Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Agree that the OP is completely off base.

At it's most basic, "management" is about getting people to work together for the attainment of an organization's goals and objectives.

In the past x86 monopoly world, management functions - people development, efficient and not wasteful or redundant use of resources, etc. - didn't really matter beyond delivering on the next turns of Moore's Law and maintaining monopoly.

Unfortunately for Intel, the world has changed and the Intel managers of yesteryear are now leadership (and/or still management) in the company. While other companies have abandoned rack and stack performance appraisal and all of the dysfunction that they create, Intel's still on board. While other companies value employee growth, development and retention and evaluate managers on these, Intel has made it clear that any black mark against one's record - even as a new employee - is grounds for being walked out and never re-hired. Managers with near 100% turnover can still get promoted. Think about the message that sends to the rank and file (and the best recruits) with regard to innovation and risk-taking and seeking the next breakthrough...

BK and other leaders probably realize that the management that they have in place is broken, incapable and a deep problem. They neither have the skills or acumen to diagnose and fix the problems beyond making all managers take some courses (check the box) nor the perspective to realize that bad managers result from bad culture. And culture eats strategy every time.

I was there for 20 years - very few managers direct employee development or add value - and there are way too many layers. They snatch plum assignments for their own glory, taking work way from those who should have the opportunities. As a manager you should be rated based on your employees' achievements, not your own. I had a lot of managers - way too many and I can think of only three who earned their big bucks.

In my org 2LM and even 3LM managers spend 90% of their time sitting in their cubicles alone doing technical work, zero time spent managing, never create any new opportunities for employees (and shoot down every new idea somebody comes up with), they use ancient tools which nobody else inside the company (let alone outside) still use because they refuse to grow themselves or their teams. All this is under the guise of being good for everybody because engineers want to work for engineers, right...

People want "technical intelligence" in management? Are engineers still riding that "Managers need to be good engineers" train? Why? Because that's how they can feel superior over their "dumb" managers?

Look at what happened to Nokia. A boardroom full of highly technical geeks drove the company into the ground. The company that had previously been turned into a market leader by Jorma Ollila - an economist. Look at Apple on the other hand - made great by someone who cared for user experience over technical details.

Managers don't need to have a clue about the technical aspects - they just need to understand when to trust the technical experts and when to drive them beyond their "We cannot do that!" mantra. Beyond that, managers primarily have to be leaders and visionaries.

If you super engineers would be such great managers, why don't you start a company? If you are so great, you will be negotiating to buy Intel in five year's time. Otherwise, it's all just whining and complaining from know-it-alls and wannabes.

Agreed very little technical intelligence not capability across the top management and leaders... intel future is totally dark and ugly

Intel today is different from Intel during Grove's time. Today, a large majority of senior management are neither capable nor good engineers. Most of the senior management got to where they are through office politics and being in the same gang with the group's VP. Many Directors and senior managers get to where they are through drinking and socializing and nite-clubbing with the VPs especially during the VPs trips to Asean sites. You can purge a large number of senior management, it won't do any harm to Intel, instead will help Intel save a lot of unnecessary $.

Success is a double edge sword. And the current management was successful in monopolist x86 days but...

If you look and intel senior managers and technologist all were promoted based in following the the success which WAS x86. The only way they know how to think is colored by their narrow x86, performance thinking.

Look at every intel initiative or acquisition and how the absorbed and try to manage the intel x86 way.

BK has made an attempt to bring in senior outside leaders but the x86 is strong and has corrupted the rank and file and the outsiders will fail with Andy and BK at the top.

Till we get new blood in in BoD and clean out MCM of old thinking another purge of lower managers, layoff, nor restructure will change Intel fortune or future as a quick decline like Blackberry, Nokia or Motorola

You have no clue about Intel management culture, about how Focal works, how grading works, how promotions work and how ISPs and VSPs were assigned.

The criteria you describe (i.e. promoting an employee every three years) is virtually impossible in Intel's Focal system. No manager gets the budget for that. No manager is allowed to distribute a sufficient number of EE/O ratings for that. Like I said, you have no clue how the Intel system works.

You are so clueless about Intel that there are only two options: Either you have been working at Intel without learning even the most basic things about how the company works, or you were paid by an Intel competitor to try and create some kind of uncertainty at Intel. If it's the latter, they really need to demand their money back, because that was quite weak and badly researched. If it's the former, then I can only facepalm heavily.

Yes, Intel does need a management purge, but for different reasons. None of what you wrote made any sense or has any connection to reality.