Intel CEO resigns after relationship with employee

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/technology/intel-ceo-resigns-consensual-relationship.html

by trequartista • 8 years ago

287 295 8 years ago

poster1233• 8 years ago

What is the Intel non-fraternization policy? What romantic relationships are banned?

ceejayoz2• 8 years ago

Quite a few workplaces forbid relationships between managers and their subordinates. As CEO, that presumably puts everyone off-limits.

jrs954• 8 years ago

Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Perhaps there was an ulterior motive for removing him. Otherwise I would expect Intel to just hide the information in order to protect the financial interests of the company.

at-fates-hands• 8 years ago

Yeap.

Back in 2012 the Best Buy founder and the chairman both resigned over an inappropriate relationship the CEO had with a subordinate which went unreported:

http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-ove...

amyjess3• 8 years ago

According to the CNBC article linked elsewhere in the thread:

Krzanich violated a policy that said he could not have a relationship with either a direct or indirect report

exelius4• 8 years ago

At most companies it basically means that a manager should not have a romantic relationship with anyone in their chain of command. In the case of a CEO this would extend to the entire company.

I know it sounds punitive, but it’s really a question of fairness to every other employee working for that manager — nothing improper needs to be done by either party for it to negatively impact the other employees.

It also discourages managers from taking their pick of young staff members, and discourages any lower-level staff who might try to sleep their way to the top.

FWIW, most companies also have a reporting policy where you can report a relationship to HR and request a transfer to another department to avoid violating the policy. But that wouldn’t apply to a CEO — people in that position are simply expected to have better judgment than that.

amyjess3• 8 years ago

I know it sounds punitive, but it’s really a question of fairness to every other employee working for that manager — nothing improper needs to be done by either party for it to negatively impact the other employees.
It also discourages managers from taking their pick of young staff members, and discourages any lower-level staff who might try to sleep their way to the top.

In addition, allowing these kinds of relationships also raises issues of sexual consent. Imagine this scenario:

CEO: Let's have sex tonight.

Employee: I'm not in the mood.

CEO: Looks like somebody's getting a bad performance review.

Employee: Fine then... let's get this over with.

puzzle• 8 years ago

It also deters blackmail from other parties, if the relationship is not public.

marcosdumay• 8 years ago

Having a high level position in a company comes naturally with an entire new set of rules to be obeyed, whatever those rules are.

__aeneas• 8 years ago

Other article which isn't so sparse on detail (the NYT will probably improve the article linked in the OP later): https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/21/intel-ceo-brian-krzanich-to-...

sbinthree• 8 years ago

There is no way you would fire a CEO you actually wanted in place because they had a consensual relationship with a subordinate in the past. Why are US companies always so aggressive about moralising these issues? No one would take issue if he carried a gun at work. Why is it that corporate morals rule?

Gargoyle3• 8 years ago

There has to be more to this than is being revealed. Either something about the relationship or...they don't really want him in place anyway.

jrs954• 8 years ago

To an extent I think that these things are promoted because they’re a very effective way to mislead people.

catbatdat9034• 8 years ago

The way the world works, it doesn't make sense that that alone is the reason. There has to be something more.

unknown_apostle• 8 years ago

Not sure if he just got fired for a relationship or if there's something more.

But your remark about the "moralising" of US companies has also been my experience. I worked in a Europe-based office for a US-owned multinational company. Alcohol was strictly forbidden. (Needless to say, the fridge was filled regardless and late Friday afternoon, people would have a beer and fraternize.)

SimbaOnSteroids2• 8 years ago

Wasn't this guy basically caught red handed selling shares of intel rather quickly and suspiciously right before news of the meltdown and spectre vulnerabilities were publicized.

If the board got wind of a pending investigation into that incident they might be looking to distance him from the company before the other shoe drops.

vidanay• 8 years ago

Opposite situation for me....I work for a Swiss company in a US office. They all think we are crazy for not allowing Glühwein at our Christmas....errr.....Winter party.

And there's no such thing as Friday afternoon beers in the fridge.

marcus_holmes3• 8 years ago

A relationship between a manager and someone they manage compromises the effectiveness of both the manager and the team. As CEO, he is everyone's boss, so having a consensual relationship with anyone involved in the organisation is a bad thing.

If she got promoted, would it be because of her work, or her relationship with the boss? If she didn't get promoted, would it be because of her attitude, or her relationship with the boss? If she had an argument with a colleague, was it because she was an entitled slut? If he cut the budget of the department she worked in, was it because he was going off her?

It's pernicious and there's nothing you can do about it except simply not sleep with the people you manage.

If a CEO of a blue-chip like Intel doesn't get this basic rule of management, what other basic mistakes is he going to make? Bring a gun into work? ;)

tfha3• 8 years ago

You can ask those same questions about any attractive person or any person with powerful family members. Does that mean we can't employ those people either?

Of course not. If a manager runs a tight ship and treats their team fairly, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with a relationship. If as a manager you can't properly separate your emotions and friendships from your management duties, you aren't going to make a good manager anyway. The manager who is going to unfairly promote the person they are seeing is also going to unfairly promote the worker who they are best friends with over the worker who best deserves the promotion.

stinos• 8 years ago

so having a consensual relationship with anyone involved in the organisation is a bad thing ... If she got promoted, would it be because of her work, or her relationship with the boss?

