Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

The new outsourcing may help reduce levels as Intel lops off the lowest level workers and replaces them with AI.

But the executive level bloat seems like it will remain.

Don't fret though, this is just the natural course of things. Tech companies die and capital and workers are redeployed. Intel made it a lot longer than other tech companies that have gone the way of the Doo Doo Bird.

Managers preparing the layoff lists are on the lists too, no?

So, I expect the layoffs start at bottom. And work up the food chain with middle managers getting RIFed after they cut there teams.

It will be chaos and no work getting done in the second half.

If my boss has 3 reports does that mean they will get fired?

And does that put me at risk?

Or will they ship me off to a new manager with a team that that manager hired? So, that would put me in difficulty.. no?

You never daw Intel do that because Intel does everything in massive scale spread all around the world. Mostly for huge tax breaks, not because they think teams need to work together. Brute force... who needs to communicate, just put more Jr engineers on the project.

I think one of the main issues is that projects are not planned based on what time zones the engineering teams are in. There was never any thought put into this when I was at Intel. There must be a way to make it so that the primary teams working on a project have at least some overlap with the other teams they work with the most, during reasonable hours. Someone should at least look into it.

@bg that is my manager and team. All they do is attend meetings and contribute nothing of value. Empty words

Mostly true! 🤣

Intel people can argue very well, but when it comes time to fixing anything the track record is not so good.

So far, nobody has rebutted the @Op primary point -- that spans and levels are and outcome and not the core problem.

Most of the responses either missed the point, or were ad hominem reactions. This is very typical of Intel managers. Very good at arguing but completely missing the wisdom.

@a7 stop living in the past. Andy Grove did what was right for his time. This doesn't mean it works in today's market or that Grove would structure the organization the same way if he were alive and setting it up today. A lot of what Grove did happened in the 70s and 80s. Go buy an AMC Pacer or a Ford Pinto to drive to work if the ideas from the 70s were so great. Oh wait, they need leaded fuel to operate properly and you can't get that any more... not like that is even the main reason you wouldn't want to use either of them in today's world.

OP convince me they you could "structure the organization to maximize productivity".
By your own statement "They are not even competent within the organization to really restructure..." So how is this magical completely optimized organization going to suddenly appear? The business needs to keep running while these changes happen.

Without shutting the business down and starting all over again, which an argument could be made to support this, they need to make multiple passes at reorganization. The first pass of removing layers simplifies the organization but allows to company to keep running. Subsequent passes will further simplify and then optimize the organization structure to maximize productivity.

Something as complex and bureaucratic as Intel can't be fixed in one cycle. Every time you peel back a layer you are going to find new problems. If anyone is successful at fixing Intel with this method it will take a decade of cycles to work through all of the issues. It has taken half of a century to get to this point. There are a lot of skeletons that will get uncovered.

TSMC had the advantage of being able to use Intel as a model of what to do, and more importantly, what not to do when they were growing up.

@a3

It is clear that we need AI in charge to change

Certainly levels of spam like OP should not exist.

@a3 it might be better and much cheaper (or even free) to hire Copilot as a new CEO

Signs of a dysfunctional and spineless management team are everywhere. A leader needs to emerge. Hopefully LBT fits the bill

Andy Grove set up the large functional structure and it hasn't changed since then and it's isn't going to change now.

So there is that.

I disagree. When the business is spiraling down, you don't have time to do it correctly so, at least focusing on spans and levels instead of just saying everyone is cutting 20% across the board makes it sound clever.

two in a box... bah ha ha ha ha

afraid to make a decision? hurt someone's feelings? don't want to reduce staff?

no problem, just make it two in a box.

Here is what Co-pilot says about large, functional organizations like Intel.

Look familiar to anyone?

A large functional organization in a high-tech company can face several pitfalls, including:

1. Siloed Departments

• Teams become isolated, limiting cross-functional collaboration.
• Poor communication between engineering, product, and marketing.

2. Slow Decision-Making

• Bureaucracy increases as layers of management grow.
• Functional heads may prioritize their own department over company-wide goals.

3. Resistance to Change

• Functional teams may cling to legacy processes instead of adapting.
• Innovation slows due to rigid structures.

4. Limited Customer Focus

• Teams focus on internal efficiency rather than customer needs.
• Lack of cross-functional alignment can lead to disconnected products.

@Op nicely done. It sounds like you are a student of Peter Drucker. No?

Is there not even one leader on ESM that understands what you are talking about here?

You are not wrong. Here is just a partial list of things that are broken that spans and levels cannot fix:

1/ Large function organization is not designed for innovation or speed of execution.
2/ Matrix management all over the place
3/ Two in a box management. What the he-l?!
4/ Numerous redundant departments across functional organization with overlapping duty