
Intel CEO resigns after relationship with employee - trequartista
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/technology/intel-ceo-resigns-consensual-relationship.html
======
ckastner
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.

~~~
bitL
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?

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

~~~
sireat
I read it as 10nm and thought how appropriate :)

------
InTheArena
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.

~~~
ansible
> _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.

~~~
mastax
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](https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2111)
[1]:
[https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/551](https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/551)

~~~
ansible
The Ryzen is better, as another commenter pointed out with the passmark
scores. Is it better enough for me to actually go out and buy it?

The system the i7-3770 replaced was a 4 year old dual-core, with (IIRC) just
1GB of RAM. The i7 was a dramatic improvement, but I don't feel that the Ryzen
would be a dramatic improvement.

And that's the issue. It is not just me being a little unimpressed with
current offerings, or me just being cheap. The issue is that there is even a
valid discussion about replacing a 6 year old desktop. In the past, in the
1990's and 2000's, it wasn't a question. You had to upgrade because you wanted
to run Windows XP decently, for example.

~~~
dnautics
do keep in mind though there is the perspective that we're heading back into
the 70s phase where the end user owns dumb terminals and connect into semi-
centralized servers. The place where performance is going to be killer is in
the server space, which clearly amd is starting to get the jump on intel
again, and you are (presumably, don't know what you do as a dev) not the
target market. Heck, even if you're a hyperscaler, you might not be the target
market, since it might be the likes of AWS.

~~~
ansible
Growth in demand for compute will continue to drive sales for the foreseeable
future.

In the "old days", there was also demand from upgrades, but we're seeing that
tapering off. And _that_ should be a big concern for the investors.

------
mathattack
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.

~~~
godelmachine
>> I guess he can always go to Oracle

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

~~~
crunchlibrarian
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.

~~~
compsciphd
now it makes sense why the raiders play within sight of where the warriors
play.

------
sbinthree
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?

~~~
marcus_holmes
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? ;)

~~~
tfha
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.

~~~
rurban
Exactly. There are many successful cases of teachers, where their own kids are
sitting in their classes.

According to the CEO logic this should not be allowed and would not work. It
does. Are teachers better managers than CEO's? Apparently. But then they
should get paid accordingly.

------
nodesocket
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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
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.

~~~
mmt
> 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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I'm not pretending to be judge and jury, just a human being who has opinions
when I read or hear about things. Not all situations are as cut and dried as
"He was the CEO, she was an underling and there was some rule against it."

Also, I wasn't solely thinking of cases where I am a third party observer.

I'm a woman. I've found myself at times the subject of male interest where
there was a power imbalance. Some men are assholes and I have no sympathy for
their shit. In other cases, it's more complicated than that.

And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are
criticizing my remark.

~~~
mmt
> And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you
> are criticizing my remark.

I wish you had followed the guidelines and taken the most charitable reading
of what I said.

I, too, defended the existence of the rules. Not only was I not criticizing
your remark, but I was supporting the existence of the remark, as it's a form
of discussion that helps raise awareness of the necessity of the rules.

------
dokein
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."

~~~
amyjess
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.

~~~
ghein
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.

~~~
lagadu
That is mind-boggingly ridiculous: the concept that a company would have any
sort of opinion on who I have sex with.

US work culture sometimes feels so incredibly alien when seen from the
outside.

~~~
LeftTurnSignal
It's alien when you're on the inside too.

------
rglover
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.

~~~
klodolph
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.

~~~
kanox
> 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?

~~~
klodolph
> This seems like a problem caused by relationship policy and optics rather
> than the relationship itself.

Yes, that's what I mean when I said, "The issue is not necessarily about
whether the relationship itself is ethical, but how it appears to observers
and if it affects the organization."

If you need to get Bob's manager, Carol, involved to manage Alice when things
go poorly, it means that you should have had Carol managing Alice from the
beginning. This is the only way I've ever seen it work well. Alice is under
Bob in the org chart but all of her performance reviews are done by Carol, and
Carol signs Alice's pay sheets, et cetera. I've seen this particular case
happen a few times where Alice is Bob's daughter or where Alice and Bob were
married before they came to the organization.

This is not possible when Bob is the CEO.

------
gm-conspiracy
Man, Larry Ellison handles stuff like this way better.

[https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-
Tech...](https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech-Soap-
Opera-Ellison-2859701.php)

~~~
jl2718
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.

------
m1el
So he quits because of a "relationship", but not because of insider trading?

[http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-
share...](http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-
company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1)

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

------
__aeneas
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-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/21/intel-ceo-brian-
krzanich-to-step-down-bob-swan-to-step-in-as-interim-ceo.html)

------
partycoder
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob)

~~~
outside1234
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.

------
dv_dt
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
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.

------
fuscy
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.

------
ggg9990
Board clearly wanted him out anyways. Probably because he let AMD catch up so
much.

------
code4tee
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
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.

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

~~~
Bartweiss
Honestly, I'm not entirely clear why people are saying this was him being
forced out. Unless a CEO decides to fight the board, it's easy enough to just
say "hey, you're done so pick a graceful reason to resign". There are plenty
of "time with the family" resignations out there with no need to dig up dirt.

------
outside1234
So my question is: Was the female employee also fired? If not, why not?

~~~
gdulli
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.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>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.

~~~
gdulli
Well that's a very limited and simplistic best case scenario for the
subordinate, but you'd really have to go out of your way to fail to see the
other obvious possible outcomes that range from problematic to criminal.

~~~
jl2718
His reply pointed out a specific abuse of power that negatively affects the
company. You failed to do so in your reply.

And seriously, name one possible motivation other than extortion for starting
a relationship with a married executive.

And for the married executive, name one possible motivation other than sexual
interest for a relationship with a subordinate.

------
deagle50
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.

------
joveian
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_...](https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/06/intel_ceo_brian_krzanich_resig.html)

------
jl2718
If it’s a company rule not to fraternize, punishment should go both ways.

------
mathattack
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
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.

~~~
mathattack
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?

------
arcaster
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!

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

------
bitL
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
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.

~~~
bitL
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.

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

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

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

------
nortiero
The other employee has been fired, too?

------
alottafunchata
Let the man live!

------
yuhong
This reminds me if Eric Schmidt left Google because of this debacle:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-
schmidt-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-
google-new-america.html)

------
poster123
What is the Intel non-fraternization policy? What romantic relationships are
banned?

~~~
exelius
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.

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

~~~
exelius
Eh, I would say it invites just as much blackmail as it deters. Those policies
add more negative consequences to the relationship being exposed — if there’s
a chance you could lose your job because of a non-fraternization policy,
you’ll be _more_ motivated to pay the blackmail and keep everything under
wraps.

------
lord_ring_11
Why is this even worth discussing?

~~~
ggg9990
Because the worlds most important tech company and the one on which all others
are based just fired its CEO.

~~~
zepto
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.

------
YorkshireSeason
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?

~~~
inscionent
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?

~~~
YorkshireSeason
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.

~~~
lovich
I mean, I get what you're saying but there have been plenty of people in
relationships that would be criminally abusive who didn't have a problem with
the relationship.

Just because someone thought the situation was fine doesn't mean that it was
good for society, and unless we become a libertarian paradise those questions
are going to be asked when the situation has the heuristics that point to
there being a problem

~~~
jl2718
I think the point is that it limits the motivations for somebody to seek a
position of power. Hopefully to ones that are good for the company.

It’s hard to find a trustworthy executive. That’s probably the #1 trait for
effectiveness. Not saying that we do a good job of finding them.