I'm not sure if I buy this completely. You see, a manager is human after all which means he/she is going to like some people more than others. There is always some kind of relationship with all the others, no way around it. Now obviously if the manager is only going to look at this relationship, his/her personal affection for others and not their work, and give some advantages over others based on that relationship, yes that is bad. Seeing that, and seeing an actual romatic relationship is just a more involved type of relationship, 'simply don't sleep with the people you manage' is obviously not enough. You should be able to put all or most personal things aside. As such I think these rules of no romantic relationships are a bit strange. Even if you follow that rule, but for the rest still manage people based on your personal relationship with them, it's still bad.

jgalar• 8 years ago

Then why not ban friendships in the workplace? Surely they could result in the same kind of perceived biases (e.g. cliques).

fjsolwmv3• 8 years ago

He wasn't the CEO when he dated an employee

mattthebaker4• 8 years ago

Beyond the complications you raise in management, it is just a straight major legal risk.

How can you argue or prove any relationship between boss and subordinate is consensual?

mindcrime2• 8 years ago

what other basic mistakes is he going to make? Bring a gun into work? ;)

Why would you think that bringing a gun to work is a "mistake"? Does one's right to self-defense stop the moment they cross the threshold of their office door?

dooglius2• 8 years ago

No one would take issue if he carried a gun at work

You really don't think so? I'm no CEO but I imagine carrying a gun around would at least warrant some public criticism, particularly for a tech CEO in the San Francisco Bay Area.

ghaff3• 8 years ago

In areas of the country where some material number of people do carry firearms (e.g. Texas), it's not uncommon to have explicit signs on company buildings that forbid firearms. I imagine that's pretty common policy at many if not most companies.

sizzzzlerz2• 8 years ago

We had a CFO bring a handgun onto company property in his car. Some one spotted it (apparently, it was in plain view in the car) and notified the police. He was given a talking-to by the cops and then by company reps. He wasn't fired at that point but he was gone in a month or two. Related? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me.

The company is in Sunnyvale, site of the Richard Farley murders at ESL in 1988. So, yeah, I think the police would be interested in knowing his intentions.

johngalt• 8 years ago

Why? If you were worth hundreds of millions, wouldn't it make sense to have some means of self defense?

frockington• 8 years ago

Is it really acceptable for a manger to have sexual relations with direct reports in other countries? That seems so 1950s Mad Men era from an American perspective

hux_• 8 years ago

Politics. People use whatever they can to take each other down at that level. Which is why they get paid so much. For their mindless ambition and to put up with each others mindless ambition.

seanmcdirmid• 8 years ago

It is pretty scandalous. If it ever became public, the board would look really bad, so even if they didn’t want to fire him they probably had little choice but to.

InTheArena4• 8 years ago

Because firms end up on the front page of the WSJ and the London Financial Times when someone decides to go public with it.

paulddraper3• 8 years ago

Why are US companies always so aggressive about moralising these issues?

Or consider Mozilla's week-long CEO who years earlier donated $1000 to a popular ballot initiative supported by most California voters.

Be careful how you vote, citizen. Your livelihood depends on it.

daeken• 8 years ago

I really liked that you skipped over what that ballot initiative was. He donated in support of Prop 8, an attempt to ban same-sex marriage in California. As a former Mozilla employee, I'm pretty glad that he was ousted for his homophobia. Good riddance.

acdha2• 8 years ago

Quoting the article: “An ongoing investigation by internal and external counsel has confirmed a violation of Intel’s non-fraternization policy, which applies to all managers.”

It's not just the specific act(s) but the fact that he knowingly broke policy, which raises the question of whether he decided other policies also didn't apply to him. CEOs have a lot of power and enormous compensation and, at least in theory, that's founded on their judgement.

mattthebaker4• 8 years ago

Its also company policy that you should be fired on the spot for sleeping at your desk -- some kind of hold over from manufacturing that makes no sense for most office positions.

Risk exposure to lawsuit is incomparable to the relationship case but it was consensual.

randomguy23• 8 years ago

Why is it that morals rule on message boards?

jseliger• 8 years ago

Why are US companies always so aggressive about moralising these issues? No one would take issue if he carried a gun at work. Why is it that corporate morals rule?

These are short questions that probably can't ever be fully answered and require books to be answered even semi-adequately. That said, a good answer probably has some element of the U.S.'s strange relationships with sexuality and Christianity, going back to the particular kinds of European settlers who showed up here. This is often referred to as "Puritanism," although the Puritans actually had a much more complicated and less prim experience than is commonly supposed with the slur "Puritanism."

At the same time, in the last several decades (maybe 50 or 60), there have been various strands of feminism; two particularly noticeable parts could be labeled as "sex positive" (Camille Paglia is a good person to read on the subject) and... I actually can't think of a good label for the other one. But the other one actually has quite a bit in common with the old-school and religiously motivated views of sexuality as dangerous and in need of extreme restraint or channeling into "appropriate" spaces. This one has quite a bit of currency, currently, and it has a lot of continuity with past aspects of U.S. culture.

