Intel CEO resigns after relationship with employee(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Intel CEO resigns after relationship with employee
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/technology/intel-ceo-resigns-consensual-relationship.html
312 comments
> 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.
Agreed. AMD is breathing down INTC's neck, particularly in servers. Board wants a different direction.
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.
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-bria...
https://news.alphastreet.com/chipmaker-giant-intels-ceo-bria...
[deleted]
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.
Indeed, at least to a certain degree.
You'd expect a CEO being fired over such a technicality to at least fight back, instead of fully cooperating.
You'd expect a CEO being fired over such a technicality to at least fight back, instead of fully cooperating.
If you wanted to preserve your maximum reputation score for a potential future job as a CEO...
Would you want to be fired for...?
A) Being a bad CEO who can't produce profits
B) Having an inappropriate relationship with an employee
For Mark Hurd, he was able to transition from one great job into another, CEO of Oracle, even after the embarrassment of (B).
Would you want to be fired for...?
A) Being a bad CEO who can't produce profits
B) Having an inappropriate relationship with an employee
For Mark Hurd, he was able to transition from one great job into another, CEO of Oracle, even after the embarrassment of (B).
Dunno, inappropriate relationships (especially when combined with "me too") are right now a complete career suicide/murder. Incompetent CEOs have a higher chance of ending up as CEOs somewhere else; Brian was also CEO of a long-time #1, so there are quite a few achievements under his belt. Without his demos I personally wouldn't be running multiple NUCs and having Intel Jimmy walking/talking at home.
I am more worried that the type of ousting (past inappropriate relationship, i.e. likely a few years back) signalizes a new level of sociopathy at the top, bringing a ruthless dark age to Intel, full of internal dissection and agony. I assume the investors/shareholders that had Intel as one of their crown jewels and golden geese are getting very nervous about losing profit and are throwing away any resemblance of humanness, acting as spoiled children, grabbing whatever they could.
I am more worried that the type of ousting (past inappropriate relationship, i.e. likely a few years back) signalizes a new level of sociopathy at the top, bringing a ruthless dark age to Intel, full of internal dissection and agony. I assume the investors/shareholders that had Intel as one of their crown jewels and golden geese are getting very nervous about losing profit and are throwing away any resemblance of humanness, acting as spoiled children, grabbing whatever they could.
Like the insider trading thing that somehow never was investigated?
You don't get investigated or railroaded for insider trading if you do what the NSA/CIA/FBI tells you to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
<tinfoilhat>Covert access to IME may have saved Krzanich's bacon.</tinfoilhat>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
<tinfoilhat>Covert access to IME may have saved Krzanich's bacon.</tinfoilhat>
Was literally thinking the exact same thing. It's a travesty that wrong was never fixed. All those qwest employees got completely screwed so that the government could make a point that nobody is untouchable.
I was thinking this too.
If insider trading as obvious as his wasn't prosecuted, it paints the picture that it's only ever prosecuted for political reasons. Which is maybe more true than one would hope.
If insider trading as obvious as his wasn't prosecuted, it paints the picture that it's only ever prosecuted for political reasons. Which is maybe more true than one would hope.
Of course they were sitting on it. However, I don't understand why didn't they go the usual nice route - Brian, how can we quickly get rid of you when we need to? Is $10M enough to cover any inconveniences? Enjoy your retirement and see you at the golf course!
Game of Thrones Season 80x86?
Game of Thrones Season 80x86?
That may have occurred (in your scenario) because he wasn't interested in giving up his position quietly, so they went public to force the issue.
Probably more than 10mm if they don’t claw back equity and golden parachutes.
I read it as 10nm and thought how appropriate :)
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.
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.
> Intel is in serious trouble right now.
The whole semiconductor industry is in trouble right now, though few seem to feel the weight of the issue.
We are looking at just a couple process nodes at best before we reach the end of the road for silicon lithography. Sure, there will be further tweaks on existing techniques which will squeeze out small improvements in power, performance and density.
But long gone are the days when we saw steady improvements in circuit density and simultaneously speed and simultaneously cost.
When this knowledge finally sinks in with the investment community, it will call into question the valuation of the entire computer industry. We're already seeing that in the desktop space. I could replace my 6-year old Intel i7-3770 desktop with 32GB of RAM, but what's out there that's significantly better at a reasonable cost? Well, a used Xeon workstation maybe, but that's about it.
That should be a big red flag to the investment community, but for reasons I don't understand, people don't seem to care yet.
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.
I don't disagree with the wider point but
> I could replace my 6-year old Intel i7-3770 desktop with 32GB of RAM, but what's out there that's significantly better at a reasonable cost?
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 for $200. ~10% faster single core and you get 8C/16T. DDR4 RAM is quite expensive, though.
(closest available benchmarks, 1700 is about 3% slower than 2700) [0]: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2111 [1]: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/551
> I could replace my 6-year old Intel i7-3770 desktop with 32GB of RAM, but what's out there that's significantly better at a reasonable cost?
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 for $200. ~10% faster single core and you get 8C/16T. DDR4 RAM is quite expensive, though.
(closest available benchmarks, 1700 is about 3% slower than 2700) [0]: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2111 [1]: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/551
Single core speed is near equal on 3770 and 1700 but you get 2x the cores with 1700.
So if you can benefit from 8Cores (ie compiling for one) then it is a nice upgrade.
If you rarely utilize all 4 cores on your 3770 then it is a pointless upgrade.
That is the thing, going from a single core to 2 core pretty much benefited everyone. Heck PentiumHT was a big thing.
Going from 2 core to 4 cores took longer to show benefits and 4 cores to 8 cores is going to be slower still to show benefits for most users.
At the end of the day single core speed has been stagnating for the last 6 years every since Sandy Bridge which was the last big jump.
I mean I plan on buying AMDs ThreadRipper 2 32 core chip since it will be of benefit to me for running 100 copies of the same program.
Still those 32 cores will not help with regular computing.
So if you can benefit from 8Cores (ie compiling for one) then it is a nice upgrade.
If you rarely utilize all 4 cores on your 3770 then it is a pointless upgrade.
That is the thing, going from a single core to 2 core pretty much benefited everyone. Heck PentiumHT was a big thing.
Going from 2 core to 4 cores took longer to show benefits and 4 cores to 8 cores is going to be slower still to show benefits for most users.
At the end of the day single core speed has been stagnating for the last 6 years every since Sandy Bridge which was the last big jump.
I mean I plan on buying AMDs ThreadRipper 2 32 core chip since it will be of benefit to me for running 100 copies of the same program.
Still those 32 cores will not help with regular computing.
Newegg had the 1700 for an insane $159 today.
The Ryzen is better, as another commenter pointed out with the passmark scores. Is it better enough for me to actually go out and buy it?
The system the i7-3770 replaced was a 4 year old dual-core, with (IIRC) just 1GB of RAM. The i7 was a dramatic improvement, but I don't feel that the Ryzen would be a dramatic improvement.
