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.
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!
> 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.
Agreed. AMD is breathing down INTC's neck, particularly in servers. Board wants a different direction.
Well, he could just use it himself, e.g. if he at least wants to keep a rather clean image on paper, and maybe the biggest trouble isn't even public knowledge yet.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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? ;)
Not sure if he just got fired for a relationship or if there's something more.
But your remark about the "moralising" of US companies has also been my experience. I worked in a Europe-based office for a US-owned multinational company. Alcohol was strictly forbidden. (Needless to say, the fridge was filled regardless and late Friday afternoon, people would have a beer and fraternize.)
>No one would take issue if he carried a gun at work
You really don't think so? I'm no CEO but I imagine carrying a gun around would at least warrant some public criticism, particularly for a tech CEO in the San Francisco Bay Area.
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?
These are short questions that probably can't ever be fully answered and require books to be answered even semi-adequately. That said, a good answer probably has some element of the U.S.'s strange relationships with sexuality and Christianity, going back to the particular kinds of European settlers who showed up here. This is often referred to as "Puritanism," although the Puritans actually had a much more complicated and less prim experience than is commonly supposed with the slur "Puritanism."
At the same time, in the last several decades (maybe 50 or 60), there have been various strands of feminism; two particularly noticeable parts could be labeled as "sex positive" (Camille Paglia is a good person to read on the subject) and... I actually can't think of a good label for the other one. But the other one actually has quite a bit in common with the old-school and religiously motivated views of sexuality as dangerous and in need of extreme restraint or channeling into "appropriate" spaces. This one has quite a bit of currency, currently, and it has a lot of continuity with past aspects of U.S. culture.
Quoting the article: “An ongoing investigation by internal and external counsel has confirmed a violation of Intel’s non-fraternization policy, which applies to all managers.”
It's not just the specific act(s) but the fact that he knowingly broke policy, which raises the question of whether he decided other policies also didn't apply to him. CEOs have a lot of power and enormous compensation and, at least in theory, that's founded on their judgement.
"Why are US companies always so aggressive about moralising these issues?"
Not just in the US but almost everywhere people tend to extremize moral reactions to the point their judgement in a situation is being impaired. Generally morals are used to drive people actions away from cold rational reasoning, and they also make strong arguments during war time or elections.
Unrelated, but strong example: take a toy gun and a sex toy then ask 1000 people if they would let their children play with one or the other or both. Pretty sure all of them would say no to the sex toy in disgust (which would be my reply as well, just to be clear), but most wouldn't mind letting their kids play with the toy gun. That would be a pretty normal reaction, so no problem here, apparently.
But we can also describe a sex toy as a device to simulate the act of creating a life, and a toy gun as a device to simulate the act of taking away a life, so the question would be: why our morals which rightly prevent us from giving dildos to children don't prevent us from giving them toy guns as well?
Is it really acceptable for a manger to have sexual relations with direct reports in other countries? That seems so 1950s Mad Men era from an American perspective
Politics. People use whatever they can to take each other down at that level. Which is why they get paid so much. For their mindless ambition and to put up with each others mindless ambition.
Let’s say he promotes the subordinate over a few other candidates who all thought they were worthy? You’ve just killed the corporate culture and reputation for meritocracy.
It is pretty scandalous. If it ever became public, the board would look really bad, so even if they didn’t want to fire him they probably had little choice but to.
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.
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.
There is a reason why even consensual relationships aren't allowed between workers in the same management chain at Intel. If you are in a relationship where you have power over the other person's livelihood, it can create a dynamic that can be coercive and predatory. I think it makes sense for them to mention the #MeToo movement in regards to this situation.
Secondly, BK is married and presumably this was a hidden affair, which adds another layer of complexity to this situation.
One could make a case that an employee in a relationship with a senior manager puts them in a position where they could receive preferential treatment, while the employee’s peers may not, even if they are more skilled/experienced/credentialed/etc.
Given that the other employees did not seek out or allow relationships with managers, their relative disadvantage can be seen as a sort of inverse sexual harassment, as they may see themselves having to put themselves in a sexual situation for the sake of career advancement, even if it’s not explicitly stated by anyone in higher management.
I think that in this case #metoo applies, since the subject is a matter of sexuality and power imbalances, although the content is far, far removed from the Weinstein scandal.
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."
Among married people something like 50% of couples met their spouse at work. It's going to happen, it's best to have an open and above-board way of co-existing with fraternization rather than simply banning it, which is idiotic.
> 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."
I feel like the solution to this is to engineer society so people spend less time at work, not so that they are encouraged to move their personal lives into the workplace.
I don't get the rule either, but few things are worse for company morale than for employees to see the rules apply to everyone but the top brass, stupid rules or not.
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.
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.
There's a few reasons. Don't forget, it wasn't just two equal coworkers: it was the most powerful man in the company.