_emacsomancer_• 8 years ago

Even if the Puritans (who usually referred to themselves as 'godly') were slightly less prim about sex then some people expect, they certainly weren't keen on sex outside of marriage. (They also banned Christmas and other holiday celebrations, theatre, walking 'for fun', and smashed stained glass windows in churches, slashed and burned paintings by Rubens and others, and pulled down medieval monuments as being 'idolatrous', had serious discussions about legislating that Catholics should have to wear special clothes so everyone could recognise them. When you hear 'Puritan' think 'Christian Taliban'.)

mathattack6• 8 years ago

Let’s say he promotes the subordinate over a few other candidates who all thought they were worthy? You’ve just killed the corporate culture and reputation for meritocracy.

thrillgore2• 8 years ago

Conflict of interest.

squarefoot• 8 years ago

"Why are US companies always so aggressive about moralising these issues?"

Not just in the US but almost everywhere people tend to extremize moral reactions to the point their judgement in a situation is being impaired. Generally morals are used to drive people actions away from cold rational reasoning, and they also make strong arguments during war time or elections.

Unrelated, but strong example: take a toy gun and a sex toy then ask 1000 people if they would let their children play with one or the other or both. Pretty sure all of them would say no to the sex toy in disgust (which would be my reply as well, just to be clear), but most wouldn't mind letting their kids play with the toy gun. That would be a pretty normal reaction, so no problem here, apparently. But we can also describe a sex toy as a device to simulate the act of creating a life, and a toy gun as a device to simulate the act of taking away a life, so the question would be: why our morals which rightly prevent us from giving dildos to children don't prevent us from giving them toy guns as well?

whatsstolat• 8 years ago

In tech ... its a Nerf gun

code4tee• 8 years ago

A board doesn’t fire its CEO because they went on a few dates with someone a while back—even if that’s against company policy.

Getting the popcorn out to see how this unfolds...

mtgx• 8 years ago

They had so many reasons to push him out. I feel like the board has been aware of the relationship for a while, but they got together one day to figure out which public reason to give for the ousting of Krzanich. And they chose this, which is probably the reason with the least negative impact on whatever is left of Krzanich' career. He may even get high-fives for it at his next gig.

At the end of the day, they had to get rid of him, not just for the insider trading, which is probably one of those "everyone does it" things in corporate America, but primarily because he seemed completely incapable of keeping Intel competitive against AMD's offensive over the next few years. Plus, under Krzanich's watch Intel lost its multi-year leadership in process technology.

SimbaOnSteroids2• 8 years ago

Not just insider trading but getting caught so publicly is a bit problematic, especially if you're the SEC. I'm making a guess here but I wouldn't be surprised to here about a pending investigation into the incident that the board would rather distance Intel from before charges get filed.

corpMaverick• 8 years ago

The easier way for Krzanich was to let him resign because "he wanted to spend more time with his family".

lallysingh• 8 years ago

I wonder if this reason was chosen due to various clauses in his contract. Perhaps it exempts him from a golden parachute, because it's misbehavior on his part? And even it he was also trading, this explanation doesn't put as much risk to the share price.

ghaff3• 8 years ago

There's either a lot more to this particular story or the board wanted him gone for other reasons. cf. Mark Hurd. Anyone who believes the story as given should really think twice the next time someone offers to sell them a bridge. (I suppose ICOs are the appropriate item those days.)

wlesieutre• 8 years ago

BridgeCoin. Having a stake in tokens will entitle you to a profit share of tolls for this bridge that I definitely own.

Jobjobbing• 8 years ago

Yup, might be also a set up of some sort.

TwoNineA• 8 years ago

10nm chips are delayed again. AMD is back on desktop and server.

Those should be good enough reasons.

lord_ring_11• 8 years ago

Why is this even worth discussing?

ggg99902• 8 years ago

Because the worlds most important tech company and the one on which all others are based just fired its CEO.

zepto• 8 years ago

The world’s most important tech company? Maybe in the 80s, but that hasn’t been true for a long time. Intel has nothing unique anymore.

avs733• 8 years ago

Because Intel is an enormous tech company who's technology has had a massive influence over the growth of computing and the internet.

dokein• 8 years ago

So obviously relationships are bad when there's a power dynamic, and between different management levels is a common subset of this.

However it feels like many people are spending more and more time at work, and it also seems cruel to say: "you cannot get to know anyone romantically during 50-75% of your waking day."

JumpCrisscross2• 8 years ago

you cannot get to know anyone romantically during 50-75% of your waking day

Few companies have such strict relationship policies.

amyjess3• 8 years ago

The problem wasn't that she was a coworker. It was that she was a subordinate.

Nobody cares if two engineers hook up, but it's a Very Bad Thing if your boss starts putting the moves on you. Relationships where one person holds real-world power over another are prone to exploitation and violation of consent.

poster1233• 8 years ago

It's a good thing if you are attracted to the boss. How do we know that the happiness such consensual relationships bring to employees does not outweigh the unhappiness of potential sexual harassment, averaged over all workers?

xexers2• 8 years ago

it's a Very Bad Thing

It's happened probably 10s of thousands of times in the past few decades... and some of those couples are now happily married. I personally know of a boss who married his secretary and a professor who married a student.

