Slashdot Mirror


Intel CEO Brian Krzanich Resigns Over Relationship With Employee (theverge.com)

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.

12 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. FTFT by jbmartin6 · · 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

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:FTFT by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hard to punish someone YOU HAVEN'T CAUGHT.

    2. Re:FTFT by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The person knew he was in violation and could have resigned at the time of the relationship, instead of nobly resigning after some one ratted him out.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    3. Re: FTFT by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  2. First rule of business ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re: First rule of business ... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Re:sure, guy by psycho12345 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they abided by it, including the spelled out consequences of violating it, even if it is the CEO.

  4. Re:Non fratzernization ? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, 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 really should.

  5. Refreshing by h8sg8s · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  6. Re:hope it was good by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He probably left with a nice severance "package" and can walk out, start his own company, get a teaching gig, move to the beach in Thailand, etc. Who has the last laugh? He's hardly impoverished.

  7. Alternative valid reason by FeelGood314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might be that this other person sat in meetings with him and it could be seen as an colluding to force an agenda. Or the other person might report to a manager that reports to Krzanich and this manager would then feel as if they are being watched or undermined by the relationship. There are other reasons than sexual misconduct to ban some relationships in a company.

  8. YES! by bussdriver · · Score: 4, 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.)