Brian Krzanich resigns as intel ceo

[Qwertilot]

The register article on this (linked above) says that, yes, mostly when this sort of thing comes up people admit it and they get reassigned etc.

If he had the relationship and didn’t admit to it at the time (with his being married you can believe this) then it came up, then you can see them having a very real problem with trusting him to run the company. You really don’t want a CEO who thinks they’re above following stated company policy.
(I know this is depressingly common as well!).

 

[Thunder 57]

Why o why do you guys buy this tripe?? The public story is a cover up. Have we already forgotten Spectre and Meltdown? Plus there are the other as-of-yet unreleased causes for concern. This was not about how someone made kissy faces in the executive washroom.

Umm, have you read the posts in this thread? Basically everyone agrees the official reason was not why he was forced out. The consensus is that this was a result of mismanagement (especially regarding 10nm) or the stock selling scandal.

 

[ehume]

Umm, have you read the posts in this thread? Basically everyone agrees the official reason was not why he was forced out. The consensus is that this was a result of mismanagement (especially regarding 10nm) or the stock selling scandal.

Yup. As much as I have weighed in to defend the policy, I too think he was forced out because of the 4y delay in pushing out 10nm.

 

[Anon_lawyer]

In a situation like this, we'll probably never know the real story. Nevertheless, I think we can draw a few fair inferences.

First, he absolutely violated the company policy. In a serious way. It is inconceivable that this happened without an investigation, run by outside counsel, that spoke to the woman who was involved in the relationship, him, and everyone else who might have known anything about it. If the board replaced the CEO without an outside investigation that covered all the bases, frankly the board needs to be replaced (whatever the truth about the CEO or anything else is).

Second, what the investigation found was troubling. Enough to justify firing someone. Maybe the woman felt it wasn't entirely consensual (though probably not, or Intel would have said something else). Maybe her coworkers felt she obtained unfair professional advantages from the relationship. Or maybe this came out some time ago, they were told to stop and they didn't.

Third, for the reasons well known to active participants on these forums, the board had lots of reasons to be troubled by his recent performance. There is a lot to criticize Intel about recently. This kind of issue is like anything else that's not an on-the-spot firing offence: are you a superstar that everyone wants to keep? They'll cut you some slack. Are you already on thin ice? You just fell through the ice.

Fourth, the board felt their hand was forced at least a little. This is an awkward situation that raises lots of questions (obviously, including all of the ones raised on this thread already). If they thought they could wait, they'd do a search and have a new full time CEO announced, not an interim CEO while they searched and made a definitive decision. That could raise its own questions, but this is a bit of a PR fiasco. No one asks for that unless they feel like it's their best option.

 

[formulav8]

They most likely used the affair excuse not only to hide their internal issues but to keep from giving him a golden parachute with the coveted "HR" seal etched in platinum.

He at least gets his "Hector Approved CEO" award.

 

[Hitman928]

In a situation like this, we'll probably never know the real story. Nevertheless, I think we can draw a few fair inferences.

First, he absolutely violated the company policy. In a serious way. It is inconceivable that this happened without an investigation, run by outside counsel, that spoke to the woman who was involved in the relationship, him, and everyone else who might have known anything about it. If the board replaced the CEO without an outside investigation that covered all the bases, frankly the board needs to be replaced (whatever the truth about the CEO or anything else is).

Second, what the investigation found was troubling. Enough to justify firing someone. Maybe the woman felt it wasn't entirely consensual (though probably not, or Intel would have said something else). Maybe her coworkers felt she obtained unfair professional advantages from the relationship. Or maybe this came out some time ago, they were told to stop and they didn't.

Third, for the reasons well known to active participants on these forums, the board had lots of reasons to be troubled by his recent performance. There is a lot to criticize Intel about recently. This kind of issue is like anything else that's not an on-the-spot firing offence: are you a superstar that everyone wants to keep? They'll cut you some slack. Are you already on thin ice? You just fell through the ice.

Fourth, the board felt their hand was forced at least a little. This is an awkward situation that raises lots of questions (obviously, including all of the ones raised on this thread already). If they thought they could wait, they'd do a search and have a new full time CEO announced, not an interim CEO while they searched and made a definitive decision. That could raise its own questions, but this is a bit of a PR fiasco. No one asks for that unless they feel like it's their best option.

According to businessinsider (who sources WSJ), the intel company policy about managers and staff having relationships started in 2011, but the affair started around 2008 and ended some time before he became CEO in 2013. Krzanich and the women reportedly didn't work closely together. Intel conducted an internal investigation as well as hired outside counsel for an investigation as well. Reportedly intel's general counsel first heard about the relationship on June 14th when an employee reported it to them after hearing about the affair from a colleague.

