3 ms·
Gelsinger did not entirely do what needed to be done: cut the fat, _encourage_ the lean -- rebuild the culture of growth that made Intel strong. Re-light the fi
by nimish 2y ago
Gelsinger did not entirely do what needed to be done: cut the fat, _encourage_ the lean -- rebuild the culture of growth that made Intel strong. Re-light the fire.
Perhaps he wished us to identify the real culprits: the negligent board.
Or, he DID do what was right -- take the brunt of the blame for the hard things, and set the stage for the next act.
While gracefully giving a middle finger to the board. Let them eat their stock price they so desperately cling to as a talisman
- tverbeure 2y agoCall me hopelessly naive, but other than hiring and firing the CEO, can a board really be blamed for a corporate culture and technical failings? Other than the CEO, I don't think I can name a board member of any company I've ever worked for and neither can I come up with an example about how they impacted the company.
- markhahn 2y agoIntel's board certainly has a lot to do with things like acquisitions, whether the company goes into certain fields. Foundary is a good example: either it was a good idea (and Pat definitely got it going with EUV), or it's a bad idea (and the board's to blame for letting the company work in that direction years ago). It's pretty common for a board to trigger big restructurings - especially of firings, killing of product lines, divestiture.
- DebtDeflation 2y agoAll sorts of strategic decisions (M&A, new product direction, entry to new markets, significant financing events, vendor purchases above a certain $ threshold, even the hire of new executives above a certain level) require the CEO to get board approval.
- nimish 2y ago> can a board really be blamed for a corporate culture and technical failings Who else is responsible for the DIRECTION of a company but the board of DIRECTORS?
- tverbeure 2y agoJust the kind of quality content one can expect at HN!