Isn't Chairman pretty much a figurehead position anyway? I mean really, whether Bryant has deep discussions with Management, Marketing or Engineering about what's going on at Intel, or whether he just goes and plays golf, does it really make any difference?
I too have thought Bryant good CEO choice for bean counter reason. In face of nation influences; Congress, DOJ, SEC, FTC, FBI, CIA, NSA, NASBE, IFRS, EUCC, KFTC trusting fiduciary responsibility under all forms of best practices will be permanently returned to Intel. With Bryant as Chairman does that mean Intel network is out? GAAP at very least and corporate industrial social responsibilities back in? Proofs are yet to be delivered. On 18 yearís examples to the contrary thatís a big if. Trusting Bryant is not the next face man for Intel invented reality. Can reign in cross network executive division through the transition. Can put this team back on the track of sound economics, industrial management, forthright accounting, democratic governance, industrial social responsibility supporting civil rights and obviously a big wish list. Respectfully submitted, Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing.
Chairman, typically are non-executive company officers, so I do not see a major problem.
They do not dictate the technical path to follow.
However, a replacement of the CEO, that would be a more consequential move.
However placing an internal officer in the board may be a positive effect in the troops, since as a CEO effectiveness reviewer, there is some insight of his past performance.