4 ms·

Salesforce prevents employee from sitting on external board

10 points by zuhayeer 6y ago

Google234 6y ago
Wow, I’m so sad executives at a major company don’t have access to every opportunity available to them.
flybrand 6y ago
There’s not a lot of context here to comment on.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Isn't it a standard clause of employment contracts that you won't do this without your employers permission? It has been in all the contracts I've signed for the last 10 years, and I just a humble cog in those machines...
tester756 6y ago
Do I get this right? She was fired for becoming exec in other company? In my opinion it seems kinda reasonable? some kind of conflict of interest and danger that SF would be associated with company X by the public due to execs working there
- Theory5 6y ago
  No, for taking a position on another companies board of directors, because her employment contract prohibited that without a higher ups (ceo's) approval, and he only let a handful of his direct reports do that. Its not uncommon for high level executives to sit on boards of other companies in addition to their job. There are laws meant to prevent conflicts of interest (but as one of my bosses once pointed out, most people in those positions know how to skirt the boundaries without breaking the laws/regulations). For example at my company, a member of our board is the CEO of another software company. We were evaluating their product in addition to others for corp wide adoption. As the sales rep from his company mentioned they were "very interested" in them getting the contract.They were beat out (but made it into the top 2 in testing, it was a great product) and we ended up going with a competitors product. Obviously that CEO was able to ensure his people knew a potential contact with us was "of interest" but he couldn't go so far as to actually use his influence on our board to convince my company to choose his product even though it didn't fit our needs as well as the other. Its pretty complex, some of these laws and how they are supposed to prevent conflicts of interest (and how they may or may not work).
RobertKerans 6y ago
Am I missing something here? Why does this have anything to do with discrimination? The cynic in me is getting the world's tiniest violin out for a corporate executive who hasn't been allowed to have a second corporate executive job, but I do understand how the policy might be unfair (though every contract I've ever signed has had something to the effect that I wouldn't be allowed to do that, but I'm in the UK and a peon so :shrug:). But why is she bringing sexual discrimination into it?
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Am I missing something here? Why does this have anything to do with discrimination? If the Salesforce CEO only ever permits his direct reports to sit on other company's boards, and if his direct reports are disproportionately men, then this effectively limits the representation of women on corporate boards.
  - bonfire 6y ago
    I bet they also get more money. Come on.
  - RobertKerans 6y ago
    I get that, but then surely that policy is not discriminatory, what would seem to be be discriminatory would be the hiring practices of Salesforce? It just doesn't seem a valid line of attack -- yes I'm definitely lacking context, but sans that context it reads as sour grapes.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      If it is a given that current subordinates are largely men, isn't it fair to call out the policy as entrenching the existing inequality? If you dismiss criticism of a policy on the basis that the discriminatory effect is only due to an upstream disparity, it's pretty easy to lather-rinse-repeat a few times until you can conclude that it's someone else's problem to solve, and no change is required on your part.

10 points by zuhayeer 6y ago

Google234 6y ago

Wow, I’m so sad executives at a major company don’t have access to every opportunity available to them.

flybrand 6y ago

There’s not a lot of context here to comment on.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Isn't it a standard clause of employment contracts that you won't do this without your employers permission? It has been in all the contracts I've signed for the last 10 years, and I just a humble cog in those machines...

tester756 6y ago

Do I get this right? She was fired for becoming exec in other company? In my opinion it seems kinda reasonable? some kind of conflict of interest and danger that SF would be associated with company X by the public due to execs working there

Theory5 6y ago
No, for taking a position on another companies board of directors, because her employment contract prohibited that without a higher ups (ceo's) approval, and he only let a handful of his direct reports do that. Its not uncommon for high level executives to sit on boards of other companies in addition to their job. There are laws meant to prevent conflicts of interest (but as one of my bosses once pointed out, most people in those positions know how to skirt the boundaries without breaking the laws/regulations). For example at my company, a member of our board is the CEO of another software company. We were evaluating their product in addition to others for corp wide adoption. As the sales rep from his company mentioned they were "very interested" in them getting the contract.They were beat out (but made it into the top 2 in testing, it was a great product) and we ended up going with a competitors product. Obviously that CEO was able to ensure his people knew a potential contact with us was "of interest" but he couldn't go so far as to actually use his influence on our board to convince my company to choose his product even though it didn't fit our needs as well as the other. Its pretty complex, some of these laws and how they are supposed to prevent conflicts of interest (and how they may or may not work).

RobertKerans 6y ago

Am I missing something here? Why does this have anything to do with discrimination? The cynic in me is getting the world's tiniest violin out for a corporate executive who hasn't been allowed to have a second corporate executive job, but I do understand how the policy might be unfair (though every contract I've ever signed has had something to the effect that I wouldn't be allowed to do that, but I'm in the UK and a peon so :shrug:). But why is she bringing sexual discrimination into it?

webmaven 6y ago
> Am I missing something here? Why does this have anything to do with discrimination? If the Salesforce CEO only ever permits his direct reports to sit on other company's boards, and if his direct reports are disproportionately men, then this effectively limits the representation of women on corporate boards.
- bonfire 6y ago
  I bet they also get more money. Come on.
- RobertKerans 6y ago
  I get that, but then surely that policy is not discriminatory, what would seem to be be discriminatory would be the hiring practices of Salesforce? It just doesn't seem a valid line of attack -- yes I'm definitely lacking context, but sans that context it reads as sour grapes.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    If it is a given that current subordinates are largely men, isn't it fair to call out the policy as entrenching the existing inequality? If you dismiss criticism of a policy on the basis that the discriminatory effect is only due to an upstream disparity, it's pretty easy to lather-rinse-repeat a few times until you can conclude that it's someone else's problem to solve, and no change is required on your part.