Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

@L5hmLYh-5ouf - Sadly ACT was even about self-delusion (in this case about BK convincing the BOD) vs. actually making tough choices to succeed.

Does anyone really think that post-ACT Intel is ready to win in the open marketplace?

@5mhz - Re: Everything becomes about the internal appearance of success vs. actually making the course corrections and hard decisions needed to win in the real world.

Unfortunately, all the hard decisions are the CEO and/or the BOD deciding when, and how many, people to lay off. :(

-1hxp

@L5hmLYh-1hxp - You got it!

I came to Intel as an outside, experience, accomplished hire to help them win.

When I came to realize that the definition of "win" for my bosses involved convincing their bosses (and the Group VP, who was funding the boondoggle) to continue to give them money vs. actually winning in the marketplace (i.e. OEM and lighthouse customer deals and revenue from customers, growth in market share, recognition by analysts and thought leaders who hadn't been paid by Intel).

It really shapes any and all decisions, including program reviews. Everything becomes about the internal appearance of success vs. actually making the course corrections and hard decisions needed to win in the real world.

It's this culture that is killing Intel. We need fewer people in Intel convincing themselves and their bosses that they're geniuses...and more (any?) convincing customers (and then, God forbid, delivering).

1hxp - many long timers who had seen better times at Intel are praying for the same for nearly over a decade now. There has not been a single ray of hope in a decade. If anyone thinks that the recent ACT to purge 12000 employees is reformatory, it is nothing more than a panicked monkey throwing everything at its disposal and saving the $M exec paychecks. It has been a long time since the top management completely distanced itself from the rank file and been dumping the fuel with no landing in sight.

Those who have been with the company less than a decade are not encumbered by memories of good times. Likely they will have no attachment to the company. This will turn it into steady stream of college goers ruled the creamy class of uber elites like BK, MR and their minions. They will milk it as long as the juice flows out of x86. Look at Marissa Meyer.

Oh no, PLENTY of people speak up. It's just that they're all ignored LOL!!

Re: Before I knew better, I remember asking what I knew were good questions during a program review about some of the critical underlying assumptions in the presentation (some of which involved the Intel customer I had left a few weeks prior to come to Intel). Not only did I receive non sequitur answers, I got treated like an a-hole by my manager and her thin-skinned, condescending boss. Because this program was, evidently, what the VP funding our group (erroneously) thought was worthwhile

To me, this is the root of Intel's problem that can be summed up in 1 word. Arrogance.

I love when I'm right about something but I'm not stupid (or arrogant) enough to think ALL of my ideas are correct ALL of the time. A wise man listens to others for their input and experience to better him/herself. I just don't see/hear much of that going on at Intel. They say they do but they don't.

Contrary to the tone of posts here, most ex-Intel folks want Intel to do well for several reasons. Many people have stocks they are holding, ERP folks had vested interest in APB being good, and if nothing else people want their next generations to have a solid company they can work for like Intel has been over last so many years barring last 3. I will be praying that Intel does turn around and achieve the glory that it once did and provide exciting careers to our newer generations for a long time. Some of the criticism on the current direction of the company and management vision is valid and the turnaround does not seem to be in place by design, may be it will happen by accident before it is too late.

The largest organization has been driven and pounded due to he rise of a certain PTD manager. That toxic beat you will be the downfall of this once great technology manufacture!

It always amazed me at how many folks were (and probably still are) in denial about the toxicity of Intel culture. Maybe they don't know any different. Or maybe people have just learned to cope well. As someone who came from outside and wasn't there for long, I found Intel culture just really counterproductive and unpleasant.

It truly is "The Hunger Games" as peoples' careers (or even continued employment) depend more on political alliances, cunning and sharp-elbows than on skills that could actually help the company compete and win in the real, non-monopoly world.

So much time and energy is spent playing internal games that there's very little left for much else.

As everyone is so busy "managing up" by parroting their VP's gobbledygook, good ideas - even complementary ones - are lost or quashed and treated as threats. People learn to keep their mouths shut and just do as they're told, even if they know that what they are being told to do is a slow-motion-train-wreck.

Before I knew better, I remember asking what I knew were good questions during a program review about some of the critical underlying assumptions in the presentation (some of which involved the Intel customer I had left a few weeks prior to come to Intel). Not only did I receive non sequitur answers, I got treated like an a-hole by my manager and her thin-skinned, condescending boss. Because this program was, evidently, what the VP funding our group (erroneously) thought was worthwhile, any questions or input to make the program have greater chances of real-world success were threats to them being able to tell the VP that the program had been ratified with flying colors.

