>I totally don't get how on earth protecting a "high performer" and sexual offender is good for the business. It probably isn't, in the long run, but it IS goo

>I totally don't get how on earth protecting a "high performer" and sexual offender is good for the business. It probably isn't, in the long run, but it IS good for the HR chief's career to keep the executives happy, and the "high performing" sexual predator is probably a good buddy of the executives. And as for the good of the business, why should the executives care about that (in the long run)? As long as it performs well for the next few years, that's good enough, because the executives will move on by then.