# My direct report is dating a C-level above me **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 13, 2014, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590 "2014-03-13T02:19:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/81 "2014-03-17T20:15:23Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > How about calling them the “staff”.? > Or more jargon-esquely :“team members”? > And I don’t see why you can’t use “employee”. If you manage them, you can fire them,(or transfer them to another dept)…so they are working for you. You tell them what to do, they obey you;…that’s an empolyee/boss relationship. You may not sign their paycheck, but you do employ them. But all of those are general terms, whereas “direct report” indicates a specific relationship between a manager and the employees that report directly to him/her. In a fairly flat organization it’s not a useful term, but in large companies with several layers of management and multiple departments, it is. I’m employed by Acme, Inc., and work for my boss, and his boss, and his boss above him, up to the CEO, but I’m only a direct report to my immediate manager. If the objection is that it’s bad English, OK. It’s obviously a nounification of “report directly,” which may grate on the sensibilities, but to say it’s obfuscatory is off the mark. ETA: I see that in the time it took me to type this, the point has already been made, but I’ll add to the pile. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/82 "2014-03-17T20:16:38Z")
> [@armedmonkey](#): > > English works better. Corporate jargon is not effective and people who say it’s simpler are just wrong. Don’t say “I have a direct report who is dating a C-level in my organization.” That’s just crap. Instead say, “Someone I manage is dating one of the chief executives”. Same exact thing, but it’s easier to understand and even uses fewer words. > > Corporate jargon is pretentious as hell, but too many people are blinded by it. They think an uncommon word or phrase is more technical and precise merely because they heard it in an office. Nope, it isn’t. Someone I manage may or my not be a direct report - I can manage someone and not have direct responsibility for them - several of my project teams have been run like this. In that case, intercorporate dating really doesn’t need to be my problem unless its affecting my project team - in which case, I’d bring it up with the team members direct manager (aka LINE manager for another piece of corporate speak). ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/83 "2014-03-17T20:17:46Z")
> [@armedmonkey](#): > > English works better. Corporate jargon is not effective and people who say it’s simpler are just wrong. Don’t say “I have a direct report who is dating a C-level in my organization.” That’s just crap. Instead say, “Someone I manage is dating one of the chief executives”. Same exact thing, but it’s easier to understand and even uses fewer words. > > Corporate jargon is pretentious as hell, but too many people are blinded by it. They think an uncommon word or phrase is more technical and precise merely because they heard it in an office. Seconded! This was utterly uncalled for. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/84 "2014-03-17T20:19:45Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > My last job I had four direct reports. However, my staff included two people who worked for one of my direct reports - my staff was six. > > My project team was about fourteen people working on my biggest project - not all reported to me. In fact…none of my direct reports were on my project team. > > There were also my peers - another three people who worked for my boss. Together, the four of us, plus our respective staff, formed another team. > > Direct report means something very specific - those people I directly manage (as opposed to those people who are managed by people I manage, or those people who are my peers). > > It is very important to have a specific word for this - I would get communication from HR - you need to share this with your staff - that means I pull my direct reports AND theirs - together to share the information. Or you need to share this with your direct reports - that means that I share this with only those who work directly for me - and there may or may not be instructions for further dissemination to their direct reports. > > The more levels below you - the more important the term direct report is. My husband has four (?) direct reports - but his staff is over 120 people - his direct reports have direct reports who have direct reports. Howls of derisive laughter. You know what’s wrong with this country? This kind of thinking and speaking. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/85 "2014-03-17T20:30:14Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Howls of derisive laughter. You know what’s wrong with this country? This kind of thinking and speaking. Why? Seems pretty clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/86 "2014-03-17T20:52:48Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Howls of derisive laughter. You know what’s wrong with this country? This kind of thinking and speaking. Let’s dial back the abrasiveness in some of your replies in this thread just a tiny bit. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/87 "2014-03-17T20:55:00Z")
I am going to repeat an earlier point I made. The jargon here did not clarify jack shit. Is anybody talking about inappropriate relationships? No, of course they’re not. Instead, we have one side saying a phrase is pretentious and stupid, and the other side saying that the phrase can’t be pretentious and stupid because, hey, _they_ use it. Meanwhile, the problem of sex in the workplace is lost. We can blame the lack of focus on the fact that some will only give up their jargon when you pry it from their cold, dead ISO 9000 handbooks. Now, does anybody have an opinion on a chief officer sleeping with a mid-level employee? ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/88 "2014-03-17T20:56:15Z")