I think the words "Very Bad Thing" are a little excessive. It's risky behavior.

ghein• 8 years ago

All relationships at work are a bad idea.

They're dangerous to the firm and bad for the people's involved careers.

Best rule for everyone is no relationships between co-workers and if one happens both people are fired.

InTheArena4• 8 years ago

See Clinton, William Jefferson... or Trump, Donald....

oh wait.

kanox6• 8 years ago

Nobody cares if two engineers hook up

It matters because if one of those people gets promoted it can break the policy.

et2o• 8 years ago

Just not people you have a supervisory role over, because obviously that could be coercive.

tfha3• 8 years ago

Any relationship could be coercive. But just because it's possible for a relationship to be coercive doesn't mean that it is going to be.

I don't see what's wrong with a supervisor dating a suboridinate if both parties are consenting and the supervisor is not abusing their power. This taboo has never made much sense to me.

The supervisor can already be abusive towards their subordinates. You don't need to introduce a relationship to introduce the possibility for abuse. Why does a relationship automatically become wrong when these balanced power dynamics are already in place?

coldtea4• 8 years ago

Unless you coerce the other part explicitly then this doesn't mean anything.

aljones• 8 years ago

That is not an accurate restatement of the policy.

rahimnathwani• 8 years ago

The policy only applies to people who directly or indirectly report to you.

If you're CEO, yeah that means you can't date anyone at work. But for anyone else it only eliminates some % of the dating pool.

coldtea4• 8 years ago

But for anyone else it only eliminates some % of the dating pool.

And who said that love (and/or lust for that matter) can or should be confined by such BS rules? Or that someone would have to chose between that and their job?

"dating pool" makes it clinical, as if every person is an interchangeable potential fuck/partner. In reality people are attracted to particular persons.

YorkshireSeason3• 8 years ago

   So obviously relationships are bad when 
   there's a power dynamic,

In what sense is this obvious? And according to which substantial notion of power?

tfha3• 8 years ago

Yeah I never understood this either. Does that mean a bachelor US president can't date a US citizen?

Yes, power can be abused. But anyone with a knife at home can abuse that knife by stabbing someone. That doesn't make it wrong to own a knife.

fareesh2• 8 years ago

From what I have understood of this topic:

If the relationship continues, the power could be used to favour the subordinate over other subordinates (give them good reviews, etc).

If the relationship ends poorly, the power could be used to spite the subordinate over other subordinates (give them poor reviews, etc).

ben5092• 8 years ago

I'm more wondering, when is there not a power dynamic?

michaelt2• 8 years ago

I think the CEO's $19.1 million salary is adequate compensation for the fact his seniority stops him pursuing romantic relationships at work.

If it's not, maybe he should have chosen a different job.

coldtea4• 8 years ago

Who said it's about the money? The same rule would also hold for a janitor, and they wont have the "compensation".

kanox6• 8 years ago

This doesn't only apply to the CEO. Middle-managers are people too.

spatley• 8 years ago

Tell that to Melinda Gates

geofft2• 8 years ago

However it feels like many people are spending more and more time at work, and it also seems cruel to say: "you cannot get to know anyone romantically during 50-75% of your waking day."

I feel like the solution to this is to engineer society so people spend less time at work, not so that they are encouraged to move their personal lives into the workplace.

jhayward2• 8 years ago

Among married people something like 50% of couples met their spouse at work. It's going to happen, it's best to have an open and above-board way of co-existing with fraternization rather than simply banning it, which is idiotic.

knuththetruth• 8 years ago

Among married people something like 50% of couples met their spouse at work.

What is your source for this figure? I just googled around and every survey appeared to put in the 15-20% range.

kmfrk• 8 years ago

I don't get the rule either, but few things are worse for company morale than for employees to see the rules apply to everyone but the top brass, stupid rules or not.

pfortuny• 8 years ago

Something you can choose and is not necessary to live (like being the CEO of Intel) cannot br deemed “cruel” in my sight.

ckastner2• 8 years ago

Relationships among employees are very hard to keep concealed -- especially so when you're in a very exposed position, as a CEO is. At some point, somebody is going to notice something.

If this is the case, then I'm pretty sure that this knowledge had reached the board long before. Rumors spread fast, after all.

That leaves me to wonder as to the timing of this action. Krzanich received a lot of flak over the past months... it's not entirely unthinkable that the board was sitting on this information and only now used it to get rid of Krzanich without making it look like it's one of the other major issues he could technically be blamed with.

arcanus• 8 years ago

That leaves me to wonder as to the timing of this action. Krzanich received a lot of flak over the past months... it's not entirely unthinkable that the board was sitting on this information and only now used it to get rid of Krzanich without making it look like it's one of the other major issues he could technically be blamed with.

Agreed. AMD is breathing down INTC's neck, particularly in servers. Board wants a different direction.

