You are in a Coldplay show, in a party mood, when kiss cam focus on you. Nothing else. Unless you are the CEO of a company and is in a mood of romance with your HR director. And may this video viralize. Worldwide.
The scene raised more than embarrassed smiles. Mobilized a flood of opinions. But how far should the personal lives of executives be guided by corporate rules? What does compliance have to do with affective relationships between employees? Was this episode, in fact, a case of compliance?
Compliance on the big screen or gossip?
The concept of conflict of interest is simple, but its implications are complex. It is the possibility, or appearance of personal relationships to interfere with the ability of someone to make impartial decisions. In the corporate environment, this can happen in supplier hiring decisions, employee promotion, access to privileged information, process approval flows, resource allocation and various other real situations. This is why so many companies have conflict policies.
Continues after advertising
One of the most classic conflicts is the existence of affective relationship between two professionals, especially in cases of subordination. In these situations, it is necessary to act to ensure that affective bonds do not create zones of influence that compromise the exemption and credibility of decisions. If there is direct subordination, the most recommended natural path is the internal movement of one of the parties, precisely to break the subordination relationship.
But when one of these people is the CEO, the dilemma gets another scale. After all, by definition, the CEO is the direct superior of all employees. There is no internal movement capable of mitigating this conflict. Therefore, if the affective bond is between the CEO and someone under his leadership, inevitably one party would need to leave the organization or be disconnected.
But then I ask you: What if the CEO lived an open relationship in his marriage? Or, what if, even though it was an extramarital relationship, they had both formally reported to the company, which were already conducting a plan of one of the two?
Continues after advertising
Affective bond can (or should power). Omitting, no.
Most conflict policies, including those that consider more mature in terms of governance, do not prohibit employees relationship. The counterpart, however, is the requirement to report. The logic is clear: Knowing the bond allows the company to mitigate risks, prevent favors and, if necessary, adjust reporting structures.
As a professional colleague said: Compliance is not the Pope’s fiscal or curator of the bond. Each one who takes care of your personal life! Provided that the relationship does not involve subordination conflict, it is consensual, among adults, and does not occur in the company’s premises.
Personal life x organizational culture
Is it up to us, as leaders, executives and compliance professionals, to make corporate decisions based on personal conduct outside the workplace? Where does the private sphere end and institutional responsibility begins?
Continues after advertising
Let’s face it: What turned the scene into a global scandal was not the conflict of interest. It was the instinctive gesture of Dodge, the visible embarrassment, the “caught in the act” in real time. The attempt to hide lit the fear of institutional gossip and the image gained its own narrative.
The viralization of the video led the debate to another level: that of public reputation. In the end, the scandal emerged from expectations, either on the behavior of an executive, the behavior of a married man, or the behavior of a woman. All this packed with a “cute” moment designed for 70,000 people… and millions later.
From the media point of view, the cattle of betrayal in kiss cam It is the most relevant point. From a compliance point of view, it doesn’t matter if people were married. What’s more, does this breach of expectations automatically conclude us that the people involved are toxic? Frauding? Trusted unworthy for corporate activities? Or are we outsourcing to compliance the role of moral referee of society, waiting for him a judgment that perhaps neither fits to the corporate environment?
Continues after advertising
Did everyone become compliance?
The truth is that in times of social network, everyone is entitled to oversee the lives of others. The problem is not always in the fact itself. It is often the narrative that is built around it. The plot, the trial, the opportunity to design personal opinions on a collective screen.
If there is a couple, there is a “catch”. If there is a catch, there is an informal court ready to punish the villains of history. And what could once be a possible corporate route adjustment becomes an external reputational circus.
Perhaps the biggest risk in this case was not the conflict of interest itself, but the fact that the relationship became a agenda on LinkedIn, Youtube, Instagram, Tiktok, WhatsApp and TV. And the compliance, unintentionally, was scaled to the role of moral judge in a script that no one wrote, but everyone wanted to comment. Perhaps the biggest challenge of modern compliance is drawn there: dealing with the invisible, subjective and viral, all at the same time.
