151–160 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.
COO is not really "an employee".
People say: you should NOT hire your partner.
So, you should NOT hire friends? So, you should NOT hire people you like? So, you should NOT hire people for who you have any opinion? So, you should NOT have any hobbies other employees can have?
Our decisions are obviously biased by our feelings, and it's normal, we want people reliable, people we can trust! What's wrong with that?
In some cases, we want objective decisions. In these cases, you should just recognize your incapacity to be unbiased and let other people take the decision.
When I read the blog post, Keith didn't seem to have faced a such case, so non-disclosed his relationship seemed to have been the best decision to avoid to influence other people decisions.
It's common to meet the "love of our life" where we work, I don't understand why it should be forbidden to those who have a management role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
COO is not really "an employee".
COO actually IS an employee. Same goes for the CEO, unless they raised $0 investment.
I would counsel against but not fire engineers who were dating each other within a group (and, in a larger organization, if it's outside of a specific group, wouldn't be a problem. I think a good manager would give them each an opportunity to change roles so they're not directly working together.)
In the intermediate case of a manager dating a direct report, the problem is with the manager, not the direct report.
COO/founders/etc. don't get any slack for things like that, though, even if they are not directly managing the other relationship party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. "You want to break up with me? oK, you're fired" 2. "Maybe Bob is the better qualified candidate, but I'm going to promote the guy who's having sex with me"
OK, so you are saying that in the situation where there is a conflict of interest then HR should be involved so that the matter can be dealt with fairly. In that case why not bring the matter to HR when there is an issue to be resolved. This is a situation of a higher level employee abusing their power over a lower level employee and could happen whether a romantic relationship exists or not. What does HR having fore…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3. "You're the boyfriend of the COO? Congratulations, you're hired into my group as advisor for internal strategy. Can we three have lunch together some time?"
Again, this is a situation where there is a conflict of interest that could happen whether there is a romantic relationship between the two employees. Would HR really have the ability to stop such a promotion knowing that at the same time they must keep and relationship confidential? In the UK, I've never been asked by a company to disclose any office relationships. Usually such relationships are had in the open even…
As for your own experience, note that you've observed open relationships between different level employees. Keith's was not open....so not sure what point you're trying to make.
Put it this way: if everyone knows that senior manager Alice is in a relationship with first year employee Bob...how easy do you think it is for Alice to pull the strings to make sure Bob gets promoted past his merit? Sure, it can happen, but people aren't as likely to not notice it. And so Alice just may not try to pull the strings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3. "You're the boyfriend of the COO? Congratulations, you're hired into my group as advisor for internal strategy. Can we three have lunch together some time?"
Again, this is a situation where there is a conflict of interest that could happen whether there is a romantic relationship between the two employees. Would HR really have the ability to stop such a promotion knowing that at the same time they must keep and relationship confidential? In the UK, I've never been asked by a company to disclose any office relationships. Usually such relationships are had in the open even…
So, the board has considerable power. If the relationship is not open, the board may end up with members with conflicts of interest (COI).
The promotion process at my large (5000 employees) California-based organization was changed a few years ago so that HR has input into every promotion, even junior developers. The board used to have pretty much the last word, but now HR has independent input into the decision, partly to put a check on potential COIs like the one I mentioned above. (There are other reasons too.) There was considerable grumpiness from engineering management, and there is foolishness resulting from the change.
HR: "From what you sent us, it seems like the candidate has a significant role in project X, but not a highly significant role...could you provide additional material to document a highly significant role?"
I assume lawsuits from unhappy employees were the reason for these changes. Large organizations are really afraid of large settlements and bad PR from employee lawsuits. All these questions would be decided by a jury, in a setting ripe for David vs. Goliath thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked through your links and don't see anything about Keith Rabois being gay. That he was might be common knowledge, but it's not intimated on those sites.
Keith Rabois is the author of the post you're commenting on.
"As others have pointed out, the safest way to protest a speech code that bans certain slurs against protected groups is to attack your own group. Rabois standing around using anti-gay slurs can easily prove that he's actually protesting the speech code by saying "look, I'm not homophobic, I'm actually gay myself.""
Also, if he were a closeted homosexual it would make sense as to why he didn't tell Square about the relationship.
What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…
I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position. If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.
That said if crazy legal allegations like this come out of it I can understand the pressure. Still, it seems just wrong.
What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…
I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position. If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.
But when you realise he's a C-Level exec, it's more a case of "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!"