And that's the issue. It is not just me being a little unimpressed with current offerings, or me just being cheap. The issue is that there is even a valid discussion about replacing a 6 year old desktop. In the past, in the 1990's and 2000's, it wasn't a question. You had to upgrade because you wanted to run Windows XP decently, for example.
The system the i7-3770 replaced was a 4 year old dual-core, with (IIRC) just 1GB of RAM. The i7 was a dramatic improvement, but I don't feel that the Ryzen would be a dramatic improvement.
And that's the issue. It is not just me being a little unimpressed with current offerings, or me just being cheap. The issue is that there is even a valid discussion about replacing a 6 year old desktop. In the past, in the 1990's and 2000's, it wasn't a question. You had to upgrade because you wanted to run Windows XP decently, for example.
do keep in mind though there is the perspective that we're heading back into the 70s phase where the end user owns dumb terminals and connect into semi-centralized servers. The place where performance is going to be killer is in the server space, which clearly amd is starting to get the jump on intel again, and you are (presumably, don't know what you do as a dev) not the target market. Heck, even if you're a hyperscaler, you might not be the target market, since it might be the likes of AWS.
Growth in demand for compute will continue to drive sales for the foreseeable future.
In the "old days", there was also demand from upgrades, but we're seeing that tapering off. And that should be a big concern for the investors.
In the "old days", there was also demand from upgrades, but we're seeing that tapering off. And that should be a big concern for the investors.
> DDR4 RAM is quite expensive, though.
True, but it is a major upgrade.
The i7-3770 supports two channels of DDR3-1600 memory, or 25.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. A Ryzen processor (or other recent generation) supports DDR4-3200, which literally doubles your memory bandwidth. Fortunately or unfortunately, we now have much faster PCIe SSDs so memory bandwidth isn't as crucial for normal use, but a 100% improvement is a much better reason to upgrade than a measly 10% bump.
True, but it is a major upgrade.
The i7-3770 supports two channels of DDR3-1600 memory, or 25.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. A Ryzen processor (or other recent generation) supports DDR4-3200, which literally doubles your memory bandwidth. Fortunately or unfortunately, we now have much faster PCIe SSDs so memory bandwidth isn't as crucial for normal use, but a 100% improvement is a much better reason to upgrade than a measly 10% bump.
Intel i7-3770 Passmark Score (~6yrs old, was ~$320): 9300 [1]
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Passmark Score (<1yr old, ~$290): 15382 [2]
That's a 65% improvement in benchmark performance. So not the "doubling" trend I was used to growing up, but not insignificant.
[1] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3770+...
[2] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+2700&id...
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Passmark Score (<1yr old, ~$290): 15382 [2]
That's a 65% improvement in benchmark performance. So not the "doubling" trend I was used to growing up, but not insignificant.
[1] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3770+...
[2] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+2700&id...
If you look at the smaller print on those two pages, the Ryzen 7's single core performance is a little under the I7's, meaning if your workload doesn't take advantage of the extra cores then this only roughly an equal move.
I too have a i7-3770 and it runs fantastic. I've only just realised that it is actually 6 years old, theres just not the incentive to upgrade that there once was.
It's even faster than the newest I7 8650U
That is true for general purpose computing. However, AMD has been diversifying away from client (laptops, desktops). There is a large and growing market for semi-custom designs: game consoles, CPU+GPU cloud computing, DaaS virtualization, embedded systems. Since these are markets with large companies competing against each other there will be continual demand for incremental power and performance improvements that an individual consumer may not care about.
A company that can rapidly mix and match IP to customer needs will have an advantage.
Have you looked at the price and performance for AMD's threadripper and epyc series? I agree that we're nearing the end of shrinking process nodes, but their architecture is incredibly innovative
We may discover the stagnant generation-to-generation performance uplift over the past ~10 years was mostly due to lack of competition in the market.
I don't think that has been the case.
The stuff I've read about the new process nodes from the last decade indicate that moving to those hasn't been easy. And the chip designers haven't had it easy either, with each new process comes a longer and longer list of restrictions and other difficulties.
Transitioning an existing CPU design (for example) to a new process node was never easy per se, but it has never been harder than it is these days. That's part of the slowdown.
The stuff I've read about the new process nodes from the last decade indicate that moving to those hasn't been easy. And the chip designers haven't had it easy either, with each new process comes a longer and longer list of restrictions and other difficulties.
Transitioning an existing CPU design (for example) to a new process node was never easy per se, but it has never been harder than it is these days. That's part of the slowdown.
That's why AMD innovated on a new CPU design, because what we've been using doesn't cut it anymore. Look at their CCX architecture and infinity fabric
I'm hoping that we'll see innovations such as Mill Computing's CPU get to the market, and it should provide a dramatic improvement in efficiency / performance for a given die area.
And that's great. But that'll also be a one-time thing in a sense. After it has moved to the latest process node, it will be on the same trajectory as other architectures.
And that's great. But that'll also be a one-time thing in a sense. After it has moved to the latest process node, it will be on the same trajectory as other architectures.
Intel has a lot of interesting stuff outside of CPU area, for example NVM
Advancement of that is also dependent on silicon lithography.
Again, what's the valuation of Intel if (in the future) we see them churning out the same 1GB NVMe cards at the same cost with the same performance? The valuation of Intel and every other tech company is based on future growth potential.
Again, what's the valuation of Intel if (in the future) we see them churning out the same 1GB NVMe cards at the same cost with the same performance? The valuation of Intel and every other tech company is based on future growth potential.
Neither modern NAND (3D) nor 3D XPoint are directly dependent on planar silicon scaling.
That's true. 3D won't help with processors as much, because of heat dissipation issues, but storage will benefit.
However, the planar silicon scaling is what primarily enables cost reduction for production. I expect the (total device) density to continue to increase with the 3D tech, but cost will go up with capacity increases. Maybe not linearly though, because you don't have to pay for extra packaging.
However, the planar silicon scaling is what primarily enables cost reduction for production. I expect the (total device) density to continue to increase with the 3D tech, but cost will go up with capacity increases. Maybe not linearly though, because you don't have to pay for extra packaging.
I would not rule out 3D from processors yet. Such an invention would be able to reduce die size and likely cost. Heat density is probably the real problem and may need some additional inventions.
The 3D memories will probably see some planar (x-y) scaling, they just don't need all of their scaling from it. 3D scaling will still increase bits/die area, and thus reduce $/bit. If doubling the stacking height doubles capacity but adds 30% to wafer cost with extra processing steps, its still much more efficient than 100% cost for two wafers of the previous design.
Scaling efficiency shouldn't be too dissimilar from planar scaling, at least until the next wall is hit.
The 3D memories will probably see some planar (x-y) scaling, they just don't need all of their scaling from it. 3D scaling will still increase bits/die area, and thus reduce $/bit. If doubling the stacking height doubles capacity but adds 30% to wafer cost with extra processing steps, its still much more efficient than 100% cost for two wafers of the previous design.
Scaling efficiency shouldn't be too dissimilar from planar scaling, at least until the next wall is hit.
Given knowledge that the CEO is a male, assuming the relationship is with a female is simply based on statistics.
