9 ms·

He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. The article acts like if you break the workplace dating policy you should never work again o

He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. The article acts like if you break the workplace dating policy you should never work again or have to come crawling back. Would view this as a standard firing for him breaking the rules not really a #MeToo where he’s supposed to go into exile on MeToo island

vkou 8y ago
> He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. You can date people at work, but you cannot date people in your reporting chain. That means that if you're the CEO, you cannot date people at work. Tough shit, there's 7 billion other people in the world.
- bumholio 8y ago
  That's a bullshit made-up rule, designed by corporate lawyers who want to remove any possibility of a lawsuit. There's nothing immoral about dating an employee; it's a risky situation because the employee can feel pressured and harassed, or it can lead to conflicts of interest, undeserved promotions or bonuses etc. That being said, if both persons are mature and cautious, the sky will not fall.
  - cycrutchfield 8y ago
    Who said anything about morality? This is precisely about conflicts of interest, mismatched power dynamics, and potential abuse of authority. It is a situation that should be avoided at all costs because it can be exceedingly corrosive for an organization.
    - kolbe 8y ago
      So, should we also disallow any other conflicting personal relationships up the chain of command? Where do we stop? Romantic relationships? Family? Friends? All of them create the same conflicts of interest and mismatches power dynamics.
      - cycrutchfield 8y ago
        Ever heard of the word nepotism? This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff.
        kolbe 8y ago
        Thanks for the unnecessary remedial English lesson. You could try answering the question instead of acting like that, though. Hiring a qualified friend to work under you isn't 'corrosive to an organization'. So why is managing a qualified romantic partner so objectionable?
        cycrutchfield 8y ago
        If your boss hires their frat bro from college as one of your peers, and said frat bro starts getting promoted faster to you, would you consider that to create corrosive sentiments? Whether said frat bro is qualified or not, you may start to question your boss’s objectivity.
        kolbe 8y ago
        I guess you kind of answered my question. You think that there should be zero personal relationships (you seem to be hung up on a frat one, but I'll extrapolate to friendships) between a boss and anyone under their chain of command? Good luck having success building a company where those people aren't allowed to be friends. Mandated personal indifference sounds more corrosive than your scenario.
        cycrutchfield 8y ago
        No, I am just saying that care should be taken to reduce the appearance of impropriety when personal relationships are involved at work. The severity of the risk scales with the nature of the personal relationship (friend, lover, family). You seem to be trying to get me to say that this is a binary all-or-nothing thing, which is absurd.
  - kurthr 8y ago
    Exactly, I've seen lots of couples who met at or were both hired into the same group and sometimes reporting to each orher... a few times it went badly because they couldn't be reasonable and self-aware. Mostly it went fine and they were very productive, conscientious, and easy to work with. It depends on the people, and I see it as only one of many possible personel problems.
  - faizshah 8y ago
    It's about being in a position of power over the other person. It's unethical to make advances on someone you hold power over because there's an implication that rejecting the advances could harm their career and their working relationship with the superior.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- saagarjha 8y ago
  That's not inherently sexual assault. Does it have the opportunity to go wrong? Sure, if your relationship becomes linked with career advancement, and especially if it's coerced. But as long as that's not present I don't see any assault going on here.
  - vkou 8y ago
    It's not inherently sexual assault. I never said it was. It is, however inherently a huge conflict of interest, and, depending on the circumstances, is likely to be sexual harassment. Even if the two people in the relationship are fine with it, and there is no abuse of the manager-subordinate power dynamics, and all the other problems associated with this... It can create the perception that the reason Sally is getting a good performance review, is because she is sleeping with the boss. This is absolutely toxic to a workplace, and irresponsible of the CEO.
- eps 8y ago
  William Gates begs to differ.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  Tell that to Melinda Gates.
exogeny 8y ago
I view his leaving of SoFi to be more about his evasiveness and misrepresentations to HR and to the board. Hard to be an effective leader if you've lost that credibility.
rayiner 8y ago
The article is about sexual harassment, not sexual assault: > A year into SoFi’s life, the company’s board learned about Mr. Cagney’s personal behavior. In 2012, the board settled with an executive assistant who had received sexually explicit text messages from Mr. Cagney, The New York Times previously reported. That is, in fact, behavior that should engender serious consequences. (Also lying to the board about it). Also, there is no such thing as a CEO "just dating" a subordinate. It's incredibly unfair to the person involved (who might get into the relationship out of concern for what happens to her job if she reject's the CEO's advances). Even if the relationship is totally on the up and up, it's unfair to everyone else, and in this case was a diversion of corporate resources for illegitimate purposes: > he had used company resources to pursue a romantic relationship with an employee, the people said. Mr. Cagney said he had previously suggested that employee as a promising candidate for chief financial officer.
cycrutchfield 8y ago
>He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. He was also misusing corporate funds to pursue subordinates, serially lying to his board of directors, and breaking a pledge he had made to them. That's the reason why he was "fired". It was not simply because he had an affair.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  serially lying to his board of directors I was once told, “as the CEO your job is to keep the board completely snowed so you can run the company without interference”. Honestly I thought this was table stakes in the valley.
rmason 8y ago
He lied to his board. So if you're a board member that breaks trust and you've got to ask what else is he lying about?
otherworld 8y ago
I agree. We're living in increasingly socially conservative times. Somewhat ironically this seems to be due to the moral superiority of the "left" rather than the traditionalism associated with the right. I also find the implicit assumption that all people who break the current moral codes of the day (even if they did so in the past!) should be henceforth unemployable and the subject of social outrage.
- rayiner 8y ago
  What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-sexual-revolution-was-bad-for-women-according-to-ginger-rosa/274274 https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se.... Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).
  - kinggfx 8y ago
    What are the constraints?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      It's a process that's still shaking out. I strongly suspect dating coworkers will be on the chopping block. Anecdotally: I've never heard a woman say "you know, I wish more people would ask me out at work." They view it as an imposition. Driving those changes will be technology like Tinder. By making the market for dating more efficient, it will reduce the need to permit romantic solicitations in other contexts.
      - sverige 8y ago
        I've had that rule my entire career. I also avoid ever being alone with women at work so that there is no question that I could have done something untoward without a witness. That has prevented a lot of problems for me. It has also probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports, but that's not my problem. I've been waiting for the legislation against those unintended consequences for a long time now. It's closer than ever, I can feel it in my bones.
timsally 8y ago
Incorrect. He (1) had more than one extramarital relationships at work with people under him in the power structure, (2) repeatedly lied about it, and (3) was given a second chance by his board after he was caught the first time but did it again anyway. Why is the most upvoted comment on this article a false characterization of this executive's conduct that downplays its severity?
- exogeny 8y ago
  I suspect based on the tone of your comment that you already know the reason why.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

