这场人事变动来得干脆利落，就像掰断一块奇巧（Kit Kat）巧克力一样。
上周，市值2440亿美元的食品巨头雀巢（旗下拥有多个全球最受欢迎的糖果与咖啡品牌）宣布，上任仅一年的首席执行官傅乐宏因违反公司行为准则遭解职。
雀巢表示，调查已证实傅乐宏（Laurent Freixe）与直属下属存在不当关系的报道。目前，这家在行业内表现欠佳、股价持续下滑的公司已任命菲利普·纳夫拉蒂尔（Philipp Navratil）为新任首席执行官，他是从内部提拔的高管，此前负责雀巢旗下奈斯派索（Nespresso）业务。新闻稿的潜台词很明确：此事无需过度解读。
然而，尽管没有“亲吻镜头”（体育赛事里摄像机在观众间游走并挑选需接吻情侣的娱乐环节）的曝光，也没有名人闹剧的加持，这起事件仍持续吸引着公众关注，引发了一系列讨论：双方自愿的办公室恋情在伦理层面暗藏着哪些微妙争议？企业处理此类事件的规范正在发生怎样的变化？以及对首席执行官个人行为的评判标准究竟是什么？
雀巢首席执行官被解雇事件带来以下关键启示：
不当恋情可能招致严重后果
与二三十年前相比，当下董事会对首席执行官不当行为（如办公室恋情）的容忍度更低，且通常会迅速撤换那些引发争议的领导者。相较于领导者因业绩问题而被撤职，此类丑闻引发的离职所遭受的惩处往往要严厉得多——业绩不佳遭撤职者通常还能获得“黄金降落伞”（高额离职补偿）。正如我的同事伊娃·罗伊特堡（Eva Roytburg）报道的那样，傅乐宏离开雀巢时，未获得任何离职补偿。
这种“严格执行纪律”的转变，在一定程度上源于对公司形象的担忧。“审查既来自内部，也来自外部，”施洛策（Schloetzer）表示，并补充道，这已经超出了股东的范畴。“还包括董事会、高管层同僚以及中层管理者。所有人对‘正确行为’的认知都在提升，而对‘越轨行为’的容忍度正不断降低。”
关键在于披露的细节
雀巢的新闻稿指出，这位前首席执行官遭解雇，不仅是因为存在婚外情，还源于其未披露这段关系。（据报道，傅乐宏曾两次接受调查，且在首次问询中否认了这段婚外情。）
那么，若他当初如实披露，是否就能避免被解雇呢？
对首席执行官这一职位而言，答案很可能是否定的。多数企业对首席执行官与员工恋情采取零容忍政策——无论职级高低，权力失衡的状况都过于显著，难免会引发对首席执行官决策能力和职业操守的质疑。“我的意思是，人力资源部门和董事会必须采取极为严格的缓解措施，才能消除人们对偏袒、报复或骚扰的担忧。”乔治城大学麦克多诺商学院副教授杰森·施洛策（Jason Schloetzer）表示。
话虽如此，职场过去是、如今依然是人们相识的常见场所（尽管如今已不再像上世纪后半叶那样，每五段恋情中就有一段在职场萌生）。对于非首席执行官级别的高管而言，公开恋情有时能解决问题——此外，企业还能通过调整组织架构，避免处于恋爱关系中的两名员工存在“上下级”关系。
董事会素来对高绩效者的不当行为视而不见
尽管明星首席执行官因婚外情而下台，但施洛策指出，也存在另一种情况：当首席执行官表现未达预期时，董事会可能以“企业政策”为幌子，设法让其离职。这位教授向《财富》杂志透露，在进入学术界之前，他就意识到“企业为达成预设结论而采取针对性行动，这种情况屡见不鲜”。
“比如，我可能会突然决定审计费用报销单，声称此举是为了确保所有人都能遵守公司报销规定，”他举例道，“随后便会发现某人确实违反了规定——这样一来，我便有理由解雇他了。”
波士顿大学凯斯特罗姆商学院商业法与伦理学临床教授卡布丽娜·张（Kabrina Chang）对此表示认同，并补充道：相反，企业往往会刻意忽视业务骨干的不当行为。
但员工对领导者行为的投诉，有时会迫使企业采取行动。“即便（假设）某位董事会成员可能会选择视而不见，”她说，“但员工却没有这样做的动机。”
若配偶曾是你的下属，或许你本就不该担任首席执行官
洛桑大学商业伦理学教授、《黑暗模式：企业丑闻的隐藏动因》（The Dark Pattern: The Hidden Dynamics of Corporate Scandals）一书合著者吉多·帕拉佐（Guido Palazzo）认为，雀巢董事会在最初提名傅乐宏担任首席执行官一职时，忽略了一个重要细节：有报道称，傅乐宏的妻子是他在雀巢工作期间结识的，二人公开恋情后，其妻子便离开了雀巢。
雀巢董事会很可能知晓这一背景，却仍聘用他出任首席执行官，此举传递出自相矛盾的信号。“倘若此类行为在雀巢是不可接受的，那当初就不应任命他为首席执行官，”帕拉佐表示，“可现实却是，这种行为被容忍了，他还一路高升。”（*）
译者：中慧言-王芳
这场人事变动来得干脆利落，就像掰断一块奇巧（Kit Kat）巧克力一样。