Symmetry2• 8 years ago

It's not just that. There's also the problems with 10nm. The prevaricating about the problems with 10nm. Meltdown. The 28 core 5 GHz demonstration where they misled people about overclocking. A whole bunch of stuff makes me feel like Intel just hasn't been a company I can trust while Krzanich has been at the helm.

erikb• 8 years ago

Well, he could just use it himself, e.g. if he at least wants to keep a rather clean image on paper, and maybe the biggest trouble isn't even public knowledge yet.

ckastner2• 8 years ago

Indeed, at least to a certain degree.

You'd expect a CEO being fired over such a technicality to at least fight back, instead of fully cooperating.

tw042• 8 years ago

Like the insider trading thing that somehow never was investigated?

daxorid• 8 years ago

You don't get investigated or railroaded for insider trading if you do what the NSA/CIA/FBI tells you to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

<tinfoilhat>Covert access to IME may have saved Krzanich's bacon.</tinfoilhat>

rando444• 8 years ago

I was thinking this too.

If insider trading as obvious as his wasn't prosecuted, it paints the picture that it's only ever prosecuted for political reasons. Which is maybe more true than one would hope.

bitL5• 8 years ago

Of course they were sitting on it. However, I don't understand why didn't they go the usual nice route - Brian, how can we quickly get rid of you when we need to? Is $10M enough to cover any inconveniences? Enjoy your retirement and see you at the golf course!

Game of Thrones Season 80x86?

adventured• 8 years ago

That may have occurred (in your scenario) because he wasn't interested in giving up his position quietly, so they went public to force the issue.

mathattack6• 8 years ago

Probably more than 10mm if they don’t claw back equity and golden parachutes.

outside12342• 8 years ago

So my question is: Was the female employee also fired? If not, why not?

danvasquez29• 8 years ago

I think the superior->subordinate part of this is a much bigger offense than two equals breaking a no-dating policy. The situation leaves the manager and the company at risk of all kinds of harassment and abuse allegations.

redcalx• 8 years ago

The company said Mr. Krzanich had violated a non-fraternization policy that applies to managers

gdulli2• 8 years ago

Well the obvious literal answer is that the subordinate can't exploit the organizational power dynamic the way someone the CEO can, and misbehavior of a CEO brings bad press and dysfunction to hurt the company in a way that a random employee can't. But I'm sure that isn't relevant. The obvious true answer is that the board wanted to get rid of the CEO, didn't care about the affair, but used it as an excuse.

dsfyu404ed3• 8 years ago

Well the obvious literal answer is that the subordinate can't exploit the organizational power dynamic the way someone the CEO can

This is absolutely not the case. The dynamic surrounding someone who is sleeping with the CEO will be similar to the dynamic surrounding the CEO's brother. They get what they want, even if they want something dumb that isn't in the company's best interest, with little to no push-back because nobody wants to be on the CEO's bad side.

sampl2• 8 years ago

Nit: based on the article (as of 10a est), we don’t actually know if the subordinate was female :)

YorkshireSeason3• 8 years ago

Interesting though experiment: Let S be the set of all humans. Remove any human from S who had at least one pair of ancestors (no matter how far in the past) that had a boss/subordinate relationship that is now deemed 'inappropriate' in large western countries. How many humans would be left in S?

Conjecture: Zero.

Does that say anything interesting about humans?

emiliobumachar• 8 years ago

Interesting indeed. In a hunter-gatherer tribe with a clear chief, do we consider the chief everyone else's boss?

cozzyd• 8 years ago

I think that says more about large numbers than humans.

inscionent• 8 years ago

Interesting though experiment: Let S be the set of all humans. Remove any human from S who had at least one pair of ancestors (no matter how far in the past) that had an abusive relationship that is now deemed 'inappropriate' in large western countries. How many humans would be left in S?

Conjecture: Zero.

Does that say anything interesting about humans?

YorkshireSeason3• 8 years ago

This is a very good reply, and it can be used to refine the analysis, and bring out the difference between both:

- abusive relationship was typically considered problematic by at least one participant even at the time.

- Boss / subordinate relationship was typically not considered problematic by both participants at the time.

Classic examples doctor/nurse, pilot/stewardess, professor/PhD student, lawyer/secretary. I could introduce you to several such couplings among my acquintances, and relatives.

sotojuan• 8 years ago

Most of us are probably have an ancestor that was born due to rape after tribe/army X beat tribe/army Y, so yeah, zero. Not sure what point you are trying to make, but it's probably not as clever as you hope it is.

krapp• 8 years ago

Does that say anything interesting about humans?

No.

JumpCrisscross2• 8 years ago

Does that say anything interesting about humans?

That we are an unusually genetically homogenous species. You could do the same thing with practically any activity between two people, desirable or undesirable, because the human population collapsed to practically nothing in the last Ice Age.

