Question related to the topic of multiple discussion threads about sexist behaviour in the tech industry...<p>There are many cases where it is clear ethically and legally what can be said/done with coworkers of any sex - this is one of the cases where the person's behaviour was clearly wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9178681<p>However, there also some other situation in the modern workplaces where you can find yourself in the legal/ethical grey zone. For example: you gradually become friends with your coworkers, start spending time together doing things outside of your work context. You can end up hanging out privately with your superiors or subordinates and this can eventually lead to various personal and romantic entanglements.<p>The legal advice would be: don't. But, the modern workplace culture encourages being more then 'professional coworker' to your coworkers outside of the office. And I personally think it is a good thing because it makes workplaces more human. I certainly made some amazing friends (both male and female) at the places where I worked.<p>But, my question is: has anybody with legal and/or HR credentials and some ethical sense written any definitive guide what is OK and what is not specifically in the context of the modern office?
> has anybody with legal and/or HR credentials and some ethical sense written any definitive guide what is OK and what is not specifically in the context of the modern office?<p>Yes, they have. I am NOT one of them. I don't have one of those guides. But I've received enough mandatory training to have a layperson's understanding of the baseline in my national jurisdiction which is USA. The baseline is twofold, it is fairly clear, and it is worth reviewing. Don't take my word for it, but I think if you check your authorities you may get confirmation.<p>First, no "quid pro quo." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you will provide business advantage in exchange for affectionate acts from a person who is sexually attractive to you. This principle is an excellent reason not to ask an interviewee to go out on a date (slightly simplifying an example from elsewhere in recent Hacker News).<p>Second, no "hostile environment." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you are making the workplace uncomfortable for people who are sexually attractive to you. Decorating your desk with a calendar featuring glamour photos of models, unless that is your duty in your occupation, is not a very good idea.
I was talking to one of my best friends who also happens to be a coworker the other day, and I said "Hey, if you're ever a victim of sexual harassment, what can I do to make you feel comfortable with coming to me so that I can attempt to help?"<p>She said "Nothing, really. The problem is that most harassment isn't blatant, it is hidden and not obvious. It's like a feeling that you get from someone. I can't tell you how many meetings I've been in where the person on the other side of the table is regularly looking at my boobs. What am i supposed to do about that?"<p>So my follow-up question to OP's is: what is she supposed to do about that?<p>I'm a hetero white male manager. And I have no idea how to answer that question.
My two cents:<p>As you point out in the question, you're never going to receive a set of rules that you just have to follow like a checklist, because the same behaviors can be consensual and encouraged between one pair of people, and non-consensual and creepy between another pair of people. That's normal.<p>The only definitive rule is: don't hurt people. If you hurt someone, even in a small way -- and you will -- apologize sincerely when called out, and try harder next time. No-one expects you to never make (non-huge) mistakes; just to learn from the ones you make.
As callous as it sounds, be friendly and "open" with co-workers, enough so they will are more likely to let you know that you make a mistake rather than going than directly to HR.<p>Everyone makes mistakes, but so many HR departments have zero tolerance policies towards perceived sexual harassment, and if it goes public you're doubly screwed... if you can get someone to talk to you first, you have a chance to identify and learn from the mistake, without being hung out to dry.<p>After having my own extremely negative run-in with HR about this kind of issue, I am very gun shy about expressing anything even remotely resembling a personal opinion around women.
There is an important difference between tech companies and many other kinds of workplaces. Tech has a greater tendency to consume people outside of work. Many go home from a day of programming, and relax by programming open source or hobby projects. They want to socialize with other tech people, because tech is their life.<p>Most other lines of work don't seem to spill out as much from the office, and people in them seem to socialize more outside their field. If X and Y are married, I think P(X is in field F|Y is in field F) is generally higher when F is a tech field than when it is not.<p>So even if tech were 50/50 male/female, I think we'd still have more problems than other fields (although if women were equally represented and powerful, more of the complaints would be from men being hit on by women at work...).<p>Sometimes I think tech companies should set up some kind of internal dating or matchmaking site, and establish a rule that if an employee is interested in exploring romantic or sexual relationships with coworkers, they have to go through that site. Communication otherwise must be kept on a professional level.
Not an attorney or HR person, but I've led groups with up to about 100 people. You can't write such a guide because you need to take into account the perceptions of the people who you work with.<p>End of the day, you should always proceed with caution when establishing out of work relationships with co-workers of the opposite sex. You should not engage in romantic or sexual relationships with coworkers.<p>The risk in both situations is that you're potentially (and unwittingly) creating a workplace perceived as hostile or rigged. Many people are hesitant to confront issues Tha bother them when it involves the person who is banging the boss.<p>Other things to consider:<p>- HR is not your friend. They are there to protect the company from you. If you need a confidant, talk t a therapist or trusted friend.<p>- There are plenty of nutjobs out there, and one of them may decide that you are the source of their misery. If you run into this, keep a written log of interactions with the person.<p>- Most problems can be avoided by listening to others and treating people with respect.<p>- If you are a supervisor and learn of an issue, deal with it immediately.
In all honesty, the way it works is like this -<p>1. Attractive male opens door for female. Female blushes, there is no problem.<p>2. Unattractive male opens door for female. Female reports unwanted behavior.<p>(<i>"attractive" does not have to mean "physically attractive", it could be another quality</i>)<p>And I'm not being smug here with the above. No matter what, life is a popularity contest.<p>Outside of that example, with grey zones, it's all on a case-by-case bases, as far as what appropriate behavior is.<p>But if you need an actionable answer, then realizes that right now we are living in a time where victimhood is the predominant social "virtue"... People are seeking it, promoting it, and pretending to be outraged over it (e.g., social justice) - and will do anything to get attention.<p>So if you are a male, it's best not to have any type of non-work contact and non-work dialog with opposite sex co-workers, unless you want to be the subject of another world-trending tweet and/or 1000 point + 500 reply HN post.<p>As anything from a simple compliment, to a obvious joke, will be interpreted in the worst of ways.
Unfortunately there are (at least) two different issues here.<p><pre><code> 1) Where is the line for legal liability
2) Where is the line for individuals
</code></pre>
1) is pretty well defined, talk to your HR team about that, in fact, you should probably have some kind of manual with the general outline, every company I've worked at with > 50 employees has this as a standard practice, smaller than that, probably not.<p>2) I prefer to consider Karl Popper's reframing of the Golden Rule: "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by"<p>This unfortunately requires some communication about what people would want, and establishing that usually involves some communication which in and of itself may cross the line, woops. You simply can't assume you know what someone wants, or what they are OK with, so the line for individuals will always be variable, and you can only do your best to be conservative and take feedback to heart.
The office I work at has several married couples. Some of who have been working there together since before they became couples. Some are at significantly different levels in the corporate hierarchy. Supposedly there is or was one person who "reports" to someone that has nothing to do with their day-to-day work or the rest of their team, because otherwise they'd be (indirectly, a couple levels apart) reporting to their spouse.<p>I <i>think</i> -- but don't have the employee handbook in front of me -- that corporate policy is limited to requiring that reports-to relationships be disjoint from screwing-eachother relationships.
<i>The legal advice would be: don't.</i><p>I'm totally unqualified but I think that the legal advice still stands. And it like what this means that any romantic entanglements with subordinates will end with serious liability if there's a situation where anyone objects.<p>It seems as if recent events also show that it is hard to know what really happened in any particular event and once someone crosses one line (even a line that doesn't seem to immediately offend anyone) in the world of relationships, they can easily be accused and even convicted of crossing every line. That might not be fair but it's life. It's kind of like car accidents - some accidents might be legally and clearly one person's fault but you should drive to have no accidents, not to simply not the one at fault. When improper sexual relations get to the level of legality, both people's lives are damaged and logic dictates that's often going to be unfair to one of them (and logic leaves us in the lurch determining apriori which, despite the ideology and vituperations of all parts of the political spectrum).<p><i>But, the modern workplace culture encourages being more then 'professional coworker' to your coworkers outside of the office.</i><p>Indeed, at the start-up workplace seems to. And recent events also seems to cast this approach as a train wreck (wrecks) waiting to happen.
> You can end up hanging out privately with your superiors or subordinates and this can eventually lead to various personal and romantic entanglements.<p>That's typically a bad idea anyway. I know that we in the hip, cool developer world like to pretend that an organisation can be flat and rankless—but it really can't.<p>I think it's completely appropriate for superiors and subordinates to socialise in groups (and kudos to the tech world for keeping that tradition alive when so many organisational cultures are stomping it out), but private socialisation should be limited to those who are on the same level.<p>As for specifically sex-related issues, the only thing I can think makes sense is to scrupulously treat every team member the same, and don't date within the organisation—and if, despite one's best intentions, one <i>does</i> form a relationship, then one or both parties should leave.
You should try your best. If you fail, and you make someone uncomfortable, then everything that happens after that is based on your reaction to being informed of it.<p>Do you think the other person is full of shit? that they're out to get you? That there's far too much coddling of women and minorities in the world today?<p>Or are you honestly trying to do the right thing?<p>Here's two examples. Wadhwa met his criticism by saying that over sensitive feminists are hurting themselves and other women, that they're out to get him and stuff about slander.<p>That ESA engineer with the South Park t-shirt made an honest apology and probably made a lot of new friends.
i could really go for some of these guidelines too.<p>i like to think i am fairly equal minded, but at the same time i do put my foot in my mouth and fall into the misogynist camp more than i would like.<p>some things are obvious, but every once in a while i state what seems like obvious truth and get slammed for it just because there is a woman involved.<p>(don't get me wrong, i also put my foot in my mouth because i am an ass)<p>as with all such things the best defence is to not be in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing, so to err on the side of caution. although, it can be difficult to even see what that is if you get comfortable working in male dominated environments...<p>i don't think male dominated environments (or female) are going to go away. simply because the evidence points to the fact that the more freedom you give to people to express themselves, and choose careers, the more the inate gender differences come to the fore and dominate the statistics.<p>the best way to get women into STEM is to be a 3rd world country with terrible human rights policies.