But this idea that it doesn’t look right for a male boss to be alone with a female employee sounds like it comes straight out of Victorian England. And it’s probably just an excuse.I don't think it's an excuse at all. I think "it wouldn't look right" means that some people might think that something sexual is going on, and the point is to dispel any possibility of people coming to that conclusion. It's not just that you might harass someone sexually, it's that the two of you might be doing something perfectly consensual that violates your wedding vows or even just the spirit of the workplace. This was the advice I got from my father decades ago on how to deal with women in the work place: do it in the public eye, so that people come to understand that you never leave yourself room for anything inappropriate.
More likely the congressmen, like the professors I’ve spoken to, don’t want to leave themselves open to claims of sexual harassment and the lawsuits that might result.
Once a sufficient bond of trust or friendship forms, of course, things can change. Still, it's hard to be friends with a superior or someone who reports to you directly, just as it was hard for a king to have friends. So the best thing, if you're dealing with someone who reports to you, might well be to deal with them only with the doors open.
It is not an excuse: it is self-defense.
ReplyDeleteThere is a very ugly subculture that exists in DC, and the persons who are really making excuses are the ones who wind up having affairs. This subculture is pervasive in the big law firms, and the national legislature, at the very least.
I recall that Miss Monica made jokes about getting her presidential kneepads when she got that great internship at the White House, before she actually set out to use them. She was not unusual, except for her opportunity to have proximity to the President. Other girls have been thrilled to bag themselves a Congressman or Senator. They talk about them like trophies.
There were working girls on the golf courses a long time before Tiger Woods got thrown out of his house.
And the big law firms have had "mentoring" programs where male attorneys were given the "responsibility" to take a professional and social interest in women 10-20 years younger than them, whom they also directly supervise.
Chances are, anybody who has adopted that "open door" policy has already been burned, or knows someone who has. Honest people do not know that it exists, until it gets forced into their consciousness.
Valerie
It occurs to me that it also protects the woman. Not just from harassment, either, although it has the benefit of doing that as well. The main thing it protects her from is whispers that she's been trading sex for preferment. Such whispering campaigns can be highly destructive and unfair.
ReplyDeleteEven if the two people in question are professional enough to be disciplined and behave appropriately, there's no guarantee the office gossip mongers will do the same. It's to the general benefit if they are robbed of material.
Completely disagree. There are conversations that must be conducted behind closed doors, regardless of the gender of the participants.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason such "self defense" is "necessary" is because too many timid souls are too unwilling to have--out in the open, with wide open doors--conversations with the PC fascists, the trophy hunters, and the like, and publicly burn their a**es to the ground. In open court, too.
Eric Hines
There are conversations that must be conducted behind closed doors, regardless of the gender of the participants.
ReplyDeleteThen you should have them behind closed doors, but with a witness. Thus, at least, was my father's advice.
Witnesses defeat the purpose of too many closed-door conversations.
ReplyDeleteThere are security cameras, though.
Eric Hines
I don't know what you're thinking about, but most of the closed-door conversations I can imagine are disciplinary in nature, in which a witness is generally highly appropriate.
ReplyDeleteButt-chewings, too, which need not involve formal discipline, or even informal.
ReplyDeleteAlso classified briefings. That just makes care with the camera useful.
Eric Hines
Well, I hope you chew butts only for disciplinary reasons. :) In any case, it's often a good idea to have a second there to help you keep your temper and ensure that the conversation is taken professionally and not personally -- regardless of the sex of the people involved. It's good to have your second there (unless it's your second you are chewing out, which I suppose probably has to be private most of the time -- that relationship is too close for anyone else to come in between you).
ReplyDeleteAs for classified information, even James Bond is usually briefed by more than one person. :)
It is very often necessary to discuss confidential matters with a subordinate: a tricky personnel situation involving someone who reports to her, a highly-secret forthcoming business deal, etc etc....it is just not practical to involve someone from HR (in the first case) or from Legal (in the second case) every time this needs to happen.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, it's often a good idea to have a second there to help you keep your temper....
