Salesforce prevents employee from sitting on external board | Hacker News Reader

Salesforce prevents employee from sitting on external board

twitter.com

10 pointszuhayeer13 comments

Wow, I’m so sad executives at a major company don’t have access to every opportunity available to them.

Isn't it a standard clause of employment contracts that you won't do this without your employers permission? It has been in all the contracts I've signed for the last 10 years, and I just a humble cog in those machines...

Am I missing something here? Why does this have anything to do with discrimination? The cynic in me is getting the world's tiniest violin out for a corporate executive who hasn't been allowed to have a second corporate executive job, but I do understand how the policy might be unfair (though every contract I've ever signed has had something to the effect that I wouldn't be allowed to do that, but I'm in the UK and a peon so :shrug:). But why is she bringing sexual discrimination into it?

> Am I missing something here? Why does this have anything to do with discrimination?

If the Salesforce CEO only ever permits his direct reports to sit on other company's boards, and if his direct reports are disproportionately men, then this effectively limits the representation of women on corporate boards.

I bet they also get more money. Come on.

I get that, but then surely that policy is not discriminatory, what would seem to be be discriminatory would be the hiring practices of Salesforce? It just doesn't seem a valid line of attack -- yes I'm definitely lacking context, but sans that context it reads as sour grapes.

If it is a given that current subordinates are largely men, isn't it fair to call out the policy as entrenching the existing inequality?

If you dismiss criticism of a policy on the basis that the discriminatory effect is only due to an upstream disparity, it's pretty easy to lather-rinse-repeat a few times until you can conclude that it's someone else's problem to solve, and no change is required on your part.

Yes, I see, that's fair enough.

I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a disparity, and that's the issue, not the policy. But as that's harder to solve, should either apply the policy to all levels or not at all. I feel like it's a cheap sticky plaster, but I guess it would do. And yes, I shouldn't dismiss the criticism of it per se, though my being unsympathetic has less to do with the disparity aspect

> I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a disparity, and that's the issue, not the policy.

Look, it isn't particularly controversial that policies that are discriminatory in effect are problematic, even if the policy is on its face non-discriminatory. This isn't even a particularly new idea:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." — Anatole France

> my being unsympathetic has less to do with the disparity aspect

What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then?

I'll preface this by saying that her actions may do some unalloyed good here, I understand your point. I still think that the inferred makeup of the direct reports is more the issue that needs fixing, but if this causes some positive change in corporate structure then, great.

> What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then?

Mmm. So this is a powerful corporate executive being denied a seat in another corporate board. She is also a powerful corporate political lobbyist who, until very recently, worked on behalf of a party that often seems to actively fight for policies that entrench discrimination. She inhabits an elite level and this course of action has effectively no downside for her -- she is aware of the contract stipulations, she tests breaking the contract, is fired for doing so, and she can do so with absolute confidence that it will have net zero-to-positive impact on her own prospects. That, in this case, is quite likely a very good thing, because she is in a position where she can possibly force/successfully lobby for change, but re sympathy for her specifically? No

Do I get this right?

She was fired for becoming exec in other company?

In my opinion it seems kinda reasonable? some kind of conflict of interest and danger that SF would be associated with company X by the public due to execs working there

No, for taking a position on another companies board of directors, because her employment contract prohibited that without a higher ups (ceo's) approval, and he only let a handful of his direct reports do that. Its not uncommon for high level executives to sit on boards of other companies in addition to their job.

There are laws meant to prevent conflicts of interest (but as one of my bosses once pointed out, most people in those positions know how to skirt the boundaries without breaking the laws/regulations).

For example at my company, a member of our board is the CEO of another software company.

We were evaluating their product in addition to others for corp wide adoption. As the sales rep from his company mentioned they were "very interested" in them getting the contract.They were beat out (but made it into the top 2 in testing, it was a great product) and we ended up going with a competitors product.

Obviously that CEO was able to ensure his people knew a potential contact with us was "of interest" but he couldn't go so far as to actually use his influence on our board to convince my company to choose his product even though it didn't fit our needs as well as the other.

Its pretty complex, some of these laws and how they are supposed to prevent conflicts of interest (and how they may or may not work).

There’s not a lot of context here to comment on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com