14 ms·

Intel CEO resigns after relationship with employee

287 points by trequartista 8y ago

__aeneas 8y ago
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-step-down-bob-swan-to-step-in-as-interim-ceo.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/21/intel-ceo-brian-krzanich-to-...
poster123 8y ago
What is the Intel non-fraternization policy? What romantic relationships are banned?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Quite a few workplaces forbid relationships between managers and their subordinates. As CEO, that presumably puts everyone off-limits.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Perhaps there was an ulterior motive for removing him. Otherwise I would expect Intel to just hide the information in order to protect the financial interests of the company.
    - mythz 8y ago
      Something strange is happening in Intel land, Brian Krzanich recently sold off the majority of his Intel stock, only retaining the minimum number allowable: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-kr...
      - walshemj 8y ago
        Probably saw this coming and wanted to convert stock into cash to avoid ay small print about stock clawbacks.
        jrs95 8y ago
        Would that qualify as insider trading? Seems like Zuck did a similar thing recently before Facebooks most recent privacy scandal
        walshemj 8y ago
        Don't think so if he did it because to move to the next process would be delayed a year yes. Its a legal principal that you have the right to arrange your affairs to maximise your benefit - if he thought they where trying to oust him cheaply by using something from his past - I don't see the issue.
    - exelius 8y ago
      There’s almost always some complicating factor we don’t know about in cases like this: I would bet that blackmail was involved, he tried to cover it up, and the board felt they couldn’t trust him as a result of the cover-up. Because you’re right; most companies would just include the lower level employee in a round of layoffs and pay them a couple years salary to stay quiet about it all. I feel companies are getting a #MeToo pass in cases like this: Wall Street hasn’t been holding companies responsible for the bad personal behavior of execs if those companies address the issues proactively. Investors are only punishing them if the problems are representative of the overall culture; and in this case that does not seem to be the case. But I’m almost certain that he wouldn’t have been fired without lying to the board in a coverup. Violating fraternization policies usually isn’t a firable offense — a CEO only gets fired when the board of directors loses the ability to trust them.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      > Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Barring Minority Report's pre-crime telepaths, I'm not sure how you'd apply this policy before the fact?
      - jrs95 8y ago
        It sounded like this was something that had happened in the past and was basically over with, not something that was ongoing. So either it ended amicably or HR made arrangements to ensure it wasn't an ongoing problem for the business. I'm skeptical of the delay being entirely due to "investigation", it seems more like this was something that was known about and later used to force him out.
  - at-fates-hands 8y ago
    Yeap. Back in 2012 the Best Buy founder and the chairman both resigned over an inappropriate relationship the CEO had with a subordinate which went unreported: http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-over-scandal/151365265/ http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-ove...
- amyjess 8y ago
  According to the CNBC article linked elsewhere in the thread: > Krzanich violated a policy that said he could not have a relationship with either a direct or indirect report
- exelius 8y ago
  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.
  - amyjess 8y 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. In addition, allowing these kinds of relationships also raises issues of sexual consent. Imagine this scenario: CEO: Let's have sex tonight. Employee: I'm not in the mood. CEO: Looks like somebody's getting a bad performance review. Employee: Fine then... let's get this over with.
    - exelius 8y ago
      Oh of course; but I feel this kind of exploitation is closer to sexual assault than a consensual relationship. Any relationship with a strong power imbalance can lead to this. Which is a big reason companies discourage this through fraternization policies; a sexual predator using your company as a hunting ground is a huge legal risk. I was more referring to the situation where someone is working under say, a senior VP of another department. The lower status person would have an advantage over their peers in that they would have many more opportunities for personal social interactions with senior leadership as a result of their romantic relationship. Overall, it’s best to be avoided. :)
  - 8y ago
