OK, now I'm sure Harry Stonecipher deserved sacking as Boeing's CEO. He was just plain dumb. As the Seattle P-I also reports today, Harry sent a sexually explicit e-mail to his Boeing executive lover on the company's e-mail system. And that's just not a very private space.
I'm also distressed with Harry's weak tech know-how. I expect more from the leader of a global aviation and defense powerhouse. A private account, like say Hotmail ("a smarter way to e-mail"), is only a mouseclick away. D'oh.
Look, I'm no prude. I think many are in some way pleased to know that Harry was capable of passion, verbally and otherwise - tho some archaic, morality-consumed extremists who believe in marriage vows and monogamy and all that.......still fustily frown on adultery. Yet. If only Mr. Ethics had not used company resources in service of his adulterous agenda, his inevitable enemies might not have found the pin to prick his balloon.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 09, 2005 10:14 AM | Email ThisI hear a screen play being written somewhere,,,
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 10:24 AMSince the whistlblower was a female employee, and not a memebr of security,(as far as we know) the so called "intercepted" e-mail of the CEO himself is major proof that Boeing's own internal network and communications are not secure, something totally undesireable for an aerospace company full of proprietary and classifed information.
Posted by: Steve Ramsey on March 9, 2005 10:29 AMI have to wonder about the woman he was having the affair with. If he approached her, what choice did she have but to submit to his advances? At her level, she couldn't report him to HR without serious repercussions to her own career. I wonder if she is the one who forwarded the email to a trusted "whisteblower". Look, I've seen pictures of Harry Stonecipher - this was not a case of lust on her part. Good for her if she did.
Posted by: Janet S on March 9, 2005 10:35 AMYou are assuming much beyond what the news has reported. I was wondering why the woman was not fired also.
The news I heard was that she was also an executive and that the relationship was consentual.
"If he approached her", "at her level", "not lust on her part"...Stonecipher was fired for violating an ethical code, not sexual harassment.
If the news I heard was wrong, that she was not an executive, then of course this view would change. But why was she not also fired for ethical violations?
Posted by: Larry on March 9, 2005 11:00 AMShe had choices.
It can get UGLY refusing advances from company execs, and it is usually wise to seek employment elsewhere - as I have done 4 times. The other alternative is just gain a lot of wieght and start wearing really ugly clothes to work.
She should be fired if she was involved.
Posted by: Julie on March 9, 2005 11:14 AMNot all females are the same, and we all deal with these issues differently. She could have said no and been fired. To assume that she is guilty because it was consensual, isn't really fair. On the other hand, she could be the one who targeted him! Who knows? A woman shouldn't have to constantly change her employer because of sexual harassment. These issues are rarely easy for the woman either!
Been there and done that!
Posted by: sgmmac on March 9, 2005 11:49 AMI find it curious that so many people think that violating one's marriage vows does not demonstrate a fundamental lack of integrity. Why should anyone who violates the most personal of trusts be given a public trust? One either has integrity or not - there are not different "kinds" of integrity.
If you no longer want to be bound by your marriage vows, do the honest thing and get a divorce, instead of sneaking around behind your spouse's back. This isn't being "fusty" - it's just a question of basic integrity. If you'll lie about that, what won't you lie about?
Posted by: Patrick on March 9, 2005 11:53 AMThe facts that are so far public: Mr. Stonecipher sent the innappropriate email, and had been involved in the consensual relationship since January. If it turns out that Ms. Peabody also sent inappropriate email, which, if made public, could cause the company embarrassment, then I agree she should be fired too. But remember, though she certainly "was involved" in the affair, it was not the affair that got Mr. Stonecipher fired. If Ms. Peabody didn't originate any inappropriate email, or violate company ethics policy in any other way, I think she should keep her job.
Oh, and by the way, Janet - the pictures of Ms. Peabody don't reveal her as some kind of all-too-tempting hottie either; its very possible Mr. Stonecipher found in her much more than just an object of lust but dealt with it in a very inappropriate and stupid way. I have heard it said, though not authoritatively, that his marriage had been "over" for years. What's that saying about walking a mile in someone else's shoes?
Posted by: srogers on March 9, 2005 11:59 AMThis is the basis of sexual harrassment. You can't consent if you have no power in the relationship.
Of course, it is convenient for her, and for the old line Boeing folks, how this all resolved itself. It kind of makes you wonder just how it all came to past. I'm not into conspiracies, but you've got to admit it looks like old Harry was caught in a trap of some kind.
Posted by: Janet S on March 9, 2005 01:00 PMIf I follow your argument then only archaic extremists are concerned with morality. So, are you just fine with the way Gregoire came to office?
In your world, acting with honor and virtue takes a back seat to just not getting caught. Or am I missing something in your writing?
Posted by: Chuck Miller on March 9, 2005 01:16 PMI was going to criticize the same sentence, the one that implied that only "archaic, morality-consumed extremists [...] believe in marriage vows". Then I re-read it and figured, "Wait a minute, he's going way overboard with that one. I'm detecting sarcasm here."
Matt: Am I right? Were you being sarcastic? I hope you were.
Posted by: Robin Munn on March 9, 2005 01:28 PMWhich makes me wonder why some feel Marriage should be open to all "persuasions". In particular, open to those without the private "moral" integrity to which you infer. Divorce without cause was created for people who don't want their dirty laundry or lack of private character in the public record.
I married because the vows and associated responsibility meant something deeply personal to me and my wife. Sadly, some spouses sacrifice the greatest societal institution of marriage for a few moments of fleeting pleasure. Breaking that trusted bond is a fair marker of public trust. When we view marriage as nothing deeper than a tax benefit or personal validation as a "fully accepted member" of a society, we see it as something much less that what it actually is.
Posted by: Mike J on March 9, 2005 01:48 PMAll the same, as a Boeing shareholder, I believe that the Boeing board's decision was spot on. Marriage is a sacred contract, and those that take marriage vows should honor them, or else get a friggin' divorce before letting their willies run free. Stonecipher displayed a humungous lack of judgment and I do not want someone with such poor judgment and lack of self control running my company.
Posted by: LoneWolf on March 9, 2005 03:58 PMYou are right on Target. Too Bad we couldnt have did the same thing to Clinton. He was representing our entire Country, and though some countries view adultery as "OK", most don't.
USA was made a laughing stock, and it was viewed as OK by the Dem's, now that is "Ludicrious".
It's isnt the point that it was illegal, as much as it was immoral.
Just a footnote: I wasnt politically involved until CG used that word "Ludicrious", and demeaned the average citizen of this state who even questioned the election results.
So, the appropriate punishment for Stonecipher is different than the appropriate punishment for Peabody simply because of their relative positions in th company (and the relative possiblility of their behaviours to cause embarrassment tothe company).
If Peabody had an affair with anybody else at Boeing, it would not be news. And that is the difference.
If Boeing does find anything amiss in her expense reports, then that is a different matter entirely...
Posted by: Ed on March 12, 2005 09:45 AM