Symmetry2• 8 years ago

You could say the same thing about ancestors who are murderers, as a reductio ad absurdum. Obviously just because our forebears did something doesn't mean that that is good.

sorokod• 8 years ago

Societies redefine norms all the time, this is normal.

m1el• 8 years ago

So he quits because of a "relationship", but not because of insider trading?

http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-share...

qeternity• 8 years ago

The optics are unfortunate but that's not what insider trading is.

gm-conspiracy• 8 years ago

Man, Larry Ellison handles stuff like this way better.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech...

jl27185• 8 years ago

He’d get fried today. This article shows exactly why companies have fraternization rules. It is not to protect the employees. It is to protect the executives from extortion, and as such, the rules should punish the subordinates just as much as the managers.

ggg99902• 8 years ago

Board clearly wanted him out anyways. Probably because he let AMD catch up so much.

InTheArena4• 8 years ago

Intel is in serious trouble right now.They accidentally gaffed recently and stated that their goal was "to keep AMD from getting more then 10-20% of the server market" while they deal with a whole bunch of engineering and fab problems with their current generation of chips. They are also looking down the barrel of Apple abandoning Intel, and for the first time in two decades, unleashing a true X86 competitor to the marketplace.

All of these are good reasons the board might want him gone.

My only other point is that even on Hacker News, everyone assumes it's a female subordinate (count the "she's" in this thread). Not that I have any inside knowledge, but it tells you something in how this policy is interpreted.

stamps2• 8 years ago

Why do you think Apple would develop an x86 chip over other architectures?

KSS42• 8 years ago

I read that as a competitor to x86.

krotton• 8 years ago

Given knowledge that the CEO is a male, assuming the relationship is with a female is simply based on statistics.

drb91• 8 years ago

Why assume at all?

lang_agnostic• 8 years ago

I assumed it was a man because of another gender bias: I don't know many women working at Intel so statistically its likely to be a man

ansible7• 8 years ago

Intel is in serious trouble right now.

The whole semiconductor industry is in trouble right now, though few seem to feel the weight of the issue.

We are looking at just a couple process nodes at best before we reach the end of the road for silicon lithography. Sure, there will be further tweaks on existing techniques which will squeeze out small improvements in power, performance and density.

But long gone are the days when we saw steady improvements in circuit density and simultaneously speed and simultaneously cost.

When this knowledge finally sinks in with the investment community, it will call into question the valuation of the entire computer industry. We're already seeing that in the desktop space. I could replace my 6-year old Intel i7-3770 desktop with 32GB of RAM, but what's out there that's significantly better at a reasonable cost? Well, a used Xeon workstation maybe, but that's about it.

That should be a big red flag to the investment community, but for reasons I don't understand, people don't seem to care yet.

wetpaws• 8 years ago

Intel has a lot of interesting stuff outside of CPU area, for example NVM

mastax• 8 years ago

I don't disagree with the wider point but

I could replace my 6-year old Intel i7-3770 desktop with 32GB of RAM, but what's out there that's significantly better at a reasonable cost?

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 for $200. ~10% faster single core and you get 8C/16T. DDR4 RAM is quite expensive, though.

(closest available benchmarks, 1700 is about 3% slower than 2700) [0]: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2111 [1]: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/551

admg• 8 years ago

I too have a i7-3770 and it runs fantastic. I've only just realised that it is actually 6 years old, theres just not the incentive to upgrade that there once was.

coryfklein3• 8 years ago

Intel i7-3770 Passmark Score (~6yrs old, was ~$320): 9300 [1]

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Passmark Score (<1yr old, ~$290): 15382 [2]

That's a 65% improvement in benchmark performance. So not the "doubling" trend I was used to growing up, but not insignificant.

[1] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3770+...

[2] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+2700&id...

gascan• 8 years ago

We may discover the stagnant generation-to-generation performance uplift over the past ~10 years was mostly due to lack of competition in the market.

maccio922• 8 years ago

Have you looked at the price and performance for AMD's threadripper and epyc series? I agree that we're nearing the end of shrinking process nodes, but their architecture is incredibly innovative

viewtransform• 8 years ago

That is true for general purpose computing. However, AMD has been diversifying away from client (laptops, desktops). There is a large and growing market for semi-custom designs: game consoles, CPU+GPU cloud computing, DaaS virtualization, embedded systems. Since these are markets with large companies competing against each other there will be continual demand for incremental power and performance improvements that an individual consumer may not care about. A company that can rapidly mix and match IP to customer needs will have an advantage.

lainga• 8 years ago

Hold on, now. You can't assume Brian identifies as a man.

bitL5• 8 years ago

So so so stupid... I hope the next gen of managers would completely abstain from any kind of romantic relationships with fellow employees given what is happening now. Their inability to think clearly and exert self-control damages companies way too much, even if they are seduced by persons seeking their own profit or being set-up by their frenemies knowing their weaknesses.

forgottenpass• 8 years ago

Telling people not to form personal relationships among the group that they spend most of their waking life with has a long history of failure.

That doesn't mean not to say it, but don't be surprised when it happens anyway. Sometimes people don't make the "rational" decision, or don't value their job enough to put the workplace's priorities above their own.

bitL5• 8 years ago

It's super risky. There is so much power play around, some execs are sex-starved, used by their subordinates or peers that want a promotion or using their subordinates ("or else") etc. Just way too many problems - they should prescribe mandatory self-restraint training or take them twice a year to some party island to steam off. Or form alliances with neighboring companies and encourage dating between them or whatever. Some HR can figure it out surely, so there is at least some benefit for having them instead of just containing damage all the time.

fuscy• 8 years ago

Intel had a pretty rough year with discovered exploits, poor PR and serious production issues for their tech.

