It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.
That struck me as odd too. When I saw someone I had a single date with was interviewing at the company I worked for, as she left the building I went to HR and told them so that there would be no surprise later. And that was just a single date, not an ongoing relationship.
Yeah, Keith mentions this fact in an understated way...but it really is a huge part of this drama. From the reading of the news articles, you could argue that even if the sexual harassment charges were dropped, Square would be justified in pushing Keith out for not disclosing this personal conflict-of-interest.
I'm from the UK and that strikes me as bizarre although I understand there is greater concern about these areas in the US. Unless you have hiring responsibility or they are on your direct reporting line I would see no need to report anything (even an ongoing relationship). That may change in the future if things are reorganized and a more direct business relationship is established.
Even then with a single date I wouldn't feel any need to report a single date unless they were reporting to me fairly directly and I was covering my ass.
A CEO is on everyone's reporting line and is also potentially a target so there is more of a reason for them to be careful and to report things.
None of this matters to me know as I'm married and am currently a one man company with no plans for staff growth.
The need is to prevent a situation as described in the post -- one where the party in a lower power position can charge that the party in a higher power position abused that power to force them into a relationship they did not consent to.
The more disclosure, the less likely that it would escalate. At the very least, there would be records that either party could use if something improper happened. For instance, there would now be written records if later on the person with more power did attempt to influence promotions that they should have explicitly not been allowed to be involved in that process.
I don't know why the UK would be different from the US from a legal standpoint, except perhaps just generally that the US is a more litigious society lately.
It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.
OK, but I still don't see what HR could do in those cases with prior knowledge that they could not do with knowledge at the time an issue is raised.
For example, if I have just been fired by the manager who I just dumped, I go to HR and have them resolve the situation then and explain the conflict of interest given that we were in a relationship. The manager is given a talking to, I keep my job and the situation is resolved. Please explain how this situation plays out differently under your rules.
COO is "an employee", but not really "just another employee". i.e. there is an entirely different level of responsibility (legal and moral/professional) for a corporate officer at that level, vs. a regular employee.
I would counsel against but not fire engineers who were dating each other within a group (and, in a larger organization, if it's outside of a specific group, wouldn't be a problem. I think a good manager would give them each an opportunity to change roles so they're not directly working together.)
In the intermediate case of a manager dating a direct report, the problem is with the manager, not the direct report.
COO/founders/etc. don't get any slack for things like that, though, even if they are not directly managing the other relationship party.
I don't fully understand why this makes me so angry, but it does. The company you work for has no right to know anything about your personal life. To be expected to disclose things to HR is ridiculous.
Are you serious? Did you read the OP? Did you read the part where he describes encouraging his lover to apply for a job -- and oh, what a coincidence, his lover happens to beat out numerous applicants for a job at a highly respected startup -- and how his lover has just filed a lawsuit accusing the OP of sexual harassment and even attempted, according to the OP, to extort millions from the OP?
And if you read that, you're still asking why HR has any right to know if their executives are in a possible enanglement with a subordinate?
OK, maybe you have a reflexive hate of HR. don't fixate on them. Instead, pretend you were in the shoes of Square's founders or major investors, and you're reading a lawsuit that accuses your COO of sexual harassment, the kind of sexual harassment allegation that can only come from a COO who broke standard operating procedure (I.e. not informing HR of this)
Would you think the investors and partners are more angrier or less angrier than you right now?
Agreed. If I was one of Keith's C level colleagues, or a major investor, I'd be livid with Keith right now. Not reporting this to HR is bush league stuff.
Someone who is sexually harassing another employee is not exactly in what I would call an ordinary romantic relationship. Who in their right mind is going to go to HR and say hey you know me and that employee over there well he's giving me sexual favours in return for his position at this company.
A person no matter what level he is at who has a genuine consensual relationship with another employee should not cause the company any issues which HR would need to resolve so I still don't understand the need to declare all such relationships to them.
For what it's worth, in the UK it's perfectly OK to have a secret office romance and such things are not required to be declared. It could be that our cultural differences are the main reason for this difference in opinion.
Or the person he's dating. I don't think that absolves what is obviously some poor decision making, but I think it makes things a little more complicated than some are perhaps considering.
