31–40 of 484 posts
I worked at Intel and it kicked off my career. I believe putting a Cfo in charge of a company will lead to this. I wonder if apple will ever end up in the same situation
Pat Gelsinger was a CEO of VMware prior to Intel, COO at EMC prior to that, and CTO at Intel before that. He was never a CFO.
Intel certainly has its own unique challenges, but even, for example, AMD had been doing pretty great up until this year, and they also just announced a big shortfall for their 3rd quarter results. Just wondering if this is really the tip of the iceberg for a true, broad retrenchment in tech, after the past 9 months of "Is a recession coming? Is a recession coming?"
Is it just me, or do some other folks also smell "corporate bloat, which better management would not have allowed to happen"?
Quoted post unavailable.
How many people have they hired in the last few years?
I’ve been through two layoffs at tech companies - one of 14,000 and one of 15,000. One touched a lot of teams including my own. The second was mostly smoke and mirrors - they took multiple factories and supply chain employees and sold them or outsourced them to a company that picked up the payroll for those employees. Only a handful of roles were truly culled. The announcement of the layoffs was theatre for Wall Stre…
Hopefully for them that includes executives and managers, they are the ones responsible of the death of that company, not the engineers Congrats to Apple and AMD for having done better Microsoft ignoring AMD in their latest Surface lineup is a hint for the people looking for answers
For those of us who are bad at subtext, could you elaborate further? What are the questions that this is the answer to?
Hopefully for them that includes executives and managers, they are the ones responsible of the death of that company, not the engineers Congrats to Apple and AMD for having done better Microsoft ignoring AMD in their latest Surface lineup is a hint for the people looking for answers
Really at least a fifth of your layoff should be managers. If you lay off about six reports, that’s one less manager you need. So 1/7. If you lay off six managers, that’s one skip level you don’t need. 1 + 6 + 36 = 43. Go to three levels and that’s 1 + 6 + 36 + 216 = 259, or 43 / 259 or about 1/6.
But if you want to keep production capacity, you should move to slightly more reports per manager, not maintain steady state. Just to keep the math simple, if you had 216 developers reporting to an organization of 43 managers, if you went to 7 reports per manager you need 31 line managers, not 36, which is a 2% RIF without losing a single producer. Or if you do both you get about 1/5th of laid off people as managers if you lay off less than half your developers.
Edit: fractions and ratios are not interchangeable, bad math.
Reports elsewhere ( https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/repor... ) suggest that the layoffs might be a bit concentrated in the Sales & Marketing departments. Is it just me, or do some other folks also smell "corporate bloat, which better management would not have allowed to happen"?
Isn't this just a culmination of nearly a decade of unforced errors and mismanaged strategy? I'm a complete outsider but I see a couple of fundamental huge misses by Intel over the past 10 or so years: 1) Completely missed the boat on mobile. Their ARM-competitive chips (Atom, etc.)... weren't. Missed on every measure from power to performance. Let Qualcomm and Samsung eat their lunch. 2) Missed too many ticks and re…
To be frank, I think that's a great thing. I don't want companies to stay giant in perpetuity, I think it's great that they are essentially "recycled" when new, better companies come along and eat their lunch.
If anything I think it's quite bad that over the past 25ish years that a lot of big companies have really learned the lessons of "disruption" and have responded by just buying up the smaller but up-and-coming competition before they can overtake (looking at you Adobe and Figma).