How to discreetly solve the above issues? Have the CEO resign due to a reason that is not related in any way to his capacity of being a CEO. Put new CEO in the driver's position and have the board tell him where to go.

Usually CEOs have a nice package, even with a resignation, with some stocks and goodies so most likely everyone won in this case.

partycoder• 8 years ago

At Microsoft, the Chairman and CEO Bill Gates married the project manager for Microsoft Bob and Encarta, Melinda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob

outside12342• 8 years ago

Microsoft does not and did not have any policy like this.

That said, if the other party gets pissed at the end of the relationship and complains, you are gone.

DoofusOfDeath• 8 years ago

It's probably a good rule of thumb for a person in authority to assume anyone under him%her

sergiotapia• 8 years ago

Another, let's say "interesting" CEO resignation. So many in such a short timespan. I wonder why this is happening all of a sudden.

mathattack6• 8 years ago

It was stupid of him to do. The executive suite of large companies is very Game of Thrones. Why leave a knife around for someone to stab you in the back? Of course people knew. And then they were “shocked!!” to formally find out.

This is a serious thing. What if you knew about the relationship, and the other person was promoted over you?

I worked at a place where 2 colleagues had an open/secret relationship. One was senior but there wasn’t a reporting relationship so everyone looked the other way. When the senior exec weighed in on the junior’s promotion, he lost all credibility in the organization.

If the CEO does this, they lose the entire organization.

I guess he can always go to Oracle.

manquer2• 8 years ago

Knowing or suspecting may not be same as able to prove it. It might still ruin the career if your allegation go nowhere and board does not act.

mathattack6• 8 years ago

Yes. It’s a knife that is very dangerous to pick up. That’s why an item from long ago can linger. (I have no non-public information in this case)

godelmachine• 8 years ago

> I guess he can always go to Oracle

Why would a CEO of a microprocessor company be accepted at Oracle?

X-Istence• 8 years ago

Mark Hurd, current CEO of Oracle, also had a similar incident while at HP.

crunchlibrarian• 8 years ago

Oracle has a reputation for being the place you go after a scandal that precludes you from employment at most tech companies.

Kinda like the Oakland Raiders. Sorry Oakland fans.

dv_dt• 8 years ago

Bill Gates got away with it... but then maybe having a lot of ownership in the company protected him. Well that and he married Melinda.

balls187• 8 years ago

At that time, did Microsoft have an anti-fraternization policy?

Did he conceal his relationship with his future wife?

Unsure there is enough information to suggest Bill Gates "got away" with anything.

fjsolwmv3• 8 years ago

Other famous founders too. Owning a huge chunk of stock is good insurance against political squabbling.

yohann305• 8 years ago

Maybe he was forced to marry Melinda if he wanted to keep his position!

ps: i'm joking but who knows!

rglover2• 8 years ago

Sure, there's a policy, but who cares? People need to quit meddling in the affairs of others.

If a relationship is consensual what's the issue? If we're spending a significant part of our waking hours at work, it should be a baked in assumption that at some point, some coworkers are going to end up in a romantic relationship together. Hell, the majority of my significant romantic relationships started out as consensual workplace flirting.

It should only ever be an issue when that relationship causes trouble for the business.

gkoberger• 8 years ago

There's a few reasons. Don't forget, it wasn't just two equal coworkers: it was the most powerful man in the company.

First, he agreed – it was in his contract he couldn't do it.

Second, oftentimes it's hard to tell how consensual it is when there's a large imbalance of power. Was it completely consensual? Maybe. But companies have a no-tolerance policy because it's hard to tell, and you don't want managers going around making subordinates uncomfortable, or employees taking advantage of managers.

Third, he now has an explicit bias toward a single employee.

He doesn't deserve to be blacklisted and grouped in with sexual harassers, however he did violate his contract and brought his fate at Intel upon himself.

dkrich• 8 years ago

I thought it was reported that the actual affair occurred long ago well before he was the CEO but is only coming to light now.

This seems to be a way to oust him without having to admit that he wasn't doing a good job as CEO.

klodolph2• 8 years ago

I’ve seen these relationships cause major problems. Bob had a relationship with Alice, and now couldn’t fire her because it would look like quid pro quo (not getting into details here). Alice was the worst manager I have ever worked for, and many of her direct reports were quitting without notice (including me).

Even though what happened between Alice and Bob was consensual, it made it impossible for Bob to do his job. Alice and Bob were both fired.

You can’t effectively distinguish between a “good relationship” and a “bad relationship” so a blanket rule makes the most sense. The issue is not necessarily about whether the relationship itself is ethical, but how it appears to observers and if it affects the organization.

kanox6• 8 years ago

Bob had a relationship with Alice, and now couldn’t fire her because it would look like quid pro quo. Alice was the worst manager I have ever worked for

This seems like a problem caused by relationship policy and optics rather than the relationship itself. Doesn't Bob have a manager that can get involved to explicitly get rid of Alice?

rglover2• 8 years ago

Blanket rules completely ignore human behavior, though. If two people want to sleep with each other, nature doesn't really care much about your rulebook (or outside opinions, which don't matter if leadership is keeping office drama in check).