 

[PeterScott]

Reportedly intel's general counsel first heard about the relationship on June 14th when an employee reported it to them after hearing about the affair from a colleague.

What kind of low life thinks it's their business to report old dirty laundry from people's personal lives, from at least 5 years ago?

 

[VirtualLarry]

What kind of low life thinks it's their business to report old dirty laundry from people's personal lives, from at least 5 years ago?

From what I understand, there is a constant attrition of employees at Intel, or any big company like it, such that the lowest 20% on their performance reviews get canned, or at least, written up first, and then canned if they don't improve.

In such a dog-eat-dog sort of employment environment, it really doesn't surprise me much.

 

[formulav8]

What kind of low life thinks it's their business to report old dirty laundry from people's personal lives,

I see it in a different light. People at Intel may have known what the code of ethics at Intel are supposed to be and said something. So it was a situation of the CEO who is at the highest level displaying one of the lowest standards for his employees to follow.

The man was married. The man committed adultery. So in even basic morals, it was considered a serious offense by most. But either way, fraternizing was against the code of ethics at Intel. He had relations with one of his employee's which was against Intel's code of conduct regarding CEO's (If not all of management).

The CEO represents the company on the highest level and BK failed to not only live up to the company ethics, but to his family's as well. So I could easily see that as a means for termination. (He could have already revealed to his family what he did before all of this).

But personally, I think he did not please the Board of Directors or at least fulfill their expectations. So his fraternizing was a trump card they held until they felt it was time for him to go and not have to give him a golden parachute.

So I believe he was fired for his CEO performance and was compelled to resign using a fraternizing offense as a whitewash over Intel's internal problems.

 

[PeterScott]

I see it in a different light. People at Intel may have known what the code of ethics at Intel are supposed to be and said something. So it was a situation of the CEO who is at the highest level displaying one of the lowest standards for his employees to follow.

The man was married. The man committed adultery. So in even basic morals, it was considered a serious offense by most. But either way, fraternizing was against the code of ethics at Intel. He had relations with one of his employee's which was against Intel's code of conduct regarding CEO's (If not all of management).

The CEO represents the company on the highest level and BK failed to not only live up to the company ethics, but to his family's as well. So I could easily see that as a means for termination. (He could have already revealed to his family what he did before all of this).

But personally, I think he did not please the Board of Directors or at least fulfill their expectations. So his fraternizing was a trump card they held until they felt it was time for him to go and not have to give him a golden parachute.

So I believe he was fired for his CEO performance and was compelled to resign using a fraternizing offense as a whitewash over Intel's internal problems.

So you think being a morals snitch is a good thing?

I really don't think adultery is anyone's business outside of the wife/husband and the third person coming between them.

 

[ondma]

So you think being a morals snitch is a good thing?

I really don't think adultery is anyone's business outside of the wife/husband and the third person coming between them.

Do you guys really not get it, or are you intentionally desperately clinging to a Neanderthal viewpoint? Adultery or not, it doesn't matter if the relationship is between a manager and someone under his influence.

 

[Ketchup]

So you think being a morals snitch is a good thing?

I really don't think adultery is anyone's business outside of the wife/husband and the third person coming between them.

The only thing I could see is her (or a snitch) going to the media with it if he wasn't canned. Overall reason would stay the same though - bad image for Intel.

 

[PeterScott]

Do you guys really not get it, or are you intentionally desperately clinging to a Neanderthal viewpoint? Adultery or not, it doesn't matter if the relationship is between a manager and someone under his influence.

Reportedly she was not. What's neanderthal about people having relationships with people they meet at work?

Not every relationship is an excuse to whine about abuse. None was reported in this case.

Morals police are beyond tedious.

 

[PeterScott]

The only thing I could see is her (or a snitch) going to the media with it if he wasn't canned. Overall reason would stay the same though - bad image for Intel.

That paints the snitch as even more a lowlife.

 

[moinmoin]

Reportedly intel's general counsel first heard about the relationship on June 14th when an employee reported it to them after hearing about the affair from a colleague.

So within a week it was a clear enough case to act on, have the CEO resign and send out a press release. That's unexpectedly efficient.

 

[NTMBK]

So you think being a morals snitch is a good thing?

I really don't think adultery is anyone's business outside of the wife/husband and the third person coming between them.

