Lead by example, others will follow. If this is the policy set within the company, it applies to all. As noted in the article, this is not the first time this has happened in a Fortune 500 company — it pretty much erases all the good that leader has accomplished. He, as others in the past, will be remembered for that incident and not for the years of hard work to turn around a company.

I have to say, out of this story the most surprising part was that the company forbids relationships with employees. That seems a bit draconian. As long as one employee is not in a position to control the fate of the other’s employment, there seem to be plenty of companies who have figured out how to make that work. Even for a CEO, just have someone else be responsible for reviews and evaluations. The fact that a CEO completely ignored these rules – when he had a high probability of being able to change them – speaks to a very large lapse in judgment. That McDonald’s chose not to sweep it under a rug as so many other companies have, is important. But I also feel like the company needs to get with the times. People thrown together are going to form relationships. Rather than ban that and expect something inhuman, maybe just try to manage it a little better.

What is it about men in power feeling like the rules don’t apply to them? And he was let go — he couldn’t argue with it and yet arguably he made a huge impact on McDonald’s. I can’t believe a person of that much influence and wealth couldn’t have found somebody outside of work to have developed a relationship with.

One can argue both sides of this question. Most people who work spend most of their waking life at work so it is unrealistic that these relationships won’t happen at work. The problems can occur when preferential treatment becomes an issue, or when a person in a position of high responsibility can be blackmailed, or when one party pressures or takes advantage of a person not in a position of power. It is a good question to ask and it should not be answered from a puritanical perspective but from a pragmatic and realistic one.

McDonald’s has a clear company policy about dating co-workers and Mr. Easterbrook broke it. He clearly knew what he was doing and had to accept the consequences.

Forty years ago, I became involved in a consensual relationship with my boss. Few people knew until we got engaged, and we’re still married, now with kids and grandkids. I sometimes kid her that she’s still my boss. We’re glad neither of us was fired! Come on, lighten up! Love happens when and where it happens.

I hate corporate policies on principle – there’s still some ’60s rebellion left in me. But if the policy is no nookie and you get caught, shame on you. And to Nikki, with whom I usually agree – it doesn’t matter what degree of separation there is, if he can say “You know, she’s not doing so hot,” her career might be toast.

What, exactly, is the company policy about consensual relationships? As Nikki points out, trying to snuff out relationships between employees entirely is not an achievable or fair outcome. (Speaking as somebody whose wife of 37 years worked for the same department store company, although in different operating divisions.) But relationships where one partner has the power over another’s career should clearly be avoided.

If this is the aim of McDonald’s policy, it makes sense — and since the CEO has the power over everybody else’s career, the decision to let Mr. Easterbrook go was the right call.

Assuming that the relationship was totally consensual, I think this is a study in failed leadership. Whether McDonald’s should have a rule against employee relationships or not, the fact is they do. And, as CEO, Easterbrook had an obligation to play by the rules he (presumably) expected the rest of the organization to play by. If he thought the rule was stupid or draconian, he should have changed it. Absent that change, or even an attempt to make that change, he is bound to enforce it — even on himself. Leaders aren’t like everyone else, they take on a higher ethical burden along with the big salaries and perks of their position. Again, assuming Easterbrook’s relationship was totally consensual and there was no pressure on his partner, the truth is those conditions may not apply to a store manager seeking coercive sex from his or her subordinates and using Easterbrook’s example to justify her or his behavior. When anyone thinks they operate above the rules, it’s past time to make sure they aren’t in a… Read more »

This isn’t even a close call. Of course there should be rules about personal relationships in the work place and of course they should be enforced. Work environments are tough enough without personal relationships making things even messier. The first hint that the environment isn’t honest and fair, ruled by integrity, and offering equal opportunities, will create very unwelcome distractions. Office politics are wicked enough when there is no romance involved.

It is fascinating what a high profile impact this has made in the news. Why does it have such a high profile? Is it because McDonald’s are unusual in their approach with regard to rules? Or could it be that they are unusual in actually enforcing the rules that they lay down?

The reality is that, irrespective of industry, many of us are aware of such relationships existing at someplace or other, at some time or other with little or no consequences – despite any rules, guidelines or code of conduct being in place.

At the leadership level, you often lead by example. Rules/policies are meant for everyone. Leadership can’t act one way and expect employees to act another. As for what happened at McDonald’s, it is a shame. We may not have all the details. Was it just bad judgement? If so, at that level there shouldn’t be bad judgement. Leaders are expected to guide and be role models. Do I agree with this type of rule? There are some guidelines to consider, but office/company romances are not uncommon and are often accepted in organizations without any issues. McDonald’s – and other organizations with similar policies – may want to take a close look at their policies and rules and understand just how they impact the company long-term.

Quite the juicy topic for a Monday morning! There are lots of angles to take on this.

First, the top executive should follow the policies, or else what do you expect everyone else to do? So given the policy, it’s the right thing for McDonald’s to do.

Second, it’s slippery slope when the “boss” is involved in one of these relationships. It’s pretty easy to take the “predator” view of this — however, let’s get the facts first, folks, before we even open that door.

Third, and maybe most importantly, these policies are somewhat ridiculous. Lock people in the same room for 40-plus hours every week and love will show up at some point for some in the room. Accepting the reality of being human should be the starting point, and then build some common sense policies around this to ensure everyone is on board in the right direction.

(It’s a good thing I work with my wife because I’m pretty sure I just flirted with her!)

Personal freedoms away from the workplace are not within the boundaries of workplace rules. Who a person is in their private life should not hinge on their position or where they work. McDonald’s should wake up to the 21st century and realize that we are people first and not workers of a company beholden to corporate rules in our private lives. Our constitution guarantees many freedoms and America was founded on these freedoms. This doesn’t give a corporation the right to impinge on these with a corporate policy. Dictating personal freedoms, by a company, is just wrong.

When I worked for a major oil company the rule governing personal relationships was that you could not engage in one with someone who reported to you directly or indirectly or for whom you had any influence over their career. I remember the head of operations coming to me and informing me that he and someone in the marketing department were dating. The organizational structure meant he had no influence or control over her position nor was he ever likely to. They got married and are still married.

The difference is Mr. Easterbrook was the CEO and as such he had the ability to influence the individual’s career. Even in a consensual relationship he violated the rules and McDonald’s had no choice but to take action.

The Times article noted that “McDonald’s recently began offering new online and in-person training programs to its employees in the U.S. in an effort to combat workplace sexual harassment. But that step has not satisfied the company’s critics.” I think that today all companies should consider this kind of policy addition to their current policy mandates. This policy should be well understood by all parties in the company, and make all concerned in the violations subject to review. Over-all, this is a terrible problem.

A relationship can never be 100 percent consensual if there is a power/authority difference. I suspect that McDonald’s put this out there – that the relationship was consensual – to protect the CEO’s reputation. But who’s to say the person he was involved with won’t come back with a lawsuit? This is why McDonald’s policy can’t have any gray areas.

Some say the world has changed. First there was the feminist movement now that we have the MeToo generation. Proper manners never change and as I was told in my early corporate life, don’t mess in the kitty box. Companies have rules for a reason including no dating the opposite sex and no relative hiring. Both can cloud or change decision not for the benefit of the company. Yes, he should have been fired just as anyone working for him would have been. There are not different rules for leader and workers.