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

61–70 of 135 posts

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

#61

Post by kolbe »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #55
kolbe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess you kind of answered my question. You think that there should be zero personal relationships (you seem to be hung up on a frat one, but I'll extrapolate to friendships) between a boss and anyone under their chain of command? Good luck having success building a company where those people aren't allowed to be friends. Mandated personal indifference sounds more corrosive than your scenario.

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

#62

Post by sverige »

tptacek wrote: post #59
sverige wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them.

I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When facing a choice of going above and beyond to help develop a female employee's career and risking my own career (and my family's well-being) by exposing myself to the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment, I have chosen selfishly. (Here is where you tell us all how you would choose to risk your career to advance your female employee "because it's the right thing to do.")

It's exactly this sort of rhetoric that makes it difficult to have any rational discussion about how best to develop talent (whether men or women) in the current climate. The thesis that MeToo is more harmful than helpful is unpopular, I know, but thankfully no one has to defend its helpfulness because discussion of the realities involved is forbidden.

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

#63

Post by exogeny »

timsally wrote: post #58
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?

I suspect based on the tone of your comment that you already know the reason why.

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

#64

Post by pen2l »

harryh wrote: post #52
naasking wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really just depends. I can literally count dozens of acquaintances who met their significant other at work, just in the past few years -- who are really happy together.

I mean, compare being at a place with like-minded people, people who likely share some of your interests, education background, etc. vs. swiping right/left for the 2-thousandth time so much so that you are fucking exhausted and questioning your self-worth after having been denied for months on end.

It's totally okay if you've started a romantic relationship at work. Just don't be an ass about it is all -- let HR know as needed, keep it professional, and all of the other obvious stuff.

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

#65

Post by tptacek »

sverige wrote: post #62
tptacek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them. I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When facing a choice of going above and beyond to help develop a female employee's career and risking my own career (and my family's well-being) by exposing myself to the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment, I have chosen selfishly. (He…

You were right the first time. You discriminated your behavior based on the gender of your reports, knowing that doing so harmed the careers of the women who reported to you. It's a little weird that you think you can somehow rationalize your way out of that. It's even weirder that you think that your own perceived self-interest somehow immunizes you. You said it yourself! Own it!

And then stop doing it!

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

#66

Post by yellowapple »

rayiner wrote: post #43
squarefoot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace)." That would be right if only we didn't build a society requiring every non rich member to spend most of his non sleeping life at workplace.

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!

And what if you match with a coworker?

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

#67

Post by yellowapple »

pen2l wrote: post #64
harryh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really just depends. I can literally count dozens of acquaintances who met their significant other at work, just in the past few years -- who are really happy together. I mean, compare being at a place with like-minded people, people who likely share some of your interests, education background, etc. vs. swiping right/left for the 2-thousandth time so much so that you are fucking exhausted and questioning your sel…

As another anecdotal datum: my dad and stepmom met (and started dating) as coworkers, and they've been married (happily, as far as I can tell) for 25 years now.

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

#68

Post by alexforster »

sverige wrote: post #62
tptacek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them. I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When facing a choice of going above and beyond to help develop a female employee's career and risking my own career (and my family's well-being) by exposing myself to the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment, I have chosen selfishly. (He…

> the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment

Right there - that's the sexist part. Do you believe there's an epidemic of vengeful women running around falsely accusing men of sexual harassment?

Because there isn't - but I'd love to hear your stories.

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

#69

Post by cycrutchfield »

kolbe wrote: post #61
cycrutchfield wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess you kind of answered my question. You think that there should be zero personal relationships (you seem to be hung up on a frat one, but I'll extrapolate to friendships) between a boss and anyone under their chain of command? Good luck having success building a company where those people aren't allowed to be friends. Mandated personal indifference sounds more corrosive than your scenario.

No, I am just saying that care should be taken to reduce the appearance of impropriety when personal relationships are involved at work. The severity of the risk scales with the nature of the personal relationship (friend, lover, family). You seem to be trying to get me to say that this is a binary all-or-nothing thing, which is absurd.

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

#70

Post by sverige »

tptacek wrote: post #65
sverige wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them. I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When facing a choice of going above and beyond to help develop a female employee's career and risking my own career (and my family's well-being) by exposing myself to the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment, I have chosen selfishly. (He…

You were right the first time. You discriminated your behavior based on the gender of your reports, knowing that doing so harmed the careers of the women who reported to you. It's a little weird that you think you can somehow rationalize your way out of that. It's even weirder that you think that your own perceived self-interest somehow immunizes you. You said it yourself! Own it! And then stop doing it!

I treated the men on my teams exactly the same way. There was no discrimination. They were all treated equally.

It's a little weird that you think you have all the information you need to pass judgment on my career from a few short comments on an internet forum. It's even weirder that you haven't made any substantive comment or query on how that policy played out in real life, but rather resorted instantly to shrill pronouncements on my character.

If you can't look back over your career and see where some things you did might have been harmful to some of your employees, you either lack self-awareness or you never had any employees. I'm guessing it's the latter. You have way too many internet points for someone with real responsibility for other people's well-being at work.

Finally, I no longer manage people, so I have stopped doing it. I hope you can sleep now.

Post reply on HN