3 ms·

Ughh... this becomes so complicated. In my line of work, which involves authority positions, I see this sort of thing happen a lot (not most of the time, but

Ughh... this becomes so complicated. In my line of work, which involves authority positions, I see this sort of thing happen a lot (not most of the time, but regularly): Junior female supervisee becomes romantically involved with male supervisor. It's consensual, not predatory at all. Two people working closely together in closely related positions (I'm not talking CEO-secretary here, I'm talking something more closely matched in rank). Female supervisee might even brag about it or something in informal circles. It's obvious that part of what is happening is that the woman is attracted to ambition, authority, power, etc., even if they don't acknowledge this openly at the time (after all, they are seeking this for themselves). Relationship goes south (not always, though, about as often as any relationship), and then female supervisee blames male supervisor for taking advantage of her, brainwashing her, etc. Maybe even accuse supervisor of sexual harassment. What I'm seeing in the NY Times piece is not this. None of the people I'm talking about would ever just proposition a potential hire. However, I think it increases the ambiguity about appropriate behavior. If women in these positions are actively encouraging relationships sometimes (and people hear about this, in sorts of open secret situations), then for people who are already confused, it becomes even more confusing. My guess is these guys are hitting on women in the same way they might anywhere, without realizing the position of power they have. As you say, I think it's a matter of social sophistication more than anything else.

thehardsphere 9y ago
Then those guys you are talking about need to learn to behave better with responsibility. I am not saying this from a social justice/feminism viewpoint that many other commenters are, but from the point of view of leadership. If you're a man or a woman who gets involved with your subordinates, that's a failure of yours as a leader and it's unethical. It's unethical, because the superior/subordinate relationship makes a romantic affair coercive even if nobody participating intends it to be. It's a leadership failure because the superior should behave better than the subordinate as part of providing their leadership function. Yes, you could say the suborndinate started it or whatever, but the superior is supposed to know better than to get involved with that. If you don't want people to be confused, don't add to the confusion by dipping your pen in the company ink.
brandmeyer 9y ago
I think fits the US military's definition of Fraternization: A senior-subordinate relationship that is unduly familiar and does not respect differences in grade or rank. They are strictly forbidden, and while they do happen anyway, they are also regularly punished when discovered. A personal relationship between a direct supervisor and their subordinate would be considered inappropriate fraternization regardless of how close together the parties are in rank. Fraternization is different from harassment. Among other things, consent is irrelevant. It also covers a broader scope than romantic relationships. The inappropriateness of the relationship comes from the disruption in the chains of command and responsibility, and the conflicts of interest that are inherent in the relationship. I think that the military is correct in forbidding this kind of relationship, because of the effects you mentioned. It doesn't have to be confusing. It just needs to also be considered inappropriate by the organization.

thehardsphere 9y ago

Then those guys you are talking about need to learn to behave better with responsibility. I am not saying this from a social justice/feminism viewpoint that many other commenters are, but from the point of view of leadership. If you're a man or a woman who gets involved with your subordinates, that's a failure of yours as a leader and it's unethical. It's unethical, because the superior/subordinate relationship makes a romantic affair coercive even if nobody participating intends it to be. It's a leadership failure because the superior should behave better than the subordinate as part of providing their leadership function. Yes, you could say the suborndinate started it or whatever, but the superior is supposed to know better than to get involved with that. If you don't want people to be confused, don't add to the confusion by dipping your pen in the company ink.

brandmeyer 9y ago

I think fits the US military's definition of Fraternization: A senior-subordinate relationship that is unduly familiar and does not respect differences in grade or rank. They are strictly forbidden, and while they do happen anyway, they are also regularly punished when discovered. A personal relationship between a direct supervisor and their subordinate would be considered inappropriate fraternization regardless of how close together the parties are in rank. Fraternization is different from harassment. Among other things, consent is irrelevant. It also covers a broader scope than romantic relationships. The inappropriateness of the relationship comes from the disruption in the chains of command and responsibility, and the conflicts of interest that are inherent in the relationship. I think that the military is correct in forbidding this kind of relationship, because of the effects you mentioned. It doesn't have to be confusing. It just needs to also be considered inappropriate by the organization.