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  Having a high level position in a company comes naturally with an entire new set of rules to be obeyed, whatever those rules are.
sbinthree 8y ago
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?
- Gargoyle 8y ago
  There has to be more to this than is being revealed. Either something about the relationship or...they don't really want him in place anyway.
- jrs95 8y ago
  To an extent I think that these things are promoted because they’re a very effective way to mislead people.
- catbatdat9034 8y ago
  The way the world works, it doesn't make sense that that alone is the reason. There has to be something more.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- unknown_apostle 8y ago
  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.)
  - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
    Wasn't this guy basically caught red handed selling shares of intel rather quickly and suspiciously right before news of the meltdown and spectre vulnerabilities were publicized. If the board got wind of a pending investigation into that incident they might be looking to distance him from the company before the other shoe drops.
code4tee 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
    Not just insider trading but getting caught so publicly is a bit problematic, especially if you're the SEC. I'm making a guess here but I wouldn't be surprised to here about a pending investigation into the incident that the board would rather distance Intel from before charges get filed.
  - corpMaverick 8y ago
    The easier way for Krzanich was to let him resign because "he wanted to spend more time with his family".
    - Bartweiss 8y ago
      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.
lord_ring_11 8y ago
Why is this even worth discussing?
- ggg9990 8y ago
  Because the worlds most important tech company and the one on which all others are based just fired its CEO.
  - zepto 8y ago
    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.
- avs733 8y ago
  Because Intel is an enormous tech company who's technology has had a massive influence over the growth of computing and the internet.
dokein 8y ago
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."
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > you cannot get to know anyone romantically during 50-75% of your waking day Few companies have such strict relationship policies.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- amyjess 8y ago
  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.
  - poster123 8y ago
    It's a good thing if you are attracted to the boss. How do we know that the happiness such consensual relationships bring to employees does not outweigh the unhappiness of potential sexual harassment, averaged over all workers?
    - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
      Leaving aside the supposition of utilitarianism, we don't know. We can only make educated guesses.
    - danohuiginn 8y ago
      Then one or both of them can quit their job, or get moved somewhere where neither reports to the other.
ckastner 8y ago
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.
- arcanus 8y ago
  > 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.
  - Symmetry 8y ago
    It's not just that. There's also the problems with 10nm. The prevaricating about the problems with 10nm. Meltdown. The 28 core 5 GHz demonstration where they misled people about overclocking. A whole bunch of stuff makes me feel like Intel just hasn't been a company I can trust while Krzanich has been at the helm.
    - mistersquid 8y ago
      Krzanich also presided during the Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities for which Intel's messaging left much to be desired. Krzanich is also suspected by some to have engaged in insider trading. [0] https://news.alphastreet.com/chipmaker-giant-intels-ceo-brian-krzanich-resigns/ https://news.alphastreet.com/chipmaker-giant-intels-ceo-bria...
      - 8y ago
outside1234 8y ago
So my question is: Was the female employee also fired? If not, why not?
- danvasquez29 8y ago
  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.
- redcalx 8y ago
  > The company said Mr. Krzanich had violated a non-fraternization policy that applies to managers
- gdulli 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    >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 8y ago
      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.
YorkshireSeason 8y ago
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?
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  Interesting indeed. In a hunter-gatherer tribe with a clear chief, do we consider the chief everyone else's boss?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cozzyd 8y ago
  I think that says more about large numbers than humans.
- inscionent 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.
m1el 8y ago
So he quits because of a "relationship", but not because of insider trading? http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-share...
- qeternity 8y ago
  The optics are unfortunate but that's not what insider trading is.
