July 6,2013
by Dray Breezy
Understanding how personal relationships work in a corporate setting can be a dauntingly complicated task. The ethical line for how appropriate one employee’s relationship is to other employees, both superior and subordinate is blurry at best. The problem many companies face is to how much regulation is too much regarding personal relationships. Many times this depends on the structure of the company (size, location) but mostly this depends on the HR policies that have been set in place by the company. What should these policies include? This essay will begin to outline certain policies that have been proven to be effective while also arguing the pros and cons of this debate. Relationships are inevitable yet it is up to the company to regulate these relationships through sound ethical policy. While the information provided in this essay won’t make the decision for company rule makers, it certainly will help those members make more informed decisions regarding restricting personal relationships at the workplace.
Introduction
Following the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, many things changed about the contemporary workforce. The number of women quadrupled, making diversity between genders all the more prominent in the world workforce. (Porten, 2012) This explosion of single women in the workforce created unforeseen problems. One of those was how these single women would interact in the patriarchal corporate system as well as how accepting men would be of their female counterparts. What companies didn’t take into account would be how the mixing of the two sexes would create relationships that could alter the dynamics of company structures. To understand these dynamics one must first understand the pros and cons of
romantic relationships in the workplace. For many companies, emphasis is placed on the cons of dating in the workplace because of the obvious negative effects, however some companies and CEO’s argue that romance in the workplace is beneficial.
Richard Branson
In his work “When Cupid hits the Cubicle” Richard Branson (2012), mogul and highly successful entrepreneur, owner of Virgin airlines disagrees with the common notion that work and pleasure don’t mix. Branson alludes to companies being an extended family of such and that company rules should not prohibit relationships because that element is what can make many companies more unique, productive, and diverse.
He writes, “…any guidelines you put in place should avoid forcing people to conceal their relationships”. (Branson, 2012) He is arguing that companies regulating personal relationships in the workforce forces people to conceal who they are with and that takes energy away from possible productivity. Branson does state that this is only applicable in a rather large corporate environment. He also states that, “If single employees are told that they are free to have a relationship with any consenting single colleague, then it should be easier to gain respect for your company’s policies” (Branson) Once again Branson places the emphasis on the employee’s rights. He believes that companies that have very loose policies regarding workplace relationships are more successful because they create a space in which the employee is fully honest and therefore fully productive. He later states that, “Employees falling in love is part of the adventure”.
In this regard I believe that Branson has touched on an idea that is mostly neglected. Although the competitive market has shown that there are certain blueprints to follow for successful companies, there still is no known formula to create and run a successful company. Therefore running any successful business is unpredictable as well inherently risky, making it an adventure of sorts. Like every good adventure story, a love subplot is incorporated because love for many is the best motivator.
Love in the office
The article, Office romance? First sign a contract by Marilyn Gardner argues this point as well. In it she states, “When you have a best friend in the office, you tend to feel better about coming to work. Anything that increases your emotional commitment to work is generally not a bad thing.” (Gardner, 2008) Personally speaking I’ve worked with peers that were involved in a romantic relationship and it honestly boosted company productivity.
Because these two people, let’s call them John and Jill, were in a committed relationship yet also of the same level in the hierarchy of the company work was much easier because they made it so. They were able to be much more productive due to how cooperative they were with each other. Because they were in a relationship they typically would be more willing to pick up the heavier more difficult tasks at work because they could lean on each other in order to complete them. This increased productivity not only boosts company morale but leads to a more integrated workforce. Although some companies do encourage workplace relationships there it will always be the employees’ responsibility to be ethically responsible.
In Jane Porter’s 2012 article, “ Lust in the Office” she guidelines a set of informal rules employees should follow in order to continue being an asset to his/her respective company. First one being that co-workers ultimately “call the shots”. She argues that while HR does have a say in two employee’s relationship, it is the other coworkers’ view of the relationship that affects how successful it will be in the workforce. For instance, let’s rehash my John and Jill anecdote earlier. Let’s say that although these two figures were productive and ethically appropriate for the workplace yet the majority of their peers deemed their relationship inappropriate. Knowledge of that would separate the workforce into John and Jill and everyone else (Us vs. Them). The tension from this separation would decrease productivity and ultimately lead to energy and focus spent on mending the workforce instead of selling the company’s product.
Lust in the Office
Porter also argues that all workplace couples should be “break-up ready”. At first this seems like an abrasive comment on relationships in the workplace but when analyzed it makes much more sense. According to Rosenfeld, more than 60 percent of all new couples do not last a year, therefore making the possibility that a workplace romance will fail higher than the chance that it will succeed. Because employees and employers do not want a break-up to decrease productivity, a plan should already be in place as to how both parties will not allow relationship drama or emotion disturb the company.
She claims, “Once you’ve wandered into relationship drama at work, there’s no telling what might trigger the next blowup. Levelheaded as you think you are, trybeing polite to the person who, hours earlier, called you a selfish bastard.” (Porter) I’m sure all working adults have witnessed this type of activity between co-workers and I’m sure we’ve all shared the same negative sentiment. Allowing failed relationship drama to disturb the productivity and aesthetic of the company is not only unprofessional but it puts both you and your partner’s job on the line.
Gossip
A third rule Porter states is to, “never mix pillow talk with office talk”. The reasons for this seem very obvious. I can think of very few corporate structures that benefit from knowing the personal problems and issues of couples that they employ. This type of conversation only distracts from whatever they employees are getting paid to do, decreasing company output. Not only does this decrease output but this creates a high-school like company atmosphere in which gossip and “pillow talk” dominate the verbal arena. This puts the professional workers at a disadvantage because indifference or lack or participation in the verbal arena almost always is looked at negatively in the corporate structure. This idea of the cubicle environment being ran by gossip will be looked at in further detail later in this essay. A fourth rule Porter states is that honesty with peers in the workforce is the best policy.
She writes, “The way coworkers find out about a relationship can affect their opinion of both parties, says Horan In interviews he conducted with people whose coworkers were involved in romances, those who were told flat out about the relationship had a more positive response than those who, say, caught the couple kissing in the parking garage.” (Porter) Although couples hiding their romance might be more so for HR purposes, studies show that deceitful activity is detrimental for all parties involved because it causes employees not in the relationship to question how much they can trust the parties involved in the relationship. The final rule Porter states is to “Protect your good name”. She argues that keeping a professional demeanor at work at all times is the surest way to remain an asset to a company. For many once a failed breakup’s negative energy permeates into the workplace, that energy is very hard to remove. She then gives a short anecdote about a male that worked at a highly successful business that engaged in workplace romances. When said male figure got another job, previous to him getting there word has already spread that he was a player/womanizer of sorts. In this regard he is already starting his job at a disadvantage because he will now have to dispel energy on rebranding his image within the company instead of getting his job done as productively as
possible.