> Spies could be a major problem, but that's not what this article is about.

If a CEO is having affairs and disregarding common workplace policies that makes them more easily targeted by those spies (or others who seek to compromise them) that could be a major problem

> an investor I couldn't care less if the CEO has sex with his subordinates

That doesn’t make the risk and cost associated with those actions go away.

Is "blackmail" not in your dictionary?

If the company doesn't have a "no sleeping with underlings" policy, and the CEO and his wife says "we have an open relationship", the CEO sleeping with anyone will gain a "meh". But since this CEO agreed to:

1) sleep only with his wife

2) follow company rules, including about sleeping with colleagues

the public learning that he's been breaking those agreements means he was vulnerable to being blackmailed at any point he was doing so...

Letting structural power abuse slide is how we got here. But why start now amirite?