Intel CEO Brian Krzanich quits biz after fling with coworker rumbled Intel chief exec Brian Krzanich has quit after his “past consensual relationship” with an employee came to light. Staff flings are frowned upon in US corporate tech world. As such, Intel company policy bans bosses from having relationships with people who report to them, directly or indirectly. In a statement issued within …
This post has been deleted by its author
Krzanich should’ve claimed he was merely executing a speculative action on the employee which he then rolled back when he realised he'd ‘taken the wrong branch’. Of course someone could’ve still found out about it because of Spectre. He’ll have definitely suffered from some cash leakage.
I worked for a boss at HP who was (allegedly) caught shagging a member of staff who was under him. Both literally and on the org chart from the sounds of it.
Must be an American thing, I'm sure an British company would hush it up.
A French company would shrug.
And Italian company would openly admit it.
Must be an American thing
What, shagging the workforce after approving a policy that says "no shagging the workforce"?
If the relationship were an abuse of power that should be dealt with harshly under harassment policies; Anything else really ought to be left to the adults involved.
As usual, real life is more complicated than that.
Who can say if relationship is consentual because the underling feared being fired?
Who can say if the underlings are trying to seduce their managers to get a promotion?
This kind of policy is not there just to prevent the company from being sued but to try to protect both managers and the managed.
@fandom is right. These things are always a lot more complicated than the public is told. In huge companies some C-level exec is always screwing around with a subordinate. It's a pretty well-known secret and it's not only consensual, but it's usually initiated by the subordinate.
My guess is there was either a lot more drama than we're being told, or someone wanted Krzanich out.
"
Who can say if relationship is consensual because the underling feared being fired?
Who can say if the underlings are trying to seduce their managers to get a promotion?
"
IMO it doesn't matter WHY it is consensual, so long as it genuinely is consensual. Or should we decide that any sex is rape if one of the parties hopes to gain some advantage or avoid a disadvantage from the relationship?
If an employee reckons they were fired because they refused to have sex with the boss, then that's a matter that should be dealt with the same as any other allegation of unfair dismissal, and if proven THEN the boss in question should be fired (and face criminal prosecution).
If they are doing it to gain approval & promotion, then it's no different than any other way of arse-licking (except in this case it might be literal).
..This kind of policy is not there just to prevent the company from being sued but to try to protect both managers and the managed....
That's just what's wrong with modern life. Too many people trying to protect other people from something that they want to do on the grounds that it could be misused....
My brother works at a French University. At another department, a professor was screwing his secretary.
It worked well, until someone reported it. Apparently, the French also have regulations against this (Mon dieu!) and the professor was sacked and the secretary is since then sick at home.
Because the professor is suing the university, they couldn't hire a replacement and his department is/was headless for a while.
So, it's not all "nudge-nudge wink-wink" in France either anymore.
At HP the rules weren't just to limit fraternisation between boss and someone who reports to her. The rules also forbade relationships between people in the same part of the organisation. When I left my former wife and shacked up with another engineer on the team we had to go and have a chat with our manager. Fortunately she decided to just ignore the rules and say "Can I trust to two to be adult about this". I know they also ran it past their bosses boss who was also OK with it. But we'd fully expected one of us to have to move to a completely different part of the company.
Mind, later on teams in the US tried on more than one occasion to hire us over as a pair.
> Must be an American thing,
Exactly my thoughts. Sounds like a flimsy excuse to inflict some of that weird American puritanism upon the workforce.
Surely if you cannot shag your co-workers because of "fraternization", going out for drinks / on those idiotic company weekends / etc., must be utterly out of the question too?
going out for drinks / on those idiotic company weekends / etc., must be utterly out of the question too?
Following the #metoo some companies over here have gone crazy.
One corp is supposedly banning men/women staying in the same hotel on trips or sharing a hire car
.
It's new puritanism thanks to feminism.
The underlying thought isn't 'how dare you have sex' but rather 'how dare you abuse your power, white chauvinist pig' and yes, the scolds will call it rape due to the power imbalance.
It's not rape legally or in any rational sense of course, but to the Politically Correct crowd, it essentially is viewed as rape.
A client of mine, Dutch multinational, used to be incredibly accommodating with these sorts of things. They would try to arrange it so that partners who were also employees would have time compatible work schedules, time off together, etc. Apart from that, when one partner was going somewhere interesting, I have seen them give the other partner time off and sort out visas for them too, even though just one of them was involved in doing business during the trip.
It worked extremely well for everyone involved and shows how it is possible if you want it done.
Also because I thought they were so decent I went the extra mile many a time for them, which I would not normally do for any other client.
At HP you certainly weren't allowed to shag fellow employees in the corporate jet. That was a bit of a no no. The pilots & flight staff objected to having to "wipe down" planes after certain executives used them in more ways than one ..... it wasn't in their job description. Yes. HP did have formal job grades and job descriptions for pilots. But that was in the old days. You notice I didn't say the good old days.
> "... he can't afford to resign."
He can't resign because his job is just that, a job. The management are supposed to be similar to officers in the military, entrusted to handle company matters properly, and are considered to always be on probation. If they fail to maintain personal standards they are expected to walk away on their own.
It's elitist, yes, but it's how society has arranged things forever, so I guess it works, sorta.
