Intel CEO Brian Krzanich Resigns Over Relationship With Employee (theverge.com) 307
Intel has announced that CEO Brian Krzanich has resigned from the company effective immediately. From a report: CFO Robert Swan is now Intel's interim chief executive officer. "Intel was recently informed that Mr. Krzanich had a past consensual relationship with an Intel employee," the company said in a press release. "An ongoing investigation by internal and external counsel has confirmed a violation of Intel's non-fraternization policy, which applies to all managers." Krzanich's immediate resignation was accepted to show "that all employees will respect Intel's values and adhere to the company's code of conduct," according to Intel.
FTFT (Score:5, Insightful)
Krzanich's immediate resignation was accepted to show "that all employees will respect Intel's values and adhere to the company's code of conduct"
after being caught
Re: FTFT (Score:2, Interesting)
It's still refreshing to see a CEO hold themselves to the same rules they expect their employees to abide by, even if it is only after they get caught. I'm sure there are plenty of low level managers at Intel that have gotten away with consentual relationships with their staff without being caught and nobody is expecting them to come forward and resign.
Re: FTFT (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, we haven't heard from the employee. Relations between powerful and powerless always tend to look consensual from the viewpoint of the powerful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
whether it was consensual or not is irrelevant.
By having a relationship with a subordinate, your judgement can not be considered impartial. Did that subordinate get bigger raises or fast tracked on promotion vs other employees?
Re: FTFT (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to have a relationship with a subordinate the right thing to do is to remove yourself from a position of power over them. No matter how good your intentions are it's probably only a matter of time until there is a conflict of interest or you make a request they feel like they can't refuse without it hurting their career. And when if/when it does eventually come out, every decision you ever made affecting them will be questioned.
As uncle Ben says, microwave rice isn't... I mean, with great power comes great responsibility.
In this case it seems that he probably didn't want to do any of that stuff because he is already married with kids. Still, perhaps it doesn't need so much media coverage... "Stepped down due to personal issues" is probably enough.
Re: (Score:2)
"If the relation really was consensual, I'm inclined toward being a bit tolerant. "
Is it possible that I'm the only sane round here!?...
ÂHow have you in USA reached to the position of accept -and even support, a company policy saying nay about the private life (and I mean private, as in it's no fucking issue for anybody but for those directly involved) of their employees?
See? *Employees*. Not slaves, not serfs, not minions.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no. There is a lot of weird politics that happens if there's an in-office relationship. You want to call the moron a moron, but you can't because he's dating your boss, or you find that one person's silly projects end up being high priority for no reason other than she's married to the project manager. So you want to lay off an employee but can't because you know you'll end up being enemies of of their paramour who will make your life hell. These aren't hypothetical examples, I've seen them happen
I don't understand what the fuss is (Score:4, Interesting)
Executives fuck their secretaries all the time. You don't really think all those beauty queen secretaries are hired for their ability to perform the tasks outlined in their job description, do you? In my past lives, the general manager had company paid for one of his secretary's breast implant operation. (Yes, he was fucking them both.)
Re:FTFT (Score:4, Insightful)
Hard to punish someone YOU HAVEN'T CAUGHT.
Re:FTFT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The consensual relationship story may be a cover for the fact that BK has lost faith in Intel's ability to fix security issues with the processors.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought. What else did he do that they wanted to get rid of him for?
It sounds like they looked into his past and found something they could use to terminate him.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I don't exactly run to the police and say "Officer, please write me a ticket, I was clearly doing 100 in a 55"
It's good that he resigned immediately, without a prolonged drama and submitted to the same rules they hold employees to. I'm not exactly sure I expect anyone to volunteer this. A consequence of these rules is that people are still people, bosses have flings with underlings. But if the underling wishes, at any point he or she complains and brings down the boss. As long as everyone keeps quiet
Intel hiding the reason for firing the CEO? (Score:4, Interesting)
My guess is that the Intel Board of Directors is trying to hide why they are firing the CEO. Krzanich was only slightly better than the previous CEO, Paul Otellini, in my opinion.