OK, so HR is in charge of deciding how many staff members you need, right? And obviously, you wouldn’t be writing to us if all the work were getting done. Right? So what this situation really needs is a careful documentation of the workflow and staffing, which backs up a request for another staff member who would be contributing to the completion of the work intended to be done by Lazikins. Let HR decide whether he/she wants to continue in a relationship with Lazikins once it is made clear that Lazikins work is being left undone. You may be surprised. But it’s no skin off your back if Lazikins gets shuffled off onto a Special Project while you get the needed addition to your staff. Just concentrate on getting the work done. Any thought or intent which falls into the realm of _Getting Other People to Do the Right Thing_ is counter-productive. You are a dedicated team player who is completely focused on the mission. Yes, I know. Yes, yes, I agree totally. Now please re-read the above. The job-market sucks right now. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/89 "2014-03-17T20:59:52Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Let’s dial back the abrasiveness in some of your replies in this thread just a tiny bit. Nothing, I mean nothing makes me angrier than bad English. I 'd rather see puppies tortured. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/90 "2014-03-17T21:01:09Z")
> [@armedmonkey](#): > > I am going to repeat an earlier point I made. The jargon here did not clarify jack shit. Is anybody talking about inappropriate relationships? No, of course they’re not. Instead, we have one side saying a phrase is pretentious and stupid, and the other side saying that the phrase can’t be pretentious and stupid because, hey, _they_ use it. > > Meanwhile, the problem of sex in the workplace is lost. We can blame the lack of focus on the fact that some will only give up their jargon when you pry it from their cold, dead ISO 9000 handbooks. > > Now, does anybody have an opinion on a chief officer sleeping with a mid-level employee? We really don’t see any issue with it. Furthermore: We wonder why anyone would come on this forum and ask this question in this way, using this ‘jargon’. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/91 "2014-03-17T21:08:56Z")
> [@armedmonkey](#): > > Nah, “direct report” is still [bullshit.](http://books.google.com/books?id=MNEDhUuauXUC&pg=PT58&lpg=PT58&dq=direct+report+bullshit&source=bl&ots=ypWgI-bboK&sig=ZA4t4yJ4xfUih0U68FxBQZfkcqk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cz4nU6eKPIXd2QW064DgDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=direct%20report%20bullshit&f=false) It is one of the most dehumanizing terms there is in corporate speak. It comes from the “people are things” school of management. In consulting we just call them “staff”. Although that term is generally reserved for junior folks below manager level. > [@Idle Thoughts](#): > > > [@Melchior View Post](#): > > > > Howls of derisive laughter. You know what’s wrong with this country? This kind of thinking and speaking. > > Let’s dial back the abrasiveness in some of your replies in this thread just a tiny bit. I think what you meant to say was let’s re-examine our communication framework, reset our relationship benchmarks to a new baseline and pivot to a more collaborative and transparent goal-seeking paradigm. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/92 "2014-03-17T21:18:08Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > In consulting we just call them “staff”. Although that term is generally reserved for junior folks below manager level. > I think what you meant to say was let’s re-examine our communication framework, reset our relationship benchmarks to a new baseline and pivot to a more collaborative and transparent goal-seeking paradigm. I am not sure but that this sort of thing clouds people’s minds…making us vulnerable to takeover by alien forces. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/93 "2014-03-17T21:19:21Z")
“Direct Report” is a ubiquitous bit of corporate jargon, because it clearly defines a relationship. This means it is good jargon, which explicates, not bad jargon, which obfuscates. You can manage a team of hundreds of people, and only a couple of those people directly report to you. The rest report to your direct reports, or to their reports, and so on. A word like “subordinates” or “staff” confuses things, because there may be lots of people in the company senior to you, or junior to you, but you’re not their boss and they’re not your boss. Large companies often keep clear that there’s a difference between seniority and responsibility. There are often senior people who don’t have any direct reports. You also have people you work with every day that you might routinely tell what to do–but those people do not report to you, they report to another manager. A development lead has developers who report to him, but the testers on the project report to a test lead. If he has a problem with the testers he can’t fire them, he goes to the test lead. And even if you have direct reports that doesn’t mean you have the authority to hire people or fire people. You’re just responsible for their day to day work. “Direct Report” is useful because it clarifies exactly who you are responsible to, and who you are responsible for. You don’t have a situation where you have 6 bosses. You have one boss. You don’t have a situation where you’re responsible for everyone below you, you have certain people you are responsible for. If you have a large team you pick out team leaders, and assign team members to those leads, so you don’t have to deal with dozens of people trying to get your attention. If you’re the boss of the office you pick out department heads. The department heads report to you. Their staff reports to them. If you’re routinely being told what to do by your boss’s boss, then you’ve got a shitty boss, and a shitty boss’s boss. If you’re routinely telling your subordinate’s subordinates what to do, then you’re a shitty boss. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/94 "2014-03-17T21:23:19Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > “Direct Report” is a ubiquitous bit of corporate jargon, because it clearly defines a relationship. This means it is good jargon, which explicates, not bad jargon, which obfuscates. > > You can manage a team of hundreds of people, and only a couple of those people directly report to you. The rest report to your direct reports, or to their reports, and so on. A word like “subordinates” or “staff” confuses things, because there may be lots of people in the company senior to you, or junior to you, but you’re not their boss and they’re not your boss. Large companies often keep clear that there’s a difference between seniority and responsibility. There are often senior people who don’t have any direct reports. > > You also have people you work with every day that you might routinely tell what to do–but those people do not report to you, they report to another manager. A development lead has developers who report to him, but the testers on the project report to a test lead. If he has a problem with the testers he can’t fire them, he goes to the test lead. And even if you have direct reports that doesn’t mean you have the authority to hire people or fire people. You’re just responsible for their day to day work. > > “Direct Report” is useful because it clarifies exactly who you are responsible to, and who you are responsible for. You don’t have a situation where you have 6 bosses. You have one boss. You don’t have a situation where you’re responsible for everyone below you, you have certain people you are responsible for. If you have a large team you pick out team leaders, and assign team members to those leads, so you don’t have to deal with dozens of people trying to get your attention. If you’re the boss of the office you pick out department heads. The department heads report to you. Their staff reports to them. > > If you’re routinely being told what to do by your boss’s boss, then you’ve got a shitty boss, and a shitty boss’s boss. If you’re routinely telling your subordinate’s subordinates what to do, then you’re a shitty boss. None of that has anything to do with using words such as ‘direct report’. There has to be a better way of saying it. A ‘report’ is not now, nor has it ever been, a person. ‘Superior’ and ‘subordinate’ are nice comfy words. Why don’t we try using them? ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/95 "2014-03-17T21:24:39Z")
Someone can be my subordinate and not be my direct report. Or the other way around. I have five direct reports but no subordinates. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/96 "2014-03-17T21:25:54Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Nothing, I mean nothing makes me angrier than bad English. I 'd rather see puppies tortured. … Says the person who started the thread “[The Deecline of Literate Thought](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=715825).” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/97 "2014-03-17T21:30:43Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > … Says the person who started the thread “[The Deecline of Literate Thought](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=715825).” 😉 oooo’re the Britins? Ah, you’ve confused typographical errors with something else! [http://youtu.be/rAaWvVFERVA](http://youtu.be/rAaWvVFERVA) ---
**Author:** ![turtlescanfly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/65b543/32.png) [@turtlescanfly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/turtlescanfly)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/98 "2014-03-17T21:46:48Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Nothing, I mean nothing makes me angrier than bad English. I 'd rather see puppies tortured. There was no bad English. The OP used terms that have specific meaning (and used them correctly). If he is guilty of anything, it is not realizing those words are not a part of everyone’s vocabulary (a forgivable offense). Odds are if you’re not familiar with the terms, you are also not very familiar with corporate culture, and as such perhaps not best qualified to comment on the problem he describes. I’ve seen plenty of posts (in GQ especially) dripping with jargon but don’t ever recall a pile on the OP for his choice of words like in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/99 "2014-03-17T21:48:28Z")
> [@turtlescanfly](#): > > There was no bad English. The OP used terms that have specific meaning (and used them correctly). If he is guilty of anything, it is not realizing those words are not a part of everyone’s vocabulary (a forgivable offense). Odds are if you’re not familiar with the terms, you are also not very familiar with corporate culture, and as such perhaps not best qualified to comment on the problem he describes. > > I’ve seen plenty of posts (in GQ especially) dripping with jargon but don’t ever recall a pile on the OP for his choice of words like in this thread. Perhaps only because it was never occasioned in such an egregious fashion…but such language certainly is out of place here. I object to this kind of talk quite strenuously. If you want to come to a discussion group to ask advice, you should ask your question in such a way that you can be understood. Otherwise, some people could regard it as insulting, as I do. ---
**Author:** ![Kansas\_Beekeeper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@Kansas\_Beekeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kansas_Beekeeper)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590/100 "2014-03-17T21:59:35Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Perhaps only because it was never occasioned in such an egregious fashion…but such language certainly is out of place here. I object to this kind of talk quite strenuously. If you want to come to a discussion group to ask advice, you should ask your question in such a way that you can be understood. Otherwise, some people could regard it as insulting, as I do. If the OP had been in the military and used different but analogous jargon to ask the same question, I would have been interested to learn the military jargon and how it reflects on both the question and culture. Here, the terms were defined for you in the sixth post. Why are you till here bleating about it? If you don’t like this thread, there’s lots of others on this board. Go hijack one of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-direct-report-is-dating-a-c-level-above-me/683590.md?page=6)