Intel CEO Brian Krzanich resigns in wake of workplace relationship

[Tabbykatze]

I think you're missing the point of what ik9000 and I are getting at. You are technically right in everything you are saying but we believe that this is being used as a scapegoat.

He absolutely should be fired for breaking company policy and i don't give a damn that he was porking someone or embezzling, it's company policy.

However, i am erring on the side of that this is a convenient reason for him to walk out without headlines being negative about the company.

Don't misjudge my suspicions with exonerating him, far from it.

[Ttaskmaster]

However, i am erring on the side of that this is a convenient reason for him to walk out without headlines being negative about the company.

Oh quite probably, in the same way Billy Clinton's affair was publicised when loads of previous POTUSes (POTUII? POTUEA? POTUSI? Ah, no, it'll be POTUUM) have had successfully concealed concubinal communions... It's because the Gub'mint wanted some war and needed Billy out the way.

But at the same time they could still have him leave for other reasons, that don't paint him as the bad guy to blame, and still not reflect negatively on the company either. In fact, those might even attract a degree of sympathy - Heroic CEO struggled on despite health concerns....
It's not like every detail of his life is widely reported, either - He's not Brangelina Beckham, or anything. Most people likely don't even know who he is.

No, I suspect there's a reason they're actively letting him look bad in all this.

[Tabbykatze]

No, I suspect there's a reason they're actively letting him look bad in all this.

But you're just not getting my point, he doesn't look bad. Sure he broke company policy but what he did would barely register as a footnote on the "why should Brian not be our CEO?".

If they wanted to crucify him, the board would vote in favour of his dismissal as he has stagnated Intel and is no longer fit for for rule.

I mean come on, "broke policy by having a consensual relationship with another employee" or "Brian is pushed out because he is not suitable for Intels future". No, they let him go in such a way he can't turn around and bite the company back. Or he wanted to leave and they needed an excuse that wouldn't affect share price much. 2% is barely a blip.

Stop, hands off the keyboard and think about it for a second.

Edit: i really don't think that a president of the united states is comparable to Intels CEO on matters like this.

[Ttaskmaster]

But you're just not getting my point, he doesn't look bad.

What he did is not desperately bad, but it getting reported as having a 'wake' and being in 'violation' of company policy after he was 'investigated'... The language newspapers use is enough to paint him in quite a bad light if they so choose.

If they wanted to crucify him, the board would vote in favour of his dismissal as he has stagnated Intel and is no longer fit for for rule.

If the board has to vote him out, that smacks of internal troubles and again the company would look bad, in the same way it looks bad when a Captain is relieved of command.
If he walks out of his own volition, that's different...

No, they let him go in such a way he can't turn around and bite the company back.

I don't think it's him they're worried about. Apparently Intel were informed about the relationship, as in either they themselves didn't know or someone outside the company knew and they were now forced to address it. They had to drop him, so other people couldn't use it against them.

Or he wanted to leave and they needed an excuse that wouldn't affect share price much. 2% is barely a blip.

Again, for that they'd have been better citing reasons that attract sympathy. Nothing wrong with someone simply wanting to move on, and any number of perfectly good, clean, wholesome reasons for it.

Edit: i really don't think that a president of the united states is comparable to Intels CEO on matters like this.

A cover up is a cover up... The mechanics are no different.

[Tabbykatze]

I honestly don't get if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. At first i think you were making out i was ignoring the original problem of violation of policy but now i dont know where you're coming from or what point you're trying to make.

I'll leave it on that they could have used more sympathetic reasons but then people would ask more questions. If he is pushed out due to violation of a (realistically) minor policy, there is no wiggle or room for alternative questioning.

[Ttaskmaster]

I honestly don't get if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Both... and neither....

At first i think you were making out i was ignoring the original problem of violation of policy

Well, you are, at least in part.
Who is stepping down, why is he stepping down, why is he stepping down and why is he stepping down instead of being fired?
If they just wanted him out, I'm sure they're more than capable of it. Our own CEO was thus-booted.

but now i dont know where you're coming from or what point you're trying to make.

If they are making him a scapegoat, they're doing a serious bass-ackwards job... They're toeing something under the rug, while staring wide-eyed and swearing, "there's nothing suspicious here, honest Gov...".

I'll leave it on that they could have used more sympathetic reasons but then people would ask more questions. If he is pushed out due to violation of a (realistically) minor policy, there is no wiggle or room for alternative questioning.

I argue the complete opposite, actually...