vkou 8y ago

> He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. You can date people at work, but you cannot date people in your reporting chain. That means that if you're the CEO, you cannot date people at work. Tough shit, there's 7 billion other people in the world.

bumholio 8y ago
That's a bullshit made-up rule, designed by corporate lawyers who want to remove any possibility of a lawsuit. There's nothing immoral about dating an employee; it's a risky situation because the employee can feel pressured and harassed, or it can lead to conflicts of interest, undeserved promotions or bonuses etc. That being said, if both persons are mature and cautious, the sky will not fall.
- cycrutchfield 8y ago
  Who said anything about morality? This is precisely about conflicts of interest, mismatched power dynamics, and potential abuse of authority. It is a situation that should be avoided at all costs because it can be exceedingly corrosive for an organization.
  - kolbe 8y ago
    So, should we also disallow any other conflicting personal relationships up the chain of command? Where do we stop? Romantic relationships? Family? Friends? All of them create the same conflicts of interest and mismatches power dynamics.
    - cycrutchfield 8y ago
      Ever heard of the word nepotism? This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff.
      - kolbe 8y ago
        Thanks for the unnecessary remedial English lesson. You could try answering the question instead of acting like that, though. Hiring a qualified friend to work under you isn't 'corrosive to an organization'. So why is managing a qualified romantic partner so objectionable?
        cycrutchfield 8y ago
        If your boss hires their frat bro from college as one of your peers, and said frat bro starts getting promoted faster to you, would you consider that to create corrosive sentiments? Whether said frat bro is qualified or not, you may start to question your boss’s objectivity.
        kolbe 8y ago
        I guess you kind of answered my question. You think that there should be zero personal relationships (you seem to be hung up on a frat one, but I'll extrapolate to friendships) between a boss and anyone under their chain of command? Good luck having success building a company where those people aren't allowed to be friends. Mandated personal indifference sounds more corrosive than your scenario.
        cycrutchfield 8y ago
        No, I am just saying that care should be taken to reduce the appearance of impropriety when personal relationships are involved at work. The severity of the risk scales with the nature of the personal relationship (friend, lover, family). You seem to be trying to get me to say that this is a binary all-or-nothing thing, which is absurd.
- kurthr 8y ago
  Exactly, I've seen lots of couples who met at or were both hired into the same group and sometimes reporting to each orher... a few times it went badly because they couldn't be reasonable and self-aware. Mostly it went fine and they were very productive, conscientious, and easy to work with. It depends on the people, and I see it as only one of many possible personel problems.
- faizshah 8y ago
  It's about being in a position of power over the other person. It's unethical to make advances on someone you hold power over because there's an implication that rejecting the advances could harm their career and their working relationship with the superior.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
saagarjha 8y ago
That's not inherently sexual assault. Does it have the opportunity to go wrong? Sure, if your relationship becomes linked with career advancement, and especially if it's coerced. But as long as that's not present I don't see any assault going on here.
- vkou 8y ago
  It's not inherently sexual assault. I never said it was. It is, however inherently a huge conflict of interest, and, depending on the circumstances, is likely to be sexual harassment. Even if the two people in the relationship are fine with it, and there is no abuse of the manager-subordinate power dynamics, and all the other problems associated with this... It can create the perception that the reason Sally is getting a good performance review, is because she is sleeping with the boss. This is absolutely toxic to a workplace, and irresponsible of the CEO.
eps 8y ago
William Gates begs to differ.
ryanmarsh 8y ago
Tell that to Melinda Gates.