The problem isn't the fact that it's adultery. The problem is that he was sleeping with a subordinate and did not report it. Do you think he could be trusted to make fair and sound judgements about that person's career? Do you think he would not give that person preferential treatment over their colleagues? There's a whole quagmire of potential issues around this.

 

[teejee]

Why wasn't he offered a voluntary leave with "personal reasons" as reason? That is the normal way of handle this type of issue.
Telling the whole world about his adultery is a pretty tough punishment on top of getting fired.

 

[jpiniero]

Why wasn't he offered a voluntary leave with "personal reasons" as reason? That is the normal way of handle this type of issue.
Telling the whole world about his adultery is a pretty tough punishment on top of getting fired.

The stock would tank basically.

 

[PeterScott]

The problem isn't the fact that it's adultery. The problem is that he was sleeping with a subordinate and did not report it. Do you think he could be trusted to make fair and sound judgements about that person's career? Do you think he would not give that person preferential treatment over their colleagues? There's a whole quagmire of potential issues around this.

I am not questioning Intels anti-fraternization rules, I am merely pointing out that ratting out someones affair that ended more than 5 years ago is the action of a low life.

 

[PingSpike]

I am not questioning Intels anti-fraternization rules, I am merely pointing out that ratting out someones affair that ended more than 5 years ago is the action of a low life.

A low life action that will probably be handsomely rewarded by the board that was desperately looking to the dagger they were just handed.

 

[ehume]

So you think being a morals snitch is a good thing?

As someone who works in jails, I have to challenge the whole 'snitch' mentality. Yes, it fashionable to say "snitches get snitches." But that is heading over to a criminal mentality. Maybe there was someone who informed (an 'informant.' Gad!), but maybe the 'informant' was invented to answer the "Why now?" question. We don't know.

But sympathizing with rule-breakers and rule-breaking, that should be beyond the pale. Remember how Jean-Luc Picard handled on-the-job romance.

 

[Malogeek]

Perfect time for Intel to buy Nvidia and appoint JHH as CEO.

He'd be a good fit for Intel. Similar morale framework for running the company.

 

[PeterScott]

As someone who works in jails, I have to challenge the whole 'snitch' mentality. Yes, it fashionable to say "snitches get snitches." But that is heading over to a criminal mentality. Maybe there was someone who informed (an 'informant.' Gad!), but maybe the 'informant' was invented to answer the "Why now?" question. We don't know.

But sympathizing with rule-breakers and rule-breaking, that should be beyond the pale. Remember how Jean-Luc Picard handled on-the-job romance.

If this were about serious offences, I might agree, but when people appoint themselves as part of the morals police and report old gossip, then they are lowlifes IMO.

 

[maddie]

As someone who works in jails, I have to challenge the whole 'snitch' mentality. Yes, it fashionable to say "snitches get snitches." But that is heading over to a criminal mentality. Maybe there was someone who informed (an 'informant.' Gad!), but maybe the 'informant' was invented to answer the "Why now?" question. We don't know.

But sympathizing with rule-breakers and rule-breaking, that should be beyond the pale. Remember how Jean-Luc Picard handled on-the-job romance.

Rule-breakers and rule-breaking. The problem with this being criticized, rule-breaking I mean, is that in the modern world, rules are somehow seen to be absolutes from on high and not structures put in place by segments of the society we live in. They are all not some magical all wonderful creation.

Some rules are truly horrible. How to handle that, is another question.

 

[frozentundra123456]

As someone who works in jails, I have to challenge the whole 'snitch' mentality. Yes, it fashionable to say "snitches get snitches." But that is heading over to a criminal mentality. Maybe there was someone who informed (an 'informant.' Gad!), but maybe the 'informant' was invented to answer the "Why now?" question. We don't know.

But sympathizing with rule-breakers and rule-breaking, that should be beyond the pale. Remember how Jean-Luc Picard handled on-the-job romance.

This thread has gotten beyond absurd with "good old boy" mentality. I cant believe the minimization of what is a serious breach of conduct rules. It doesnt matter whether the conduct was consensual, whether somebody "snitched", or how bad his performance has been as a CEO. It doesnt even matter when it happened, as long as he was in a position of influence over the person he was having the affair with. It *did* happen. Now I am not so naive to believe that all the 10nm problems were not a huge influence. But that still does not excuse his conduct or negate the rules against intimate relationships between a manager and a subordinate. And this is just my personal opinion, but I feel that the CEO of a major company should not be excused, but if anything, held to a higher standard (by the company AND HIMSELF) due to his position of leadership and public visibility.