dynamic than it has been in the past. The increase in relationships between fellow employees due
to the changing work world, most companies believe is inevitable .The extended time spent together and
the lack of time to form outside relationships makes it only natural that these romances form.
Concerns about invading individuals privacy, and that human nature being what it is, people are
going to become involved know matter what the company policies are. Most employers are trying to
remain hands off, they do not want to become involved in policing what goes on inside people's
bedrooms. It is unrealistic to expect that employers’ potential liability can be entirely eliminated. The
company can still mitigate their risk in dealing with an ongoing romance. The company can introduce a
strong anti-sexual harassment policy and good management training.
According to a 1998 survey of 317 organizations by the Alexandria Va. Based society for
human resource management, 24% of the employer respondents have had a sexual harassment claim filed
against them as a result of a workplace romance. The fact is many of these romances fail but the
employees must continue to work together. An example of a failed romance in California cost a company
a half a million dollars. A male employee of the company had ended an affair with a coworker. She was
upset and began stalking him. He obtained a restraining order against her and expected the company to fire
her. The company refused to fire her; he sued and eventually settled for $500,000. The fear the company
faces in dealing with office romance are certainly not unwarranted. Sexual harassment fears can really
come into play when a relationship develops between a supervisor and a subordinate. The relationship
affects more than just the two people involved but everyone in the entire department.
It was in the 1970's and 1980's when many employers dropped their no dating rules. They felt it
was too difficult for the company to dictate the conduct of their employees’ personal lives. The employees
would simply continue their behavior secretively. This would create more of a problem than if everyone
was open about it.
According to a SHRM survey only 13% of companies have a written policy on office relationships
and 14% have said they have unwritten policies that are understood that prohibit these relationships.
Most employers now realize that it is basically impossible to eliminate office relationships
because of human nature. Accepting this fact they are creating strategies to mitigate the problems they may
encounter. As mentioned before many companies are adopting a strong anti harassment policy. They also
teach employees the ramifications of an office romance. They also create a policy that states that the
subordinate is not always the one to be transferred out. In most cases this person is likely to be a woman,
and the policy could be seen as anti - female.
In the past several years’ companies trying to mitigate their own liabilities have created a contract in
case something does go wrong in an office affair. In order for companies to protect themselves they have
employees sign agreements or what is called "Love Contracts', stating that if a does go badly the company
will not be liable for any sexual harassment charges.
Some companies in the attempt to inhibit relationships from forming adopt a non-fraternization
policy. Few companies have this policy because it is hard to enforce and also due to the difficulty in
policing human behavior.
The majority of larger companies are training employees the subtleties of sexual harassment. They
also strictly prohibit relationships between manager and subordinates. The best policy is to make sure
employees conduct themselves in a professional manner at work and if people do become involved it
should be no concern of the employer. Romance in the office is happening and it is going to continue, the
company has to deal with it. In a Dec. 1994 American Management Association survey of 485 managers,
nearly 80% of respondents had either been aware of or were involved in an office romance.
There is a vast amount of research generated by business consultants and researchers in the office romance debate. The research can be divided into three categories: (1) empirical studies. (2) Policy analysis. (3) Advice on how to handle office romance. Empirical studies focus on how productivity is
effected, either positively or negatively. Policy analysis researches how companies are attempting to cope
with the situation and the opinions of senior management. Much research is directed towards the sociological aspect of the relationship inside the work setting. This provides more insight for management
and an understanding how it effects the harmony of the company. It better enables management to create
policy guides lines that protect both employees and employers.
Around ten years ago it was unacceptable to have office romances in most companies, and it would
likely get a person fired. Managers have come to realize they can’t outlaw office romance. Many companies now allow relationships among employees within certain defined limits. Statistical evidence shows that 80% of managers know of an office romance in their company and that 1/3 of all romances
begin in a work setting.
In terms of outlawing the relationship, many companies see this as futile; it is like trying to outlaw the weather. Instead the romance must be managed just like any other company issue. Relationships do not necessarily mean trouble for the organization; they often add value and productivity. In today’s work place
employees are valuable commodities and companies must weigh the benefits and risks when creating these policies.
The issue of a relationship between a superior and a subordinate is far more complex. Some companies prohibit such relationships because it may undermine company security. Also it may impact
employee morale on the basis that the subordinate in the relationship may receive preferential treatment.
The situation can be handled if one of the employees is transferred to a new department .In essence so that the couple involved is no longer each other’s immediate boss and subordinate. The security issue from the company’s stand point hinges on the idea that couples can more easily defraud the company together
than a sole individual could. Company security is an important feature of modern business, but they should not be so zealous that they encroach on employee integrity and trust. Considering that human
capital in the firm is probably the companies’ most valuable asset.
Some firms prohibit married people from working together. But laws in some places may prevent discrimination on the basis of marital status. A 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decision indicated what
the thinking of the court was towards sexual relationships in the work place. Irrelevant of what your sexual
orientation is or your relationship with another person in the company the court is edging towards a policy
that insists on well-behaved employees who do their assigned jobs. The law issue in the U.S. is ambiguous. U.S State lawsuits have varying degrees of success. For example a teacher wanted to be transferred to a school where her husband was principal. The school board refused to allow her to transfer because they did not want husband and wife working at the same school. The woman sued the school board and the court
ruled that the school was discriminating against her because she was married. In another state the same situation occurred and the court ruled that the school board was justified in disallowing her from working with her husband.
In conclusion we feel that because human nature being what it is, and that the work world is changing, management must accept office romances and learn to manage it like any other company issue. Be it a sales promotion or a new technology. We do feel that relationships between a superior and a subordinate should be handled differently. An outright ban on such an affair may not be necessary. Although these relationships may be riskier, an aggressive education policy to dissuade employees
from becoming involved with their boss is less discriminatory.