ReplyDeleteI never engaged in that sort of thing when I was angry. If nothing else, the simple act of gathering facts to ensure my initial impression was accurate gave time to become dispassionate. Too, being alone made it easier for the junior to push back if s/he thought I was wrong or being unreasonable.
Eric Hines
It needn't always be someone from HR or Legal -- it could be done under the guise of pulling in a colleague for a third opinion. Team building. Keeping multiple eyes on the situation.
ReplyDeleteI can see how exceptions can arise. A personal relationship issue that is impacting work that she wants to bring to your attention, but that she doesn't want to discuss in public. Exceptions are OK -- any just system has to be able to make room for exceptions. A very rare exception is also unlikely to provoke 'talk' about what you two 'might' be doing. If you're alone with subordinates of the opposite sex on a regular basis, you'll run into the problem far more readily than if people recognize it for a clear exception.
In general, the more upright your rule, the less you or your subordinates will run into problems. The clearer the example you set in not leaving space for wrongdoing, the less people will do wrong.
That's my beef. The PC/false accusations/whathaveyou need to be the exception. Closed doors for meetings shouldn't fear that; the timid who shy away from taking on the trouble makers should be the exception.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
My father's concerns predate the PC nonsense entirely. This is a much older problem that has to do with human nature. It's best to structure our forms around that nature. Men and women sometimes do become tempted when they work long hours together and share stresses and triumphs. That builds emotional bonds that are sometimes acted upon. It can override our good sense, especially those of us who are married and have formal commitments not to engage in such practices.
ReplyDeleteEven if we are ourselves strong, there's a human propensity to gossip. Leaving aside the PC stuff completely, gossip can destroy lives and careers, and can at least create unfair misery.
So even before we got here, this was already a wise approach. The PC/false-accusations only reinforce the wisdom of the rule.
The present problem, though, is tat PC/false-accusations stuff. That needs to be confronted openly, confrontationally. Then we can consider the usefulness of older ways of handling problems.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
Mm-hmm. I'll tell my wife. "You know, dear, it's really for the common good that I spend a lot of closed-door time with my secretary."
ReplyDeleteNot that anyone has secretaries much, anymore. Or doors.
Which, speaking of anachronisms, it's worth noticing that this is a story about Congress and not America. In Congress, and not in the American workplace, we can assume the boss will be male and the interns/subordinates female.
ReplyDeleteIn America, you're as likely (or more likely in some sectors) to have a female boss. I think I've had about as many female bosses as male bosses: a slight majority of female bosses when I've worked in offices, almost exclusively male when I've had jobs that required work out of doors. I still think the old rule is good.
Have you noticed how newer offices have windows into the main cubicle area? That's so you can have your closed door meeting and still be visible to others simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteMy father always told us that it wasn't enough to do no wrong, you had to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing wherever possible. But you'd expect a career auditor to think that way.
"Not that anyone has secretaries much, anymore"
ReplyDeleteOff-topic, but this is a real issue. Secretaries didn't just type and file; in many cases they seriously contributed to the management of information flow in an organization.
And there is a lot of professional and managerial time wasted on things that could better be delegated to someone cheaper and often more skilled at the task. Many years ago, a computer industry executive remarked that "the main thing we've done with the computer revolution so far is to turn highly-paid executives into incompetent clerk-typist." (Today, with the PowerPoint obsession, we have also turned highly-paid executives into even more incompetent graphics designers.)
There are plenty of "executive assistants" where I work. So I'm not sure where this "no secretaries" is coming from.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be common for businesses to have pools of secretaries that could be drawn upon by management, not just executives. Largely these have been eliminated, with many managers simply instructed to do their own typing and word-processing.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, they exist, but they are much rarer than they once were -- as the cubicle has made offices with doors rarer than they once were. It's not that no one has a door, but that many office workers now do not.
All of this reminds me how much I have hated working in offices, when I've had jobs that required it.