The Meltdown and Spectre bugs and the amazingly poor way Intel handled the issues could be one of the reasons for firing Krzanich.
See my comment on another story: Updated: Intel's YEARS of insufficient management [slashdot.org].
Intel is extremely important to the entire world. How can the Board of Directors find a better CEO, when the Board has made mistakes in the past?
Intel is shockingly bad at communicating, in my opinion. Two people decided to have sex with each other? That's Intel's news?
Re: (Score:2)
MANY areas of Intel poor management (Score:2)
I linked to a story about that in a previous comment: Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock. [businessinsider.com] (Jan. 3, 2018)
There are so many areas of insufficient management at Intel that commenting on them always focuses on one or a few areas. A fully examined list would be a book, not a comment.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the bugs in the processors, it's the bugs in the process tech. 10nm is dead on arrival, Intel just added another round of 14nm processors. This lapse has now put Intel BEHIND every other manufacturer in process technology for the first time in the companies history. That's why Krzanich and covering it up with this silly violation of ethics to try to avoid freaking out wallstreet.
AMD (Global Foundaries) is on track to have 7nm processors by year end and Intel can't even get 10nm out the door. Make n
sure, guy (Score:3)
"that all employees will respect Intel's values and adhere to the company's code of conduct,"
How exactly does not adhering to the company's code of conduct show that?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact he was forced to resign shows it. If the employee was not complaining about harassment then a lot of places would have ignored it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not obviously. If one of that employee's coworkers didn't get a promotion, that person might assume that Intel's stack ranking, combined with favoritism for the employee in question, were the problem, and might have complained to HR.
Re:sure, guy (Score:5, Insightful)
First rule of business ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Its is funny how so many C-Level execs forget the FIRST rule of business:
NEVER mix business and pleasure.
There is a reason people set boundaries -- so they (almost) never have to worry about the two interfering. Of course it doesn't 100% prevent getting fucked over but it could always be worse if you are "involved."
--
Atheist, noun, a spiritual blind man arguing there is no such thing as color.
Re: First rule of business ... (Score:5, Interesting)
In today's hyper sensitive climate, the only rational move seems to be to treat everyone in a dispassionate, robotic fashion.
Consenting adults should be left the fuck alone. Corporations shouldn't be responsible for the behavior of consenting adults, nor should they be penalizing it, either.
We're monkeys. We're constantly horny, with millions of years of hard wired instinct chittering away during every interaction with every other human being we encounter. Our instincts scream at us to fuck, fight, or flee during the first 20 seconds after meeting anyone new.
If the two had a mutually agreeable, consensual relationship, then the company has no good reason to take any action. Companies and workplaces need to step away from preemptive interference with human relationships.
Explicit harassment, abuse of power, and so on are terrible things. Preventing liability through artificial constraints on base human instincts is a shit way to manage a company. Make allowances for rational adults. It's absurd that this guy has to lose his job over sex, especially if nobody was hurt.
Re: First rule of business ... (Score:4)
Re: First rule of business ... (Score:4, Informative)
> US culture
We recently in 2010 started hiring employees in Caracas, Venezuela. They are shockingly non-PC. Locally here in Seattle, we fired a male employee for wearing "dad" shorts too far above his knees. Later we had to let a woman go because she wore tank tops to work. We had a group of women threaten to quit and vandalize the office because we didn't fire tank top woman the first time they asked. In our VZ office, there's pictures of women in lingerie on the wall and a couple of the women have showed-up back from lunch in bikini tops. Completely different culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't want her fired because she wore a tank top. They wanted her fired because she looked good, better than they would, while wearing a tank top.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked at companies where they don't prohibit these kinds of relationships per se, but it IS up to you to report to your boss or HR that you're in a relationship with someone else so they can make sure nothing untoward is happening.
