
Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What? - exogeny
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/technology/sexual-misconduct-silicon-valley.html
======
toomchsauce
He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. The
article acts like if you break the workplace dating policy you should never
work again or have to come crawling back. Would view this as a standard firing
for him breaking the rules not really a #MeToo where he’s supposed to go into
exile on MeToo island

~~~
vkou
> He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work.

You can date people at work, but you cannot date people in your reporting
chain.

That means that if you're the CEO, you cannot date people at work. Tough shit,
there's 7 billion other people in the world.

~~~
bumholio
That's a bullshit made-up rule, designed by corporate lawyers who want to
remove any possibility of a lawsuit. There's nothing immoral about dating an
employee; it's a risky situation because the employee can feel pressured and
harassed, or it can lead to conflicts of interest, undeserved promotions or
bonuses etc.

That being said, if both persons are mature and cautious, the sky will not
fall.

~~~
cycrutchfield
Who said anything about morality? This is precisely about conflicts of
interest, mismatched power dynamics, and potential abuse of authority. It is a
situation that should be avoided at all costs because it can be exceedingly
corrosive for an organization.

~~~
kolbe
So, should we also disallow any other conflicting personal relationships up
the chain of command? Where do we stop? Romantic relationships? Family?
Friends? All of them create the same conflicts of interest and mismatches
power dynamics.

~~~
cycrutchfield
Ever heard of the word nepotism? This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff.

~~~
kolbe
Thanks for the unnecessary remedial English lesson. You could try answering
the question instead of acting like that, though. Hiring a qualified friend to
work under you isn't 'corrosive to an organization'. So why is managing a
qualified romantic partner so objectionable?

~~~
cycrutchfield
If your boss hires their frat bro from college as one of your peers, and said
frat bro starts getting promoted faster to you, would you consider that to
create corrosive sentiments? Whether said frat bro is qualified or not, you
may start to question your boss’s objectivity.

~~~
kolbe
I guess you kind of answered my question. You think that there should be zero
personal relationships (you seem to be hung up on a frat one, but I'll
extrapolate to friendships) between a boss and anyone under their chain of
command? Good luck having success building a company where those people aren't
allowed to be friends. Mandated personal indifference sounds more corrosive
than your scenario.

~~~
cycrutchfield
No, I am just saying that care should be taken to reduce the appearance of
impropriety when personal relationships are involved at work. The severity of
the risk scales with the nature of the personal relationship (friend, lover,
family). You seem to be trying to get me to say that this is a binary all-or-
nothing thing, which is absurd.

------
jchw
>Mr. Cagney was romantically involved with an employee, even though he had
previously told directors that he was not involved in any extramarital
workplace relationships

Okay...? If that's literally the extent of what they found then this is kind
of a non-story. Calling it a "sex scandal" is even quite clickbaity in my
opinion.

Like, yes, there is a conflict of interest. _Potential_ for abuse or coercion.
But nowhere does it say any of that occurred, meaning this was just a routine
violation of workplace rules. Absolutely mundane. I'm very much siding with
the investors here.

~~~
exogeny
Again, it's not really about the relationship. It's about misusing company
funds for it, not to mention lying to HR and the board about it.

The tone of the comments on this thread so far is basically: if I can’t lie,
embezzle, break multiple company regulations, and expose both myself and the
company to sexual harassment charges, how am I ever going to meet Mrs. Right?
I hope you understand how insane that is.

~~~
jchw
This is fair, but all the more reason to criticize the article, which does
nothing to convince one that this person should be lined up next to people
accused of sexual harassment, nor mentions their misuse of funds, even in
passing.

------
rococode
I feel like this article should have quoted some lines from the earlier
article (which was linked):
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/technology/sofi-chief-
exe...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/technology/sofi-chief-executive-
toxic-workplace.html)

It goes into much more detail on the circumstances of Cagney leaving SoFi. The
"romantically involved with an employee" phrasing in this article makes it
sounds like he was just dating an employee. I think that weakens the point
that's trying to be made, since many people don't equate "dating an employee"
with "sex scandal". The earlier article raises additional concerns suggesting
that dating one employee was not the only problem.

------
DoreenMichele
_As part of the investigation, Mr. Cagney’s behavior quickly came under
scrutiny. At the time, he denied to board members and staff that he was in an
intimate relationship at the company with anyone other than his wife, who also
worked at SoFi, the people familiar with the proceedings said.

Mr. Cagney reversed himself after Sullivan & Cromwell told the board there was
ample evidence — in emails, hotel receipts and the manifests of private jet
flights — that he had used company resources to pursue a romantic relationship
with an employee, the people said. Mr. Cagney said he had previously suggested
that employee as a promising candidate for chief financial officer._

At Aflac, this would have been a firing offense both because he was her
superior and because it was an illicit affair. I am a little weirded out that
the company seems kind of okay with it being an illicit affair. The article
indicates he wasn't breaking any rules at the time for seeing a subordinate.
That rule was added later:

 _SoFi also instituted an ethics policy that explicitly prohibits intimate
relationships between supervisors and subordinates._

I felt I had doors close in my face at Aflac due to the romantic interest of
powerful men there, though none of them were breaking any rules or harming
their own career. Even without getting involved, in one case just asking me
out made me feel like my hopes of transferring to the same department had just
died.

I don't have the answers. I'm currently doing freelance work and feeling like
everyone in the small town where I live is off limits romantically. Because
things get tricky once you introduce that element and it can close doors that
you didn't know you might want or need to go through.

------
exogeny
Can't say that I love that the article clearly takes a "Can you believe this
bullshit?" tone, but it's hard to conclude anything other than that the
investors here really don't care. In their view, their goal is to return
capital (and by extension, further their career and life), not play judge.

The investors who chose not to comment are pretty cowardly, IMO.

~~~
vkou
The investors should care, if not for human decency, then for their bottom
line. Litigating or settling sexual harassment is very expensive - and being
the cause of one is a demonstration of exceedingly poor judgement.

~~~
saagarjha
There is no litigation here–what are you going on about?

~~~
detaro
FTA:

> _In 2012, the board settled with an executive assistant who had received
> sexually explicit text messages from Mr. Cagney, The New York Times
> previously reported._

If his past conduct required settlement payments to a target of his advances,
will that repeat in a new company?