I assumed it was a man because of another gender bias: I don't know many women working at Intel so statistically its likely to be a man
unless I am missing something, people usually don't switch their sexual orientation based on gender breakdown at their workplace.
Why assume at all?
Same reason you can reasonably refer to a male-looking acquaintance as "he" without enforcing a policy of using "they" until you have the opportunity to ask what gender they identify with.
Yes, you will get it wrong ~0.1% of the time, but the cost of slight embarrassment one one/both sides is far less than the cost of using non-standard and confusing communication the remaining 99.9% of the time.
Yes, you will get it wrong ~0.1% of the time, but the cost of slight embarrassment one one/both sides is far less than the cost of using non-standard and confusing communication the remaining 99.9% of the time.
conductr(1)
Because it's cumbersome to write comments that don't assume anything but still convey something.
single sentences suddenly become whole paragraphs and just for the tiny off-chance of him being homosexual.
single sentences suddenly become whole paragraphs and just for the tiny off-chance of him being homosexual.
Just use "they" or "she/he" instead of "she"...
The typing isn't hard, the hard part is keeping yourself from making assumptions about who people like to date. There's much more than a "tiny off-chance" that people are queer, at least where I'm from (and probably at Intel HQ too).
The typing isn't hard, the hard part is keeping yourself from making assumptions about who people like to date. There's much more than a "tiny off-chance" that people are queer, at least where I'm from (and probably at Intel HQ too).
I don't think so. Where do you get your numbers?
I'm not discriminating anyone when I assume the majority view on things as long as I stop doing it to an individual who tells me they are part of an minority.
I'm not discriminating anyone when I assume the majority view on things as long as I stop doing it to an individual who tells me they are part of an minority.
Because it's a natural thing to do. It's very tiresome to watch yourself all day to make sure you're not making any assumptions. We hear "CEO has relationship with employee" and our mind immediately goes to work fabricating a mental image of that. And if there's something our mind is really good at, it's filling in the gaps, i.e. assumptions. So when we continue the conversation, we use that mental image and without even thinking use the word "she" when referring to the employee. Is this insensitive? No, it's just sticking to patterns, which is the modus operandi of our mind.
I think the parent is descriptive for many people, but that's a different issue than prescriptive. We can do much better:
> Is this insensitive? No, it's just sticking to patterns
IMHO, that's the cause of most discrimination. People aren't intentionally discriminatory, but not having experienced it themselves they suffer from the blinders of their own perspective (as humans do), are unaware of the consequences of their actions, and are doing the very human thing of downplaying the magnitude of others' problems. As Mel Brooks (IIRC) said, 'Tragedy is I stub my toe; comedy is you get eaten by a lion.'
That's why people talk about being 'woke' or becoming aware of their 'privilege'. They weren't intentionally insensitive before, but they didn't grasp what they hadn't experienced, and then one day the blinders come off.
> the modus operandi of our mind
The modus operendi of our minds can lead to all sorts of horrible things, from murder to war to theft. We can and do use reason in order to do better, including by learning the pattern of not making assumptions.
> it's a natural thing to do
It's natural to follow patterns, but the pattern isn't natural; it's just one arbitrary pattern we learn. We can learn other patterns, which is how we change and grow. Whole societies learn new patterns; democracy and universal human rights didn't exist until the 18th century (roughly speaking); for all of human history until maybe 50 years ago, women were 'naturally' though of as qualified only for raising babies and maybe some nurturing jobs. Now they fly fighter planes off aircraft carriers and are a majority of new lawyers (IT hasn't figured it out yet, apparently).
> It's very tiresome to watch yourself all day
If you think that's tiresome, imagine facing endless discrimination everywhere you go, from family, co-workers, employers, the person on the bus, the movie, the book, the Reddit thread, etc. Imagine facing the prospect of experiencing that for the rest of your life.
Anyway, we don't have to watch ourselves all day. Just learn something new, and pretty simple. I learned some new Vim techniques recently and now I don't have to watch myself all day, I just use them. I learned to say 'they' awhile ago, and it's now second nature - Vim was harder.
> Is this insensitive? No, it's just sticking to patterns
IMHO, that's the cause of most discrimination. People aren't intentionally discriminatory, but not having experienced it themselves they suffer from the blinders of their own perspective (as humans do), are unaware of the consequences of their actions, and are doing the very human thing of downplaying the magnitude of others' problems. As Mel Brooks (IIRC) said, 'Tragedy is I stub my toe; comedy is you get eaten by a lion.'
That's why people talk about being 'woke' or becoming aware of their 'privilege'. They weren't intentionally insensitive before, but they didn't grasp what they hadn't experienced, and then one day the blinders come off.
> the modus operandi of our mind
The modus operendi of our minds can lead to all sorts of horrible things, from murder to war to theft. We can and do use reason in order to do better, including by learning the pattern of not making assumptions.
> it's a natural thing to do
It's natural to follow patterns, but the pattern isn't natural; it's just one arbitrary pattern we learn. We can learn other patterns, which is how we change and grow. Whole societies learn new patterns; democracy and universal human rights didn't exist until the 18th century (roughly speaking); for all of human history until maybe 50 years ago, women were 'naturally' though of as qualified only for raising babies and maybe some nurturing jobs. Now they fly fighter planes off aircraft carriers and are a majority of new lawyers (IT hasn't figured it out yet, apparently).
> It's very tiresome to watch yourself all day
If you think that's tiresome, imagine facing endless discrimination everywhere you go, from family, co-workers, employers, the person on the bus, the movie, the book, the Reddit thread, etc. Imagine facing the prospect of experiencing that for the rest of your life.
Anyway, we don't have to watch ourselves all day. Just learn something new, and pretty simple. I learned some new Vim techniques recently and now I don't have to watch myself all day, I just use them. I learned to say 'they' awhile ago, and it's now second nature - Vim was harder.
Because for 95% it's correct and when you are not part of those 5% and less, this topic is way below other topics and thoughts.
Doing the dishes or putting stuff away is a way bigger problem for me. I do not wanna offend anybody with this but some genderassumptions and gender topics are important but less relevant for me than the amount of discussions we have about it let us believe that it has more daily relevance.
My language is a language with genders (German).
Doing the dishes or putting stuff away is a way bigger problem for me. I do not wanna offend anybody with this but some genderassumptions and gender topics are important but less relevant for me than the amount of discussions we have about it let us believe that it has more daily relevance.
My language is a language with genders (German).
Because writing in English requires either gender specific singular pronouns or the awkward sounding use of a gender neutral _plural_ pronoun referring to a singular person.
There is no rule in English that says a pronoun cannot be both singular and plural. Here's a simple example:
"Which of you thinks you are the smartest?"
I used "you" as both singular and plural in that sentence, and no one would blink an eye at it.
"They" is used the same way as "you", as either a singular or plural pronoun depending on the context. This was the case in English for centuries, until some prescriptivist grammarians decided they didn't like it, each for their own reasons.
BTW, do you really think that last sentence would be improved by saying "each for his or her own reasons"?
