Intel Ex-CEO Pat Gelsinger Opposed Company Split in 2022, Advocated for Hiring a “PE Guy” for Strategic Decisions

In a surprising turn of events, Intel’s recent change in leadership has cast a spotlight on the internal strategies of the company’s former CEO, Pat Gelsinger. Reports suggest that Gelsinger had significant reservations about the potential split of Intel’s business sectors, a stance he articulated in a notable interview over two years ago.

Concerns Over Business Division: Insights from Pat Gelsinger

Gelsinger’s unexpected departure raises questions regarding the motivations behind this decision. A closer look at his remarks from an insightful interview with Stratechery in 2022 reveals that he was not in favor of splitting the company. He indicated that if Intel were to pursue such a separation, it would necessitate the hiring of a private equity expert, rather than someone focused on his strategic vision, which he termed “IDM 2.0.”In his own words:

The first one was I wrote a strategy document for the board of directors and I said if you want to split the company in two, then you should hire a PE kind of guy to go do that, not me. My strategy is what’s become IDM 2.0 and I described it.

– Intel’s former CEO via Stratechery

Throughout his tenure, Gelsinger championed in-house manufacturing, which was central to Intel Foundry’s initiatives. Despite his enthusiasm for domestic production, the outcomes during his leadership did not meet expectations. Recent developments have highlighted that external economic pressures and challenges within the Intel Foundry segment may have significantly contributed to Gelsinger’s resignation.

Intel Unveils Plans To Expand Chengdu Facility In China, Integrating Advanced Chip Packaging Services 1

The context surrounding Gelsinger’s departure raises the possibility that the Intel board was advocating for a divisional split, which was inconsistent with his vision of “IDM 2.0.”It seems Gelsinger opted for resignation as a means to align with his belief in sustaining integrated manufacturing processes. Moreover, his defense of Intel’s 18A production process indicates a commitment to pursuing technological leadership despite economic setbacks.

This theory surrounding Gelsinger’s exit hints at a broader narrative where the interplay of strategic philosophies and economic realities culminated in a pivotal moment for Intel. The ongoing evolution from corporate strategy to national interest further illustrates the complexity of decisions made by Intel’s board, particularly in light of their recent performance challenges.

Source & Images