First, he agreed – it was in his contract he couldn't do it.
Second, oftentimes it's hard to tell how consensual it is when there's a large imbalance of power. Was it completely consensual? Maybe. But companies have a no-tolerance policy because it's hard to tell, and you don't want managers going around making subordinates uncomfortable, or employees taking advantage of managers.
Third, he now has an explicit bias toward a single employee.
He doesn't deserve to be blacklisted and grouped in with sexual harassers, however he did violate his contract and brought his fate at Intel upon himself.
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.
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.
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.
There's either a lot more to this particular story or the board wanted him gone for other reasons. cf. Mark Hurd. Anyone who believes the story as given should really think twice the next time someone offers to sell them a bridge. (I suppose ICOs are the appropriate item those days.)
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.
I think the superior->subordinate part of this is a much bigger offense than two equals breaking a no-dating policy. The situation leaves the manager and the company at risk of all kinds of harassment and abuse allegations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Most of us are probably have an ancestor that was born due to rape after tribe/army X beat tribe/army Y, so yeah, zero. Not sure what point you are trying to make, but it's probably not as clever as you hope it is.
You could say the same thing about ancestors who are murderers, as a reductio ad absurdum. Obviously just because our forebears did something doesn't mean that that is good.
> Does that say anything interesting about humans?
That we are an unusually genetically homogenous species. You could do the same thing with practically any activity between two people, desirable or undesirable, because the human population collapsed to practically nothing in the last Ice Age.
ckastner|7 years ago
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|7 years ago
Game of Thrones Season 80x86?
arcanus|7 years ago
Agreed. AMD is breathing down INTC's neck, particularly in servers. Board wants a different direction.
tw04|7 years ago
erikb|7 years ago
InTheArena|7 years ago
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|7 years ago
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.
krotton|7 years ago
lainga|7 years ago
stamps|7 years ago
mathattack|7 years ago
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.
manquer|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
godelmachine|7 years ago
Why would a CEO of a microprocessor company be accepted at Oracle?
sbinthree|7 years ago
marcus_holmes|7 years ago
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? ;)
unknown_apostle|7 years ago
But your remark about the "moralising" of US companies has also been my experience. I worked in a Europe-based office for a US-owned multinational company. Alcohol was strictly forbidden. (Needless to say, the fridge was filled regardless and late Friday afternoon, people would have a beer and fraternize.)
dooglius|7 years ago
You really don't think so? I'm no CEO but I imagine carrying a gun around would at least warrant some public criticism, particularly for a tech CEO in the San Francisco Bay Area.
jseliger|7 years ago
These are short questions that probably can't ever be fully answered and require books to be answered even semi-adequately. That said, a good answer probably has some element of the U.S.'s strange relationships with sexuality and Christianity, going back to the particular kinds of European settlers who showed up here. This is often referred to as "Puritanism," although the Puritans actually had a much more complicated and less prim experience than is commonly supposed with the slur "Puritanism."
At the same time, in the last several decades (maybe 50 or 60), there have been various strands of feminism; two particularly noticeable parts could be labeled as "sex positive" (Camille Paglia is a good person to read on the subject) and... I actually can't think of a good label for the other one. But the other one actually has quite a bit in common with the old-school and religiously motivated views of sexuality as dangerous and in need of extreme restraint or channeling into "appropriate" spaces. This one has quite a bit of currency, currently, and it has a lot of continuity with past aspects of U.S. culture.
acdha|7 years ago
It's not just the specific act(s) but the fact that he knowingly broke policy, which raises the question of whether he decided other policies also didn't apply to him. CEOs have a lot of power and enormous compensation and, at least in theory, that's founded on their judgement.
squarefoot|7 years ago
Not just in the US but almost everywhere people tend to extremize moral reactions to the point their judgement in a situation is being impaired. Generally morals are used to drive people actions away from cold rational reasoning, and they also make strong arguments during war time or elections.
Unrelated, but strong example: take a toy gun and a sex toy then ask 1000 people if they would let their children play with one or the other or both. Pretty sure all of them would say no to the sex toy in disgust (which would be my reply as well, just to be clear), but most wouldn't mind letting their kids play with the toy gun. That would be a pretty normal reaction, so no problem here, apparently. But we can also describe a sex toy as a device to simulate the act of creating a life, and a toy gun as a device to simulate the act of taking away a life, so the question would be: why our morals which rightly prevent us from giving dildos to children don't prevent us from giving them toy guns as well?
Gargoyle|7 years ago
frockington|7 years ago
catbatdat9034|7 years ago
hux_|7 years ago
mathattack|7 years ago
seanmcdirmid|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
InTheArena|7 years ago
jrs95|7 years ago
paulddraper|7 years ago
Or consider Mozilla's week-long CEO who years earlier donated $1000 to a popular ballot initiative supported by most California voters.