The modern resurgence of singular "they" is just returning English to what was common and correct usage before the prescriptivists hijacked the language.
https://www.google.com/search?q=singular+they+history
https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/everything-yo...
"Which of you thinks you are the smartest?"
I used "you" as both singular and plural in that sentence, and no one would blink an eye at it.
"They" is used the same way as "you", as either a singular or plural pronoun depending on the context. This was the case in English for centuries, until some prescriptivist grammarians decided they didn't like it, each for their own reasons.
BTW, do you really think that last sentence would be improved by saying "each for his or her own reasons"?
The modern resurgence of singular "they" is just returning English to what was common and correct usage before the prescriptivists hijacked the language.
https://www.google.com/search?q=singular+they+history
https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/everything-yo...
> "Which of you thinks you are the smartest?"
I would think that this is a mistake and you'd need to say:
"Which of you thinks he or she is the smartest?"
I'm not a native speaker though.
I would think that this is a mistake and you'd need to say:
"Which of you thinks he or she is the smartest?"
I'm not a native speaker though.
Languages change over time, and the gender neutral "they" is becoming widely used to refer to specific people.
"they" is both singular and plural.
You are correct. See my other comment in this thread for some supporting evidence.
Shakespeare used "they" to refer to singular people.
I always think zebras, so i can keep getting surprised by horses.
Have a read of the following thought piece, I feel like it will prove to be very relevant to you.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1xuY5O...
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1xuY5O...
Hold on, now. You can't assume Brian identifies as a man.
Why do you think Apple would develop an x86 chip over other architectures?
I read that as a competitor to x86.
And you have read it right. My mistake.
this...
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?)
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.
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.
>> I guess he can always go to Oracle
Why would a CEO of a microprocessor company be accepted at Oracle?
Why would a CEO of a microprocessor company be accepted at Oracle?
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.
Kinda like the Oakland Raiders. Sorry Oakland fans.
now it makes sense why the raiders play within sight of where the warriors play.
Mark Hurd, current CEO of Oracle, also had a similar incident while at HP.
[deleted]
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.
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)
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? ;)
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? ;)
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?
I'm not sure if I buy this completely. You see, a manager is human after all which means he/she is going to like some people more than others. There is always some kind of relationship with all the others, no way around it. Now obviously if the manager is only going to look at this relationship, his/her personal affection for others and not their work, and give some advantages over others based on that relationship, yes that is bad. Seeing that, and seeing an actual romatic relationship is just a more involved type of relationship, 'simply don't sleep with the people you manage' is obviously not enough. You should be able to put all or most personal things aside. As such I think these rules of no romantic relationships are a bit strange. Even if you follow that rule, but for the rest still manage people based on your personal relationship with them, it's still bad.
I'm not sure if I buy this completely. You see, a manager is human after all which means he/she is going to like some people more than others. There is always some kind of relationship with all the others, no way around it. Now obviously if the manager is only going to look at this relationship, his/her personal affection for others and not their work, and give some advantages over others based on that relationship, yes that is bad. Seeing that, and seeing an actual romatic relationship is just a more involved type of relationship, 'simply don't sleep with the people you manage' is obviously not enough. You should be able to put all or most personal things aside. As such I think these rules of no romantic relationships are a bit strange. Even if you follow that rule, but for the rest still manage people based on your personal relationship with them, it's still bad.
This exactly.
Or looked at it the other way: If two people have feelings for each other but suppress resulting actions due to company policy, how would that not influence decision making?
Or looked at it the other way: If two people have feelings for each other but suppress resulting actions due to company policy, how would that not influence decision making?
There's a difference between the feeling, "hey that manager I pass in the halls occasionally is attractive", and "I am in love with that manager".
The first is unavoidable, and although we try to correct for it in internal hiring/promotion processes by referencing assessments from multiple persons and making a data-driven decision, the second is completely avoidable by not dating the person!
After having graduated high school, most adults don't just fall into relationships. It is reasonable to assume intent is present once the connection between two individuals can be considered a "relationship" in this context.
The first is unavoidable, and although we try to correct for it in internal hiring/promotion processes by referencing assessments from multiple persons and making a data-driven decision, the second is completely avoidable by not dating the person!
After having graduated high school, most adults don't just fall into relationships. It is reasonable to assume intent is present once the connection between two individuals can be considered a "relationship" in this context.
Then why not ban friendships in the workplace? Surely they could result in the same kind of perceived biases (e.g. cliques).
surely you can list the differences between a romantic / physical relationship and a purely platonic one and understand why it is bad when it comes to imbalances in power right?
Both kinds of relationships can lead to power imbalances though. There's nothing special about a romantic/physical relationship in that regard. One can promote their (same sex, platonic) buddy for being their buddy, just as easily as they can promote their girlfriend/boyfriend.
Unequal treatment in the workplace due to friendship is far, far, FAR more common than due to romance. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever worked at a company of more than a few people where it didn't happen.
yeah, it's one of those things that is really hard to avoid as a manager. Naturally you like some people and don't like others. Maintaining objectivity and evaluating people on their performance despite your feelings about their personality is hard.
This is why good managers don't aim to be friends with the people they manage. You may end up being friends because of team camaraderie and the amount of time you spend in the same building, but deliberately choosing to socialise with some (but not all) of the team is a bad idea.
And exactly the same thing happens if there is a perceived friendship in the team. Was the employee promoted because of their skills or because they're mates with the boss? Were they not promoted because the boss didn't want to be seen to be promoting a friend? Did they get into that argument because they're a brown-nosing jerk that thinks they're untouchable because they go for beers with the boss every Friday?
This is why good managers don't aim to be friends with the people they manage. You may end up being friends because of team camaraderie and the amount of time you spend in the same building, but deliberately choosing to socialise with some (but not all) of the team is a bad idea.
And exactly the same thing happens if there is a perceived friendship in the team. Was the employee promoted because of their skills or because they're mates with the boss? Were they not promoted because the boss didn't want to be seen to be promoting a friend? Did they get into that argument because they're a brown-nosing jerk that thinks they're untouchable because they go for beers with the boss every Friday?
You can ask those same questions about any attractive person or any person with powerful family members. Does that mean we can't employ those people either?
Of course not. If a manager runs a tight ship and treats their team fairly, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with a relationship. If as a manager you can't properly separate your emotions and friendships from your management duties, you aren't going to make a good manager anyway. The manager who is going to unfairly promote the person they are seeing is also going to unfairly promote the worker who they are best friends with over the worker who best deserves the promotion.
Of course not. If a manager runs a tight ship and treats their team fairly, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with a relationship. If as a manager you can't properly separate your emotions and friendships from your management duties, you aren't going to make a good manager anyway. The manager who is going to unfairly promote the person they are seeing is also going to unfairly promote the worker who they are best friends with over the worker who best deserves the promotion.
Exactly. There are many successful cases of teachers, where their own kids are sitting in their classes.
According to the CEO logic this should not be allowed and would not work. It does. Are teachers better managers than CEO's? Apparently. But then they should get paid accordingly.
