It's not a personal romantic relationship if the other side is either a direct subordinate or the head of a chip smuggling operation in violation of federal export control laws

Which of the following views do you find problematic, inexplicable, or unjustifiable

- Conflicts of interest compromise trust and judgement

- Relationships with direct reports create a conflict of interest

- Relationships with major direct customers create a conflict of interest

- Policies should be set such relationships are either disallowed or require strict oversight / disclosure

- Companies should enforce their stated policies equally as required by employment law

- Affairs demonstrate a lack of judgement, a lack of candor, and are problematic for positions of trust

- An executive that lies about an affair creates a risk of blackmail and a liability for the company

Don't forget:

- Relationships with subordinates is a violation of policy, demonstrating a lack of judgement and a willingness to break the rules

- Relationships with subordinates create legal liability for the company by enabling claims of sexual harassment, hostile workplace, coercion/abuse of authority

> willingness to break the rules

but I’m the CEO!

If people want a system where individuals are not going to break the rules it should ensure:

- every trivial action, or lack of it, is not garanteed to break some of the mountains of existing including set of rules one is supposed to obey when it's physically impossible to even assimilate them all

- people that do respect the rules can have decent level of certitude they will have a fine life without major troubles that could be avoided by breaking some rules

- the culture promote to respect rules as a viable flexible path, as opposed to actively promote one that states "it's easier to get pardon than to be granted authorization".

Everyone is welcome to assess their own society from what they experienced in life.

Creating conflicts of interest are not trivial actions, nor are betraying trusts.

Sure, the comment here was more general than specific to the topic, however once you favor some behavior in society, one should not be surprised to which extend it will flourish.

Your comment focuses solely on company profits. I don’t care about company profits. I do care about HR policing things they should not be allowed to police.

HR doesn’t have the power to oust the CEO, the board does. This isn’t about HR at all.

HR, the board, company policy, for the purpose of my comment please group it all together. Basically, anyone with firing power.

Correct. Incredible how many people believe HR is the law. And seem to boot lick HR like they are the great enlightened justice in the world.

HR doesn't even enter into this.

Its rather startling that you read my comment and saw a prieority on "profits" rather than judgement, trust, and liability.

A leader who can be blackmailed or is untrustworthy is compromised in their role. Profit, nonprofit, government: it does not matter.

That is perhaps why affairs and lack of candor are both (usually) bars to obtaining a clearance.

You don’t see an issue sleeping with the CEO of a company you made a business deal with?

Are you serious?

The bigger issue is HR trying to police who has sex with who. It’s inhumane.

There need to be reasonable limits on the pursuit of profit.

That's your opinion but not the opinion of the federal government. They make the rules and you have to follow them, whether you like it or not.

I’m arguing a moral point, not a legal one.

Regardless, there is no federal law that bans relationships between bosses and subordinates, and no law that requires HR to police them.

In fact, there should be the opposite of that. A law banning HR from policing romantic relationships entirely.

Insane you think HR is the federal gov.

HR didn't fire Huang.

HR / company policy / anyone with firing power.

That's not at all what they said, nor can their comment be interpreted that way in honesty.

Don't complain if you get passed over for a promotion in favor of someone who's sleeping with a higher-up.

That's not an issue at all. It's literally part of their job.

Even so, HR didn't do this.

Americans are so prude.

Tell us that next time your boss promotes your peer who's sleeping with them instead of you.

You're confusing the idea that a demonstrated lack of integrity is viewed as a liability with prudishness.

Reconcile that error in thinking and things will start making more sense to you.

[delayed]

Honestly, no, I don't. Spell it out for me.

It might hurt company profits.

Here's a definition from google:

A corporate conflict of interest occurs when an individual's or entity's personal, financial, or outside relationships interfere or appear to interfere with their ability to act in the best interests of the company or its stakeholders

I would agree for a "regular" employee - as the CEO you are literally the face of the company, so you are held to a higher standard. When you look bad publicly, the company looks bad - that's the job you agree to when you become CEO.

Supposedly he started working with a crisis communications firm over a year ago. Where there is smoke there is fire.