Midwit MBA critique sparks debate
A viral post by @levelsio accused some mid‑level MBAs of 'scavenging' advanced hardware firms like ASML, reigniting questions about management quality in hardware and deep‑tech firms. The thread is generating discussion about what good management looks like at scale. (x.com)
Pieter “levelsio” Levels’ account lists roughly 744,400 followers, a reach that amplifies any thread he posts and helps explain the rapid spread of the current management-quality discussion. ASML announced a restructuring on Jan. 28, 2026 that will cut about 1,700 roles—chiefly management positions in technology and IT—while reporting record FY2025 revenue of €32.7 billion and a net profit of €9.6 billion. Industry forums and engineering threads have amplified the debate by pointing to operational complexity at ASML, including public posts and forum threads highlighting software-stack and process friction in EUV systems engineering. Structured executive communication frameworks—start with the conclusion, present 2–3 grouped supporting points, then attach data—trace back to the Minto Pyramid Principle developed by Barbara Minto and are recommended for fast decision-making in noisy organizations. Leadership-review cadence that separates rapid tactical checks from strategic deep dives is now standard: weekly or biweekly pulse updates, monthly cross-functional reconciliations, and quarterly leadership deep dives tied to OKRs. Hardware and deep‑tech exec decks that cut through focus on measurable business impact—orders or revenue at risk, cycle time or yield deltas, headcount or tooling asks, and named owners with a 30/60/90-day decision timeline—an approach aligned with OKR-driven reviews used at scale.
