|Joined: 27 Jun 2013|
|Read: 0 topics|
|Shall we be ever likely to learn
Watching the recent dust-up at the Capitol,[url=http://duveticapiumini.olimx.com/][b]duvetica jackets shop[/b][/url], I am struck by how far we have come and how far we still have to go.
The ''inappropriate relationship'' between Sen. Amy Koch and her staff person is high drama because Koch is really a high-profile politician. But she's not unique. Case another embarrassing,[url=http://woolrichoutletde.albirank.net/][b]Woolrich Arctic Parka Woolrich Online Shop Woolrich Damen Parka Woolrich Deutschland Outlet[/b][/url], too-public reminder that lots of supervisors still don't "get it."
The imbalance of power from a supervisor (Koch) along with a subordinate constitutes a sexual relationship potentially coercive,[url=http://peutereyoutletitaliaonline.olimx.com/][b]Peuterey Uomo Jacket[/b][/url], not consensual, and consequently can spell big-time trouble.
When power is abused,[url=http://billigmonclerjackenkaufen.olimx.com/][b]Moncler Jacke Damen Outlet[/b][/url], the distinction between a coercive and consensual relationship is virtually impossible for the parties involved to determine. Thankfully we now have unambiguous, gender-blind laws against harassment of any kind at the office. Individuals have no excuse because of not knowing in which the legal line is,[url=http://giuseppezanottisneakerssale.olimx.com/][b]giuseppe zanotti sneakers with[/b][/url], starting with: Don't mess around together with your boss and do not fool around together with your employee.
These laws are made to protect the productivity and fairness from the work environment, not the guy or gal at the very top. Within the Mad Men-esque times of old, a too-sordid affair that affected the team's performance could be made to go away by dismissing the employee lowest about the organization chart. No more. Today,[url=http://woolrichparkaschweiz.albirank.net/][b]Woolrich Parka Schweiz[/b][/url], the angels take presctiption the side from the employee using the least quantity of power.
Happily,[url=http://woolrichoutletde.albirank.net/][b]http://woolrichoutletde.albirank.net/[/b][/url], these laws will work. women have experienced sexual harassment at work,[url=http://peutereyoutletitaliaonline.olimx.com/][b]Peuterey Outlet Italia Online[/b][/url], down in one in three in the early 1990s. Also fewer men think they've said or done things that can be construed as workplace sexual harassment -- 10 percent now versus 25 % in 1994.
So why do we love them a lot about workplace romance, anyway?
The company isn't your Your government. And that we are all aware you can't kill Cupid, outlaw love or legislate romance. Stuff happens. Actually, such liaisons are statistically on the rise. (Selection place to meet someone than in the workplace?) Such as the look up and don't look down the organizational chart for love. Dating a coworker who's a peer is possible, provided the messiness of the breakup has no effect on work performance.
So, how come organizations so nervous about workplace romance?
Money. Although a business cannot control matters of the heart, it does possess a legitimate curiosity about the bottom line. The largest hazard for a company is the potential financial risk of litigation when romantically involved employees directly are accountable to one another. federal sexual harassment laws that the supervisor coerced him/her into the relationship. For example: She/he was induced or seduced with promises or threats regarding compensation,[url=http://duveticadoudoune.halod.com/][b]Duvetica Soldes[/b][/url], work assignments, advancement, or the relationship was continued unwillingly for fear of retaliation or dismissal. Thus, the organization could be liable underneath the theory of quid pro quo sexual harassment. sales leads, bonuses). Despite the fact that these may be unfounded, perceived preferential claims, the organization continues to be vulnerable.
What puzzles me is that, despite all of the training programs and written policies, some supervisors continue to pursue combustible relationships with direct reports -- and some subordinates still say "yes" once they should put their track shoes on.
What are they thinking? These are otherwise smart people -- why would they take the risks? Could it be ego ("We'll be the exception")? Could it be excitement ("Forbidden fruit tastes sweeter")? Have they been corrupted (or seduced) by power? President Bill Clinton was asked with a reporter, "Why have you do this? Why have you jeopardize your presidency with this particular reckless indiscretion with an intern?"
Clinton's introspective reply was chilling: "For the worst possible reason . because I could."
Given a unique alignment of circumstances that defeated her common sense and judgment, I'm guessing that Koch understood the risk she was taking but did it anyway. And I presume Herman Cain is still clueless.
I take great security in the progress we've made. Office cultures have become less hostile and consequently more productive. This really is good news for everyone. When power isn't abused,[url=http://billigmonclerjackenkaufen.olimx.com/][b]Moncler Jacke Damen Outlet Deutschland[/b][/url], our leaders' credibility and ethical judgment are enhanced, causing them to be better leaders.