gm-conspiracy 8y ago
Man, Larry Ellison handles stuff like this way better. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech-Soap-Opera-Ellison-2859701.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech...
- jl2718 8y ago
  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.
ggg9990 8y ago
Board clearly wanted him out anyways. Probably because he let AMD catch up so much.
InTheArena 8y ago
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.
- stamps 8y ago
  Why do you think Apple would develop an x86 chip over other architectures?
  - KSS42 8y ago
    I read that as a competitor to x86.
    - InTheArena 8y ago
      this...
    - syncsynchalt 8y ago
      And beyond that, what if Apple proves out a method for efficiently emulating x86 on ARM (like they did with Rosetta, which was considered an infeasible emulation of register-rich PPC on x86?)
    - stamps 8y ago
      And you have read it right. My mistake.
- krotton 8y ago
  Given knowledge that the CEO is a male, assuming the relationship is with a female is simply based on statistics.
bitL 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.
fuscy 8y ago
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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
partycoder 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
It's probably a good rule of thumb for a person in authority to assume anyone under him%her
sergiotapia 8y ago
Another, let's say "interesting" CEO resignation. So many in such a short timespan. I wonder why this is happening all of a sudden.
mathattack 8y ago
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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- manquer 8y ago
  Knowing or suspecting may not be same as able to prove it. It might still ruin the career if your allegation go nowhere and board does not act.
  - mathattack 8y ago
    Yes. It’s a knife that is very dangerous to pick up. That’s why an item from long ago can linger. (I have no non-public information in this case)
- godelmachine 8y ago
  >> I guess he can always go to Oracle Why would a CEO of a microprocessor company be accepted at Oracle?
  - X-Istence 8y ago
    Mark Hurd, current CEO of Oracle, also had a similar incident while at HP.
  - crunchlibrarian 8y ago
    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.
dv_dt 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Other famous founders too. Owning a huge chunk of stock is good insurance against political squabbling.
- yohann305 8y ago
  Maybe he was forced to marry Melinda if he wanted to keep his position! ps: i'm joking but who knows!
rglover 8y ago
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.
- gkoberger 8y ago
  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.
  - dkrich 8y ago
    I thought it was reported that the actual affair occurred long ago well before he was the CEO but is only coming to light now. This seems to be a way to oust him without having to admit that he wasn't doing a good job as CEO.
- klodolph 8y ago
  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.
jl2718 8y ago
If it’s a company rule not to fraternize, punishment should go both ways.
lightedman 8y ago
Typical Intel - act like nothing is wrong until you get caught (Compiler gamery, violating your own internal company policies, etc.) This is one of the reasons I left Intel behind 20 years ago. Only Intel systems I have currently were given to me. It was apparent back then that Intel had no real morals or ethics, and it continues to show now with the CEO having been ousted violating company conduct of which, in his position, he should've been well aware.
yuhong 8y ago
This reminds me if Eric Schmidt left Google because of this debacle: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-...
mathattack 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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?
nodesocket 8y ago
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.
- typon 8y ago
  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.
- godzillabrennus 8y ago
  The linkage between a rapist and consensual sex in the article kind of undermines the movement IMHO. The unfortunate fact about a consensual workplace romance is that if they go sour it can destroy company culture and moral.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  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.
alottafunchata 8y ago
Let the man live!
balozi 8y ago
OK: Shipping billions of bug-ridden chips NOT OK: Dipping your pen in the company ink
deagle50 8y ago
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.
heisenbit 8y ago
And this has nothing to do with the troubled 10nm process...
joveian 8y ago
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_ceo_brian_krzanich_resig.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/06/intel_...
arcaster 8y ago
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!
ambar123 8y ago
That's what overclocking means..... With 6ghz PROCESSORS
nortiero 8y ago
The other employee has been fired, too?

