Was there a pattern of behaviour?

Anna Wallis PHOTO/FILE

Lots of people seem dumbfounded by the resignation of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority chief executive Roger Sutton.

Mainly, the argument goes, he was a ripper bloke who did a great job and was universally admired.

Except by one person who was given inappropriate hugs, called "Sweetie" and told some jokes.

If there is more, we haven't been told - that includes the type of jokes told. In the interests of full disclosure, perhaps they should be repeated.

But even if it was the condescending language, off-colour humour and out-of-place affection, haven't we sorted all this out years ago, particularly in the public service? The Employment Relations Act says what is acceptable is partly determined by the context of the work environment, and there are more stringent rules for a white-collar, professional workplace than, say, a garage.

Managing people may mean having to suppress your natural personality - it's something managers need to be aware of. Mr Sutton may have free rein with jokes, hugs and calling women "Sweetie" outside the workforce, but you have to be a different person in the office.

Managing people also takes a fair bit of intuition, including when your treatment of a person is not appreciated.

It takes a huge amount of courage to bring a complaint against a boss, especially one as popular as Mr Sutton. And while Mr Sutton's transgressions were not enough for State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie to have dismissed him, the investigation found that Sutton's conduct "did not always meet the standard expected of public service leaders".

But to go this far, there must have been a pattern of behaviour that was unacceptable.

Hopefully, between now and Mr Sutton's departure on January 31, his good-guy nature will mean the complainant's work life will be as pleasant as possible, and she won't be vilified for speaking up.