First, his actions were alleged to have impact on national security, but that is not for sure. It is for sure that he was acting inappropriately as a boss, though. Second, I suspect that it is both events which led to his firing. If the affair with the subordinate had come out first, and then the affair with the alleged spy, I suspect he still would've been given grace for the first but not the second event.

> Second, I suspect that it is both events which led to his firing.

Plus possible other events known to the board but not us. We’ll know eventually.

Not necessarily.

Once I worked at a company where the sales VP got caught embezzling by setting up (large amounts of) fake affiliates.

It boosted the overall revenue numbers, and I think they were impressed at how long he had gotten away with it, so they let him be ‘stolen’ by a competitor (who didn’t know the circumstances) while they swept it under the rug.

Easy 8 figures of revenue impact per year.

Pretty ingeniously evil, IMO.

It's about lying. The proper procedure is to disclose consenting relationships with a subordinate so that HR and the board is aware of conflicts of interest

If an exec is lying about this, what else might they be lying about? Embezzlement? Corruption?

You’re right, because lying about who you’re fucking is definitely at the same intellectual and moral level as embezzlement and corruption.

This batshit insane decision by the board is a timely reminder that prudes truly do continue to thrive among us.

It's against pretty much every company policy to have a relationship with someone who reports to you.

All 42,000 employees should be held to the same standard, otherwise you will end up with all kinds of problems within the company.

Company leadership should lead by example as well.

Right, and to make it explicit for some people following along who are wondering why companies have that policy... It's to prevent predatory and abuses of power. There's a power imbalance that can easily lead to exploitation.

Because it's likely sexual harassment. In two ways:

1 - did she feel pressured to have a relationship with him? It's hard to have genuinely free consent when he can make or break her career; and

2 - sexual discrimination towards every other employee. Did she get benefits from the relationship? It's more than fair for the rest of the employees to wonder if they'd also been eg sucking his dick if they would have gotten better raises, faster promotions, etc.

It's not the affair, exactly. It's that he violated HR policy (which incidentally was by way of having that affair).