Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#51

Post by detaro »

saagarjha wrote: post #16
vkou wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The investors should care, if not for human decency, then for their bottom line. Litigating or settling sexual harassment is very expensive - and being the cause of one is a demonstration of exceedingly poor judgement.

There is no litigation here–what are you going on about?

FTA:

> In 2012, the board settled with an executive assistant who had received sexually explicit text messages from Mr. Cagney, The New York Times previously reported.

If his past conduct required settlement payments to a target of his advances, will that repeat in a new company?

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#52

Post by harryh »

naasking wrote: post #50
rayiner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is this great app called Tinder where you can make romantic overtures to people who are voluntarily there for that purpose, and do so on your lunch break!

Yup, because when I think "romance", the first thing that's pops into my head is "Tinder".

You know what's a lot more romantic than Tinder? Hitting on coworkers at the office when they're just trying to get their work done.

Oh wait.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#53

Post by kolbe »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #35
kolbe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, should we also disallow any other conflicting personal relationships up the chain of command? Where do we stop? Romantic relationships? Family? Friends? All of them create the same conflicts of interest and mismatches power dynamics.

Ever heard of the word nepotism? This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff.

Thanks for the unnecessary remedial English lesson. You could try answering the question instead of acting like that, though. Hiring a qualified friend to work under you isn't 'corrosive to an organization'. So why is managing a qualified romantic partner so objectionable?

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#54

Post by skookumchuck »

rayiner wrote: post #37
kinggfx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the constraints?

It's a process that's still shaking out. I strongly suspect dating coworkers will be on the chopping block. Anecdotally: I've never heard a woman say "you know, I wish more people would ask me out at work." They view it as an imposition. Driving those changes will be technology like Tinder. By making the market for dating more efficient, it will reduce the need to permit romantic solicitations in other contexts.

> They view it as an imposition.

Are you arguing that women would never want a relationship with someone they met at work?

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#55

Post by cycrutchfield »

kolbe wrote: post #53
cycrutchfield wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever heard of the word nepotism? This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff.

Thanks for the unnecessary remedial English lesson. You could try answering the question instead of acting like that, though. Hiring a qualified friend to work under you isn't 'corrosive to an organization'. So why is managing a qualified romantic partner so objectionable?

If your boss hires their frat bro from college as one of your peers, and said frat bro starts getting promoted faster to you, would you consider that to create corrosive sentiments? Whether said frat bro is qualified or not, you may start to question your boss’s objectivity.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#56

Post by tptacek »

skookumchuck wrote: post #54
rayiner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a process that's still shaking out. I strongly suspect dating coworkers will be on the chopping block. Anecdotally: I've never heard a woman say "you know, I wish more people would ask me out at work." They view it as an imposition. Driving those changes will be technology like Tinder. By making the market for dating more efficient, it will reduce the need to permit romantic solicitations in other contexts.

> They view it as an imposition. Are you arguing that women would never want a relationship with someone they met at work?

He's arguing what he said he's arguing: that women he's talked to or heard about view being asked out on dates by coworkers as an imposition. I've heard exactly the same thing.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#57

Post by sverige »

harryh wrote: post #47
sverige wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had that rule my entire career. I also avoid ever being alone with women at work so that there is no question that I could have done something untoward without a witness. That has prevented a lot of problems for me. It has also probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports, but that's not my problem. I've been waiting for the legislation against those unintended conse…

Intentionally hindering the careers of people that report to you makes you a crappy manager. Doing it in a sexist way makes this doubly true. You should stop doing that.

I never said I hindered their careers. I have promoted and supported quite a few women over the years.

In fact, one of them is now a senior VP at a Fortune 100. I take no credit for that. She was extremely talented. OTOH, I certainly could have hindered her advancement but did not obviously. In fact I warmly recommended her for a promotion and later gave her very good references when she moved on to other companies. These were important steps in her career. Others have continued to advance as well, if not quite as spectacularly.

What I did say is that there are some who I did not help as much as I probably could have. They could have possibly benefited from some private coaching. I am not a crappy manager for not doing that. I am a good husband and provider for never allowing a situation to occur that could have put my career in jeopardy.

I didn't make the rules, the government (and especially the courts) did.

And calling me sexist is a cheap shot that only proves my point. Accusations are easy; proof is hard. This is especially true when you take a defensive position against the known risks of being falsely accused, as I have been several times.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#58

Post by timsally »

toomchsauce wrote: post #3

He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. The article acts like if you break the workplace dating policy you should never work again or have to come crawling back. Would view this as a standard firing for him breaking the rules not really a #MeToo where he’s supposed to go into exile on MeToo island

Incorrect. He (1) had more than one extramarital relationships at work with people under him in the power structure, (2) repeatedly lied about it, and (3) was given a second chance by his board after he was caught the first time but did it again anyway.

Why is the most upvoted comment on this article a false characterization of this executive's conduct that downplays its severity?

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#59

Post by tptacek »

sverige wrote: post #57
harryh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intentionally hindering the careers of people that report to you makes you a crappy manager. Doing it in a sexist way makes this doubly true. You should stop doing that.

I never said I hindered their careers. I have promoted and supported quite a few women over the years. In fact, one of them is now a senior VP at a Fortune 100. I take no credit for that. She was extremely talented. OTOH, I certainly could have hindered her advancement but did not obviously. In fact I warmly recommended her for a promotion and later gave her very good references when she moved on to other companies.…

You literally just said you hindered their careers, in those exact words. The comment you wrote is there for everyone to read.

Your edit to that last comment doesn't clear anything up. It's non sequitur logic. "I'm not a crappy manager, I'm a good provider"?

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#60

Post by jacquesm »

rayiner wrote: post #29
otherworld wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. We're living in increasingly socially conservative times. Somewhat ironically this seems to be due to the moral superiority of the "left" rather than the traditionalism associated with the right. I also find the implicit assumption that all people who break the current moral codes of the day (even if they did so in the past!) should be henceforth unemployable and the subject of social outrage.

What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se... . Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).

> and it's not appropriate in the workplace

It's fine in the workplace, lots of couples that I know have met in the workplace. Just not between superiors and sub-ordinates.

Post reply on HN