41–50 of 313 posts
A board doesn’t fire its CEO because they went on a few dates with someone a while back—even if that’s against company policy. Getting the popcorn out to see how this unfolds...
Interesting though experiment: Let S be the set of all humans. Remove any human from S who had at least one pair of ancestors (no matter how far in the past) that had a boss/subordinate relationship that is now deemed 'inappropriate' in large western countries. How many humans would be left in S? Conjecture: Zero. Does that say anything interesting about humans?
So my question is: Was the female employee also fired? If not, why not?
Interesting though experiment: Let S be the set of all humans. Remove any human from S who had at least one pair of ancestors (no matter how far in the past) that had a boss/subordinate relationship that is now deemed 'inappropriate' in large western countries. How many humans would be left in S? Conjecture: Zero. Does that say anything interesting about humans?
A board doesn’t fire its CEO because they went on a few dates with someone a while back—even if that’s against company policy. Getting the popcorn out to see how this unfolds...
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.)
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?
Not sure if he just got fired for a relationship or if there's something more. 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.)
If the board got wind of a pending investigation into that incident they might be looking to distance him from the company before the other shoe drops.
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."
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.
Interesting though experiment: Let S be the set of all humans. Remove any human from S who had at least one pair of ancestors (no matter how far in the past) that had a boss/subordinate relationship that is now deemed 'inappropriate' in large western countries. How many humans would be left in S? Conjecture: Zero. Does that say anything interesting about humans?
A board doesn’t fire its CEO because they went on a few dates with someone a while back—even if that’s against company policy. Getting the popcorn out to see how this unfolds...
Why is this even worth discussing?