Where I think Intel's CEO BK screwed up doing "performance based" layoffs.

I was part of Intel's recent layoff, and decided it was arbitrary like most are. I had been rated successful for my entire 10+ years at Intel. I had one EE rating with a promotion early in my career, and even got 3 SSL 2 ratings. I wouldn't be writing anything on here except that I think the whole "underperformer, and you are so bad nobody at Intel can hire you again" label given to successful people like me is new, and really reaks of bullshit. As Jon Stewart said on is way out: "if you smell something, say something." So here goes.

To prove my point, I'm going to talk about about two engeers.

The first engineer slacked off in 2013 and got a BE review with an SSL5 but stick it out and managed to get an S / SSL4 in 2014, then and SSL3 in 2015.

The second engineer was sick of his current job in 2013 and went through same personal trouble, but managed to do well enough to get an S / SSL4 when he changed jobs (the SSL4 was a parting gift from his previous managers). He got an S /SSL3 in 2014 and an S/SSL4 in 2015.

So for the three years used, we have:

Engineer #1: BE / SSL5, S / SSL4, S /SSL3

Engineer#2: S / SSL4, S / SSL3, S / SSL4

By the standard applied to this layoff, Intel retains engineer #1 and lays off engineer #2, despite engineer #2 having a better performance record by their own focal metrics. The reality is, anyone who got an SSL3 in 2015 was "saved" no matter how bad their performance had been rated previously. This is where I think BK screwed up. This was just a roll of the dice. Wait one more year and these two engineers could easily have traded stock tier levels.

Who was luckier? I'd bet on engineer #2. That's me, and I got a new job I like even better before they even cut my severence check. :)

Cheers!

Comment! It's anonymous!

8 replies (most recent on top)

You think? I KNOW BK does not regret the latest ISP layoffs and he never will. If he pulls the same tricks twice, it might not work as well as the first time. So he might have the HR come up with different ones.

I truly think that BK does not regret the latest ISP layoffs and would do it again.

BK is big mouth and very desperate to take all the limelight...the recent lay-off was worst executed...it will bite him back.

That's exactly right @137133. That's why the backlash is so great this time around. You didn't see all these people complaining about layoffs before. This time around, employees were completely blindsided. Even a lot of the managers giving out SSL4's didn't know the eventual meaning, setting these folks up for layoffs. Intel did not do their job of informing the managers and employees exactly what the different SSL levels meant. Nobody trusts Intel anymore. What other sneaky things will they be doing next? Now, everything that is said or written, you look at it as "what is the ulterior motive here?" Really sad!!

Many Intel employees are not informed of the meaning of SSL by their managers. They got "successful" rate and never got any kinds of warnings, and suddenly got laid-off.

One ridiculous reason why these employees are getting bad SSL is their managers just want to leverage the incomes of the team, rather than justifying the employees' performance using this SSL.

I should say Intel is really bad in its management.

At first I thought it was a screw-up. As I think about it more, I believe it is not a screw-up but by design or an intentional screw-up. I believe that Intel HR played many different scenarios to see who would be impacted under each scenario and they found using SSL yields the best outcome they desire – i.e. to get rid of the older employees, which is exactly what the disclosure data about ages of ISP folks indicates. Intel knows that the older employees are more expensive to keep and cutting them would save more money. Adding a clause not to hire them back is just to ensure the savings is guaranteed and permanent. I can imagine BK and Mr. Taylor are laughing knowing how clever they are when people thinking they screw up. That is what they want you to think other than realize that they in fact laid off the older employees in the name of meritocracy to save as much money as possible. You tell me what could be the best way to replace the older people that cost more with young ones that cost less.

The part I call BS on is the arbitrary 8 balling. Lay them off given they had a rough 3 years, fine, but neither of these guys deserves a permanent stamp as "unhirable by Intel ever again" if another hiring manager wants them.

Intel sucks. Both engineers are ISP's. Two SS4/5 during last three yrs and get you a $100K check. So glad I left and my bank account is even happier.

Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Where I think Intel's CEO BK screwed up doing "performance based" layoffs.

8 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply