Affair of Channel Seven's CEO exposes mixed societal mores

Ms Harrison indirectly denied playing the role of a "woman scorned", when she claimed that her affair was "never about love".  She also said that she "found our relationship, if you’d call it that, thrilling to begin with”, implying that it was less than a fulsome relationship and that the thrill had diminished over time.  She also claims that going public over the affair was not an act of vindictiveness but merely a tactic to "receive fair treatment from Seven and see them honour their contracts with me.”

It seems likely that Ms Harrison was more disappointed about the ending of the affair than she admits.  It is reported that Ms Harrison "was becoming increasingly angry and resentful that she was “invisible” to her lover in the workplace" and that she "sent several heated texts to Mr Worner about allegedly multiple affairs with other women...employed at Seven".  Such actions seem inconsistent with passions about the affair having totally subsided.

One claim by Ms Harrison, namely that an "entrenched sexist culture prevails and provides that a male executive behaving badly is rewarded and protected while the company will destroy the woman who stands up to it" is not entirely off the mark, though  I would put the situation somewhat differently. 

In my observation, when an Australian employer is facing a scandal involving illicit sexual encounters between a senior executive and another employee, the employer makes a judgement concerning their relative importance to the organisation.  Almost always it is the senior executive (usually male) that is the more highly valued and protected, while the other party (usually female) is bought off.   Affairs at work (especially involving the boss) are high risk both for female employees and the boss.  Experience seems to show that the utmost discretion is required to avoid a public scandal that may end in tears for both parties. 

In the US, research shows that "15 per cent  of women have slept with their bosses - and (interestingly) 37 per cent got promoted for it".  61 per cent of men and 70 per cent of women, however, lose respect for a leader involved in an affair.

Overall, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Ms Harrison over-played her hand, and that it was also in Channel 7's interests to have been be more conciliatory.  The main outcome sought by Seven appears to have been confidentiality (in particular keeping details of the affair out of the media) so that by going public Harrison seems to have thrown away her trump card and had little remaining to bargain with.  Harrison reportedly has been unemployed since losing her job in 2014, while Seven failed utterly in keeping the scandal under wraps. 

While aspects of the scandal are subject to innuendo and rumour, some reports have suggested Ms Harrison had originally sought as much as $2 million.  It is also suggested that Harrison spent over $300,000 in legal fees, and that Seven’s legal costs were over $1 million. A timely commercial settlement offering confidentiality to Seven and an agreed substantial six figure sum to Ms Harrison would have been a far better outcome for all concerned, except maybe for the lawyers.