According to the CEO logic this should not be allowed and would not work. It does. Are teachers better managers than CEO's? Apparently. But then they should get paid accordingly.
it's not about what the manager actually does. It's about the team's perception of it. He could be the best manager in the world, and have perfect separation between his emotions and his professional judgement. But the other people in the team will evaluate his decisions with the relationship in mind even if he doesn't. There will always be a question mark over his leadership decisions, even if those decisions were made for the best reasons.
He wasn't the CEO when he dated an employee
what other basic mistakes is he going to make? Bring a gun into work? ;)
Why would you think that bringing a gun to work is a "mistake"? Does one's right to self-defense stop the moment they cross the threshold of their office door?
Why would you think that bringing a gun to work is a "mistake"? Does one's right to self-defense stop the moment they cross the threshold of their office door?
Beyond the complications you raise in management, it is just a straight major legal risk.
How can you argue or prove any relationship between boss and subordinate is consensual?
How can you argue or prove any relationship between boss and subordinate is consensual?
> Why are US companies always so aggressive about moralising these issues?
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.
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.
I really liked that you skipped over what that ballot initiative was. He donated in support of Prop 8, an attempt to ban same-sex marriage in California. As a former Mozilla employee, I'm pretty glad that he was ousted for his homophobia. Good riddance.
So am I not allowed to be in US / US company / Any US company top position , that due to my religion and belief is against Gay Marriage, and can not support it ? Are those religion now deemed evil by US ? My / Our way or the high way ?
He also invented JavaScript. Good riddance indeed.
It was an opinion on marriage, a millenia-old quasi-political-religious traditional institution. The world is full of such opinions. Polygamy is illegal in 50 of 50 United states, even California.
Don't slip on that edge of political wrongthink.
Communism is certainly the most damaging political movement of the 20th century. Should we oust Communist sympathizers from their positions of power?
Don't slip on that edge of political wrongthink.
Communism is certainly the most damaging political movement of the 20th century. Should we oust Communist sympathizers from their positions of power?
Polygamy is very different from same-sex marriage, though.
How?
How is it similar?
Laws prohibiting same sex marriage and laws prohibiting polygamy limit people from marrying people that they choose.
Why should the state be okay with two men getting married to each other and not two men getting married to the same woman? Or three women all getting married to each other?
Why should the state be okay with two men getting married to each other and not two men getting married to the same woman? Or three women all getting married to each other?
Being anti gay marriage isn't necessarily homophobic. I'm a straight male in the middle of a divorce, and I share an apartment with a gay male friend. Divorce is an ugly and painful process, and the only sure way to avoid it is to avoid marriage. Gay marriage will inevitably mean gay divorce. Haven't gay people suffered enough already?
In tech ... its a Nerf gun
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.
To an extent I think that these things are promoted because they’re a very effective way to mislead people.
The way the world works, it doesn't make sense that that alone is the reason. There has to be something more.
[deleted]
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
Opposite situation for me....I work for a Swiss company in a US office. They all think we are crazy for not allowing Glühwein at our Christmas....errr.....Winter party.
And there's no such thing as Friday afternoon beers in the fridge.
And there's no such thing as Friday afternoon beers in the fridge.
>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.
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.
We had a CFO bring a handgun onto company property in his car. Some one spotted it (apparently, it was in plain view in the car) and notified the police. He was given a talking-to by the cops and then by company reps. He wasn't fired at that point but he was gone in a month or two. Related? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me.
The company is in Sunnyvale, site of the Richard Farley murders at ESL in 1988. So, yeah, I think the police would be interested in knowing his intentions.
The company is in Sunnyvale, site of the Richard Farley murders at ESL in 1988. So, yeah, I think the police would be interested in knowing his intentions.
In areas of the country where some material number of people do carry firearms (e.g. Texas), it's not uncommon to have explicit signs on company buildings that forbid firearms. I imagine that's pretty common policy at many if not most companies.
Though unless they have metal detectors, it's a bit like requiring your employees to wear briefs.
If you can tell they're not doing what you say, they're not doing it right.
If you can tell they're not doing what you say, they're not doing it right.
Depends. There are open carry and concealed carry licenses. Also, if you are an employee and sneak a weapon in and someone finds out, you will be fired.
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.
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.
Because firms end up on the front page of the WSJ and the London Financial Times when someone decides to go public with it.
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.
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.
Its also company policy that you should be fired on the spot for sleeping at your desk -- some kind of hold over from manufacturing that makes no sense for most office positions.
Risk exposure to lawsuit is incomparable to the relationship case but it was consensual.
Risk exposure to lawsuit is incomparable to the relationship case but it was consensual.
Yeah, and if the CEO was sleeping at his desk it'd be reasonable to either reprimand him or expect him to spend 30 seconds rescinding that policy because “the rules are for you but not me” has a terrible effect on morale.
Why is it that morals rule on message boards?
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.
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.
Even if the Puritans (who usually referred to themselves as 'godly') were slightly less prim about sex then some people expect, they certainly weren't keen on sex outside of marriage. (They also banned Christmas and other holiday celebrations, theatre, walking 'for fun', and smashed stained glass windows in churches, slashed and burned paintings by Rubens and others, and pulled down medieval monuments as being 'idolatrous', had serious discussions about legislating that Catholics should have to wear special clothes so everyone could recognise them. When you hear 'Puritan' think 'Christian Taliban'.)
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.
Conflict of interest.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
> In some cases, I have some sympathy for the guy who may well have not really fully understood the intimidation factor in the situation. In other cases, they clearly are happy to use their power to bully others into getting their way and, no, I'm not sympathetic to their bullshit claims.
How would a neutral third-party observer legitimately be able to tell the difference (assuming the latter is a sociopath or just a really good actor pretending to be the former)?
To me, that seems to be the real benefit to the strictness of some of these rules. It removes an avenue of the unintended intimidation that you mention.
I do think it helps to discuss it and call out these issues so that people understand that they're not just arbitrary or some kind of over-reaction or extreme bureacracy.
How would a neutral third-party observer legitimately be able to tell the difference (assuming the latter is a sociopath or just a really good actor pretending to be the former)?
To me, that seems to be the real benefit to the strictness of some of these rules. It removes an avenue of the unintended intimidation that you mention.
I do think it helps to discuss it and call out these issues so that people understand that they're not just arbitrary or some kind of over-reaction or extreme bureacracy.
I'm not pretending to be judge and jury, just a human being who has opinions when I read or hear about things. Not all situations are as cut and dried as "He was the CEO, she was an underling and there was some rule against it."
Also, I wasn't solely thinking of cases where I am a third party observer.
I'm a woman. I've found myself at times the subject of male interest where there was a power imbalance. Some men are assholes and I have no sympathy for their shit. In other cases, it's more complicated than that.
And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark.
Also, I wasn't solely thinking of cases where I am a third party observer.
I'm a woman. I've found myself at times the subject of male interest where there was a power imbalance. Some men are assholes and I have no sympathy for their shit. In other cases, it's more complicated than that.
And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark.
> And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark.
I wish you had followed the guidelines and taken the most charitable reading of what I said.
