BoD.. Please wakeup and try to justify why 300 VPs and their Chief's of Staff are needed... Really? Like WtF?
10 replies (most recent on top)
Please reduce same number of PE's as well.
You can't cut the VP's!!! Imagine the army of PowerPoint engineers you would put out of work! What would they put on their Focals!?!?
Hope Intel 300 VPs ends in similar fashion as movie 300.
Well, PSO had the 1000-manager purge, remember? Why can't BS or the BOD have a 100-VP version?
As someone pointed out, the $$ metric is not a good basis since all the $$ are in CCG, DCG and to a second level, PSG and NSG (TMG of course also gets a nod). But I look thru that list, and one could easily whack a third of the VPs and not skip a beat.
They could easily cut down 200-250 of those 300 and nothing bad would happen. Except cost savings, more effective than cutting down thousands of dedicated, hard-working employees. Just trying to give Bob some ideas for his bean-counting practices here.
Newsflash!
They don't have to justify anything to you unless you're a big shareholder.
So how many shares do you hold? 1000000?
I would say 100 VPs TOTAL is a very noble goal here.
Let's pare down the number of VPs already! Should be a mission for board to make this grossly fat, mismanaged company leaner. Still lots of waste to trim.
I would think revenue per VP is not an optimal metric to use here...
Based on 60 Billion revenue having 300 VPs isn't bad....that is still $200mil on average.
Of course 1/2 the VPs are just VPs of basket weaving or something, and the rest are the real VPs....
but on average.....it's not bad.
There was even one VP who was running a 10 person ops team for another VP.....sad.