You can make all the policies you want but human nature does not care much for policies.
The best cure is an immediate transfer to another department of either of the two. That way you avoid all the claims of favoritism and possible fall-out in case the relationship goes sour. Also make sure that managers know that such relationships should immediately be reported to upper management. (Hard if the 'upper management' is in fact one of the parties). Any evidence of pressure from the higher-up should result in immediate termination. Again, that's pretty tough but it is much better than the possible alternatives.
Or Sergey Brin & Amanda Rosenberg, or Larry Page and Marissa Mayer.
That said, in all three of those cases they were dating an indirect report. That's still a bit of a no-no, but nowhere near as problematic as dating a direct report. Your manager has a huge influence on your career; the company CEO dating someone who works for the company is a little dodgy and will cause morale problems elsewhere, but it's much harder to argue direct influence when they don't directly interact in the course of the workday.
We're talking about co-founders here. There is no HR director to bring down the policy hammer.
In this situation the real problem is a you have sexist fuckwad of a partner who is basically a loose cannon and going to get you in trouble eventually. If you really want to build a company with someone like that you need to start telling them to tone it down early and often, but of course that's easier said than done.
Dating an direct report is essentially sexual harassment in the eyes of the court.
That's not even remotely true. No court has ever held that merely dating a subordinate is ipso facto sexual harassment. Accordingly, many companies do not have an official policy against it.
You're right, but this area is so incredibly gray it might as well be one in the same. Sexual harassment laws were not created with relationships in mind, but co-workers.
I have the opposite opinion in that I think that sexual harassment cases involving exes in the work place should almost always be thrown out, but alas...
It's nearly impossibly to date someone and not sexually harass them in some way. It's doubly hard to break up with someone and not sexually harass them in some way.
Considering most of her allegations are words/phrases that he called her, and considering many people call significant others very bad things when they are breaking up, it's almost impossible to draw the line between sexual harassment and break-up banter.
considering many people call significant others very bad things when they are breaking up,
I've been around the block a few times and had a few past relationships go sour; but I've never felt the need to call an ex-lover a slut or suggest that she was a whore for sleeping with someone other than me. If someone does that, I'm going to judge them; and not in a good light.
This is usually handled in large companies by moving the lower-ranking employee out of the management chain of the higher-ranking one. At smaller organizations, someone is asked to leave.
Is it? Legality aside, if you define the limits of unacceptable behaviour then you're also saying that anything outside that is acceptable. If you hire decent human beings, hopefully your team can use their judgement and empathy to tell whether something's OK or not, rather than "S/he shouldn't have been offended, I wasn't breaching the rules laid down in the HR handbook! Grow a pair!"
(On the flipside, if you hire decent human beings then nobody's going to be looking in the HR handbook to determine how far they can push harassment without being fired anyway.)
I'm sure that there are decent human beings that fall into these kinds of relationships. But when you want to avoid situations like this Tinder situation, and you actually want to do something about it in advance, rules are things you can point to in order to change a situation. You're waiting for shit to hit the fan when you assume the best of everyone.
Comments
So they were dating? IAC is screwed. Dating an direct report is essentially sexual harassment in the eyes of the court.
I am adding "anti-fraternization" policy to my employee handbook today.
Seriously, does anybody know how to handle the hr on discovering a supervisor / direct report are dating?
I've been told that best practices is to immediately suggest one or the other resign, and if they don't, fire both for violating policy.
How does one handle this situation?
Someone should tell Bill & Melinda Gates.
You can make all the policies you want but human nature does not care much for policies.
The best cure is an immediate transfer to another department of either of the two. That way you avoid all the claims of favoritism and possible fall-out in case the relationship goes sour. Also make sure that managers know that such relationships should immediately be reported to upper management. (Hard if the 'upper management' is in fact one of the parties). Any evidence of pressure from the higher-up should result in immediate termination. Again, that's pretty tough but it is much better than the possible alternatives.
Or Sergey Brin & Amanda Rosenberg, or Larry Page and Marissa Mayer.
That said, in all three of those cases they were dating an indirect report. That's still a bit of a no-no, but nowhere near as problematic as dating a direct report. Your manager has a huge influence on your career; the company CEO dating someone who works for the company is a little dodgy and will cause morale problems elsewhere, but it's much harder to argue direct influence when they don't directly interact in the course of the workday.
We're talking about co-founders here. There is no HR director to bring down the policy hammer.
In this situation the real problem is a you have sexist fuckwad of a partner who is basically a loose cannon and going to get you in trouble eventually. If you really want to build a company with someone like that you need to start telling them to tone it down early and often, but of course that's easier said than done.
That's not even remotely true. No court has ever held that merely dating a subordinate is ipso facto sexual harassment. Accordingly, many companies do not have an official policy against it.
You're right, but this area is so incredibly gray it might as well be one in the same. Sexual harassment laws were not created with relationships in mind, but co-workers.
I have the opposite opinion in that I think that sexual harassment cases involving exes in the work place should almost always be thrown out, but alas...
It's nearly impossibly to date someone and not sexually harass them in some way. It's doubly hard to break up with someone and not sexually harass them in some way.
Considering most of her allegations are words/phrases that he called her, and considering many people call significant others very bad things when they are breaking up, it's almost impossible to draw the line between sexual harassment and break-up banter.
You have horrible relationships if you think this is even remotely true.
And even worse break ups.
That or you don't know what sexual harassment is which I'm thinking is far more likely.
No its not.
I've been around the block a few times and had a few past relationships go sour; but I've never felt the need to call an ex-lover a slut or suggest that she was a whore for sleeping with someone other than me. If someone does that, I'm going to judge them; and not in a good light.
This is usually handled in large companies by moving the lower-ranking employee out of the management chain of the higher-ranking one. At smaller organizations, someone is asked to leave.
I seriously doubt having an "anti-fraternization" policy in your handbook will do anything prevent sexist harassment.
It's better than nothing. It's better than literally nothing.
Is it? Legality aside, if you define the limits of unacceptable behaviour then you're also saying that anything outside that is acceptable. If you hire decent human beings, hopefully your team can use their judgement and empathy to tell whether something's OK or not, rather than "S/he shouldn't have been offended, I wasn't breaching the rules laid down in the HR handbook! Grow a pair!"
(On the flipside, if you hire decent human beings then nobody's going to be looking in the HR handbook to determine how far they can push harassment without being fired anyway.)
I'm sure that there are decent human beings that fall into these kinds of relationships. But when you want to avoid situations like this Tinder situation, and you actually want to do something about it in advance, rules are things you can point to in order to change a situation. You're waiting for shit to hit the fan when you assume the best of everyone.
Writing rules to dictate the personal relationships of your employees is most certainly worse than not. It's draconian and insulting.
If it is possible, move one person to another role in the company so that one isn't reviewing the work of the other.