@EREBUS11/13/2011 7:28 PM EST
I would not write the Intel obituary just yet. To parrot Mark Twain, "The death of the PC is highly exagerated." I know Apple would love to see the tablet dominate the world, but I have yet to see any applications that can replace either my desktop or my labtop for doing real work.
I have seen Intel jump back in the lead many times over the last forty years. I have yet to see anyone else come close to their level of quality and production.
hey ya all, here is link to my original post, exactly 1 year ago.
what a brilliant and unique prediction...
I think they should just pick the best CEO for the job. I don't see what being a woman or a man has to do with it frankly, and putting a woman in the position of CEO to show that they are progressive would be super lame. Let's stop making this about gender, and start making it about talent for the actual job. Renee James just doesn't cut it.
There is no reason that a competent woman could not be the next Intel CEO. It depends upon the definition of competent and the vision the board holds for the future of Intel. Until they decide what they want to be, they will have difficulty in getting the right person for the job.
One of these days the gender of a prospective Intel CEO (or the race of a president) won't be news. It would be nice if we could have this very same article, but rather than discussing which candidates are male or female, only discuss the major accomplishments the people have in their records.
Unfortunately, we as a society aren't there yet. Using Carly Fiorina or, any one person, as justification for perpetuating the discriminatory and condescending attitudes should not be considered a viable counter argument to qualifications-based hiring. As DataMuncher indicated, the litany of men who have been bad choices goes on and on. And, that's not because men are inherently bad choices either. It just means that hiring any sort of a human involves the potential risk of making a bad choice or the potential reward of making a good choice.
Over the years, I have been trying to observe at what age the typical F500 CEO retires. 62 is right about average.
He's filthy stinking rich. Why wouldn't he want to step down from such a demanding job, spend more time with the grand-kids, and "earn" a few million a year by sitting on a few corporate boards?