My direct report is dating a C-level above me

[Melchior]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Talk about missing the point.

It *is *the point.

[turtlescanfly]

@Melchior

You don’t ‘have reports’ if you mean human beings. I reject that as solecism.

Now look who’s using obscure terms…:rolleyes:

[Melchior]

@turtlescanfly

Now look who’s using obscure terms…:rolleyes:

It’s not jargon, bucko!

[PatriotGrrrl]

I bet you all would insist on using the accepted terminology (as chosen by those it applies to) when talking about, say, sexual orientation. Or should we just substitute “pervert” for all the various terms, then no one will have to learn “jargon”…
(Obviously - I hope - I don’t feel that way and am glad to learn and use whatever terms the people involved suggest.)

[Melchior]

If you want to use such jargon in the closed society that is this workplace, go ahead. But to the public at large (and most of the members here) it is gibberish.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Search for ‘c-level’ returns about 1,390,000,000 results, including pages from Howard University, the Harvard Business Review and assorted job sites.

Search for ‘direct report’ returns about 1,130,000,000 results, including articles from Forbes, Purdue University and assorted news outlets.

Yup, pretty obscure terms.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

I suspect our royalscam has left the building. Two posts, and both in this thread, with no recent follow-up. I don’t think there’s anything to see her. (Just my opine.)

[Melchior]

@Patty_O_Furniture

Search for ‘c-level’ returns about 1,390,000,000 results, including pages from Howard University, the Harvard Business Review and assorted job sites.

Search for ‘direct report’ returns about 1,130,000,000 results, including articles from Forbes, Purdue University and assorted news outlets.

Yup, pretty obscure terms.

I don’t care. It’s up to the *poster *to make himself clear.

[Melchior]

@Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker

I suspect our royalscam has left the building. Two posts, and both in this thread, with no recent follow-up.

I certainly hope so!

[Telemark]

@Melchior

I don’t care. It’s up to the *poster *to make himself clear.

He did so. Sorry you can’t keep up.

To the OP, aside from the advice to Document, Document, Document, you might have a casual conversation, possibly outside of work, with your boss about the situation. Make it a request for advice with a difficult work situation. But it would only work if you already have a mentoring relationship with your boss.

[Dangerosa]

@Melchior

I don’t care. It’s up to the *poster *to make himself clear.

He was perfectly clear to many people with experience about what he was talking about.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Dangerosa

He was perfectly clear to many people with experience about what he was talking about.

But don’t you see? You’re wrong.

:rollyeyes:

[turtlescanfly]

@Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker

I suspect our royalscam has left the building. Two posts, and both in this thread, with no recent follow-up. I don’t think there’s anything to see her. (Just my opine.)

That’s kind of my point. If I had gotten the kind of response that he got when I posted my first thread, I wouldn’t have stuck around either.
I think there were several posters who went overboard on the snark and pedantry instead of trying to help. Not our finest hour…

[Dangerosa]

@PatriotGrrrl

I bet you all would insist on using the accepted terminology (as chosen by those it applies to) when talking about, say, sexual orientation. Or should we just substitute “pervert” for all the various terms, then no one will have to learn “jargon”…
(Obviously - I hope - I don’t feel that way and am glad to learn and use whatever terms the people involved suggest.)

Honestly, I have the hardest time with the transgendered and transsexual definitions. Have to look them up every time so I don’t misspeak (and I’ve STILL gotten it wrong).

But I don’t bill myself as an expert on gender and sexuality issues. I’m an observer, interested in learning - sometimes with a personal opinion or experience. But I’m not going to start shrieking “hey, your terms are confusing, can you start using better terms!”

[PatriotGrrrl]

He was perfectly clear to me, and I think only one of the companies I’ve worked for even had a CEO.

[joyfool]

@Dangerosa

He was perfectly clear to many people with experience about what he was talking about.

Good God. I’d never heard either term and it took me all of two seconds of my own brain power to figure out “direct report” and not much longer to read further in the thread for “c-level.” You just can’t ask for much more when you don’t initially understand an OP.

[Bone]

@Melchior

…and I would stomp out of the room and never come back or do business with your firm, and I would blast your firm at every possible opportunity I would do everything in my power to ruin you and your firm.

and you would be the loser, I assure you!

You’re funny. It’s too bad the grown ups can’t have had a conversation without this childish tantrum. Good luck bringing down AT&T, Exxon, and Apple. They and us are all worse off for never having been privy to your wisdom.

[Dangerosa]

@Bone

You’re funny. It’s too bad the grown ups can’t have had a conversation without this childish tantrum. Good luck bringing down AT&T, Exxon, and Apple. They and us are all worse off for never having been privy to your wisdom.

My experience is United Healthcare, General Mills, Medtronic and Thomson Reuters (and some other large Twin Cities companies) - I think his walking out of the interview and then taking the company down will be far more effective than - oh, say the William McGuire stock option scandal for UHC or the pacemaker quality issues for Medtronic…oh, wait…yeah.

[Polerius]

Mods, why are you allowing the derailing of this thread, without saying anything?

95% of the posts are not in any way responding to the main question in the OP.
(Including this post of course, but it must be pointed out that you guys are not doing your jobs)

[bengangmo]

@BigT

If he’d just used “employee” or “subordinate” and “boss” or “superior”, I’d have known what he meant instantly. The specificity of “direct report” or “C-level” is irrelevant to the OP’s post. The OP may have thought these terms were well-known in the public at large, but he was mistaken.

I’m a copywriter (although not necessarily a good one). I see issues with your options

1. The lady he’s talking about is not his “employee” - he does not pay the salary, nor is there any indication that he hired her. I am a business owner, I have employees - however a “wage slave” or an ant in the corporate hierarchy does not.
2. Many, myself included, don’t like the term subordinate. Even assuming they do broadly the same job function, and one is more experienced than the other - subordinate is a rather demeaning term. If they have different job functions - as many will in a reporting relationship (like, for example, I have a web-programmer reporting to me - but he is far superior at his job than I am) then the term “subordinate” becomes even more inappropriate
3. Superior - not as bad as subordinate (in my mind anyway) but I would rather not have the phrase “I am his superior” in anything that I wrote - I would much much rather write “he reports to me” (otherwise known as “he’s my direct report”)
4. Boss - hmm…can get away with this, and it would be a marginal substitute. Although it must be said - just because he is my “direct report” doesn’t necessarily make me his “boss” -