Be careful how you vote, citizen. Your livelihood depends on it.
randomguy23|7 years ago
whatsstolat|7 years ago
thrillgore|7 years ago
morogop|7 years ago
[deleted]
nodesocket|7 years ago
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|7 years ago
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.
typon|7 years ago
Secondly, BK is married and presumably this was a hidden affair, which adds another layer of complexity to this situation.
rm_-rf_slash|7 years ago
Given that the other employees did not seek out or allow relationships with managers, their relative disadvantage can be seen as a sort of inverse sexual harassment, as they may see themselves having to put themselves in a sexual situation for the sake of career advancement, even if it’s not explicitly stated by anyone in higher management.
I think that in this case #metoo applies, since the subject is a matter of sexuality and power imbalances, although the content is far, far removed from the Weinstein scandal.
godzillabrennus|7 years ago
The unfortunate fact about a consensual workplace romance is that if they go sour it can destroy company culture and moral.
dokein|7 years ago
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."
michaelt|7 years ago
If it's not, maybe he should have chosen a different job.
YorkshireSeason|7 years ago
jhayward|7 years ago
aljones|7 years ago
et2o|7 years ago
geofft|7 years ago
I feel like the solution to this is to engineer society so people spend less time at work, not so that they are encouraged to move their personal lives into the workplace.
JumpCrisscross|7 years ago
Few companies have such strict relationship policies.
kmfrk|7 years ago
rahimnathwani|7 years ago
If you're CEO, yeah that means you can't date anyone at work. But for anyone else it only eliminates some % of the dating pool.
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
pfortuny|7 years ago
amyjess|7 years ago
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.
rglover|7 years ago
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.
gkoberger|7 years ago
First, he agreed – it was in his contract he couldn't do it.
Second, oftentimes it's hard to tell how consensual it is when there's a large imbalance of power. Was it completely consensual? Maybe. But companies have a no-tolerance policy because it's hard to tell, and you don't want managers going around making subordinates uncomfortable, or employees taking advantage of managers.
Third, he now has an explicit bias toward a single employee.
He doesn't deserve to be blacklisted and grouped in with sexual harassers, however he did violate his contract and brought his fate at Intel upon himself.
klodolph|7 years ago
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.
gm-conspiracy|7 years ago
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech...
jl2718|7 years ago
m1el|7 years ago
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-share...
qeternity|7 years ago
__aeneas|7 years ago
partycoder|7 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob
outside1234|7 years ago
That said, if the other party gets pissed at the end of the relationship and complains, you are gone.
dv_dt|7 years ago
balls187|7 years ago
Did he conceal his relationship with his future wife?
Unsure there is enough information to suggest Bill Gates "got away" with anything.
fjsolwmv|7 years ago
yohann305|7 years ago
ps: i'm joking but who knows!
fuscy|7 years ago
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|7 years ago
code4tee|7 years ago
Getting the popcorn out to see how this unfolds...
ghaff|7 years ago
TwoNineA|7 years ago
Those should be good enough reasons.
mtgx|7 years ago
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.
draw_down|7 years ago
[deleted]
Jobjobbing|7 years ago
outside1234|7 years ago
sampl|7 years ago
danvasquez29|7 years ago
redcalx|7 years ago
gdulli|7 years ago
deagle50|7 years ago
joveian|7 years ago
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/06/intel_...
jl2718|7 years ago
mathattack|7 years ago
coredog64|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
arcaster|7 years ago
Regardless of your gender, orientation... whatever... keep it in your pants regarding the workplace!
sergiotapia|7 years ago
bitL|7 years ago
forgottenpass|7 years ago
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.
DoofusOfDeath|7 years ago
balozi|7 years ago
heisenbit|7 years ago
nortiero|7 years ago
alottafunchata|7 years ago
lightedman|7 years ago
[deleted]
yuhong|7 years ago
poster123|7 years ago
exelius|7 years ago
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.
ceejayoz|7 years ago
amyjess|7 years ago
> Krzanich violated a policy that said he could not have a relationship with either a direct or indirect report
marcosdumay|7 years ago
ambar123|7 years ago
[deleted]
lord_ring_11|7 years ago
avs733|7 years ago
ggg9990|7 years ago
YorkshireSeason|7 years ago
Conjecture: Zero.
Does that say anything interesting about humans?
inscionent|7 years ago
Conjecture: Zero.
Does that say anything interesting about humans?
sotojuan|7 years ago
Symmetry|7 years ago
emiliobumachar|7 years ago
JumpCrisscross|7 years ago
That we are an unusually genetically homogenous species. You could do the same thing with practically any activity between two people, desirable or undesirable, because the human population collapsed to practically nothing in the last Ice Age.
cozzyd|7 years ago
sorokod|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
krapp|7 years ago
No.
ForRealsies|7 years ago
[deleted]