Comment by cimmanom
7 years ago
Which is why they merit investigation. For which there should be a process. Without an investigation process, what alternatives would you suggest for avoiding treating all claims as true or all claims as false?
7 years ago
Which is why they merit investigation. For which there should be a process. Without an investigation process, what alternatives would you suggest for avoiding treating all claims as true or all claims as false?
> what alternatives would you suggest
There are many well tested solutions but they all carry different trade offs.
E.g.
- Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies.
Or,
- When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.
Etc.
> When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.
That's a very good way to be found liable for both later harassment by the accused and, if you move the accuser, for retaliation; and also a PR nightmare when it is discovered to have been your policy or even a common practice to move accused wrongdoers without follow-up (just ask the Catholic Church.)
> just ask the Catholic Church
If priests had been moved around for simply leering at a woman or making a suggestive sexual comment I don’t think there would have been any outrage.
I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes - or any crimes for that matter.
2 replies →
> Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies.
This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Groping; quid pro quo suggestions (subtle or explicit); coercive threats (subtle or explicit); lewd remarks; invitations to strip clubs; etc ad nauseum (and yes, they're nauseating) have nothing to do with actual romantic relationships.
> When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.
Due to the nature of company hierarchies, this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain much more than it does the one higher - both in terms of short term impacts and long term career advancement. Which often means punishing the victim, due to how the power dynamics of harassment interactions tend to work out.
It's also a pretty damn weak reaction. If your Director of X insinuates that they'll fire an engineer if the engineer won't sleep with the director, you think the only consequence for the director should be that that engineer no longer reports to them?
> This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum.
Not at all - in practice it removes ambiguity which is where most of the issues stem.
> this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain
At a large company that is not true - it’s actually the opposite.
For those below director level it’s usually a privilege to be able to shift teams.
On the other hand when you are director level and up it’s usually a negative because most of your ability to operate effectively comes from the interpersonal relationships you have built up.
> It's also a pretty damn weak reaction.
It’s a weak reaction based on typically weak evidence. In fact most commonly there is no evidence at all.
What it does is it ensures any abuse is stopped.
In practice it’s one of the most effective techniques I’ve seen because it can be used to nip problems in the bud - nobody feels too bad about using the system early and often.
2 replies →
Here is an interesting though experiment: Remove all humans from this planet who are the direct or indirect descendent of a couple whose relationship started at work.
Conjecture: the planet would be depopulated.