Qorvo is a classic case of the Peter Principle, where the current top management rose to their positions are at least one level above where they might be competent. Either long-time Bob lackeys, or people who came on board through Qorvo's ill-considered acquisitions of other companies and became Bob lackeys. No dissent or critical thinking about what they company is doing is tolerated, or you become one of the layoffs.
Perfectly said, @eq+1jrtpzfps.
The company then turns a blind eye to his multiple failures because of the desire to protect themselves and the organizational pyramid
organizational pyramid is a mealy mouth term for Dysfunctional workplace. Stale atmosphere, because most of the workers have been around each other for years and it fosters a toxic work environment.
Its like socially re--rded family members working together. They ruin the workplace.
Smart people leave, the d-mber ones wait around for layoffs.
Recent studies have found that the Peter Principle does exist. It showed a strong inverse relationship between the performance of employees and the performance of those same people once they become managers. In other words, the better the worker, the more likely he will fail as a manager. The company then turns a blind eye to his multiple failures because of the desire to protect themselves and the organizational pyramid. Worst case scenario is the bad managers or high level employees will enjoy a lateral transfer to another department where they manage fewer or no employees. Or, upper management will decide that up and out to another department is preferable to addressing the real problem. What this does for coworkers and subordinates is reinforce the unwritten rule; "Know your place, if we wanted your opinion, you would have been asked." For corporations, silence is acceptance.
The Peter Principle states that in a hierarchy, people tend to be promoted to their level of incompetence. In simpler terms, someone who is good at their current job gets promoted to a position where they're no longer competent, and they remain in that higher position even though they're not performing well.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
The Core Idea:
Organizations often promote employees based on their current performance, without adequately considering their suitability for the next level.
The Catch:
A person who excels at one job might not have the necessary skills or experience for a higher position.
The Result:
The promoted employee may struggle in their new role, leading to a decline in performance and ultimately, a state of incompetence.
Why It Happens:
Promotions are sometimes seen as a reward for good work, regardless of whether the person is qualified for the new role.
Consequences:
The Peter Principle can lead to a company being staffed with people who are not truly competent in their roles, potentially impacting efficiency and overall success.
"Again if management is not responsible for the current state of affairs, who is? And who will be held accountable if indeed there are layoffs?"
Normally, the same type of individuals they select for layoff every three or four years as referenced on the indeed and glass-door postings. Nothing new going on here. Well, according to indeed and glass-door posts anyway.
But this time, (by adding new board directors to the company who will bring fresh perspectives, diverse expertise, and innovative ideas that are most crucial for turnaround efforts), there is an amazing opportunity to bring this company to new heights.
Additionally, they can call out management accountability and drive a focus on maximizing shareholder value by introducing fresh perspectives and challenging the status quo . They can also facilitate the removal of practices and or individuals that do not contribute to the company's increase of profitable revenue and shareholder value.
In my opinion, there should be positive growth direction with the addition to the B.O.D.
Technical aptitude with a long company tenure does not imply a natural progression to technical management. A good manager is a rare breed. My interactions with management in and outside my group reaffirms my consensus with the individual who suggested a confidential employee survey. No multiple choice, all write in answers. Give the board of directors the lay of the land. Help the board of directors maximize profit and shareholder return on investment.
The process cannot have any of current Qorvo employees involved in analyzing the input. Especially HR. Bring in a professional auditing company and let them present to the board of directors. Again if management is not responsible for the current state of affairs, who is? And who will be held accountable if indeed there are layoffs?