This is the mentality that leads to drama explosions like at Uber. They were all focused on making money and building a big company. Because of this, they ignored the "little things" like building a HR department that could support women when they were put in bad situations.
I think a part of "don't tolerate a culture that gets in the way of making that [making money] happen" is not tolerating sexism, juvenile behaviour, harassment, or bullying in the workplace.
All of those factors make some of your employees less productive.
Totally agree. The distinction I'm trying to make is that it's easy to let these things happen when you're focused on building and selling a product. I'm positive that no CEO wants their business to be a place where women are harassed or personnel problems slow down progress. However these things can and do happen without a lot of careful effort spent early on, focused on preventing them. By the time the problems become visible (e.g. through a shocking public blog post), it will be significantly harder to fix the underlying causes, which is very costly to the company in terms of attracting and keeping talent and maintaining focus on objectives.
You would think so, but people are very often willing to damage their own financial self-interest in favor of prejudices, especially when the former is long-term and the latter short-term.
Nope. Uber case was plain simple case of sexual harassment. My question is, would Uber have arbitrated in same manner if female employees were accused of harassment? yes, they would have. It's not about women,men or trans. It's about equality at workplace. Should one be more sensitive to women employees concern than men? If yes, where is the equality?
If this was not a pass, the manager should have explicitly invited the employee's S.O. and indicated a venue that has no beds in it (bar or restaurant).
Too much vague-ry here, which, on a sensitive topic, is asking for trouble.
You don't need to see an agenda behind every invitation to recognize the agenda behind this one.
For those genuinely unclear, it's a combination of things - the individual nature of the invitation, the private nature of the venue, the timing and explicit involvement of libations whose effects often include the lowering of inhibitions - all in all it's just a super sketchy thing to all of a sudden pop up in a previously professional relationship. Any one of those would be fine; any two would be a little questionable but probably okay; all three at once constitute a great big flashing neon sign that spells out "YOUR BOSS IS TRYING TO LAY YOU".
And if said boss isn't trying anything, he still ought to understand the signals it sends sufficiently well to either 1) not do it, 2) invite more people (and make that clear in the e-mail), or 3) make it something much more casual than drinks on a Saturday night.
If he doesn't understand that, he'll be the kind of manager that creates liabilities by leaving e-mail trails of questionable invitations that might get caught up in discovery if/when something happens.
I mean that's the thing, I don't deny that if this a purely professional relationship then this comment is incredibly out of place. But often times professional relationships become less professional and more friendly. I don't deny that it is creepy from your perspective.
I mean sure, but if that's the nature of the relationship, nobody's going to be made uncomfortable by the invitation - that's probably why the context in which it was mentioned makes clear that's not the case in this hypothetical. My comments are addressed more toward the "what could possibly be wrong with that?" kind of response it seems to have elicited, and intend to supply that question an answer.
No, of course I do not assume there is an ulterior motive behind "every" invitation, but there is a strong sexual undercurrent to the invitation we're talking about.
People hear what they want to hear. As a boss, you can choose to say what you want and see what happens. It might be wiser to choose words carefully, so your subordinates don't get the wrong message.
I agree that there isn't enough context. The example doesn't even specify that it's being sent to a female employee (that's an assumption everyone is making) and I can imagine plenty of scenarios - with context - where it wouldn't necessarily be inappropriate.
The context here includes the parent comment to the one setting out the scenario, and the reaction of sending a message copied to the boss's boss complaining about it.
They make it clear that it was sent to a woman, and that the scenario at the very least was interpreted by the recipient as inappropriate.
Yes, there are scenarios where it could be acceptable, but consider that they are (much) narrower than you might think:
* Men can be sexually harassed too.
* Sexual harassment is not the only problem with an e-mail like that. It may also create drinking pressure, or a feeling that you are forced to socialise with your boss. Of course that is context-dependent too, but for my part, as a man who doesn't enjoy drinking and doesn't want to spend my Saturdays with the boss, I'd fell put under inappropriate pressure by an e-mail like that as well, because I'd be concerned that a rejection could impact work.
A lot of behaviour like that is fine when it is not between subordinates, and can be fine with subordinates too if it is someone you know very well.
But even then you need to consider that e.g. it may negatively affect team dynamics or may be unintentionally discriminatory or become seen as discriminatory purely by e.g. including only those the manager knows well too.
> or a feeling that you are forced to socialise with your boss
Would you feel you'd be fired? Because sometimes getting to know someone is an appropriate pathway to success.
Scenarios like this are more common at start-ups, aren't they? If you just want to drone through work, with no social connections, the average american mega-corp might be more appropriate.
My experience is that it seems less common at start-ups, with the caveat that it's my experience and so definitively biased. At least the startups I've been in have been small, tight-knit groups where any socialisation have tended to be group activities, and where there's been little implicit imposing hierarchy, and standing up for yourself tends to be appreciated.
In larger companies, on the other hand, you get all kinds of weird little fiefdoms where getting on your managers bad side is potentially far more damaging because if your boss has sufficient support he will be able to musster a much bigger support system.
That reads to me more like a pass. If a boss made a pass at me, you better believe I'd be looping in someone higher up on that, too, because that whole territory is extremely fraught no matter the response.
Office dating is dicey but, I think, workable, but the issues with a superior asking a subordinate out on a date are so obvious that I don't see how you can think it's OK.
I don't see what popping into stairways in the company building to have sex has to do with making money. From the outside, Uber seems to have gotten focused on a blatantly unsustainable, ultra-exploitative business model and on frat-boy hijinks at the office.