Ironically, I think zero-tolerance policies like Intel's are exactly what cause problems. When you have no way to do things on the up-and-up, people will be exploited in secret, and won't report bad behaviour for fear of retribution. There's no real way to keep this kind of
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know exactly what Intel's policy is? For example, if you did decided you wanted to have a relationship could you request a transfer to put enough distance between the two of you to avoid it being a problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you know the CEO's fuckbuddy was not getting preferential treatment, or payouts from the corporate piggybank to keep quiet, or a threat of losing their job if they go public?
In business, if something looks unethical, you have to treat it as being unethical. It is even worse for a publicly traded company. "Don't worry, they are consenting adults" does nothing to quash rumors that murder stock prices.
Re: (Score:2)
In France they have a saying: no zob* in job
*zob is a colloquial word for penis ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there are two rules of business and profit is #2.
Add cash flow to the top of your list. Profit is a strong #2, but cash flow is king. You won't survive to make a profit if you don't have the cash flow. Because of this, the #1 killer of businesses is lack of cash flow, not lack of profit. Think about it this way, cash flow is air, profit is food, you will die a lot sooner without air than you will without food. Then consider that as long as you have air to breath you have time to find some food.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the first rule is "Once you have their money, you never give it back." [wikia.com]
Non fratzernization ? (Score:2)
>> non-fraternization policy
Non fratzernization ? What's this kind of BS ?
Re:Non fratzernization ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the poor executives. How will they ever get by without having employees as friends? All they have is their 7 or 8 figure compensation packages. Maybe they can buy a friend for a million or so.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It wasn't enough that capitalism allows (virtually requires) people to surrender their freedom for 1/3+ of the day in exchange for food, the corporations want to extend their control outside normal working hours into employees' private lives as well. In some places they're allowed to do so.
If some overlord telling people they have to sit at a desk whether or not there's work to be done doesn't give you pause, the same overlord telling them who they may or may not see socially outside of working hours reall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make it right. If a company covers up harassment, they should absolutely be liable. If a company acts responsibly and discloses any harassment complaints to the police, then they shouldn't be.
Corporations taking it upon themselves to investigate employees for things not related to the job, judge, convict, and punish them, is also wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that modded flaimbait?
In the EU such a "code of conduct" would be in most cases illegal, not sure if there are exceptions like a CEO having a relationship with one directly under his command.
Re: (Score:2)
You think it's somehow a restraint of the capitalist impulse to allow management to extort sex from their employees over threat of dismissal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Non fratzernization ? (Score:5, Informative)
>> non-fraternization policy Non fratzernization ? What's this kind of BS ?
Well known to any military.
Officers can't socialize with enlisted. (And, possibly, senior enlisted can't socialize with junior enlisted.)
It's detrimental to good order and discipline. Either you end up giving/getting special treatment - intentionally or not - or else others think you do, are suspicious that you are, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Non fratzernization ? (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, private life isn't the military -- employees shouldn't be treated like soldiers.
But the exact same underlying implied and always existing possibility of coercion exists. That's the problem. There is no way to eliminate the thought of possible retaliation from the mind of the underling, and therefore true consensuality is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The key difference is explicit vs implicit consent. When living with someone, people often are explicitly consenting, in the form of a lease (if renting from the owner), or title (whose name is on it, can be joint).
With relationships between members in any hierarchy, the implied consent of the relationship betrays the explicit consent everyone else has with the superior.
And yes, there is always the possibility of retaliation, the main evolution of man has been to make such retaliation expensive as to not pu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just coercion but special treatment and danger to the company if the relationship falls apart. This type of interaction between managers and subordinates almost always leads to bad things happening to everyone involved including the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses are not the military.
No, but they can be run like one. You don't have to work for that company.
The rules are put in place for a reason, they are not just about control even if they do come off that way. This particular rule is about avoiding the HR nightmare and morale hit that is favoritism even if it is only just perceived favoritism. It could cost the company a lot of money if employee morale takes a dive due to toxic work conditions resulting from real or perceived favoritism.
