11–20 of 313 posts
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?
Getting the popcorn out to see how this unfolds...
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite a few workplaces forbid relationships between managers and their subordinates. As CEO, that presumably puts everyone off-limits.
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.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-kr...
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?
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?
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.)
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?
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? ;)
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."
What is the Intel non-fraternization policy? What romantic relationships are banned?
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 dis…
> 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.