Latest news with #Conduct
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Coldplay controversy: How the behaviour of leaders trickles down
Pareek leads Conduct, a global legal-tech platform for addressing workplace sexual misconduct, and Ungender, a specialist advisory on the POSH Law. With over two decades of expertise, she helps organisations worldwide build technology-driven, transparent systems that uphold safety, equity, and institutional accountability. LESS ... MORE The absence of disclosure and restraint policies in companies is a legal and cultural liability A fleeting moment at a Coldplay concert, projected on a stadium screen, has since pulled an entire organisation into public scrutiny. The CEO and Chief People Officer (CPO) of a tech company appeared in an embrace, unexpected and unguarded. The footage circulated widely. The CEO stepped down. The CPO was placed on leave. The institution responded, but the questions that emerged won't be resolved by formal exits alone. In my work advising organisations on workplace safety and institutional integrity, I've seen how culture is shaped less by what leaders say, and more by what they let stand unquestioned. It's not the bold failures that destabilise trust, it's the quiet, tolerated ones. The discomfort here isn't about the existence of a personal relationship. It's about the roles involved, and the silence that surrounded them. When a CEO and CPO are in an undisclosed association, the impact goes beyond appearances. The CPO is not simply another leader: they sit at the helm of grievance systems, compliance functions, and cultural tone. When that proximity goes unexamined, it undermines the very idea of internal accountability. Organisations like to imagine that incidents like this are anomalies. But power rarely moves in isolation. If boundaries at the top are porous, they often reflect what's been long normalised beneath. If one case surfaces, others likely remain submerged. That's not cynicism, it's pattern recognition. And ignoring that pattern is what keeps companies reactive, not prepared. I've sat across employees who knew something felt off, but could not find language for it. Who adjusted themselves daily, not because they were told to, but because they had learned what it meant to stay on the right side of an unspoken hierarchy. The emotional labour of navigating such proximity, watching it influence access, tone, decisions, rarely finds its way into policy discussions. But it lives in culture, in lowered trust, and in the silent resignation of those who choose not to challenge it. If the other individual involved in this case had been a business head, or someone unrelated to internal oversight, the impact might still have been serious, but not structurally compromising. The fact that this relationship involved the CPO makes the breach systemic. It renders HR's neutrality open to suspicion, and with it, the legitimacy of every internal resolution taken during that period. This also reflects the unique and often gendered burden placed on HR leaders, particularly women. In many companies, the CPO is expected to carry culture, resolve conflict, manage risk, and remain emotionally available, often while moving in lockstep with executive leadership. When the lines blur, the professional is judged through a personal lens. Yet rarely do we ask: who built the conditions for that erosion? Companies must stop treating these moments as communications challenges and start recognising them as compliance failures. In the absence of formal restraint policies, governing romantic or close associations between individuals in hierarchically linked roles, organisations are leaving themselves exposed to enormous liability. What appears consensual today can, under scrutiny or hindsight, fall squarely within the definition of sexual harassment, especially when a power imbalance is involved. Without policy safeguards, this is not just a cultural oversight, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Culture audits alone are insufficient, especially when commissioned by those at the centre of concern. Organisations must decentralise the guardianship of ethics. Oversight cannot be the privilege of a few. Disclosure mechanisms, third party reviews, and independent board-led action must be the norm, not crisis, time improvisations. HR, in particular, must be protected as a function, not politically, but structurally. It cannot enforce boundaries if it is not allowed to hold them internally. Organisations must make space for HR to act independently, not just in appearance, but in design. And while we speak of formal responses, we must also speak of memory. These incidents often leave no trace once they exit the news cycle. But inside the organisation, the memory stays, with those who bore its weight quietly. When we move on without repair, we don't just abandon them, we teach them that ethics are optional if influence is high enough. This incident, though now fading from headlines, should continue to provoke inquiry. Not because of who was involved, but because of what it revealed about how easily institutional safeguards can be made irrelevant by the people meant to uphold them. And this must come with a hope. A hope that the lessons drawn from this moment become case studies in transparency, not manuals in discretion. Yes, there were personal failings, and those belong to the individuals and their private lives. But in the workplace, the consequences of concealed influence are never private. They become precedent. They shape how others learn to navigate power. And they leave behind a culture where trust becomes a risk, not a foundation. Culture is not what we write. It is what we permit. And what we permit at the top is what we eventually teach everyone else to live with. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Forbes
6 days ago
- General
- Forbes
What To Do If You Know Your Boss Is Having An Affair With A Coworker
