant tool.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1pdh+FX0o206

@FX0o206-1jea, one should not over-simplify/over-romanticize history. Irwin made bad choices against the advice of his council just as Paul did. Irwin had blind spots just as Paul did. I can list several on both sides (I provided some).

As I said, I would have preferred Rich as a leader over Paul. However, I cannot know that Rich would have been better than Paul.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ggh+FX0o206

When PJ was anointed a fellow old time QC'r said to me "there goes the company".

A ton of bad decisions later, looks like it has come true.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jea+FX0o206

Paul may have meant well, but do not believe he had leadership qualities or vision. Especially when it came to a big company like QC. That said, he also surrounded himself with people who only cared about themselves.

I also decided to leave company a while ago when I saw that senior management saw fit to pay themselves large sums in "retention bonuses" while planning large layoffs. If not illegal it is unethical. I did not feel right working for senior management like this.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1hvf+FX0o206

I worked at Qualcomm during the time of Irwin and Paul (and do not forget the presidents, COOs, CFOs and CTOs during that time as so many of them had an influence). I left some time after Paul stepped down.

Over time, I concluded that Irwin and Paul care very much but are different.

Irwin has technical depth. He knows wireless communications. However, he needed to understand the details in order to allow us to take the risks. When we were a smaller company betting its life on CDMA, he was the leader that we needed. He believed in and understood the technology.

Paul has technical breadth. He understands wireless, artificial intelligence, robotics, etc. As a company needs to diversify, technical breadth may be needed but judgement my be needed more. At some point, picking the best reports becomes the most important than technical skill.

Both Irwin and Paul cared. I recall Irwin and Paul dropping by the lab every day of the week except Sunday (maybe I as not there), digging into the math (the poor engineers), digging into the technology and digging into the business. They are both smart. They are both likable but in different ways.

Qualcomm grew so quickly that the Qualcomm board became trapped. When you are not sure about your change rate (and when you are under pressure from a legacy), it is easier to hand off the company to someone to a legacy to someone else. Personally, I believe Rich (though he had left because of a prior split discussion) might have been a better choice, I believe Paul was a good choice.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ufv+FX0o206

@deg - the OP is just reposting bro

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zhi+FX0o206

since you are so smart why don't you open your own business?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @deg+FX0o206

Post a reply

: