To: DRBES who wrote (55087 ) 4/10/1999 2:11:00 PM From: nihil Read Replies (3) | Respond to
An interesting, but I fear conventional point of view. Intel's internal reward structure keeps unrelenting pressure on everyone to produce and economize. I've heard few complaints from Intel employees that too little is demand of them. They sacked a bunch of low performing folks last year -- and there are always suits and complaints (see FACEINTEL) about age and race discrimination. There is a ruthlessness in Intel's personnel policies that does not tolerate complacency or repeated failure. This is what I call "hard participation." You are forced to take chances, and are cut little slack. But if you reach your goals, you are rewarded handsomely, and in fact a young engineer can become very rich in 10 years. People are mostly self-driven, and this doesn't work well for many people. There is an almost irresistable tendency to slack off when people take too much freedom. Intel reminds me much of UCBerkeley, which was the most demanding university I have ever seen. They want a lot, and they want it now. Not surprising, Andy Grove got his Ph.D. at Berkeley the same year I joined the faculty. A tough, demanding, meritocratic place. When businesses or university get too humane and understanding, their standards and competitiveness may drop. When business like this don't share rewards with the troops, the good people leave too fast. Of course, the good people leave everywhere anyway. They are just richer when they leave Intel. Since Intel makes most of the profits in the Semiconductor industry and shares them more or less equitably with the workers, the average incentive in Intel is 10 times as high as the average in the industry. This is closely linked, I believe, with the profits differential.
