I read it as sarcastic pointing out the hypocrisy, and that they're fully in support of free will for anyone to pursue relationships they want at all levels. You could disagree with the latter, but the starting point doesn't seem like what you suggest
replyI am merely saying, if you fire a CEO because of, say, him having a relationship with an underling, you are saying: "there are arbitrary things more important than profitability".
replyI am not sure it makes sense given why companies exist in the capitalist system. Stockholders, I'd think, on average care more about the returns less whether the CEO is a likable character.
The real problem is potentially illegal behavior, of course.
Even in purest capitalist sense, romantic relationships cloud judgement and point at a possibility (inevitability?) that people in question (CEOs, managers, owners, board members) will do that again thus increasing the risk to the business.
replyThis ignores the direct consequences like "worse" employees getting promoted (affecting business) or put in charge, or like in this case, potential national security issues.
> arbitrary things
replyI'm sure Jenson knew sleeping with his direct reports was wrong. And that plenty of CEOs got fired for that. Nothing arbitrary about that.