It's almost a virtual certainty that at some point in time, rules be damned, employees will hook up.

jl27185• 8 years ago

If it’s a company rule not to fraternize, punishment should go both ways.

yuhong• 8 years ago

This reminds me if Eric Schmidt left Google because of this debacle: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-...

mathattack6• 8 years ago

At a prior (Fortune 500) company the head of HR got sacked for having sex with his secretary in his office the weekend. (Security walked in on them) Poor judgment.

coredog64• 8 years ago

Phil Condit lost his CEO job at Boeing for the same reason. It was a mess -- his wife kicked him out (he was living in a hotel), Boeing fired him, and then his secretary sued him for sexual harassment.

mathattack6• 8 years ago

It’s very strange. Hard to judge because I’m not in their shoes, but if you must cheat, do you have to do it with a subordinate? Is it a power thing?

It looks like another corruption scandal got Condit, no?

nodesocket• 8 years ago

I'm I the only one who finds it appalling that the NY Times mentions #metoo and Harvey Weinstein as if to insinuate his consenting relationship was anything like what Weinstein did.

Honestly, I get why these policies exist, but sometimes it feels heavy handed to fire somebody for having a consenting relationship at work. After all, when you work long and hard hours often times coworkers are the people you get to know best and your inner circle.

typon• 8 years ago

There is a reason why even consensual relationships aren't allowed between workers in the same management chain at Intel. If you are in a relationship where you have power over the other person's livelihood, it can create a dynamic that can be coercive and predatory. I think it makes sense for them to mention the #MeToo movement in regards to this situation.

Secondly, BK is married and presumably this was a hidden affair, which adds another layer of complexity to this situation.

godzillabrennus• 8 years ago

The linkage between a rapist and consensual sex in the article kind of undermines the movement IMHO.

The unfortunate fact about a consensual workplace romance is that if they go sour it can destroy company culture and moral.

DoreenMichele2• 8 years ago

The problem is that if you are the CEO, you don't have any "coworkers." You are in charge of everyone. No one else there is your peer.

The military has a policy that treats an affair between an officer and the spouse of someone in their unit as non-consensual. It is treated basically like statutory rape. What the spouse says is irrelevant because you can't eliminate the possibility they are basically being blackmailed into claiming it was consenting.

If you have enough direct power over someone, you can't really determine if it was mutually consenting. I think this is a root cause of a lot of the he said/she said stuff where men are all astonished that they are being accused of anything when they felt it was consenting.

In some cases, I have some sympathy for the guy who may well have not really fully understood the intimidation factor in the situation. In other cases, they clearly are happy to use their power to bully others into getting their way and, no, I'm not sympathetic to their bullshit claims.

mmt2• 8 years ago

In some cases, I have some sympathy for the guy who may well have not really fully understood the intimidation factor in the situation. In other cases, they clearly are happy to use their power to bully others into getting their way and, no, I'm not sympathetic to their bullshit claims.

How would a neutral third-party observer legitimately be able to tell the difference (assuming the latter is a sociopath or just a really good actor pretending to be the former)?

To me, that seems to be the real benefit to the strictness of some of these rules. It removes an avenue of the unintended intimidation that you mention.

I do think it helps to discuss it and call out these issues so that people understand that they're not just arbitrary or some kind of over-reaction or extreme bureacracy.

rm_-rf_slash• 8 years ago

One could make a case that an employee in a relationship with a senior manager puts them in a position where they could receive preferential treatment, while the employee’s peers may not, even if they are more skilled/experienced/credentialed/etc.

Given that the other employees did not seek out or allow relationships with managers, their relative disadvantage can be seen as a sort of inverse sexual harassment, as they may see themselves having to put themselves in a sexual situation for the sake of career advancement, even if it’s not explicitly stated by anyone in higher management.

I think that in this case #metoo applies, since the subject is a matter of sexuality and power imbalances, although the content is far, far removed from the Weinstein scandal.

alottafunchata• 8 years ago

Let the man live!

balozi• 8 years ago

OK: Shipping billions of bug-ridden chips NOT OK: Dipping your pen in the company ink

deagle50• 8 years ago

I'm curious why the board used this old infraction as the justification. As if being allowed to use the standard "leaving to spend more time with family" story would be getting off too easy... Or maybe something something vague would arouse more suspicion? I suppose there is value in an acute, yet unrelated to performance story.

heisenbit• 8 years ago

And this has nothing to do with the troubled 10nm process...

joveian• 8 years ago

The Oregonian has a better article than any I've seen posted here so far:

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/06/intel_...

arcaster• 8 years ago

Jesus, why would you throw that kind of power and money away for that...

Regardless of your gender, orientation... whatever... keep it in your pants regarding the workplace!

nortiero• 8 years ago

The other employee has been fired, too?

Intel CEO resigns after relationship with employee

Related Stories