287 points by trequartista 8y ago

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

poster123 8y ago

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

ceejayoz 8y ago
Quite a few workplaces forbid relationships between managers and their subordinates. As CEO, that presumably puts everyone off-limits.
- jrs95 8y ago
  Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Perhaps there was an ulterior motive for removing him. Otherwise I would expect Intel to just hide the information in order to protect the financial interests of the company.
  - mythz 8y ago
    Something strange is happening in Intel land, Brian Krzanich recently sold off the majority of his Intel stock, only retaining the minimum number allowable: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-kr...
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Probably saw this coming and wanted to convert stock into cash to avoid ay small print about stock clawbacks.
      - jrs95 8y ago
        Would that qualify as insider trading? Seems like Zuck did a similar thing recently before Facebooks most recent privacy scandal
        walshemj 8y ago
        Don't think so if he did it because to move to the next process would be delayed a year yes. Its a legal principal that you have the right to arrange your affairs to maximise your benefit - if he thought they where trying to oust him cheaply by using something from his past - I don't see the issue.
  - exelius 8y ago
    There’s almost always some complicating factor we don’t know about in cases like this: I would bet that blackmail was involved, he tried to cover it up, and the board felt they couldn’t trust him as a result of the cover-up. Because you’re right; most companies would just include the lower level employee in a round of layoffs and pay them a couple years salary to stay quiet about it all. I feel companies are getting a #MeToo pass in cases like this: Wall Street hasn’t been holding companies responsible for the bad personal behavior of execs if those companies address the issues proactively. Investors are only punishing them if the problems are representative of the overall culture; and in this case that does not seem to be the case. But I’m almost certain that he wouldn’t have been fired without lying to the board in a coverup. Violating fraternization policies usually isn’t a firable offense — a CEO only gets fired when the board of directors loses the ability to trust them.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Barring Minority Report's pre-crime telepaths, I'm not sure how you'd apply this policy before the fact?
    - jrs95 8y ago
      It sounded like this was something that had happened in the past and was basically over with, not something that was ongoing. So either it ended amicably or HR made arrangements to ensure it wasn't an ongoing problem for the business. I'm skeptical of the delay being entirely due to "investigation", it seems more like this was something that was known about and later used to force him out.
- at-fates-hands 8y ago
  Yeap. Back in 2012 the Best Buy founder and the chairman both resigned over an inappropriate relationship the CEO had with a subordinate which went unreported: http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-over-scandal/151365265/ http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-ove...
amyjess 8y ago
According to the CNBC article linked elsewhere in the thread: > Krzanich violated a policy that said he could not have a relationship with either a direct or indirect report
exelius 8y ago
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.
- amyjess 8y 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. In addition, allowing these kinds of relationships also raises issues of sexual consent. Imagine this scenario: CEO: Let's have sex tonight. Employee: I'm not in the mood. CEO: Looks like somebody's getting a bad performance review. Employee: Fine then... let's get this over with.
  - exelius 8y ago
    Oh of course; but I feel this kind of exploitation is closer to sexual assault than a consensual relationship. Any relationship with a strong power imbalance can lead to this. Which is a big reason companies discourage this through fraternization policies; a sexual predator using your company as a hunting ground is a huge legal risk. I was more referring to the situation where someone is working under say, a senior VP of another department. The lower status person would have an advantage over their peers in that they would have many more opportunities for personal social interactions with senior leadership as a result of their romantic relationship. Overall, it’s best to be avoided. :)
- 8y ago
marcosdumay 8y ago
Having a high level position in a company comes naturally with an entire new set of rules to be obeyed, whatever those rules are.

sbinthree 8y ago

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?

Gargoyle 8y ago
There has to be more to this than is being revealed. Either something about the relationship or...they don't really want him in place anyway.
jrs95 8y ago
To an extent I think that these things are promoted because they’re a very effective way to mislead people.
catbatdat9034 8y ago
The way the world works, it doesn't make sense that that alone is the reason. There has to be something more.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
unknown_apostle 8y ago
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.)
- SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
  Wasn't this guy basically caught red handed selling shares of intel rather quickly and suspiciously right before news of the meltdown and spectre vulnerabilities were publicized. If the board got wind of a pending investigation into that incident they might be looking to distance him from the company before the other shoe drops.

code4tee 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.
- SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
  Not just insider trading but getting caught so publicly is a bit problematic, especially if you're the SEC. I'm making a guess here but I wouldn't be surprised to here about a pending investigation into the incident that the board would rather distance Intel from before charges get filed.
- corpMaverick 8y ago
  The easier way for Krzanich was to let him resign because "he wanted to spend more time with his family".
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    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.

lord_ring_11 8y ago

Why is this even worth discussing?

ggg9990 8y ago
Because the worlds most important tech company and the one on which all others are based just fired its CEO.
- zepto 8y ago
  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.
avs733 8y ago
Because Intel is an enormous tech company who's technology has had a massive influence over the growth of computing and the internet.

dokein 8y ago

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."

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> you cannot get to know anyone romantically during 50-75% of your waking day Few companies have such strict relationship policies.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
amyjess 8y ago
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.
- poster123 8y ago
  It's a good thing if you are attracted to the boss. How do we know that the happiness such consensual relationships bring to employees does not outweigh the unhappiness of potential sexual harassment, averaged over all workers?
  - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
    Leaving aside the supposition of utilitarianism, we don't know. We can only make educated guesses.
  - danohuiginn 8y ago
    Then one or both of them can quit their job, or get moved somewhere where neither reports to the other.

ckastner 8y ago

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.

arcanus 8y ago
> 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.
- Symmetry 8y ago
  It's not just that. There's also the problems with 10nm. The prevaricating about the problems with 10nm. Meltdown. The 28 core 5 GHz demonstration where they misled people about overclocking. A whole bunch of stuff makes me feel like Intel just hasn't been a company I can trust while Krzanich has been at the helm.
  - mistersquid 8y ago
    Krzanich also presided during the Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities for which Intel's messaging left much to be desired. Krzanich is also suspected by some to have engaged in insider trading. [0] https://news.alphastreet.com/chipmaker-giant-intels-ceo-brian-krzanich-resigns/ https://news.alphastreet.com/chipmaker-giant-intels-ceo-bria...
    - 8y ago

outside1234 8y ago

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

danvasquez29 8y ago
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.
redcalx 8y ago
> The company said Mr. Krzanich had violated a non-fraternization policy that applies to managers
gdulli 8y ago
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 8y ago
  >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 8y ago
    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.

