Yeah, but does it make sense? The CEO is responsible for company success. Firing them over sexual misconduct is a decision to prioritize non-profit related matters. Companies do this all the time because of political correctness, but it is strictly speaking optimizing for other things than shareholder value.

They were talking about "underlings" who have to "obey their masters" and supposedly don't matter, while those "masters" are not "fully human" if they let anyone impose rules on their "rule making". It is the kind of talk that makes you want to cover your drink.

I am merely saying, if you fire a CEO because of, say, him having a relationship with an underling, you are saying: "there are arbitrary things more important than profitability".

I am not sure it makes sense given why companies exist in the capitalist system. Stockholders, I'd think, on average care more about the returns less whether the CEO is a likable character.

The real problem of course is potentially illegal behavior, but having a relationship is nothing. Firing a very successful CEO over this is imbecillic.

> arbitrary things

I'm sure Jenson knew sleeping with his direct reports was wrong. And that plenty of CEOs got fired for that. Nothing arbitrary about that.

Even in purest capitalist sense, romantic relationships cloud judgement and point at a possibility (inevitability?) that people in question (CEOs, managers, owners, board members) will do that again thus increasing the risk to the business.

This ignores the direct consequences like "worse" employees getting promoted (affecting business) or put in charge, or like in this case, potential national security issues.

Pause and listen to yourself for a while. Don't you think all business leaders and nation leaders have relationships interfering with their lives? Not the least family issues with their children and spouses. Should all CEOs be psychopaths living according to Mr Burns advice? That was a joke in a cartoon, not something to model society after.

I read it as sarcastic pointing out the hypocrisy, and that they're fully in support of free will for anyone to pursue relationships they want at all levels. You could disagree with the latter, but the starting point doesn't seem like what you suggest

There is no law or really good principle that suggests that shareholder profits matter above all else; that is just something a famous economist said.

It matters for the very obvious reason that a less senior employee may feel pressured or may lose their job when the relationship ends, that usually office affairs result in other employees feeling compelled to keep secrets, because it opens everyone up to blackmail, etc. etc.

It’s nothing at all to do with political correctness.

His dick cost people hundreds of millions of dollars in shareholder value and this is about the worst case scenario outside of maybe a true sexual misconduct lawsuit coming against him. Like with your thinking taken to an extreme, if he murdered someone he should keep his title and run the company from jail because it doesn’t make him a bad engineer and we don’t want to bow to woke?

How does it NOT make business sense to consider firing bim here (outside of manosphere thinking)?

Having an affair vs. killing someone is materially different - one is legal, the other is not.

I am not debating the spying, smuggling angle here; but it this was just the affair, its a decision by the board, whereas if he run over an elderly lady at a crossing, its no longer a choice - law is law.

Btw, re: ad hominem 'manosphere' or 'woke' whatever. I have nothing to do with either.

[delayed]

You are contradicting yourself. If destroying the company isn't enough pretext to get you fired but an affair with a subordinate is, then it's a big fucking deal that would have been an issue regardless.

They needed a pretext because if the board publically confirmed how much damage he'd done to the company, it would hurt the company even more through investor and employee panic.

When has legal fallout from an affair with a subordinate ever destroyed a Fortune 100 company? That doesn't happen.

You are not making any sense. Was he destroying the company or not? What kind of destruction does not have obviously visible signs (to everyone) that can be acted on? What Kind of board sits down and decides that the destruction of the company is worth investor panic because 'it's worse than it looks'. What, are investors going to be calm as he destroys the company?

Are you even hearing yourself? Do you think a CEO is King or what that they are destroying a company and that's not enough to get booted? CEOs get fired all the time. A Board certainly doesn't need an affar pretext to boot one that is tanking the company.

It’s a big difference if it’s a mercenary CEO hired by the board versus a founder CEO that likely controls much of the board.

> It's a huge deal regardless. You'll be fired even as a CEO

Bill Gates met Melinda Gates while he was CEO of Microsoft and she was a newgrad developer.

Many such cases. Rupert Murdoch. Larry Ellison.

Maybe I would have worded it differently, but I generally agree with the grandparent poster. It seems rare that a founder would be ousted over this type of thing.

My guess is that the China dealings are the most important part, and that part is being undersold because it's actually illegal and puts both him and anyone with knowledge of it at risk of going to jail.

>Bill Gates met Melinda Gates while he was CEO of Microsoft and she was a newgrad developer.

Bill Gates met Melinda ~40 years ago. It should be blatantly obvious I'm taking about where things stand today. Lots of things happened 40 years ago that would be generally unacceptable today.

The U.S government have known about this for a year. How serious would it be for them to give a warning and just sit on it for a year?