1. Home
  2. HR Articles
  3. The Coldplay Affair Scandal: A Case Study in HR, Public Shaming, and Moral Posturing

The Coldplay Affair Scandal: A Case Study in HR, Public Shaming, and Moral Posturing

The Coldplay Affair Scandal: An HR and Human Perspective
Ariane Laird | Jul 22, 2025


There’s been a lot of noise this week about a kiss-cam moment at a Coldplay concert that went viral. Two people, Andy Byron, CEO of Astronomer, and his Head of People, Kristin Cabot, were caught on camera looking visibly panicked. The internet did what it does best. It pounced when the two were presumed to be having an affair. Byron resigned days later, a move widely interpreted as an attempt to pre-empt his likely termination, while Cabot was placed on leave.

Let’s just call it what it is: a public hanging.

As an HR professional, I’ve worked in the space of human behaviour long enough to know one thing: people cheat. It’s messy. It’s personal. And it’s not necessarily an HR matter.

We’re not talking about a priest or a prime minister. This wasn’t someone whose credibility depends on moral authority. This was a CEO. A flawed, human one.

Do Affairs Disqualify You from Leadership?

Let's ask the uncomfortable question: Should executives who have affairs be fired?
If the answer is yes, we’d better be prepared to wipe out a big chunk of the executive class.

Statistics tell us that:

  • About 20–25% of married men and 10–15% of women admit to having had a physical affair. And those are just the ones who admit it.

  • Emotional affairs? Higher. Much higher. And just as emotionally damaging and judge-worthy as physical ones.

  • Office affairs? Not uncommon. 31% of affairs involve a coworker.

    (Sources: General Social Survey, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, PR Newswire)

So if cheating alone makes someone unfit to lead, we’re going to need a lot more cardboard boxes.

The HR View: What Actually Matters

From an HR standpoint, here’s what matters:

  • Was there abuse of power?

  • Were there material policy breaches?

  • Did the relationship harm anyone else at work?

  • Is there a conflict of interest or legal liability?

If the answer is yes, we investigate, document, and take action. We make an informed internal decision about appropriate next steps for the business and staff, not the moral police.

If the answer is no, then punishing people for personal lapses outside of work becomes a moral reaction and not a response to professional misconduct.

There’s a difference.

The Internet Is Not Your HR Department

What happened to these two wasn’t accountability. It was online bloodsport. They weren’t (essentially) fired for cause; they were socially executed. And not for what they did, but because they were caught in a moment most of us weren’t meant to see.

This is the part no one may want to admit: Often when we pile on, we aren't driven by ethical outrage. We're fueled by the thrill of watching someone else fall apart in public.

Let’s stop pretending this was about principles. It was entertainment.

The Bigger Problem: We’ve Lost All Proportion

Here’s the real paradox in HR.  Throughout my career, I’ve seen countless cases where employees committed serious workplace infractions: property theft, fraud, harassment, time theft, blatant poor performance, or acted as central figures in a toxic culture. Despite this, most of these situations fall short of the legal threshold for just cause.  Canadian law overwhelmingly protects employees and terminating for cause (no pay-out) is next to impossible.

The bar is so high that even egregious behaviour often results in a healthy common law severance payout, like a lottery winning for bad behaviour. In many cases, the road to actually ending employment is long, drawn out, or completely avoided. Problematic behaviour is often tolerated rather than addressed.

At the same time, we live in a world where an executive's personal moral failing outside of work, like an affair, is more likely to lead to immediate termination than someone who consistently undermines productivity, damages culture or even commits a crime in the workplace. One happens off the clock. The other on company time. Yet the one tied to public morality is more likely to be punished quickly.

Which raises the question: are we really holding people accountable based on impact, or are we just looking for a moral high ground to stand on when we think we’ve caught someone red-handed?

Do I like what they did? No.
Do I respect their decisions? Not particularly.
But do I think it’s fire-worthy, based solely on a kiss-cam and internet hysteria? Not a chance.

We Are Not the Morality Police

This isn’t a defense of affairs. It’s a defense of perspective and context. Because if we’re going to start firing people for their private missteps, let’s be honest: many of us would be out of work.

We need to be better than the internet.

Would we be so quick to throw stones and publicly shame if this was our son? Our brother? Our friend? The impact on children and families is already devastating. Adding public ridicule only deepens the harm and punishes people who had no part in the mistake.

Before rushing to condemn, let’s at least pause and take a good, honest look in the mirror. Is there anything we did today that we wouldn't want broadcast to the world on a jumbotron?  Chances are, the answer is yes.

And if not today, then tomorrow is another chance for one of our own missteps to be caught, magnified, and turned into a public spectacle. 

Ariane Laird Vancouver Ariane Laird is CEO & Founder of ConnectsUs HR.  Contact her directly from the Inquiry Type drop down menu.