I, too, defended the existence of the rules. Not only was I not criticizing your remark, but I was supporting the existence of the remark, as it's a form of discussion that helps raise awareness of the necessity of the rules.
I wish you had followed the guidelines and taken the most charitable reading of what I said.
I, too, defended the existence of the rules. Not only was I not criticizing your remark, but I was supporting the existence of the remark, as it's a form of discussion that helps raise awareness of the necessity of the rules.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The unfortunate fact about a consensual workplace romance is that if they go sour it can destroy company culture and moral.
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."
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."
> you cannot get to know anyone romantically during 50-75% of your waking day
Few companies have such strict relationship policies.
Few companies have such strict relationship policies.
[deleted]
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.
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.
> it's a Very Bad Thing
It's happened probably 10s of thousands of times in the past few decades... and some of those couples are now happily married. I personally know of a boss who married his secretary and a professor who married a student.
I think the words "Very Bad Thing" are a little excessive. It's risky behavior.
It's happened probably 10s of thousands of times in the past few decades... and some of those couples are now happily married. I personally know of a boss who married his secretary and a professor who married a student.
I think the words "Very Bad Thing" are a little excessive. It's risky behavior.
> Nobody cares if two engineers hook up
It matters because if one of those people gets promoted it can break the policy.
It matters because if one of those people gets promoted it can break the policy.
All relationships at work are a bad idea.
They're dangerous to the firm and bad for the people's involved careers.
Best rule for everyone is no relationships between co-workers and if one happens both people are fired.
They're dangerous to the firm and bad for the people's involved careers.
Best rule for everyone is no relationships between co-workers and if one happens both people are fired.
Considering that 1/3 of all relationships met at work, your suggestion sounds pretty ridiculous.
That is mind-boggingly ridiculous: the concept that a company would have any sort of opinion on who I have sex with.
US work culture sometimes feels so incredibly alien when seen from the outside.
US work culture sometimes feels so incredibly alien when seen from the outside.
It's alien when you're on the inside too.
We had a married couple working at the company, both engineers and neither reporting to the other. The husband was promoted to a managerial position where his wife would now become a report, not direct, but still in his chain-of-command. That is against company policy so they were given some options to resolve this. The wife ended up with a lateral transfer into another division.
Awhile back one of my co-workers got involved with a contractor. Apparently the relationship went "bad" at some point and one of the parties decided to get HR involved. Both were fired immediately.
[deleted]
But do not forget to mention that "we are like family here".
See Clinton, William Jefferson... or Trump, Donald....
oh wait.
oh wait.
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?
They can't outweigh each other, otherwise you get versions of the utility monster problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster
If person A doesn't want to have sex with person B and person B would be inordinately happy to have sex with person A, just about all ethical systems would say they shouldn't have sex.
If person A has money in savings and is clinically depressed and person B wants to take that money and go on a vacation that would make them very happy, just about all ethical systems would say, no, that's stealing.
One of the things functional societies do is to limit the amount that certain people can make themselves happy as a mechanism of limiting the amount to which other people get hurt. Banning workplace relationships because of their serious potential for hurt seems like a straightforward case of this.
If person A doesn't want to have sex with person B and person B would be inordinately happy to have sex with person A, just about all ethical systems would say they shouldn't have sex.
If person A has money in savings and is clinically depressed and person B wants to take that money and go on a vacation that would make them very happy, just about all ethical systems would say, no, that's stealing.
One of the things functional societies do is to limit the amount that certain people can make themselves happy as a mechanism of limiting the amount to which other people get hurt. Banning workplace relationships because of their serious potential for hurt seems like a straightforward case of this.
>One of the things functional societies do is to limit the amount that certain people can make themselves happy as a mechanism of limiting the amount to which other people get hurt. Banning workplace relationships because of their serious potential for hurt seems like a straightforward case of this.
Nobody the debate is not between "some restrictions" and "no restriction", the latter is very much a straw man. We are debating where in particular the line should be drawn. For any given behavior X there are trade offs across the entire spectrum from full restriction of X to no restriction of X and the latter extreme is almost always far from ideal but much better than the former extreme.
Nobody the debate is not between "some restrictions" and "no restriction", the latter is very much a straw man. We are debating where in particular the line should be drawn. For any given behavior X there are trade offs across the entire spectrum from full restriction of X to no restriction of X and the latter extreme is almost always far from ideal but much better than the former extreme.
It is possible that a ban on boss-employee relationships reduces the average utility of employees (excluding the utility of bosses), if the happiness of employees from good relationships outweighs the unhappiness from bad ones. Maybe one could do a survey of whether employees in companies with non-fraternization policies are happier than those without such policies.
Then one or both of them can quit their job, or get moved somewhere where neither reports to the other.
Leaving aside the supposition of utilitarianism, we don't know. We can only make educated guesses.
Just not people you have a supervisory role over, because obviously that could be coercive.
Any relationship could be coercive. But just because it's possible for a relationship to be coercive doesn't mean that it is going to be.
I don't see what's wrong with a supervisor dating a suboridinate if both parties are consenting and the supervisor is not abusing their power. This taboo has never made much sense to me.
The supervisor can already be abusive towards their subordinates. You don't need to introduce a relationship to introduce the possibility for abuse. Why does a relationship automatically become wrong when these balanced power dynamics are already in place?
I don't see what's wrong with a supervisor dating a suboridinate if both parties are consenting and the supervisor is not abusing their power. This taboo has never made much sense to me.
The supervisor can already be abusive towards their subordinates. You don't need to introduce a relationship to introduce the possibility for abuse. Why does a relationship automatically become wrong when these balanced power dynamics are already in place?
It’s taboo because in practice, such relationships aren’t actually consenting, in the “no strings attached” sense.
Keep in mind the potential problem isn’t just between the supervisor and the subordinate, but with the supervisor and their entire department. Because it’s natural to suspect the supervisor’s lover of getting preferential treatment in terms of pay/benefits/promotions. This suspicion tends to cause an unhealthy work environment.
Keep in mind the potential problem isn’t just between the supervisor and the subordinate, but with the supervisor and their entire department. Because it’s natural to suspect the supervisor’s lover of getting preferential treatment in terms of pay/benefits/promotions. This suspicion tends to cause an unhealthy work environment.
"The supervisor already, necessarily has a lot of power they could potentially abuse. So let's put some rules in place to check some of those potential abuses, and give us clear-and-fast reasons to discipline if needed."
It's extremely poor judgment to date some that reports through you. "Power corrupts"-type stories are everywhere. Don't trust yourself to be the perfect exception; have some self-control.
Or, if you must, move to a different role or job! You're the one in the scenario with more options. And remember: most relationships end! Then it gets even messier if you work together directly, especially if they report to you. You break up, you can't work together well, now what happens? IME, nothing good for the person in the management role.
It's extremely poor judgment to date some that reports through you. "Power corrupts"-type stories are everywhere. Don't trust yourself to be the perfect exception; have some self-control.
Or, if you must, move to a different role or job! You're the one in the scenario with more options. And remember: most relationships end! Then it gets even messier if you work together directly, especially if they report to you. You break up, you can't work together well, now what happens? IME, nothing good for the person in the management role.