But it wasn't outside the workplace. Not to start with, and I suspect perhaps for some time durign the affair (those supply rooms...). I have worked for a boss who was shagging ateam mate and since it was quietly known, and we also saw said shagee getting preferential treatment, being let off the hook, going on amazing businss trips as 'support', yeah, I can see why companies frown on this sort of thing, because the rest of the team were demotivated and fed up. It lasted about six weeks, and suddenly the shagee was gone. A bit of tough career choice, as it turned out.
"How can your employer possibly dictate who you can see outside of the workplace?"
Technically, they don't. I've worked at Intel, and their policy is pretty clear -- it's a condition of the job that you don't maintain a relationship with someone you are in a position of authority over. They aren't saying you can't have such a relationship, but if you do then one of you either has to take a different position so that there isn't a supervisory work relationship, or one of you has to leave.
It's a subtle distinction, I know, but they aren't dictating who you can or can't see, they're dictating the conditions you must meet to keep a particular position.
Having "dated" colleagues a few times in my youth it's fair to say it's not good unless you can finish amicably or one of you is already planning on leaving.
Now back in the UK for a US-based multinational we have the annual ethics training bollix, and stuff like this is included every time. It's all about avoiding conflicts of interest and trying to ensure staff are equally [mis]treated by management.
At least being home based does have some advantages...
Since I see a lot of people getting confused on this point, I think it's important to emphasize what, exactly, is being prohibited.
There is no prohibition against having relationships with your coworkers generally. That's perfectly fine as far as Intel is concerned. The prohibition is against having relationships with your subordinates.
Sex is by no means the only way someone can have a relationship with someone else. People can simply be good friends.
I assume that American companies would want to ban that too. Otherwise, they are simply saying that the act of sex is the key thing they are uncomfortable about. Which fits with American puritanism....
"He can even sell stock without raising eyebrows."
Has he got much left to sell? Didn't eyebrows already get raised in 2017 after he sold everything he could, after the security hiccup was discovered and before the shot hit the fan in public. Further reading includes:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/19/intels-ceo-just-sold-a-lot-of-stock.aspx
"[...] given that Krzanich seems to have sold all the shares he could save for those he is required by Intel's corporate bylaws to hold, the impression that I get is that Krzanich doesn't have a ton of faith in the potential for Intel stock to appreciate, perhaps driven by a lukewarm (or potentially even negative) view of the company's near- to medium-term business prospects.
After all, considering that Intel CFO Robert Swan reportedly said in a memo seen by The Oregonian that the company aims to boost its market capitalization to $300 billion (implying a share price north of $60) by 2021, wouldn't it have been wiser for Krzanich to hold those shares, collecting about a quarter of a million dollars per year in dividend payouts, before until they gained another $16 in value each, totaling nearly $4 million in additional value?
Indeed, considering that Krzanich claimed back in February that Intel's total addressable market is now on track to hit $220 billion by 2021, it seems strange that with all these growth opportunities ahead of Intel he'd choose to keep only the shares that he's required to by Intel's rules.
[...]"
Not every US company has policies like this, although they are common in the major corporations. There are plenty of "family run companies".
The reason for these policies is easy to understand -- it's primarily to avoid the appearance of favoritism.
"it's primarily to avoid the appearance of favoritism."
Would much prefer that they avoid actual favouritism.
It will forever be my shame that, when a director, I once voted for a policy to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
I don't think that the Americans understand these things.
You don't need to 'avoid the appearance of favoritism'. You need to avoid favoritism.
The English have the concept of 'gentlemanly behaviour' - which covers the situation completely. Perhaps the Yanks could try it?
"You don't need to 'avoid the appearance of favoritism'. You need to avoid favoritism."
You need to avoid both. The idea is that the appearance of favoritism should be treated exactly the same as actual favoritism. A concept with which I agree completely.
...Was my first thought on seeing the photo attached to the article.
On the issue of relationships within a company, in my experience it's usually fine if there's a degree of separation between the two parties (different departments, etc) but within the same team is a recipe for disaster and between direct reports is horribly open to abuse and favouritism, so I can see why they're banned in a lot of places.
This post has been deleted by its author
because of a certain founder's propensity for this sort of thing.
Not that it doesn't happen elsewhere. My workplace affair was with someone from another department entirely, but then, I wasn't a CEO. There were plenty of folks who spent a fair bit of time on mahogany row and had no apparent responsibilities. Thus has it ever been.
I was associated with, not working for, one of the big mainframe companies in the 80s. One of the first acts of the newly appointed "celebrity" CEO was to run a talent search throughout the whole company world-wide for a "personal assistant" - it was understood that only females should apply. Cue much ribald comment. In due course the appointment of the winning candidate was announced, she'd been a junior software engineer., which was a not a obvious skill set for PA. She must have been very talented in other areas to be able to take over what is actually a high stress, full-on job.
In due course, they were quietly married. Different times,
Question is, how did a "past consensual relationship" like this, "come to light"? Did SHE report it, out of spite? There's no mention of her being fired and this being a result of that. So,who reported it? Another staffer who did NOT get a Shag with the CEO to push their promotion agenda? Or someone who wanted this CEO out and needed a reason? And what sort of evidence is there of this "consensual relationship" other than her word against his?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
