Posted by Armstrong, Jonathan B in Armstrong, Jonathan B's Blog on Jun 19, 2015 10:14:28 PM
It's time this corporation had a conversation about executing strategy and engage in self-reflection on the June 2015 HC reduction move so that it could buy a 3000 person company for $16.7B.
I was picked for ISP. Why was I picked? You'd have to read the background. At first I was shocked, then angry, then simply disappointed. This company has had a mutually beneficial arrangement with me for a long time. That relationship is so normal to me that I feel one of my remaining duties is to draw awareness to what is going on. I have a voice that is more free than those of you who fear reprisal.
As a 21 year veteran of Intel with 15 years of management, I have been a staunch supporter of meritocracy and the Focal process. One does not need to look long to find examples outside of Intel where such a process would benefit others. The value of Focal is not in dispute here.
My background:
In 2014 I was given S4. I do not dispute it. I am, however, proud of what I did in 2014 while going through a divorce and double kidney failure. I did not choose to go on MLOA since I did not know when I would be able to get a transplant. I accepted Level 4 stock as a consequence of that without complaint.
In 2015 I was given S4. I do not dispute it. I spent the first 3 months on MLOA recovering from a kidney transplant. I returned to find I had been involved in a reorganization that combined my department into another. I had a new manager with an aggressive plan that generated 50% turnover on my staff. My job scope quickly diminished and it was mutually apparent that my manager and I were not a good fit. He kindly supported my search for a position and I found ways to contribute as an individual until I found the right position towards the end of the year. I did not see my review as surprising or threatening given the company's long standing view of L4 stock with regard to employment, and my confidence to excel in the new position.
I have never received a BE, IR, or Level 5 stock. I have never received Level 4 stock aside from 2 mentioned above. Despite all these circumstances, I accept this separation as meeting Intel's immediate needs to reduce cost with the exception of one shocking, and frankly insulting, statement: "Employees who are terminated through this Involuntary Separation Program are not eligible to be rehired at Intel." Did you know that if someone gets an IR a manager can demote and keep them? I dispute 2 other things with regard to this move t, and hope that Executive Staff will address these:
Level 4 stock became the new BE and was applied retroactively. I think those rules changed without many employees understanding that was happening. Managers in prior Focal cycles role-modeling meritocracy did not know. However, I assert that managers in future Focal cycles will remember this event and be much more wary of practicing financial meritocracy. What is the plan to address this with managers so that the principle of meritocracy can be maintained? If anyone does not understand the significance of losing meritocracy at Intel, I might be persuaded to write another article. *See references below for evidence that L4 was not considered a performance issue warranting progress discipline in the past.
This move denied managers the use of judgment. Very few were told or asked about affected employees before the decision was made. The trust and transparency between senior leaders and managers is broken when managers have no input to the selection process and the criteria are unprecedented.
I hold Executive Staff accountable for this decision, particularly since my management chain had little input regarding the selection of employees affected. My hope is that Mr. Taylor publishes this letter to Circuit with a response so that as a corporation you can reach a common understanding and mend the breakdown of trust between leadership and the company's intellect assets.
PS: To my colleagues that have been asking how you can help, write me a review on Linked In.
PPS: Like and promote this article to add your voice.
References:
Intel defines repeat low performer on the separation package as: (1) a current 2015 focal or out-of-cycle rating of IR; or (2) a stock share level (SSL) 4 or 5 in the 2015 focal and, in the past three years, another low rating (IR or BE) or a stock grant of SSL 4 or 5.
Intel defines repeat low performer on the HR web site as: "Repeat low performer (RLP) employees are defined as those having received an IR or BE Focal rating in 2 of the last 3 years, per the Focal Dashboard."