Roughly 85% of extramarital affairs reportedly begin at work, highlighting that the office could be ... More a hot zone for secret keeping. Over 60% of employees have reported having had at least one workplace romance at some point in their career, so it's likely that you've come across some, let's say questionable behavior between colleagues. But what do you do when you suspect your boss is having an inner-office, extra-marital affair? It's staggering that roughly 85% of extramarital affairs reportedly begin at work, highlighting that the office could be a hot zone for cheating. Yet only 16% of coworkers involved in office romances have openly told others about it, therefore most workplace romances remain an open secret among only a few colleagues. So, what do you do if you're one of the few who know about the affair? Many of the clients I work with have brought this very quandary to our sessions. They say something like, 'I've 'heard something about so-and-so' or 'saw a few things that were weird'.' My immediate advice is to take a breath and don't jump to conclusions. Ask yourself: How solid is what I know? Is this firsthand, or just something whispered in the break room or at the last company off-site? I explain that reacting too fast seldom helps, rather more often, it stirs unnecessary trouble. Discovering that your boss is engaged in a romantic affair with a colleague can put you in an extraordinarily difficult position, typically one full of questions about responsibility, loyalty, and self-preservation. I've seen how these scenarios, when mishandled, can undermine not just organizational trust, but individuals' well-being and career trajectories (aka they get super stressed out and/or passed over for promotions). Let's break down practical steps you can take if you find yourself between a rock and a hard place and discuss the impact that carrying such a secret can have on your physical and mental health. How To Respond- 5 Steps to Consider Before taking any action, step back and evaluate: Most organizations have clear policies on office relationships, particularly those that involve power differentials like a boss and subordinate, but 41% of employees are not aware of their company's office romance policy, contributing to informal information sharing and secrecy. Your best bet is to peruse the employee handbook, taking special interest in the 'Codes of Conduct' section. Your company may require reporting such relationships, especially when potential conflicts of interest or favoritism may arise. However, culture matters just as much as policy because in some workplaces, discretion is valued; in others, transparency is paramount. Best to weigh these factors as you decipher your next move. Consulting with someone you trust, maybe a mentor, a senior colleague outside your department, or an external coach, can provide clarity. They can help you work through: Confide only in people who will honor your privacy and not escalate the situation without your consent. This is not the time to grab a drink with a friend and get advice from an uncredible source, who's likely to gas you up and inspire you to make a scene. It is important to remember that you are not responsible for policing the personal lives of others; unless their behavior interferes with your work, is creates a toxic or icky environment, or crossing ethical or legal lines (like harassment or discrimination). Nearly half of those involved in a workplace romance are top level executives, typically the company's owners or executives. Ask yourself, 'Is the affair affecting my work or my team's performance? Are my coworkers being disadvantaged or preferentially treated?' If the answer is 'no,' it may be appropriate to simply maintain your professional boundaries and mind your business to avoid any possible executive retribution. If the relationship violates company policy, creates an unprofessional atmosphere, involves any form of coercion, or leads to workplace retaliation, then it is both ethical and smart to report it to HR or an appropriate authority. But, be prepared to: Not all secrets are yours to keep, but in my experience, escalation should be a last resort. Use it when your concerns cannot be privately resolved or ignored without harm. Our bodies keep score, and stress doesn't go unnoticed by them, so let's explore what holding a big secret could be doing to you physically. Understanding how your body is being affected can help you make a decision to report the relationship or keep quiet. What Keeping the Secret Can Do to Your Health Holding onto a workplace secret, particularly one involving power, ethics, and trust, can have real physical and psychological consequences. There is such a thing as 'emotional labor', defined by author Rose Hackman as 'the effort required to manage and express emotions in a way that aligns with job requirements or social expectations, often in the workplace or relationships. It can be a significant source of stress and burnout, especially when it involves "surface acting," where one fakes emotions without genuinely feeling them.' The emotional labor of monitoring your words and actions, fearing accidental disclosure, or worrying about potential fallout can lead to chronic anxiety. Over time, this heightened stress response can disrupt sleep, concentration, and overall well-being. You may wrestle with feelings of guilt if you believe you're complicit in upholding an unhealthy culture, or if your silence conflicts with your core values. Suppressing this internal conflict can manifest as irritability, emotional exhaustion, or depression. Many times, I've heard clients say that holding secrets, the magnitude of an inner-office extra martial affair, feels like it's 'eating them up inside.' Carrying a secret, especially one that could impact your team, can lead to feeling isolated and detached. You might find yourself withdrawing from authentic work relationships, mistrusting colleagues, or questioning your own integrity or credibility. Over time, this has the potential to turn into quiet quitting or becoming totally unengaged. Navigating Difficult Ethical Waters The reality is that many professionals will encounter workplace scenarios that test their ethics and judgment. What sets high EQ leaders and rising professionals apart is not dodging difficult circumstances, but their ability to navigate them with respect and self-awareness. When in doubt, return to your values, and those plastered on many companies' websites. Prioritize objectivity, and your own well-being, as you determine the best path forward.
