3 ms·

It is wrong to have a relationship with your direct report. However, I'm having trouble understanding why she intentionally became pregnant with her married bos

It is wrong to have a relationship with your direct report. However, I'm having trouble understanding why she intentionally became pregnant with her married boss. She was around 37 years old at the time. I also don't understand why he wanted to make her pregnant and have no involvement with his child. It all just seems bizarre. He didn't marry her or make any commitment. Clearly once the child was born from an affair that violates Google's rules she would have to at least switch departments.

secabeen 7y ago
> Clearly once the child was born from an affair that violates Google's rules she would have to at least switch departments. As the employee with more power and rank at the company in question, David should have been the one to be forced to leave the department. That would have been the moral thing to do.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  Why? If two workers proved to be unable to work together the company wouldn't fire the more valuable one. She was a 37 year old woman who willingly chose to enter into a relationship with a married man and got pregnant with him. Twice. She's not a fresh grad nor is there any indication she was coerced. I don't see how him having climbed further up the ladder makes him solely responsible for this not should he be expected to bear the consequences.
- olivierduval 7y ago
  Logically, "As the employee with more power and rank at the company in question", he's the one giving the most value to the company (or he wouldn't have promoted, would he?) so - in regard to any company's interest - it's best to keep him where he give most value than to move him to some other where he would give less value. Company's interest is most often not a question a moral, but efficiency.
  - secabeen 7y ago
    The question then becomes is there another employee who would step up and give a similar value if given the opportunity, what is the impact to the organization of other employees seeing how people were treated in this case, etc., etc. Judging value to the company by existing power/rank in the company is certainly the simplest way to do it, but it's not necessarily the best way. This train of thought has a lot of similarity to the discussions going on around corporations maximizing only share-holder value, or if it is better for them to include stakeholders, and other non-stock-price factors when making decisions. Rules against nepotism in companies are there to prevent people in a personal relationship from giving their partner an unfair advantage over other employees, but also to prevent higher-ups from using their power within the workplace to victimize their subordinates. In either case, when a pair of employees clearly and willfully violates the policy to the level of having a kid together, I think the company should assume that the higher ranking person is more culpable, and should be punished for their actions, not the other way around.

secabeen 7y ago

> Clearly once the child was born from an affair that violates Google's rules she would have to at least switch departments. As the employee with more power and rank at the company in question, David should have been the one to be forced to leave the department. That would have been the moral thing to do.

thatoneuser 7y ago
Why? If two workers proved to be unable to work together the company wouldn't fire the more valuable one. She was a 37 year old woman who willingly chose to enter into a relationship with a married man and got pregnant with him. Twice. She's not a fresh grad nor is there any indication she was coerced. I don't see how him having climbed further up the ladder makes him solely responsible for this not should he be expected to bear the consequences.
olivierduval 7y ago
Logically, "As the employee with more power and rank at the company in question", he's the one giving the most value to the company (or he wouldn't have promoted, would he?) so - in regard to any company's interest - it's best to keep him where he give most value than to move him to some other where he would give less value. Company's interest is most often not a question a moral, but efficiency.
- secabeen 7y ago
  The question then becomes is there another employee who would step up and give a similar value if given the opportunity, what is the impact to the organization of other employees seeing how people were treated in this case, etc., etc. Judging value to the company by existing power/rank in the company is certainly the simplest way to do it, but it's not necessarily the best way. This train of thought has a lot of similarity to the discussions going on around corporations maximizing only share-holder value, or if it is better for them to include stakeholders, and other non-stock-price factors when making decisions. Rules against nepotism in companies are there to prevent people in a personal relationship from giving their partner an unfair advantage over other employees, but also to prevent higher-ups from using their power within the workplace to victimize their subordinates. In either case, when a pair of employees clearly and willfully violates the policy to the level of having a kid together, I think the company should assume that the higher ranking person is more culpable, and should be punished for their actions, not the other way around.