Just madness.

@1myh, @1dvp - I think there is more than just curiosity and a bit of nostalgia; for those (real) ex-employees here, there is a growing sense of vindication for years of unappreciated hard work and a misguided exit. The last few years were rudderless clusters of science projects supported by a monthly new system process that turned a simple daily task into an hour of research. Now that we are several months out, it is far easier to see a clear pattern of poor management and rampant toxicity, not to mention a total lack of strategy and execution. And yes, the stock disposition is now front and center - just waiting for that new tax year!

I've already worked out what I'm going to do with my stock. I can only speak for myself but knowing what was said is purely a matter of curiosity. I ERPed so not looking for dirt on the company to make me feel better. Just curious since I worked there for a fairly long time and miss the inside connection of IB. :)

Thank you for posting. Much appreciated. :)

The blog lays out a case that Intel's historic success has mostly been a matter of chance and missteps by post Grove MCM and BOD are quickly further stacking up the odds against it. There is an explaination of why the environment has become increasingly adverse if not toxic. The final installment on the social agenda distraction is also spot on. I highly recommend it to folks still inside instead of the new values BS being spouted out on Circuit.

Sorry I cannot cut paste for ex-colleagues. Frankly I don't understand why you guys care. If I was in your place (and I could have so easily been) I would really only worry about what is the most optimal way to divest my stock.

LOL pretty much not much of anyone left in this forum who even works there.

This thread is perfect proof.

Why try convincing anyone to leave when nobody's there anymore?? LOL.

If they want to cut costs, eliminate 4-year-spanning RSUs for mid-level managers and up. It makes no sense to incentivize retention of these individuals if in fact they want to eliminate high-cost employees.

No amount of out with over paid old and hire young cheap guns can make up for yield 😉

Intel and it's inept leaders could care less about the work environment. Their only concern is their paycheck and stock they get as part of their compensation for showing up at work.

@L5hmLYh-ofv. Exactly. For cost control, you want to cut not heads necessarily but wages--you do that by selectively getting rid of the longer tenure, highest paid, oldest employees you have, who have been steadily moving up the salary ladder over 15, 20 years. Probably with little change in their jobs in the last 5 years at least, and with growing irrelevance if they are working on Intel's archaic x86 IA. Then you turn around and hire RCGs and contractors and interns and entry-level new hires in new fields. I bet headcount at the end of 2016 will be pretty darn close to what it was at the start, just less costly. And all that still won't help if they don't find a better business model.

Operating expenses are OUT OF CONTROL.

Of course Intel wants to reduce headcount.

re: the young generation considers 2-3 years the max to stay anywhere. Lifetime employment is a relic of the past century.

Very true and if you ask me, it's pretty d4mn smart.

A Boomer

Why on earth would they care about whether or not the environment is toxic? Or worry if they have the employees' trust? (They don't.) At this point, they want to dislodge any remaining old-timers that survived ACT, which I believe was not about PC market-driven head count reductions at all, but was an age- and wage-level and tenure-based cleanup. To be honest, the old model of a career at one company is old. When I went through the LHH thing, they mentioned that the young generation considers 2-3 years the max to stay anywhere. Lifetime employment is a relic of the past century.

Is it possible to post the content of the internal blog or have they put protections on it to prevent copying and emailing? I know just as I was leaving, IT was forcing everyone to adopt a new 'email security' system that seemed designed to prevent forwarding or cutting and pasting of internal content into external mails.

Interesting theory @hql... but the newcomers feel the same toxic environment and leave. I'm thinking maybe it's not by design? It's still an interesting theory.

BK and his minions are very aware of the toxic environment they created because it's by design. They want people to leave Intel voluntarily with no packages and out of pocket cost to the company.

Surprising the guy is still around (assuming he is)...

Following the Intel values is usually a fast track to ISP-ville.

Pls post his comments, I remember the guy confronting BK at one of the BUMs/open forums right before I left with VSP.

Even though we can't read this, it's great that somebody confronted this douchebag about the toxic environment. Mgmt continues to attempt to cover it up.

?

Not accessible by those no longer inside. Can you post what it says here since your link does us no good?

Thanks,