YorkshireSeason 8y ago

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?

emiliobumachar 8y ago
Interesting indeed. In a hunter-gatherer tribe with a clear chief, do we consider the chief everyone else's boss?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cozzyd 8y ago
I think that says more about large numbers than humans.
inscionent 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.

m1el 8y ago

So he quits because of a "relationship", but not because of insider trading? http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-share...

qeternity 8y ago
The optics are unfortunate but that's not what insider trading is.

gm-conspiracy 8y ago

Man, Larry Ellison handles stuff like this way better. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech-Soap-Opera-Ellison-2859701.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech...

jl2718 8y ago
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.

ggg9990 8y ago

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

InTheArena 8y ago

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.

stamps 8y ago
Why do you think Apple would develop an x86 chip over other architectures?
- KSS42 8y ago
  I read that as a competitor to x86.
  - InTheArena 8y ago
    this...
  - syncsynchalt 8y ago
    And beyond that, what if Apple proves out a method for efficiently emulating x86 on ARM (like they did with Rosetta, which was considered an infeasible emulation of register-rich PPC on x86?)
  - stamps 8y ago
    And you have read it right. My mistake.
krotton 8y ago
Given knowledge that the CEO is a male, assuming the relationship is with a female is simply based on statistics.

bitL 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.

fuscy 8y ago

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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

partycoder 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago

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

sergiotapia 8y ago

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

mathattack 8y ago

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.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
manquer 8y ago
Knowing or suspecting may not be same as able to prove it. It might still ruin the career if your allegation go nowhere and board does not act.
- mathattack 8y ago
  Yes. It’s a knife that is very dangerous to pick up. That’s why an item from long ago can linger. (I have no non-public information in this case)
godelmachine 8y ago
>> I guess he can always go to Oracle Why would a CEO of a microprocessor company be accepted at Oracle?
- X-Istence 8y ago
  Mark Hurd, current CEO of Oracle, also had a similar incident while at HP.
- crunchlibrarian 8y ago
  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.

dv_dt 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Other famous founders too. Owning a huge chunk of stock is good insurance against political squabbling.
yohann305 8y ago
Maybe he was forced to marry Melinda if he wanted to keep his position! ps: i'm joking but who knows!

rglover 8y ago

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.

gkoberger 8y ago
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.
- dkrich 8y ago
  I thought it was reported that the actual affair occurred long ago well before he was the CEO but is only coming to light now. This seems to be a way to oust him without having to admit that he wasn't doing a good job as CEO.
klodolph 8y ago
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.

jl2718 8y ago

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

lightedman 8y ago

Typical Intel - act like nothing is wrong until you get caught (Compiler gamery, violating your own internal company policies, etc.) This is one of the reasons I left Intel behind 20 years ago. Only Intel systems I have currently were given to me. It was apparent back then that Intel had no real morals or ethics, and it continues to show now with the CEO having been ousted violating company conduct of which, in his position, he should've been well aware.

yuhong 8y ago

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

mathattack 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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?

nodesocket 8y ago

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.

typon 8y ago
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.
godzillabrennus 8y ago
The linkage between a rapist and consensual sex in the article kind of undermines the movement IMHO. The unfortunate fact about a consensual workplace romance is that if they go sour it can destroy company culture and moral.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
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.

alottafunchata 8y ago

Let the man live!

balozi 8y ago

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

deagle50 8y ago

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.

heisenbit 8y ago

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

joveian 8y ago

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_ceo_brian_krzanich_resig.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/06/intel_...

arcaster 8y ago

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!

ambar123 8y ago

That's what overclocking means..... With 6ghz PROCESSORS

nortiero 8y ago

The other employee has been fired, too?