Plenty of leaders throughout the years, most notoriously royalty (leaders in an "extremely large organization" if there ever was one), have been doing this.

Yes, and they were eventually held accountable for shit like that, and we moved away from monarchies.

It's a sign of a really bad leader that they do this.

Or maybe it's inherent to power and the recent trend is against human nature. You cannot seriously say that this is a major concern in moving against monarchies. After all, the royals are just the most well known ones (because it involves succession). Plenty of non royal powerful people also do so.

[delayed]

Infidelity is as old as the institution of marriage. Very few people are ever ostracized for it, and most of those were women. Among elites, it was usually expected to have lower-status women for fun and not to bother the nobly-bred wife for anything other than bearing legitimate heirs.

squints really hard looks at US president laughs.

Maybe eventually. After they have been doing it for decades. When it’s inconvenient for folks now.

Notably, every senior woman leader I worked for had something similar going on too.

Royalty are also notoriously bad leaders a lot of the time.

I'll believe you when you're a powerful billionaire and you don't get caught.

> he's supposed to be in control of his emotions and able to make the best decisions without letting his emotions interfere.

I agree but that ship sailed a long time ago and this action is being blown out of proportion.

Look at the president of the US that is a guy who has to go (and all the people around him) and is still in office.

Quite frankly he has had an affair with consenting adult women not trafficked children why are the knives out for him when this is all he has done?

> Quite frankly he has had an affair with consenting adult women not trafficked children why are the knives out for him when this is all he has done?

Because he made commitments to people to not do this.

If you promise to do (or not do) something, and then you break that promise, you should be held to account for it. It should be obvious that you cannot be trusted to keep promises in future. Nothing you say should be believed, because you are clearly an untrustworthy person. You should not be trusted to make decisions that involve other people's money.

And, in addition. If you're a manager, you are responsible for the people reporting to you. You're the adult in the room. If your idea of managing people includes having sex with them, then that is an indication that you are unable to manage people.

This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand. This is about Huang not living up to the professional standards that we expect from people in authority. It's about being a good, trustworthy, custodian of other people's money, and about being a good choice as CEO of this business. Not having enough self-control to avoid these situations is a really good indicator that he is not a good choice for this role, because of that lack of self-control. If he can't control himself, how can he be relied on to control the organisation?

> If you're a manager, you are responsible for the people reporting to you. You're the adult in the room.

> This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand.

My point was the president who has brought about an expensive war is an example of this times 1000. I think all we can infer from this is he is unfaithful to his wife, the inference you make about his commitment to his fiduciary responsibility is incorrect to me. They are different things and he has not shown he has been a highly effective CEO who actually has technical knowledge.

Perhaps I am overly cynical but I think a lot of CEO's (and other's for that matter) will engage in dishonesty.

Consider Aquinas on merchants (possibly quoting Chrysostom possibly mistaken)

> “He that buys a thing in order that he may sell it, entire and unchanged, at a profit, is the trader who is cast out of God’s temple.”

My claim is not that this practice is wrong per-say but even in this kind of business of arbitrage you can see at guile and cunning, that is hard to deny. Maybe he only lacked the ability to hide it.

I would ask you who would run a business better a man who is unable to use cunning, guile and manipulation (marketing) or one who does not. Their is times when the sort of morality you talk about is important and times where it is a hindrance and most people are evil, if you want the good Aristocratic souls you would do well not to look for it in the world of commerce.

He said he wouldn’t do a thing, and then he did it anyway.

He’s already proven himself to be untrustworthy… what else is he lying about, hmm?

You seem to imply there is a performance aspect here. Yet there are high performing people in all fields do this. Something like 20% of men have committed adultery.

> Something like 20% of men have committed adultery.

More like 20% admit to it.