An employee in a relationship with the supervisor getting a promotion, objectively deserved or not, has the appearance of bias and favoritism. A supervisor having to make layoffs and keeping their spouse around is another such example.
Because it's not just impropriety, it's the appearance of impropriety. It erodes trust in the organization to treat employees fairly by their competence/skillset/behavior/etc.
Even if the supervisor isn't abusing their power, it can still be an issue. It can lead to people thinking "Is there going to be come back if I break up with this person?".
Unless you coerce the other part explicitly then this doesn't mean anything.
That is not an accurate restatement of the policy.
The policy only applies to people who directly or indirectly report to you.
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.
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.
>But for anyone else it only eliminates some % of the dating pool.
And who said that love (and/or lust for that matter) can or should be confined by such BS rules? Or that someone would have to chose between that and their job?
"dating pool" makes it clinical, as if every person is an interchangeable potential fuck/partner. In reality people are attracted to particular persons.
And who said that love (and/or lust for that matter) can or should be confined by such BS rules? Or that someone would have to chose between that and their job?
"dating pool" makes it clinical, as if every person is an interchangeable potential fuck/partner. In reality people are attracted to particular persons.
So obviously relationships are bad when
there's a power dynamic,
From what I have understood of this topic:
If the relationship continues, the power could be used to favour the subordinate over other subordinates (give them good reviews, etc).
If the relationship ends poorly, the power could be used to spite the subordinate over other subordinates (give them poor reviews, etc).
If the relationship continues, the power could be used to favour the subordinate over other subordinates (give them good reviews, etc).
If the relationship ends poorly, the power could be used to spite the subordinate over other subordinates (give them poor reviews, etc).
But really, how is that different from any other decision an employee might do that prioritises their own personal gain over their company’s benefit?
I don't think it is different.
Companies that are large/sophisticated enough to have formal policies of employee conduct generally ban a wide range of behaviors that prioritizes the employee's personal gain over the company's.
Companies that are large/sophisticated enough to have formal policies of employee conduct generally ban a wide range of behaviors that prioritizes the employee's personal gain over the company's.
Right, but what's being discussed isn't that the policies are there. It's if they make sense i.e. do they ban something that's actual bad or are they just arbitrary restrictions?
They are there to reduce risk and to reduce unnecessary drama.
Right, so the it's an issue only if the power dynamic is abused. The power imbalance itself is not intrinsically going to cause problems.
I suspect you're imagining a single relationship in your head, and imagining that it could go well. Yes, indeed it could. But you have to think at scale. If you have ten of these sorts of relationships in your company, the odds of one of them going kerflooey in an expensive or damaging way is effectively 100%. Heck, the odds of five of them going kerflooey in an expensive or dangerous way has to be at least 90%.
You can't write policy based on imagining single incidents. At scale, power dynamics will be abused, full stop.
You can't write policy based on imagining single incidents. At scale, power dynamics will be abused, full stop.
It's a problem for the company even without misconduct. If a coworker claims a promotion went to a romantic partner instead of them because of romance, the company has to spend a bunch of time looking into that, even if there was no misconduct.
It's the same thing with conflicts of interest. The clear possibility for misconduct is a problem that at least must be declared, and at best is avoided.
It's the same thing with conflicts of interest. The clear possibility for misconduct is a problem that at least must be declared, and at best is avoided.
It's also common for employees at the same level to give performance reviews to each other. This is better dealt with by having a higher-level manager adjust for relationships.
Yeah I never understood this either. Does that mean a bachelor US president can't date a US citizen?
Yes, power can be abused. But anyone with a knife at home can abuse that knife by stabbing someone. That doesn't make it wrong to own a knife.
Yes, power can be abused. But anyone with a knife at home can abuse that knife by stabbing someone. That doesn't make it wrong to own a knife.
The president is not the boss of citizens the way a CEO is employees at her firm. If that's your view of american civics, time to update your civics lessons.
>Yeah I never understood this either. Does that mean a bachelor US president can't date a US citizen?
Is the difference in power between a US president and the given citizen larger than the difference in power between a 18 and 15 year old? If so, and if relationships should be banned based on power differences, then it seems the only logical conclusion is such a relationship should be banned.
Then again, our laws and social morals are rarely so consistent.
Is the difference in power between a US president and the given citizen larger than the difference in power between a 18 and 15 year old? If so, and if relationships should be banned based on power differences, then it seems the only logical conclusion is such a relationship should be banned.
Then again, our laws and social morals are rarely so consistent.
>That doesn't make it wrong to own a knife.
There exist a subset of people in the UK (and in other places but the a subset of the UK subset is particularly vocal and influential) who believe the opposite with varying degrees of passion and with various exceptions carved out.
Edit: Pun not intended but I like it so I'm keeping it there.
There exist a subset of people in the UK (and in other places but the a subset of the UK subset is particularly vocal and influential) who believe the opposite with varying degrees of passion and with various exceptions carved out.
Edit: Pun not intended but I like it so I'm keeping it there.
I'm more wondering, when is there not a power dynamic?
I think the CEO's $19.1 million salary is adequate compensation for the fact his seniority stops him pursuing romantic relationships at work.
If it's not, maybe he should have chosen a different job.
If it's not, maybe he should have chosen a different job.
This doesn't only apply to the CEO. Middle-managers are people too.
Tell that to Melinda Gates
> 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 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.
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.
>Among married people something like 50% of couples met their spouse at work.
What is your source for this figure? I just googled around and every survey appeared to put in the 15-20% range.
What is your source for this figure? I just googled around and every survey appeared to put in the 15-20% range.
Every survey of whom? Did it include people married for over 40 years? Most of the "surveys" you find are conclusion-driven to target an audience for an article, something like "how are people finding their SO's today"?
It's going to be hard to come to consensus on a number because it changes over time. Are we talking about all married people today, people of a certain demographic (18-34, etc)? During what period?
My source for the ~50% number is "common knowledge in the 80's and 90's". Anything you find by googling right now is going to have definitional problems. I'm not aware of something like a US Census that would be definitive.
It's going to be hard to come to consensus on a number because it changes over time. Are we talking about all married people today, people of a certain demographic (18-34, etc)? During what period?
My source for the ~50% number is "common knowledge in the 80's and 90's". Anything you find by googling right now is going to have definitional problems. I'm not aware of something like a US Census that would be definitive.
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.
Something you can choose and is not necessary to live (like being the CEO of Intel) cannot br deemed “cruel” in my sight.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blanket rules completely ignore human behavior, though. If two people want to sleep with each other, nature doesn't really care much about your rulebook (or outside opinions, which don't matter if leadership is keeping office drama in check).
It's almost a virtual certainty that at some point in time, rules be damned, employees will hook up.
It's almost a virtual certainty that at some point in time, rules be damned, employees will hook up.
> Bob had a relationship with Alice, and now couldn’t fire her because it would look like quid pro quo. Alice was the worst manager I have ever worked for
This seems like a problem caused by relationship policy and optics rather than the relationship itself. Doesn't Bob have a manager that can get involved to explicitly get rid of Alice?
