Nearly a decade after the #MeToo movement burst into public consciousness, the upheaval at Nvidia may be a lesson in how little CEOs seem to have learned.
Nvidia’s embattled CEO Jensen Huang has resigned, following a New York Times report on Wednesday that revealed he had indulged in another extramarital relationship—this time involving a subordinate, the company’s vice president of health care and one of his 60 direct reports. The affair was a blatant violation of Nvidia’s code of conduct, which notes that employees should steer clear of situations that could create a conflict of interest, including “personal relationships.” The company also purports to “promptly investigate” reports of misconduct.
While this dalliance has fewer national security implications than his entanglement with an alleged Chinese spy, it does suggest that CEOs like Huang don’t expect to face consequences for getting involved with employees.
Huang is in good company: Many employers have similar policies that forbid romantic relationships between managers and their direct reports, but that hasn’t stopped executives from crossing the line anyway. (Who could forget the viral video of the Astronomer CEO caught canoodling with his chief people officer at a Coldplay concert?)
In recent years, however, a number of executives have been forced to step down after pursuing inappropriate relationships, in addition to CEOs like Leslie Moonves being fired over sexual harassment.
Back in 2019, former McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook was ousted over a relationship with a subordinate, then later sued by the company for concealing other relationships with employees and misleading investors. (He was eventually forced to pay back his $105 million severance package.) There was Alan Shaw, the former CEO of the railroad Norfolk Southern, who was let go in 2024 over his relationship with the company’s chief legal officer. Last year, the former Nestlé SA CEO Laurent Freixe was given the boot after an internal investigation confirmed a relationship with a subordinate (which Freixe had initially denied). Kohl’s CEO Ashley Buchanan was also recently forced out when the board learned that he had given millions of dollars in business to a vendor who he was dating without disclosing the relationship.
The fact that CEOs continue to pursue their subordinates, regardless of the consequences, may seem like a sign that the #MeToo movement is in the rear view. Perhaps some executives truly believe they are irreplaceable, or that there is now limited public pressure, years after #MeToo took hold.
But Amy Nicole Baker, a professor at the University of New Haven who studies workplace romance, argues that not much has shifted after #MeToo, both in terms of CEO behavior and how companies tend to handle these situations.
“The stock price goes down, at least in the short term,” she says, citing her research on how stock prices are impacted by sexual harassment allegations or affairs involving the CEO. “And usually CEOs are removed and replaced.”
Boards tend to have limited tolerance for this kind of behavior, which can be a sign of poor judgment. Indiscretions like an affair or inappropriate relationship can set off alarm bells or lead them to wonder what else a CEO is hiding. “Boards look at CEO behavior as a signal for what could be going on in the internal management of the company,” Baker says.
Still, it appears CEOs don’t necessarily feel constrained by those expectations, or the rules they impose on their employees—even when their own peers have been in the line of fire.
“People show less restraint when they are in power, and they’re also more likely to perceive someone else sending them sexual signals when they’re actually not,” Baker says. “So the research on power can tell us a little bit about why this keeps happening.”
People in positions of power tend to be more impulsive and comfortable with risk—something they are often rewarded for in a business context. Very often, company culture can also reinforce that behavior, if it is more informal and encourages people to push boundaries. “If you’re willing to break a rule in one way, it’s probably more acceptable to tacitly break a rule in a different way,” she says.
The intense scrutiny of Huang’s misdeeds might discourage some CEOs from engaging in relationships with subordinates or other inappropriate behavior—but likely not for long.
“In terms of the CEOs and their propensity to get involved in risky workplace relationships, that doesn’t seem to have changed,” Baker says. “More people are willing to say, ‘Yes, this happened to me. Yes, this is an issue. Yes, this is a problem.’ There’s certainly more recognition and awareness. But when it comes to people at this highest echelon, I’m not seeing a change in behavior.”