NBC Sports
14-07-2025
- Sport
- NBC Sports
Despite not signing contract, Quinshon Judkins is subject to Personal Conduct Policy
Browns running back Quinshon Judkins has yet to sign a contract. He's technically not employed by the Browns. As a result, many have asked a simple question: How can Judkins be subject to the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy? The short answer? He just is. He's the slightly longer answer, from the Personal Conduct Policy: 'The provisions below apply to players under contract; all rookie players selected in the NFL College Draft; all undrafted rookie players following the NFL College Draft; all Draft-eligible players who attend a Scouting Combine or Pro Day or otherwise make themselves available for employment in the NFL; all unsigned veterans who were under contract in the prior League Year; and all other prospective players once they commence negotiations with a club concerning employment or otherwise make themselves available for employment in the NFL.' Judkins falls within that broad language. As recently explained in connection with the sexual assault lawsuit filed against Bills cornerback Maxwell Hairston for something that allegedly happened in 2021, the policy potentially applies even to conduct occurring while the player is in college, before he ever declares for the NFL draft: 'Nothing in this Policy should be read to limit the league's authority to investigate or discipline potential Policy violations alleged to have occurred before a player is under contract or Draft-eligible.' So, yes, the policy applies to Judkins for something that allegedly happened in July 2025. It also would have applied, potentially, to something that allegedly happened in July 2024. Or July 2023. Or earlier.
The National
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Labour council takes no action against councillor who grabbed protester by neck
The National previously reported on how an investigation was launched into Wolverhampton Labour councillor Harbinder Singh after the incident, which dominated coverage of Rachel Reeves' maiden speech as Chancellor on September 23, 2024. A protester, who didn't want to be named, and a fellow activist from campaign group Climate Resistance, unfurled a banner reading 'Still backing polluters, still arming Israel – we voted for change." READ MORE: Woman dies after fall near popular beauty spot north of Glasgow He could then be heard shouting – voicing opposition to the new Labour Government continuing to sell arms to Israel amid its ongoing genocide in Gaza – only to then be dragged out aggressively by the neck, leaving visible red marks (seen in video below). After numerous attempts to contact Wolverhampton Council in the aftermath – most of which led to the response: 'no comment' – it was subsequently confirmed that the Wolverhampton Labour group had 'formally referred the matter to the council's monitoring officer'. Now, a report – which was also delayed by several months – has been released detailing the outcome of the investigation. 'Investigation concluded Code of Conduct does not apply,' the report states. 'Matter falls within the area of 'private capacity' not in the role as a Councillor.' It adds: 'Clear legal advice received to that effect and as such no further action is legally able to be taken by the Council.' The protester who was dragged by the neck (below) previously told The National that this kind of violence is "unacceptable". "Especially from a Labour councillor," he added. "But it unfortunately seems to reflect the Labour Party's general attitudes towards voices of opposition – especially those speaking from a humanitarian standpoint.' Wolverhampton Council and councillor Harbinder Singh have been approached for comment.
Business Standard
14-07-2025
- Sport
- Business Standard
Siraj vs Duckett: Here's how much Indian pacer is fined for fiery send-off
Mohammed Siraj's intense celebration after dismissing Ben Duckett during Day Four of the third Test at Lord's has landed him in hot water with the ICC. The fiery India pacer has been handed a fine amounting to 15 per cent of his match fee and received one demerit point for breaching the International Cricket Council's (ICC) Code of Conduct. The incident occurred during a tense session of play that saw 14 wickets fall in a single day, with Siraj right in the thick of the action. Siraj, who has picked up four wickets in the match so far, celebrated Duckett's wicket with visible aggression—a moment that may have lifted the energy on the field but crossed the line in the eyes of match officials. As per the ICC, the fast bowler's behaviour breached Article 2.5 of its Code of Conduct, which deals with actions that could provoke or antagonise a dismissed batter. ICC pulls up Siraj for 'provocative conduct' According to the ICC's statement, Siraj's send-off included walking aggressively towards Duckett after taking the wicket and making physical contact as the English batter began his walk back. The governing body noted that this conduct was deemed inappropriate and a Level 1 offence under its disciplinary framework. A match official stated in the report that Siraj's celebration could have escalated tensions had it not been quickly controlled. Although no formal hearing was necessary—with Siraj admitting the offence and accepting the sanction proposed by match referee Richie Richardson—the demerit point adds to his previous record. He now has two demerit points in a 24-month period. What this means for Siraj While the sanction is relatively minor, it does bring Siraj closer to potential suspension territory. If a player accumulates four demerit points within two years, they are converted into suspension points, which could lead to a ban for one or more matches. Despite the reprimand, Siraj remained crucial to India's dominance at Lord's. Shortly after Duckett's dismissal, he removed Ollie Pope for just four, helping India reduce England to 42 for two in their second innings. England were eventually bowled out for 192, leaving India a target of 193, with 135 still to chase going into the final day.
