Pressures for Change Grading Rubric REQUIREMENTS: POSSIBLE ACTUAL Discusses environmental pressures for change. 17 Describes one attribute or capacity of servant leadership. 17 Discusses internal pressures for change. 17 Describes the limits to changes. 17 Describes the importance for change managers to have a clear, personal understanding of pressures that lead to change. 17 Student prepares all answers and comments according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract was not required. 10 Paragraph Development and Transitions Student’s work has a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The student is careful to use paragraph and transition construction to guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. Individually and collectively, paragraphs are coherent and cohesive. 10 Mechanics of Writing a) Student is clearly in control of standard, written academic English. b) All work includes correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. c) Similarity Index is less than or equal to 10%. *Instructor discretion advisable 10 Language Use and Audience Awareness d) Student uses correct sentence construction, word choice, etc. e) Student uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in unique and creative ways that are appropriate to the purpose, discipline, and scope. f) Assignment is within the required word count. 10 TOTAL 125 Read the “Chipping Away at Intel” case below. In a paper of 750-1,000 words, address the following questions that relate to why organizations change. 1. Of the environmental pressures for change (fashion, mandated, geopolitical, market decline, hyper competition, reputation and credibility), which one(s) was/were experienced by Intel, and what facts from the case support your choice(s)? 2. Of the internal pressures for change (growth, integration, collaboration, reestablishment of organizational identities, new broom, and power and political pressures), which one(s) was/were experienced at Intel, and what facts from the case support your choice(s)? 3. Are there limits to the changes that can be accomplished at Intel? Why or why not? 4. Describe why it is important for change managers to have a clear, personal understanding about the pressures that lead to change. Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines. An abstract is not required. Directly quoted source material may not exceed 10% of the paper’s content. Due to its inherent unreliability, Wikipedia is not considered an acceptable source for use in academic writing. Part 1 Craig R. Barrett sat reflecting on the fact that he was halfway through his tenure as the fourth CEO of Intel—only another three more years to go until his mandatory retirement age would be reached. He had come into an organization that Andrew S. Grove, chairman of Intel, had shaped into a major global technology co.

1. Pressures for Change Grading Rubric
REQUIREMENTS:
POSSIBLE
ACTUAL
Discusses environmental pressures for change.
17
Describes one attribute or capacity of servant leadership.
17
Discusses internal pressures for change.
17
Describes the limits to changes.
17
Describes the importance for change managers to have a clear,
personal understanding of pressures that lead to change.
17
Student prepares all answers and comments according to the
APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the
Student Success Center. An abstract was not required.
10
Paragraph Development and Transitions
Student’s work has a sophisticated construction of paragraphs
and transitions. Ideas universally progress and relate to each
other. The student is careful to use paragraph and transition
construction to guide the reader. Paragraph structure is
seamless. Individually and collectively, paragraphs are coherent

2. and cohesive.
10
Mechanics of Writing
a) Student is clearly in control of standard, written academic
English.
b) All work includes correct spelling, punctuation, and
grammar.
c) Similarity Index is less than or equal to 10%. *Instructor
discretion advisable
10
Language Use and Audience Awareness
d) Student uses correct sentence construction, word choice, etc.
e) Student uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of
speech, and word choice in unique and creative ways that are
appropriate to the purpose, discipline, and scope.
f) Assignment is within the required word count.
10
TOTAL
125
Read the “Chipping Away at Intel” case below. In a paper of
750-1,000 words, address the following questions that relate to
why organizations change.
1. Of the environmental pressures for change (fashion,
mandated, geopolitical, market decline, hyper competition,
reputation and credibility), which one(s) was/were experienced
by Intel, and what facts from the case support your choice(s)?
2. Of the internal pressures for change (growth, integration,

3. collaboration, reestablishment of organizational identities, new
broom, and power and political pressures), which one(s)
was/were experienced at Intel, and what facts from the case
support your choice(s)?
3. Are there limits to the changes that can be accomplished at
Intel? Why or why not?
4. Describe why it is important for change managers to have a
clear, personal understanding about the pressures that lead to
change.
Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines. An
abstract is not required.
Directly quoted source material may not exceed 10% of the
paper’s content.
Due to its inherent unreliability, Wikipedia is not considered an
acceptable source for use in academic writing.
Part 1
Craig R. Barrett sat reflecting on the fact that he was halfway
through his tenure as the fourth CEO of Intel—only another
three more years to go until his mandatory retirement age would
be reached. He had come into an organization that Andrew S.
Grove, chairman of Intel, had shaped into a major global
technology company. He had replaced Gordon E. More but
retained his principle of doubling micro-processor performance
every 18 months while at the same time making it progressively
cheaper. In this context, what would be Barrett’s legacy?
When Barrett came in three years ago, he took some bold
moves, taking Intel beyond chip making for PCs into the
production of information and communication appliances as
well as services related to the Internet. Trouble is, the company
was now in the worst shape that it had been for many years. Of
course, every technology company had been affected by
September 11, 2001; the slowing economy; and the potential
threat of war with Iraq. But in Intel’s case this had been
compounded with problems such as product delays and
shortages, recalls, overpricing, and even bugs in its systems.
Analysts were predicting that by the end of the year, Intel’s

