4 ms·

Wouldn't a much more obvious reason that Lane's wife was the one to quit her job at Oracle be that he was a big star at Oracle, likely earning much more than hi

by zone411 12y ago

Wouldn't a much more obvious reason that Lane's wife was the one to quit her job at Oracle be that he was a big star at Oracle, likely earning much more than his administrative assistant wife or that they decided to have kids, which causes women to drop out of workplace more often than men? Pao and Nazre were both partners. Instead, you're saying that Lane likely came up with some convoluted rules that the person who was already married will stay at the company, while the other person won't and he was trying to convey them to Pao using his own experiences 20 years ago at a different company as an example?

anigbrowl 12y ago
It's not convoluted at all; it's the simplest structure that comes out of his anecdote. He was asked a question about the appropriateness of personal relationships in the workplace. He could have addressed that without ever mentioning that his wife had quit working at Oracle; bringing that fact in created an inference, even if not intentional, that one of Pao or Nazre would have to go, or he could have added that the situations were in fact totally different.
- zone411 12y ago
  If it's so simple, then please explain why it's not arbitrary that the previously married person gets to keep his/her job when a new relationship forms instead of the previously single person? And how is that simpler than my potential explanations (money and women raising kids) which are happening in practice all the time? Sure, he shouldn't have brought it up, I don't think anybody argues that it was a smart thing to do.
  - mc32 12y ago
    For whatever reason the implication is that "one of them must quit". It's not clear why that is necessary beside (and this is a big one) it being an HR issue, which implies that people cannot operate within proscribed behavior at a workplace --which to me seems goes against people's right to work, but given this implication (where one of the couple must quit) a rational couple would choose for the one with more earning potential to stay and the one with less earning potential to leave. But that also assumes that the one staying would not have greater earning potential elsewhere.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    This would be a reasonable question if we lived in a gender-neutral society rather than one that institutionalized discrimination for most of its history. I'm not saying we should assume the worst about what Lane meant, but that we should not be surprised that such a possible construal would weigh heavily on Pao's mind, becuase of the scial context within which it takes place. On a side note, Lane is ?20 years older than Pao; I'm surprised he hadn't developed the emotional intelligence to ensure that they were both on the same page when she left his office. I mean, when people discuss things like intimate relationships, there's often a lot left unsaid so it's important to solicit feedback on whether your advice is actually responsive to the concerns that the colleague came in the door with.
001sky 12y ago
"Pao and Nazre were both partners." This glosses over a significant problem. Partners are stratified like professors at univesrity. The issue about resolving any conflict by the junior-status person taking up with a new employer is not controversial. Its basically common practice and common sense. So there is no real crux to this other than someone stating the obvious. The logic is the same if the senior person is of either sex. Once you cross the line of having a marriage you have a legal obligation to that person that can create a conflict of interest. You also have a lack-of-diversity in income that could cause a cascading financial issue if that conflict of interest ever materialized in an adverse way. So, by resignation and re-employment with anotehr firm you eliminate the conflict and diversify the income base. You do this whist protecting the largest income stream with the lowest risk strategy (doing nothing) and by taking the risk (of change/finding a new job) with the smaller (and by implication less valuable) revenue stream. Again, has nothing to do with sexism. The roles could easily be reversed and the logic would still be the same.
- zone411 12y ago
  From what I read, Nazre was also a junior partner at Kleiner.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    My point is simply that the title "partner" in no way confers level playing field (as the earlier commenter implied). Junior partner is like "associate", its almost meaningless if you are relying on that solely for assement long term career prospects (or whatever). (eg, in a law firm, associate pay varies widely...even with the same title...promotion track of any particular associate is completely non-transpaternt... etc)

by zone411 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

It's not convoluted at all; it's the simplest structure that comes out of his anecdote. He was asked a question about the appropriateness of personal relationships in the workplace. He could have addressed that without ever mentioning that his wife had quit working at Oracle; bringing that fact in created an inference, even if not intentional, that one of Pao or Nazre would have to go, or he could have added that the situations were in fact totally different.

zone411 12y ago
If it's so simple, then please explain why it's not arbitrary that the previously married person gets to keep his/her job when a new relationship forms instead of the previously single person? And how is that simpler than my potential explanations (money and women raising kids) which are happening in practice all the time? Sure, he shouldn't have brought it up, I don't think anybody argues that it was a smart thing to do.
- mc32 12y ago
  For whatever reason the implication is that "one of them must quit". It's not clear why that is necessary beside (and this is a big one) it being an HR issue, which implies that people cannot operate within proscribed behavior at a workplace --which to me seems goes against people's right to work, but given this implication (where one of the couple must quit) a rational couple would choose for the one with more earning potential to stay and the one with less earning potential to leave. But that also assumes that the one staying would not have greater earning potential elsewhere.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  This would be a reasonable question if we lived in a gender-neutral society rather than one that institutionalized discrimination for most of its history. I'm not saying we should assume the worst about what Lane meant, but that we should not be surprised that such a possible construal would weigh heavily on Pao's mind, becuase of the scial context within which it takes place. On a side note, Lane is ?20 years older than Pao; I'm surprised he hadn't developed the emotional intelligence to ensure that they were both on the same page when she left his office. I mean, when people discuss things like intimate relationships, there's often a lot left unsaid so it's important to solicit feedback on whether your advice is actually responsive to the concerns that the colleague came in the door with.

001sky 12y ago

"Pao and Nazre were both partners." This glosses over a significant problem. Partners are stratified like professors at univesrity. The issue about resolving any conflict by the junior-status person taking up with a new employer is not controversial. Its basically common practice and common sense. So there is no real crux to this other than someone stating the obvious. The logic is the same if the senior person is of either sex. Once you cross the line of having a marriage you have a legal obligation to that person that can create a conflict of interest. You also have a lack-of-diversity in income that could cause a cascading financial issue if that conflict of interest ever materialized in an adverse way. So, by resignation and re-employment with anotehr firm you eliminate the conflict and diversify the income base. You do this whist protecting the largest income stream with the lowest risk strategy (doing nothing) and by taking the risk (of change/finding a new job) with the smaller (and by implication less valuable) revenue stream. Again, has nothing to do with sexism. The roles could easily be reversed and the logic would still be the same.

zone411 12y ago
From what I read, Nazre was also a junior partner at Kleiner.
- 001sky 12y ago
  My point is simply that the title "partner" in no way confers level playing field (as the earlier commenter implied). Junior partner is like "associate", its almost meaningless if you are relying on that solely for assement long term career prospects (or whatever). (eg, in a law firm, associate pay varies widely...even with the same title...promotion track of any particular associate is completely non-transpaternt... etc)