Intel

Supposedly really good health insurance. 401k match (I believe), RSU (stock grants), bonuses, all that. Pay may or may not be competitive; see note below about inside of IT.

If you're female and especially a person of color, you'll have a really good chance of being hired, regardless of experience. The emphasis on diversity is strong. Years ago (before this recent push!), we were told that out of the candidates who applied, if we did not choose the woman, we had to justify that to a VP. A VP, mind you, that has no idea what we actually need. There used to be crazy large referral bonuses for finding a unique hire. Get that cool large company job, find a nice place to settle in, and eventually become a manager that is simply just a warm body in a chair.

The IT organization is mismanaged and horrible.

Some of the main culture pillars include "customer orientation," and everything in IT goes against that. Nobody has faith when you're told to "go to it.intel.com and submit a ticket" that it's going to be done properly.

The system doesn't allow for easy rerouting. It's full of third-world support people shoving tickets around, not understanding the issues. Anything above "can you turn it off and on again" type stuff is an absolute joke. This same system is what everyone uses, be it "my laptop won't turn on" to a huge advanced IT project's support. The lower tiers have no idea what those things are, and usually the ticket is DOA.

Let's not forget the push to SAFe. What a joke!

Our fearless CIO Paula introduced it as part of this "digital transformation," and it's been a slow-burning dumpster fire. Classes forced on how the process is supposed to work (designed by an amazing third-party vendor!), and then immediately thrown out because Intel wants to do things "their way" anyway. The consistent "one size fits all" approach coming from the top down (while simultaneously wanting us to "be fearless" and challenge the status quo and all that) stifles real innovation or ability to meet specific needs with the right solutions.

I could go on for years, but they've done two rounds now of large amounts of IT layoffs in the last 3 years alone, and I've had 6 or 7 managers in that time. I did enjoy my job well enough for many years outside of IT. The company itself is known for high stress, in general.

Add to that the IT organization's continuous desire to cut costs and eventually heads when there's no more costs to cut... why would you want to work there?

Also, funny tidbit – the IT organization pays less for the same exact job that is located elsewhere in the company. Not that any of those really exist, since geniuses at the top decided that everyone who does IT work should be in the IT organization. Remember: one size fits all. If it doesn't fit, it will eventually. Think square peg in round hole being jammed in there until one side breaks.

Another con, probably true of any large company: too many managers, too much management. We have new VPs every month. It's insane.

We have the wrong people doing things all over the place. People who have no clue making certain decisions but are empowered to make them anyway. Or "skilled" labor that can't seem to even form a single thought. I don't know how some of these people can even find the bathroom without assistance.

When I was hired, I was given stock options. They expired before they were ever worth anything. Nowadays they issue RSUs for things, which are much better. But I was stuck getting absolutely nothing for my hiring "bonus."

To summarize: this is not a place you want to work if you're going to be inside of the IT organization. Inside of a business group, sure, it can be alright. Manufacturing, sure. But IT? Run for the hills.

Bring in someone who can manage the IT organization properly, not the latest woman or woman of color who looks impressive to the board. (Nothing against women, but it feels like some of the management decisions are purely for a good public appearance; nobody really brings a decent culture shift with them.)

Make sure management has the right credentials and doesn't come from another enterprise company. We just keep winding up with the same result over and over again. SAFe was a joke from the beginning, and nobody can honestly say that the company is functioning any better.

The way the organization is set up needs to be redone, not compartmentalized, not dressed up with "fun" team names. If anyone outside the company watched the quarterly planning meetings, they'd think it was a more boring version of Office Space. All the output from it winds up being a long list of dependencies on different teams, but no real way to resolve them.

Instead of having dependencies amongst compartmentalized teams, how about having teams made up of the appropriate resources aligned together? I understand that is scary from a cost efficiency standpoint, but I guarantee it will be more efficient long term.

Also, each round of layoffs winds up leaving large craters in tribal knowledge and impact. They don't seem to have any rhyme or reason to who is chosen, and many teams and customers are going to suffer. Nobody is being backfilled properly. I've seen my team reduced to half its size naturally with no effort to backfill with appropriate resources, just interns.

The obsession with keeping headcount low is sad. There is zero feeling of any sort of loyalty. I know long-term Intel people who are considering looking elsewhere and bringing their knowledge with them; very key and critical people. They don't want to be blindsided by the next round of layoffs.