exogeny 8y ago

I view his leaving of SoFi to be more about his evasiveness and misrepresentations to HR and to the board. Hard to be an effective leader if you've lost that credibility.

rayiner 8y ago

The article is about sexual harassment, not sexual assault: > A year into SoFi’s life, the company’s board learned about Mr. Cagney’s personal behavior. In 2012, the board settled with an executive assistant who had received sexually explicit text messages from Mr. Cagney, The New York Times previously reported. That is, in fact, behavior that should engender serious consequences. (Also lying to the board about it). Also, there is no such thing as a CEO "just dating" a subordinate. It's incredibly unfair to the person involved (who might get into the relationship out of concern for what happens to her job if she reject's the CEO's advances). Even if the relationship is totally on the up and up, it's unfair to everyone else, and in this case was a diversion of corporate resources for illegitimate purposes: > he had used company resources to pursue a romantic relationship with an employee, the people said. Mr. Cagney said he had previously suggested that employee as a promising candidate for chief financial officer.

cycrutchfield 8y ago

>He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. He was also misusing corporate funds to pursue subordinates, serially lying to his board of directors, and breaking a pledge he had made to them. That's the reason why he was "fired". It was not simply because he had an affair.

ryanmarsh 8y ago
serially lying to his board of directors I was once told, “as the CEO your job is to keep the board completely snowed so you can run the company without interference”. Honestly I thought this was table stakes in the valley.

rmason 8y ago

He lied to his board. So if you're a board member that breaks trust and you've got to ask what else is he lying about?

otherworld 8y ago

I agree. We're living in increasingly socially conservative times. Somewhat ironically this seems to be due to the moral superiority of the "left" rather than the traditionalism associated with the right. I also find the implicit assumption that all people who break the current moral codes of the day (even if they did so in the past!) should be henceforth unemployable and the subject of social outrage.

rayiner 8y ago
What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-sexual-revolution-was-bad-for-women-according-to-ginger-rosa/274274 https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se.... Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).
- kinggfx 8y ago
  What are the constraints?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    It's a process that's still shaking out. I strongly suspect dating coworkers will be on the chopping block. Anecdotally: I've never heard a woman say "you know, I wish more people would ask me out at work." They view it as an imposition. Driving those changes will be technology like Tinder. By making the market for dating more efficient, it will reduce the need to permit romantic solicitations in other contexts.
    - sverige 8y ago
      I've had that rule my entire career. I also avoid ever being alone with women at work so that there is no question that I could have done something untoward without a witness. That has prevented a lot of problems for me. It has also probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports, but that's not my problem. I've been waiting for the legislation against those unintended consequences for a long time now. It's closer than ever, I can feel it in my bones.

timsally 8y ago

Incorrect. He (1) had more than one extramarital relationships at work with people under him in the power structure, (2) repeatedly lied about it, and (3) was given a second chance by his board after he was caught the first time but did it again anyway. Why is the most upvoted comment on this article a false characterization of this executive's conduct that downplays its severity?

exogeny 8y ago
I suspect based on the tone of your comment that you already know the reason why.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]