Quite a long thread but holy crap, this behavior and what is described on Kelly's twitter feed (https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok) are sickening.
Quite shocked that this is considered acceptable at such high levels at Google.
Quite shocked that this is considered acceptable at such high levels at Google.
"Damned straight, I wouldn't. But at this point numerous legal issues kick in so I can't say anything further in public, including any of the obscenities I'm thinking right now."
My read on that is that he doesn't consider it acceptable, but any public show of support or acknowledgment that the incidents in question occurred would be construed as an admission of guilt by Google, which would open them up to a sexual harassment lawsuit. So ironically, the same laws that are designed to protect women in the workforce strip them of support from anyone who is a high-ranking official in the company that employs them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the eng director in question got a private reprimand, but doing anything career-affecting (like removing him from a management chain, or firing him) requires significant documentation of a pattern of behavior...which is hard to generate when his accusers (quite understandably) leave the company.
The irony is that if you escalated to Larry I bet he'd think that the quotes documented here are appalling - and his hands would still be tied. Because he has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of Google Inc, and it is not in their interests to get sued by an employee. Which again goes to show how dumb the idea of "maximizing shareholder value" is, but then, it's the environment we live under.
That's why when people pull out "maximizing shareholder value", I think they're quite exaggerating on what that entails. I'd be surprised if any laws or penalties apply to normal operating judgements. It's gotta be more for scenarios like a company selling a subsidiary at below-market price, or obviously negative-financial stuff like that.
He would be accountable to the board, and whether or not it was fiducially responsible to accept the risk of exposing Google to a civil suit would certainly be a topic for discussion. However, strategic decisions are within his purview. This is a endemic human resources issue that affects the well-being of the company. It would be entirely and justifiably within his discretionary power to react however he saw fit, unlike a more junior office holder who would have a specific job description, a clear set of powers and responsibility, and less political power within the organization.
I am not arguing that speaking out would be the correct decision at this time. In fact, as angry as the incident may make him, it might well be counter-productive to address it directly. However, I am not sure that it would correct to say that his hands would be tied.
I am speaking from reason rather than experience, and I have no real knowledge of Google's governing structure. I am adding this disclaimer because I am trying to kick the habit of seeming to know more than I do.
It is empirically possible for a CEO to take a stand. Consider the recent case where Tim Cook told an activist shareholder to "get out of the stock" if he didn't recognize certain imperatives beyond ROI (http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-versus-a-conservativ...).
When you have a complex situation involving the rights of multiple parties, the best thing you can do is stay silent until you have all the facts. This is usually infuriating to the people involved and seems apathetic to bystanders, but you end up doing everybody a disservice if you don't. That's probably the reason for the "multiple obscenities" that Yonatan is thinking; he is in a situation where doing the right thing means being crucified by many people, some of whom are even right according to the information they have available to them, until he can actually ascertain the facts and weigh the rights of each party.