Give specifics.. why or why not.. and what would you think he'd say should be done about it? (problem at executive level, below, or what?)
12 replies (most recent on top)
Grove would disapprove. During the 1974 recession, Intel was forced to lay off 30 percent of its employees, and morale declined substantially as a result (sound familiar?). Thus, in 1981, when economic struggles again surfaced, instead of laying off more employees, Intel accelerated new product development with the "125% Solution," which asked exempt employees to work two extra hours per day, without pay, for six months. A brief surge in sales the following year did not last, and, again, instead of more layoffs, Intel imposed pay cuts of up to ten percent. Such measures were not popular among all its workforce, but, by June 1983, all cuts had been restored and retroactive raises had been made.
Wasn't the whole point of variable compensation (ECBP and EB) and redeployment meant to avoid these wide layoffs? The variable compensation would reduce expenses when profits were down and redeployment allowed the company to redirect resources in a more efficient manner.
Massive layoff on one hand and crazy amount of spending on another hand. Doesn't make sense. I believe Groove would not have been so misguided. IoT, DCG, IT, even those sub group like MIT, crazy amount of budget. I believe Grove would have control the irresponsible spending and ridiculous budgets before resorting to such drastic layoff.
There are plenty of brilliant PhD's from great schools who make business mistakes.
What made Grove different was that he combined technical prowess with business acumen, while instilling a culture that allowed Intel to stay ahead of the game (or at least take the steps to recover when things went sideways).
The current crop of leaders spend way too much time scheming over internal Intel politics, drinking their own kool-aid and listening to svengali Bain "experts" to spend much time in the real world and know what the f is really going on.
And the rest of the company has adopted this as a model of what "success" looks like. Arrogance and ignorance and internal politics have overtaken paranoia of external threats and loyalty to making Intel great. And we wonder why we're in trouble.
"Grove wouldn't have missed mobile..."
Grove was brilliant with a PhD from a world class university. The current CEO comes from San Jose State. Any question as to why Intel's future is so bleak, LOL
Grove wouldn't have missed mobile...
other than the first one, good comments so far. Agree that Grove would cut some of the management ... we are too bloated and have too many execs. Grove would also continue to champion meritocracy and wouldn't put up with any of the bullshit, politically correct programs like Diversity and Inclusion.
We will live and die based on a technical foundation.
Look at leaders that made intel great in the first couple decades and compare to the bozo, vision less manger and leaders we have now. All our leaders now are execution yes man but no deep technology understanding or vision.
Is it a wonder the last couple CEOs don't appreciate where Moore's Law is, missed the iPhone/smartphone and somehow think memory and IOT is going to save the company.
This is like Kodak thinking printers was their future, any questions?
During Grove's time, managers and higher ups have technical skills and can get their hands dirty when needed. Today's Intel, most (not all but most) management are those weak in technical but promoted due to their office socializing, inner circle with the higher ups, office politics, nothing to do with engineering skills or management skills. If Andy still around, I believe the layoff will still happen but to a smaller degree and a big company wide tcomp cut. And the layoff will include quite a number of management staff.
Way back we were told that bonuses would be forfeited before there would be any layoffs. Same goes for raises. Management should have cut their own ridiculously high pay before this. No more all for one, one for all.
I believe grove would say the company had missed two major changes in the marketplace and should figure out what the next big thing was and design products to meet that need with management sharing the pain along with the employees. He would agree to some headcount reductions if needed to save the company.
Andy Grove supported anti-semitic free loaders and sugar daddy's his entire life. Phil Knight did the same thing. Never said or did a single f---ing thing. Who gives a f--- what he would do.