4. share of the PC chip market would be 9 percent worse than
when Barrett had taken over three years earlier.
He had ploughed money into new markets but then had to
withdraw from these. For example, Intel withdrew from the
production of network servers and routers after copping flak
from Dell and Cisco, its biggest customers for its chips, for
directly competing with them in these other markets. He also
closed down iCat, which was an e-commerce service for small
businesses, providing Web broad-casting of shareholder
meetings, and cut back on Web-surfing applications except in
Spain. In Barrett’s mind, most of these withdrawals were a
direct result of the downturn in economic conditions generally.
There were also weak demand and over-capacity in the
semiconductor industry with some researchers expecting a 34
percent fall in global sales of chips. Moreover, long-time rival
Advanced Micro Devices had produced its Athlon processor
chip, which turned out to be faster than Intel’s Pentium III chip.
At the same time, people seemed to be more interested in how
fast their modem connection was than in the speed of their
computer chip. And September 11, 2001, hadn’t helped; before
this catastrophe, Intel’s shares, at $26, were down 60 percent
compared to their highest over the previous year. After
September 11 they fell further—by October they were only $20.
Barrett felt that in this competitive—and segmented—market,
Intel needed to be reorganized to make it more nimble. It also
needed to be reorganized to avoid duplication and create better
coordination. For example, the network operations group and
the communications unit sometimes were in competition with
each other, selling similar products to the same customers.
Barrett engaged in a series of reorganizations during his first
three years. In 1999 he created a new wireless unit that
combined new acquisitions such as DSP Communications Inc. (a
chipset supplier for digital communications) with Intel’s flash
memory operations. In his second year, Barrett created the
Architecture Group, which combined development and
manufacturing of core processors. In his third year, he

5. reorganized the Architecture Group and created a new unit
consisting of a merger of communications and networking
operations. For Barrett, these reorganizations were needed to
enable decentralization and delegation of decision making all
designed to make the company better coordinated and more
nimble.
But there was so much reorganization over these years, trying to
get the structure to work, that some commentators saw it as
“shuffling execs like cards in a deck.” Following the March
2001 restructuring, with up to 80 percent of the staff in the
micro processing unit being given new jobs, one customer
thought that people seemed to be moved around a lot without
them really knowing where they were going. A former general
manager saw Intel as now “dabbling in everything and
overwhelming nothing.” Other commentators claimed that
another problem was that chip managers were now being put in
charge of new markets and products about which they knew
very little a charge denied by Barrett. There were also job cuts,
with 5,000 jobs lost through attrition during 2001 and more
expected.
At the same time, Barrett wanted to change the culture of Intel,
drawing on outside consultants to assist him in the process. He
wanted to move the mindset of Intel toward better customer
relations and away from a perspective of being the only real
competition in the marketplace. Strategically he decided to
invest in research and development into new production
technologies in order to cut chip-making costs. Reflecting on
his time ahead, Barrett hoped that he would be able to increase
sales and pull out in front of his competitors through these
investments. But the jury was still out at this point: What would
be his legacy by the time he retired?
Questions
1. What were the different changes at Intel over the first three
years of Barrett’s tenure?
2. Of the environmental pressures for change dis-cussed in this
chapter—fashion, mandates geopolitical, declining markets,

6. hyper competition, and corporate reputation which ones were
experienced by Intel?
3. Of the internal organizational pressures for change discussed
in this chapter that are associated with organizational change—
growth, integration and collaboration, reestablishment of
organizational identities, new broom, and power and political
pressures—which ones were experienced within Intel?
4. Are there other external or internal pressures for change that
you can identify?
5. What overall conclusions do you draw about why Barrett
made the changes he did? Which issues were dominant? Why?
6. What pressures for change might face Barrett in the future?
How do you arrive at this assessment?
7. What advice would you give Barrett for how to cope with
these change pressures?
Part 2
In May 2005 Craig Barrett reached Intel’s mandatory retirement
age as CEO and moved on to become chairman of the company.
He was replaced as CEO by Paul Otellini. In reflecting back on
his tenure as CEO, Barrett felt proud that he had managed to
keep his company profitable following the 2001 IT collapse.
Intel also had kept its position as a leading chip maker.
But things had not always been easy for Barrett. Intel had
thought that its Itanium processor was going to be the future of
the server business, but the market thought otherwise. The chip
was used in high-end servers, but the market was much smaller
than had originally been hoped for. He also had expanded the
company’s expertise in designing chips for mobile
communications. This had mixed results. The Centrino mobile
technology, used for accessing wireless networks, had taken off
and its flash memory business was robust, but despite a great
deal of hype around communications silicon and its Manitoba
processor, no mobile phone manufacturer had yet used this
processor.
In 2004 in what was referred to internally as “the right-hand

7. turn,” Barrett engaged in strategy shifts, moving toward dual
core architectures rather than simply producing faster and faster
chip speeds. Canceling the 4-GHz Pentium 4 symbolized this
shift. At the same time, he engaged in a reorganization of the
company, putting in place new business units such as the
Mobility Group, focusing on mobile devices, along with a
Digital Enterprise Group, a Digital Home Group, a Digital
Health Group, and a Channel Products Group. The future
challenge was to make sure that work was coordinated across
these different groups to enable the company to deliver high
quality products. Barrett knew that this was going to be a big
challenge for Paul Otellini over the coming decade.
Questions
1. What new pressures for change faced Barrett in the last half
of his tenure?
2. How did he respond to these pressures? 3. If you were Paul
Otellini, coming in as the new CEO, would you change
anything? Why?
3. If you were Paul Otellini, coming in as the new CEO, would
you change anything? Why?