101–110 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So obviously relationships are bad when there's a power dynamic, In what sense is this obvious? And according to which substantial notion of power?
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).
So my question is: Was the female employee also fired? If not, why not?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.