This seems like a problem caused by relationship policy and optics rather than the relationship itself. Doesn't Bob have a manager that can get involved to explicitly get rid of Alice?
> This seems like a problem caused by relationship policy and optics rather than the relationship itself.
Yes, that's what I mean when I said, "The issue is not necessarily about whether the relationship itself is ethical, but how it appears to observers and if it affects the organization."
If you need to get Bob's manager, Carol, involved to manage Alice when things go poorly, it means that you should have had Carol managing Alice from the beginning. This is the only way I've ever seen it work well. Alice is under Bob in the org chart but all of her performance reviews are done by Carol, and Carol signs Alice's pay sheets, et cetera. I've seen this particular case happen a few times where Alice is Bob's daughter or where Alice and Bob were married before they came to the organization.
This is not possible when Bob is the CEO.
Yes, that's what I mean when I said, "The issue is not necessarily about whether the relationship itself is ethical, but how it appears to observers and if it affects the organization."
If you need to get Bob's manager, Carol, involved to manage Alice when things go poorly, it means that you should have had Carol managing Alice from the beginning. This is the only way I've ever seen it work well. Alice is under Bob in the org chart but all of her performance reviews are done by Carol, and Carol signs Alice's pay sheets, et cetera. I've seen this particular case happen a few times where Alice is Bob's daughter or where Alice and Bob were married before they came to the organization.
This is not possible when Bob is the CEO.
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.
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 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.
This seems to be a way to oust him without having to admit that he wasn't doing a good job as CEO.
Man, Larry Ellison handles stuff like this way better.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech...
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oracle-Boss-In-High-Tech...
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.
So he quits because of a "relationship", but not because of insider trading?
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-share...
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-share...
The optics are unfortunate but that's not what insider trading is.
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-...
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
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.
That said, if the other party gets pissed at the end of the relationship and complains, you are gone.
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.
Maybe he was forced to marry Melinda if he wanted to keep his position!
ps: i'm joking but who knows!
ps: i'm joking but who knows!
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.
Did he conceal his relationship with his future wife?
Unsure there is enough information to suggest Bill Gates "got away" with anything.
Other famous founders too. Owning a huge chunk of stock is good insurance against political squabbling.
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.
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.
Board clearly wanted him out anyways. Probably because he let AMD catch up so much.
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...
Getting the popcorn out to see how this unfolds...
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.
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.
The easier way for Krzanich was to let him resign because "he wanted to spend more time with his family".
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.
I wonder if this reason was chosen due to various clauses in his contract. Perhaps it exempts him from a golden parachute, because it's misbehavior on his part? And even it he was also trading, this explanation doesn't put as much risk to the share price.
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.
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.)
BridgeCoin. Having a stake in tokens will entitle you to a profit share of tolls for this bridge that I definitely own.
Where can I sign up for being a reseller?
Yup, might be also a set up of some sort.
10nm chips are delayed again.
AMD is back on desktop and server.
Those should be good enough reasons.
Those should be good enough reasons.
So my question is: Was the female employee also fired? If not, why not?
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.
> The company said Mr. Krzanich had violated a non-fraternization policy that applies to managers
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.
>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.
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.
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.
His reply pointed out a specific abuse of power that negatively affects the company. You failed to do so in your reply.
And seriously, name one possible motivation other than extortion for starting a relationship with a married executive.
And for the married executive, name one possible motivation other than sexual interest for a relationship with a subordinate.
And seriously, name one possible motivation other than extortion for starting a relationship with a married executive.
And for the married executive, name one possible motivation other than sexual interest for a relationship with a subordinate.
Nit: based on the article (as of 10a est), we don’t actually know if the subordinate was female :)
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.
The Oregonian has a better article than any I've seen posted here so far:
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/06/intel_...
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/06/intel_...
If it’s a company rule not to fraternize, punishment should go both ways.
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.
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?
It looks like another corruption scandal got Condit, no?
[deleted]
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!
Regardless of your gender, orientation... whatever... keep it in your pants regarding the workplace!
Another, let's say "interesting" CEO resignation. So many in such a short timespan. I wonder why this is happening all of a sudden.
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.
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.
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.
It's probably a good rule of thumb for a person in authority to assume anyone under him%her
OK: Shipping billions of bug-ridden chips
NOT OK: Dipping your pen in the company ink
And this has nothing to do with the troubled 10nm process...
The other employee has been fired, too?
Let the man live!
This reminds me if Eric Schmidt left Google because of this debacle: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-...
What is the Intel non-fraternization policy? What romantic relationships are banned?
Having a high level position in a company comes naturally with an entire new set of rules to be obeyed, whatever those rules are.
Quite a few workplaces forbid relationships between managers and their subordinates. As CEO, that presumably puts everyone off-limits.
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-ove...
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-ove...
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.
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-kr...
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-kr...
Probably saw this coming and wanted to convert stock into cash to avoid ay small print about stock clawbacks.
Would that qualify as insider trading? Seems like Zuck did a similar thing recently before Facebooks most recent privacy scandal
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
Barring Minority Report's pre-crime telepaths, I'm not sure how you'd apply this policy before the fact?
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.
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
> Krzanich violated a policy that said he could not have a relationship with either a direct or indirect report
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.
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.
It also deters blackmail from other parties, if the relationship is not public.
Eh, I would say it invites just as much blackmail as it deters. Those policies add more negative consequences to the relationship being exposed — if there’s a chance you could lose your job because of a non-fraternization policy, you’ll be more motivated to pay the blackmail and keep everything under wraps.
> 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.
> 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.
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. :)
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. :)
Why is this even worth discussing?
Because Intel is an enormous tech company who's technology has had a massive influence over the growth of computing and the internet.
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?
Conjecture: Zero.
Does that say anything interesting about humans?
Interesting indeed. In a hunter-gatherer tribe with a clear chief, do we consider the chief everyone else's boss?
[deleted]
I think that says more about large numbers than humans.
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?
Conjecture: Zero.
Does that say anything interesting about humans?
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.
- 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.
I mean, I get what you're saying but there have been plenty of people in relationships that would be criminally abusive who didn't have a problem with the relationship.
Just because someone thought the situation was fine doesn't mean that it was good for society, and unless we become a libertarian paradise those questions are going to be asked when the situation has the heuristics that point to there being a problem
Just because someone thought the situation was fine doesn't mean that it was good for society, and unless we become a libertarian paradise those questions are going to be asked when the situation has the heuristics that point to there being a problem
I think the point is that it limits the motivations for somebody to seek a position of power. Hopefully to ones that are good for the company.
It’s hard to find a trustworthy executive. That’s probably the #1 trait for effectiveness. Not saying that we do a good job of finding them.
It’s hard to find a trustworthy executive. That’s probably the #1 trait for effectiveness. Not saying that we do a good job of finding them.
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.
>Does that say anything interesting about humans?
No.
No.
> 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.
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.
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.
Societies redefine norms all the time, this is normal.
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.