上周，市值2440亿美元的食品巨头雀巢（旗下拥有多个全球最受欢迎的糖果与咖啡品牌）宣布，上任仅一年的首席执行官傅乐宏因违反公司行为准则遭解职。
雀巢表示，调查已证实傅乐宏（Laurent Freixe）与直属下属存在不当关系的报道。目前，这家在行业内表现欠佳、股价持续下滑的公司已任命菲利普·纳夫拉蒂尔（Philipp Navratil）为新任首席执行官，他是从内部提拔的高管，此前负责雀巢旗下奈斯派索（Nespresso）业务。新闻稿的潜台词很明确：此事无需过度解读。
然而，尽管没有“亲吻镜头”（体育赛事里摄像机在观众间游走并挑选需接吻情侣的娱乐环节）的曝光，也没有名人闹剧的加持，这起事件仍持续吸引着公众关注，引发了一系列讨论：双方自愿的办公室恋情在伦理层面暗藏着哪些微妙争议？企业处理此类事件的规范正在发生怎样的变化？以及对首席执行官个人行为的评判标准究竟是什么？
雀巢首席执行官被解雇事件带来以下关键启示：
不当恋情可能招致严重后果
与二三十年前相比，当下董事会对首席执行官不当行为（如办公室恋情）的容忍度更低，且通常会迅速撤换那些引发争议的领导者。相较于领导者因业绩问题而被撤职，此类丑闻引发的离职所遭受的惩处往往要严厉得多——业绩不佳遭撤职者通常还能获得“黄金降落伞”（高额离职补偿）。正如我的同事伊娃·罗伊特堡（Eva Roytburg）报道的那样，傅乐宏离开雀巢时，未获得任何离职补偿。
这种“严格执行纪律”的转变，在一定程度上源于对公司形象的担忧。“审查既来自内部，也来自外部，”施洛策（Schloetzer）表示，并补充道，这已经超出了股东的范畴。“还包括董事会、高管层同僚以及中层管理者。所有人对‘正确行为’的认知都在提升，而对‘越轨行为’的容忍度正不断降低。”
关键在于披露的细节
雀巢的新闻稿指出，这位前首席执行官遭解雇，不仅是因为存在婚外情，还源于其未披露这段关系。（据报道，傅乐宏曾两次接受调查，且在首次问询中否认了这段婚外情。）
那么，若他当初如实披露，是否就能避免被解雇呢？
对首席执行官这一职位而言，答案很可能是否定的。多数企业对首席执行官与员工恋情采取零容忍政策——无论职级高低，权力失衡的状况都过于显著，难免会引发对首席执行官决策能力和职业操守的质疑。“我的意思是，人力资源部门和董事会必须采取极为严格的缓解措施，才能消除人们对偏袒、报复或骚扰的担忧。”乔治城大学麦克多诺商学院副教授杰森·施洛策（Jason Schloetzer）表示。
话虽如此，职场过去是、如今依然是人们相识的常见场所（尽管如今已不再像上世纪后半叶那样，每五段恋情中就有一段在职场萌生）。对于非首席执行官级别的高管而言，公开恋情有时能解决问题——此外，企业还能通过调整组织架构，避免处于恋爱关系中的两名员工存在“上下级”关系。
董事会素来对高绩效者的不当行为视而不见
尽管明星首席执行官因婚外情而下台，但施洛策指出，也存在另一种情况：当首席执行官表现未达预期时，董事会可能以“企业政策”为幌子，设法让其离职。这位教授向《财富》杂志透露，在进入学术界之前，他就意识到“企业为达成预设结论而采取针对性行动，这种情况屡见不鲜”。
“比如，我可能会突然决定审计费用报销单，声称此举是为了确保所有人都能遵守公司报销规定，”他举例道，“随后便会发现某人确实违反了规定——这样一来，我便有理由解雇他了。”
波士顿大学凯斯特罗姆商学院商业法与伦理学临床教授卡布丽娜·张（Kabrina Chang）对此表示认同，并补充道：相反，企业往往会刻意忽视业务骨干的不当行为。
但员工对领导者行为的投诉，有时会迫使企业采取行动。“即便（假设）某位董事会成员可能会选择视而不见，”她说，“但员工却没有这样做的动机。”
若配偶曾是你的下属，或许你本就不该担任首席执行官
洛桑大学商业伦理学教授、《黑暗模式：企业丑闻的隐藏动因》（The Dark Pattern: The Hidden Dynamics of Corporate Scandals）一书合著者吉多·帕拉佐（Guido Palazzo）认为，雀巢董事会在最初提名傅乐宏担任首席执行官一职时，忽略了一个重要细节：有报道称，傅乐宏的妻子是他在雀巢工作期间结识的，二人公开恋情后，其妻子便离开了雀巢。
雀巢董事会很可能知晓这一背景，却仍聘用他出任首席执行官，此举传递出自相矛盾的信号。“倘若此类行为在雀巢是不可接受的，那当初就不应任命他为首席执行官，”帕拉佐表示，“可现实却是，这种行为被容忍了，他还一路高升。”（*）
译者：中慧言-王芳
It seemed like such a clean break, like snapping off a piece of a Kit Kat bar.
