I have nothing against older folks, but you can't expect to stay at the top of the innovation game with so many people who are still stuck in the old ways. Not to mention, who are scared that anybody who offers a new idea is there to get their job and will do anything they can to bury it. If we're going to move forward, we need a younger workforce, not the one that keeps getting more antiquated each year.
16 replies (most recent on top)
The issue is that many "old timers" at Intel have only ever worked at Intel and, thus, have no perspective what good looks like. In addition, many "old timers" have survived at Intel by mastering the politics and dysfunction that have resulted in Intel's current broken, toxic culture and lack of performance.
As a virtual monopoly, Intel basically shifted its focus from external competition and anticipating customer needs to infighting, navel gazing, fixation on internal processes and other counterproductive nonsense. Even when brought to a trade show or opportunity for external training, Intel people mainly talk to Intel people. And not learning from customers and prospective customers. Why? Because no one back at the ranch cares.
To Op, You wrote "we need a younger workforce, not the one that keeps getting more antiquated each year"
Are you saying the young folks are not getting antiquated each year only your parents are? It's people like you the reason Intel is so messed up. Intel will crumble after another $20 drop. Start looking for a job punk.
Define “old timers”: actual age, service years, or higher grades, etc? How about “younger workforce”?
A person just joined a group or a company and is a “young” worker and he might have some new ideas or just talking empty.
Who is to say an old timer does not have a new idea?
Regarding "innovation" and "new ideas":
Good luck in building an 'innovative' new car with 'new ideas' if you are not very good at building cars. If you think your 'new ideas' are so valuable, maybe you don't understand why they won't work and might not be such a 'good idea' after all.
Yes, innovation and new ideas are needed. But are Intel's failures with smaller geometries due to "antiquated" old folks, or because of self-important non-engineers who replaced them with self-important people who thought diverse 'new ideas' are worth more than knowledge and experience.
Yes, a damn good new idea might be rejected because it is so different than the way things were done, but being arrogant about it won't help seeing it implemented.
Maybe some youngsters need to learn how to learn, and learn how to get along. And maybe some oldsters need to learn that they can still learn, and help the youngsters mature.
True. We Should layoff all the older experience people and hire more LGBT and friends and family from the same village in India
Old-timer: “If we leverage a few specific approaches from past projects and fully acknowledge the design trade offs on the table, we can improve our product”
Millennial/GenZ hire: “Can we make the processor rainbow colored?”
what is wrong with old timers? I have been with Intel since 23 years. In earlier years till 2007 I worked hard but now I don't have to work hard. Above grade 10 you are not supposed to do actual work. You are supposed to attend few meetings a day and provide valuable inputs to management. Since last 8 years I haven't logged into my unix account. Only powerpoint presentations. I see myself at Intel for another 10 years and then I will think about retirement. Intel has excellent work life balance and great pay and benefits. Why should I leave?
patience you need
Yoda passed on skills to next gen before going away...like all others before. No point getting rid of Yoda before next gen is ready. It is good to have some overlap....too little or too less is not good. HR if you are listening....use this in your Insights inference.
"Semiconductor physics doesn't give a damn about skin color or gender."
Very true.
But it also does not give a damn if you don't know how to use it. It doesn't care. It doesn't care if you lack experience using it to design or make chips.
I would agree that semiconductor physics, and other areas of science and engineering, requires knowledge and experience of how to use it, and this knowledge and experience can be in anyone - regardless of skin color, age, or gender.
However, the issue is WHO has the knowledge and experience. People hired only because of their skin color or gender - to increase "diversity" - will generally not have as much knowledge as better qualified new hires, and certainly not as much experience as seasoned veterans of the industry. Knowledge is one thing, but experience is another. However, both knowledge and experience increase with the amount of time learning on the job, actually doing something.
Intentionally replacing the people that have built-up experience - with people with less practical experience - is a gross mistake. Perhaps the bean-counters think engineers are interchangeable, and HR thinks it looks better to have warm bodies with incredible diversity, but this kind of corporate thinking is corporate su----e. Hey, it might look better, but is it a virtue to die looking good - especially if you die because you wanted to look good, with lots of diversity?
Yes, diversity in age, race, background and gender is desirable and good - but not when it becomes the over-riding concern, and core technical business competency is tossed to the wayside. Yes, 'new blood' is constantly needed, but not at the expense of existing experience and knowledge. You need the old guys to mentor and teach the tricks of the trade to the young folks - but not just systematically get rid of the old guys, assuming the young folks will automatically do better, or maybe even somehow do OK and 'get by'.
Hiring for diversity is good in the long run. Anyone with desire to learn and innovate will eventually become the seasoned veterans - but not right away, and not very soon if the existing seasoned veterans are let go. 'An engineer is an engineer' kind of thinking by non-engineers misses the point completely. Non-engineers deciding the fate of a company based on engineers and engineering is a bad thing.
It is not only about the 20,000+ people who got laid off, it is also about their families, husbands, wife's, children, mothers, furthers, grandmothers and grandfathers. Their lives have been destroyed by just a single vicious RELEASE's decision to get rid of those (mostly old) people. That is why you hear people talking about ACT almost daily. We count almost 1 million people that Intel hurt in one way or another. Certainly, it is a very bad company. BK should be in p--son some day.
Semiconductor physics doesn't give a damn about skin color or gender.
Say no to new.
Old is gold.
I don't understand how more "diversity" makes up for less experience, especially in engineering or a technical field. Knowledge and experience ARE knowledge and experience, no matter how it is gained, or who gains it. Yes, there should be equal opportunity to gain this experience, but a technical company can't survive very well without technical ability - by turfing out old white guys with experience and replacing them with less technical experience of a different color, background, or gender. Yes, maybe a good thing in the long run, but the company has to survive in the short term. "Creativity" seems to be valued higher than straight-ahead ability to do the technical tasks involved in designing and making silicon chips. You can hire "creative" types to design and build a car, for example, but without knowing how to design and build a car, it won't be a very good car, will it? This car venture will fail, and so will chip-makers who rely on "creative" types to hire more "creative" types, without regard to the practical need of having experienced people knowledgeable in the business of making chips that work and are competitive in the marketplace.
There are inept, incompetent people who are both young and old. There are also innovative, creative and talented people in both age categories. Bad news is, the latter are not at Intel.
I hate to tell you this but AMD and Apple have many older experienced people who have been at the company a long time. You're conflating experience with bad politics and culture. This line of thinking is what caused Intel's demise. When x86 leadership was unchallenged the company seemed to be on cruise control. With the automatic, and seemingly guaranteed, revenue the time seemed ripe to lower labor costs and boost EPS. Boot out the experienced people through ACT(s). How did that work out ? I've been at Apple, AMD, and Intel so I don't lack perspective. Intel's arrogance and open ageism is toxic and the real problem. When you have a company where the leaders can openly boast that "the half life of an engineer is 5 years" the company doesn't deserve to exist. Trying to make of for the sins by doing diversity hires, prioritizing skin color and gender over qualification, is the final nail. When I was at AMD every engineer wanted to work at Intel. Now I see a flood of Intel engineers going to AMD like refugees fleeing Syria. Over the past 10 years Intel's best and brightest have already moved to Apple. Feel free to blame the older people for Intel's downfall though.