Oddly, nepotism isn't regarded as unfavorably ev
Re: (Score:2)
In every job I have held, even when I was a TA in grad school, there has been a hard rule that you cannot have a relationship with someone you have authority over. The conflicts of interest are massive on both sides and there is no way there cannot be sexual harassment in that situation.
Female or male employee? (Score:5, Funny)
I looked up in the WIkipedia: Fraternization (from Latin frater, brother) is "turning people into brothers".
What "non-fraternization policy" may mean?
Re:Female or male employee? (Score:4, Informative)
Latin uses the male version of the word when referring to groups of mixed or indeterminate gender. This was probably a woman, but I'm just playing the odds because I don't know his sexual orientation and the majority of men seem to be straight.
A non-fraternization policy prohibits social activities, to some degree, between bosses and underlings. One of those areas of activities covered is usually sexual
hope it was good (Score:2)
Re:hope it was good (Score:5, Insightful)
It's either 10 mm or Spectre/Meltdown (Score:2)
This is a face-saving (for Intel, not him) way of ushering him to the door without encouraging stockholders to pay more attention to how the company is performing.
That he was replaced with a finance guy instead a techie doesn't bode well, and suggests Moore's law is about to slow down even further (due to economics as much as physics).
Re: It's either 10 mm or Spectre/Meltdown (Score:2)
Money saving, not face saving (Score:3)
Firing him for cause like this probably prevents intel from having to pay a golden parachute.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a chance. Every CXO has an untouchable golden parachute. He could murder the rest of the board and shit in the water cooler and he'd still get his contractually guaranteed compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice assertion, but not what I've seen. I mean, sure, they tend to be included if the CXO is fired because they're not good at their job, but not if the CXO violated company policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, which CEOs had the strings cut on their golden parachute for violating company policy?
Anyone at VW? Anyone at Theranos?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Enron's CFO (before the government started beating down the doors.) Theranos and VW have people facing criminal charges (no idea about the golden parachute).
But yeah, being fired for cause breaks the golden parachute. See this article. [lipisconsulting.com] That article also states that most CXOs are trying to redefine "fired for cause" to basically be impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
"That he was replaced with a finance guy instead a techie doesn't bode well"
That he was replaced by the finance guy means that the CFO was the number 2 officer of the company and was on the spot to take over immediately, giving the board time to select a permanent replacement.
obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Intel Inside
Another explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe just maybe it's because Intel has almost squandered its competitive edge?
10nm is nowhere to be seen in decent quantities even though it was promised back in ... 2016. In a recent earnings call mass production was delayed until 2019.
Ice Lake is nowhere to be seen and Intel is still rehashing its three (!) years old SkyLake uArch. Meanwhile AMD Zen uArch has a very strong IPC performance and is only lacking in top frequencies, however AMD CPUs also have a very competitive TDP.
Add Meltdown, Spectre, Brian Krzanich selling all his shares (and leaving the bare minimum allowed by corporate laws) to the mix and the picture becomes quite grim. Perhaps shareholders were happy to use this excuse to let him go. In another (successful) corporation and under different circumstances this incident perhaps would have been brushed under the carpet.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't do anything wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
Alternative valid reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, do you think he could have changed it? (Score:2)
The CEO could have changed that policy if he wanted to, in order to make it more lenient. e.g. any relationships must be disclosed to HR, and can't be between two people where one has power over the other, etc. That is what a lot of places do. I have worked with people that met at work and ended up getting married. It happens, and companies should deal with that. I don't think the policy is right either, but the CEO agreed to it just like everyone else.
Of course, changing it wouldn't have really helps
Re: (Score:2)
"can't be between two people where one has power over the other"
This is what is being reported about the relationship, which is why he was forced out.
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible for a "relationship" between parties where one can fire the other to be "consensual". The conflicts of interest are vast.
Re: (Score:2)
Really depends on the employee's attitude towards the job, how much they need the job, if it's a career, etc. e.g. A summer employee might care more about a relationship than keeping a temp job which is ending in a month anyway.