Last week, Nestlé, the $244 billion food conglomerate behind some of the world’s most beloved candy and coffee brands, announced that its CEO, Laurent Freixe, had been dismissed for violating the company code of conduct after just one year on the job.
An investigation had confirmed reports that he was having an inappropriate relationship with a direct report, the company said. Nestlé, a category laggard whose share price has been slipping, had already installed a new CEO, Philipp Navratil, an internal hire who previously led the company’s Nespresso business. The subtext of the press release was clear: Nothing to see here.
Despite the lack of kiss cams and celebrity hijinks, however, the story has continued to hold people’s attention, prompting conversations about the ethical nuances of consensual office romances, changing norms for how companies handle them, and the standards for personal behavior that CEOs are held to.
Here are some takeaways from Nestlé’s CEO ouster:
The consequences for an improper romance can be severe
Boards have less tolerance now for CEO misconduct, like office romances, compared to 20 or 30 years ago, and are generally moving quickly to replace problematic leaders. The exits following a scandal like this can be far more punitive than when leaders are removed for performance issues, often with “golden parachutes.” As my colleague Eva Roytburg reported, Freixe left Nestlé without any pay package.
The shift toward tough enforcement is partly due to concerns about perceptions of the company. “The scrutiny is both internal and external,” says Schloetzer, adding that it goes beyond shareholders. “It’s boards, it’s peers in the C suite, it’s people one level below the C suite. Everybody has a heightened sense of what’s the right thing to do, and the leash for not doing the right thing has become shorter and shorter.”
The devil is in the details of disclosure
Nestlé’s news release said the ex-CEO was being dismissed not just for having a relationship, but for having an undisclosed relationship. (Freixe was reportedly investigated twice and denied the affair during the first inquiry.)
So would he have been safe if he had come clean?
Probably not, as a chief executive. Most companies have a zero-tolerance policy for CEOs dating employees because no matter where they are on the org chart, the power imbalance is too great for there not to be questions about the CEO’s decision-making and ethics. “I mean, human resources and the board would have to go through some pretty serious mitigation to assuage concerns of favoritism or retaliation or harassment,” says Jason Schloetzer, associate professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business.
That said, work has always been and is still a common place for people to meet (even if it’s no longer the starting point for one in five relationships, as it was in the latter part of last century). For executives who aren’t CEOs, disclosure of a relationship can sometimes address the problem, along with a reorganization so that one lovestruck employee doesn’t report to the other.
Boards have been known to look past misconduct by high performers
Although star CEOs have been taken down by affairs, it’s also true that when a CEO is not living up to expectations, the board might find a way to send that CEO packing using corporate policy for cover, says Schloetzer. Before he became an academic, the professor tells Fortune, he became aware that “it is not unusual for companies to do things to get the conclusion that they’re looking for.”
“For instance, I can suddenly decide to audit expense reports just to make sure that everybody’s expense reports are following company practices,” he says. “And lo and behold, this person was not following company practices. Now I have a reason to get rid of them.”
Kabrina Chang, clinical professor of business law and ethics at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business, agrees, adding that on the flip side, businesses have a way of willfully ignoring poor behavior when it comes to rainmakers.
But complaints from employees about a leader’s behavior can sometimes force action. “While a hypothetical board member might turn a hypothetical blind eye,” she says, employees don’t have the same incentive to do so.
If your spouse used to report to you, you probably shouldn’t be a CEO
The Nestlé board overlooked an important detail about Freixe when he was first nominated for the corner office, argues Guido Palazzo, a professor of business ethics at the University of Lausanne and co-author of The Dark Pattern: The Hidden Dynamics of Corporate Scandals: According to reports, the CEO married a woman he met at Nestlé; the pair disclosed the relationship, then she left the company.
Nestlé’s board would likely have been aware of that background, and hiring him anyway sent a mixed message. “He should never have become CEO if this behavior was not acceptable at Nestlé,” says Palazzo. “Instead, it was tolerated, and he continued to be promoted.”