Torrid affairs and violation of company policy that went on right under Intel's nose... just makes them look like blind idiots with no idea what's happening until someone from outside points it out. The corruption implications alone are enough to damage confidence in the company, and if that's the sort of thing that goes on in their place, what else are they falling foul of?
Cheating on chip tests, bribing safety inspectors? Who knows...... I can think up a hundred more questions.
This CEO - If the worst they can get him on is company policy over romance, that sounds a bit like nabbing violent gangsters for tax evasion. He must have done something far worse than this.... Let's look closer.

But oh, the head bloke is getting old and has some health issues? No problem, mate - You go home, take it easy. Enjoy an early retirement. Your pension is covered, your family miss you, Bobby Swan will take care of the rest - No worries, no questions.

[Tabbykatze]

Ducking out right as Intel is get roasted over coals due to anything other than primarily internal politics will be a media death trap.

It's obvious we are virtually the opposite opinion. I don't agree with your opinion because i believe a company policy violation is an excellent non-news method of getting someone fired. No one gives a damn because it was consensual and leaves the ability to probe into whether its because of other problems firmly in the realms of forum conjecture.

And presidential frolicking is a world news front page worthy thing. A CEO of a silicon giant is firmly only of interest to tech heads and investors. You're technically right but fundamentally wrong.

[ETR316]

I call shenanigans.

Intel possibly got wind of an incoming investigation in regards to him selling a large quantity of Intel shares prior to Spectre / Meltdown bugs going public. Who knows, maybe it was just all about him shagging someone he works with. Probably his secretary, isn't that how it works? Long days and nights together etc etc.

I heard on another website that the person he had or still may have relations with works for another chip maker, another words, they are an EX Intel employee.

[jimborae]

No.
He's stepping down because any manager in any relationship with an employee is against company policy. Period.
We have the exact same thing.

...

Are you saying that true across the board, if so i'd disagree? I work for a very large multi national and we have some policies around this & disclosure to HR & senior manager but it's certainly not forbidden. Period. Christ if they did this, and at previous companies I've worked for, they'd have to fire half the company including the CEO!

What's more usual is if you work in the same team/dept. as the person/underling with whom you are having the relationship with, then one of you would be moved to a different team/dept.

[Ttaskmaster]

Ducking out right as Intel is get roasted over coals due to anything other than primarily internal politics will be a media death trap.

How so?
Again, I'd say the opposite - They're trying to pretend it's not about the roasting and bleating something brief about internal politics, while then following it immediately with a 'completely unrelated' lecture on company performance figures - That makes the connection blindingly obvious and even a child could lie more convincingly... Unless they're not actually trying to hide anything, they're doing a really really REALLY bad job of trying to hide it!!

I don't agree with your opinion because i believe a company policy violation is an excellent non-news method of getting someone fired.

And yet here we are, talking about this non-news as if it were extremely important news... That, the fact that he's voluntarily stepping down rather than being fired, the generally positive comments about his contributions and the honesty requirement of Intel employees, and the random witter about performance figures.... The company doth protest too much, methinks. If this is a coverup, surely they can think of better pretexts?

No one gives a damn because it was consensual and leaves the ability to probe into whether its because of other problems firmly in the realms of forum conjecture.

The fact that it leaves anything open for conjecture is what turns more attention to it, which is exactly what they're not supposed to be doing.

And presidential frolicking is a world news front page worthy thing. A CEO of a silicon giant is firmly only of interest to tech heads and investors. You're technically right but fundamentally wrong.

Until something like this happens and suddenly everyone is looking at Intel. It only takes a slow news day...

Are you saying that true across the board

Not at all. It depends entirely on the specific policies of each individual company.
Generally (as in almost entirely across the board) though it is considered very bad form for a superior to be in a relationship with a subordinate... and in a CEO's case, every employee is subordinate to them.
About the only exception would be if the relationship is current and/or was established prior to the senior person taking the role... such as being married to the person before they got the job, as is the case with a few of our couples.
But even then, the argument for conflict of interest may still be or become a factor in such issues...

I work for a very large multi national and we have some policies around this & disclosure to HR & senior manager but it's certainly not forbidden.

Yep, some places do have disclosure policies, too. Again, depends on the company. Following several dismissals over such affairs (literally, in some cases) about 12 years ago, our Heads decided to simply outlaw all such fraternisations. Other companies are a bit more relaxed about it.

[jimborae]

You've attributed a lot of quotes to me that aren't mine

[Ttaskmaster]

You've attributed a lot of quotes to me that aren't mine

Just getting in some practice for when I take over the CEOwnership of some large technology corporation...