Believe it or not, "job" doesn't define everyone's "life." There are no hard-and-fast answers to such things, which is why "zero tolerance" policies are garbage.
Refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)
Refreshing to see upper management held to the same company standards as the rest in the management chain. Too often, C-level and board members are given a pass after taking a pass at a subordinate while those further down the chain are crucified for the same behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing the culture, this is not how the rest of the management chain would be treated. They would disappear and later you would find out the truth. In my IT position, we would get requests to remove all access for a certain user. (unfriendly termination) So I would get some heads up.
If BK was really treated like all the other employees, he would have been disappeared and everyone would have been wondering where he went. No resignation. Just the Mr Spacely treatment. You're fired!!
So no, BK is not tre
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, every other manager at Intel has the option of moving someone out of his/her direct management chain, making a violation of the policy avoidable while still having the relationship. The CEO doesn't really have that option. Arguably, the nature of that position necessitates a different policy.
Just an excuse (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people deluding themselves here IMO. Literally no ones cares BK slept with his secretary. That stuff just goes away at this level. This is just cover for tossing him after blowing the manufacturing lead and other leadership failures. They don't want to spook the shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, something tells me that Intel would have been more than willing to sweep this issue under the rug if it wasn't for Meltdown and Spectre already tarnishing Intel's reputation.
Losing the desktop performance crown to AMD this year is just icing on the cake.
YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
For the younger readers, keep this in mind. Company policies are only there to give HR excuses! If you piss off the wrong people (especially a vindictive HR person) you'll have policies thrown at you by makeshift prosecutors (or actual staff lawyers) including ones they themselves have broken in the past.
Also be wary of staff who seem to know the company policies too well; because it often indicates a nasty person (or somebody who managed to escape an attack.) Normal people don't memorize the whole policy handbook; most people don't even read the whole thing and certainly decisions are often made without consulting it or following it (the larger it is the more likely it's BS only used as a fallback when fears of court cases arise.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Burger King?
When a company can ... (Score:2, Interesting)
It is staggering that any company thinks it has any right to interfere in personal private relationships. When they can exercise control over your sex life ..., Used to be a criticism leveled at religion. This would be laughed at in Europe
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point I think.
The reasoning behind such rules is to ensure that the subordinate employee isn't shown any preferential treatment.
It's already obvious when hormones get involved, logical decisions go right out the window.
This also prevents a subordinate employee from gaining any leverage against the individual in question ( in this case, the CEO ).
Once a relationship begins, the subordinate can now demand quite a bit via the threat of blackmail.
Finally, it doesn't matter if he / she was an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is in no way about interfering with private life. It's about prohibiting conflicts of interest and sexual harassment. Reporting structures can be moved to eliminate the conflict of interest so that peoples private lives are not impacted by the workplace.
I am continually amazed by people that think a sexual relationship with someone that could fire you is a meeting of equals.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
her position beneath him
HIIIIYYYYOOOO!!!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm an engineer...that would not be a perk for our engineering managers.
Re:Wife (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder what his wife and two daughters think about that. Another Republican with loose morals.
Maybe he thought he could get away with it....seemed to work for this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]–Lewinsky_scandal
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but they do drone on about sexual harassment and male power structures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/politics/clinton-town-hall-what-to-watch/ [cnn.com]
On this problem particularly, Clinton later said, "We have so to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay. So, we don't want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-obama-administration-children-human-traffickers/ [snopes.com]
Did the Obama Administration Place Immigrant Children With Human Traffickers?
A congressional report and criminal indictment resulted from a 2014 incident in which multiple immigrant children were handed off to a human trafficking ring.
True.
and so on...
Re: (Score:2)
California law allows the Labor Commissioner to file claims for lost wages for someone unreasonably fired for doing legal things outside of work. However, there is an exception for situations where those actions would potentially harm the business, and in particular, it is generally believed that the exception does not prevent anti-fraternization rules involving dating subordinates. As a rule, it is acceptable to have those rules, and typically, people transfer to other positions to avoid those sorts of