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.
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.
Because they abided by it, including the spelled out consequences of violating it, even if it is the CEO.
C level execs can't chill with the employees. They might accidentally develop human feelings that might cause them to view their employees as people and not just cogs in the machine. Next thing you know, they might start treating them with compassion, and you know that's no good for the shareholders!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I did not get it. Was it female or male employee?
I looked up in the WIkipedia: Fraternization (from Latin frater, brother) is "turning people into brothers".
What "non-fraternization policy" may mean?
>> 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.
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.
Intel Inside
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.