Implications of dating at work
We so often accuse others of that which we ourselves are highly vulnerable to being guilty of ourselves. C.: To what extent do you credit Stonecipher's resignation to the fact that he was having an inter-office affair, and not merely an inter-office relationship? If such a comment is a manipulative segue to more involvement, probably not. Ken Siegel: Number one, assuming that all liberals defended Bill Clinton because of his conduct is judgmental and probably unjustified. If you come into a place to clean it up, then you should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
Or do you feel that the inter-office aspect itself is significant enough to warrant his release? Ken Siegel: The issue here involves mixing sex and power and that is an incendiary combination. He was brought in specifically to clean up Boeing after a series of scandals. Number two, I'm not defending sexual behavior at work as being appropriate or inappropriate but I am suggesting that the mix of sex and power organizationally should be met with sever consequences. : An earlier chatter said his biggest problem was that he dated a subordinate -- I would think that being married would also weigh in pretty heavily. I'm curious, would he have been fired if he were single? Ken Siegel: Probably not and perhaps he should have been severely chastised, publicly acknowledged the relationship, have on of the two of them voluntarily leave and issue a public apology indicating he made an amorous unwise choice but it was still his choice.
Having a professional relationship with a female at the office is normal and would expected since women comprise 30-40 percent of the work force. Policing personal behavior as a reason to fire a very competent person? That's why he was brought in specifically and to engage in an extramarital affair with anyone in the organization suggests an abuse of power that's unethical. Hierarchically-based relationships are and that's the line you're talking about. That is a far more right-wing, responsibilities-based position than a liberal would normally embrace ... College Park, Md.: Is an "inappropriate relationship" only defined as a sexual one? We don't know if her employment has continued nor if she feels retaliatory because he was fired; however, her continued credibility there is, I suspect, damaged. C.: Is the female going to suffer any repercussions?
But he decided to make it more than a professional relationship. It said clearly that the lady in question did not work for the CEO, did not get a promotion and worked in a different department. If he wants to have an affair, that's his business, but using his position to facilitate that always causes one to question the voluntary nature of his partner's choice. Ken Siegel: In this case, yes, you could've handled it better because you seemed to take the moral high ground or a moralistic point of view when it wasn't necessary. And here's the advice I give: If you choose to become romantically involved with a subordinate or superior in any functional group, one of you should leave. There are many "emotional relationships" on the job that don't involved sex, in which the boss favors a particular person and that person thereby gets many benefits. Let's face it most women who choose to date in their workplace tend to choose men who are higher up on the pay-scale ladder than they are (i.e., dating up). Ken Siegel: In public corporations, I have found that it is always the woman who suffers; her career is capped, her credibility is impugned whether it is justified or not and her capabilities are scorned.
Ken Siegel: As soon as someone opens up a sentence telling you what's not the case it's exactly what the case is. This was not an unwise man engaged in unwise activity.I agree that mixing sex and power is a dangerous activity, but I think it's unfair to assume that's what was happening. Couldn't it be the case that they were simply just attracted to each other? Ken Siegel: Well, they were obviously attracted to each other. There are no other peer-level CEOs, so she is by definition subordinate -- not a subordinate, but subordinate. What we call duel relationships are difficult at best and untenable at worst. Thirty percent of those who’d dated a co-worker married them.I promptly informed her that I did not want to be apprised of the situation because this information could be injurious to the co-workers who were seeing one another if management found out. Alexandria, Va.: Where do you get off accusing one of your questioners of unnecessarily taking the moral high ground, when you accuse Mr.Stonecypher of "using his position to facilitate the relationship" when there is no evidence he did so?