RULES OF ROMANCE AT WORK: WHO'S THE BOSS?

ANGELINE G. CLOSE University of Georgia

INTRODUCTION • 8 Million Relationships a year begin at the workplace (Society for HR Management) • 52% have been asked out by a co-worker (U.S. Pew National Survey) • Difficult to compartmentalize personal and business lives • Americans live at work, why not date at work?

OBJECTIVES • • • I facilitate a contribution of :

RQ1. When

should there be a policy discouraging workplace dating?

RQ2. Why

have such a policy?

RQ3. Would

such a policy be taken seriously?

LITERATURE REVIEW • Corporate HR Documents • Relevant Court Cases • CRM Literature • OB Literature • Applied Psychology Journals • Business Law Journals • Policy Journals

METHODS • Observations (exploratory data) Field notes on proximity and body language • Focus Group (n=12) college-aged singles, (active daters or unmarried) pre-focus group questionnaire, $30 compensation • In-depth Interviews (n=22), 30-130 min., consented recording, transcriptions, coding of themes, reconstruct themes in terms of 3 research objectives.

THEORY •

Sternberg's Triangle Theory of Love

(1986) • Love is understood in terms of three points.

• Intimacy: feelings of closeness • Passion: desire for sexual communication • Commitment: decision to maintain love

FINDING 1: Workplace dating is

not

a policy concern

when

: • productivity is not hindered • non-career oriented positions • seasonal, short-term employment • consulting • different departments or locale

FINDING 2A:A WORKPLACE DATING POLICY MAY: • recognize committed employees • reduce problems of perceived fairness • uphold a corporate image • reduce expensive employee turnover resulting from failed relationships • diminish relationship conflicts not left at home • limit sexual harassment claims • limit tension among coworkers and couples

FINDING 2B:YET, WORKPLCE DATING MAY: • promote camaraderie • increase understanding • heighten productivity in effort to impress • promote carpooling/resource sharing • increase involvement at work • increase communication • eliminate frigid policy environment • encourage a polished appearance • attract employees

FINDING 3:POLICY SERIOUSNESS • anti-sexual harassment policy will be taken seriously • workplace dating policy much less serious • intensity of romance may unwillingly exceed workplace loyalty, e.g. love is the boss- even at work

RECONSTRUCTING THE DATA •

Sternberg's Theory of Love (intimacy, passion, and commitment)

does not tell the whole story.

emerging themes: • priority • decision factors • time • proximity

THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION: Priority Decision Factors COMMITMENT INTIMACY PASSION Time Proximity

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS • Where does your company stand?

• Keep communication channels open • Give point of contact for advice • Be fair-regardless of gender or rank • Respond promptly and discreetly • Respect privacy • Be pro-relationship

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS • Effectively communicate what constitutes sexual harassment via seminars, etc.

• Focus on productivity at work, not personal relationships that do not interfere with productivity.

• Be aware that employee priorities change.

• Realize time, proximity, decision factors, and priority constraints.

• Re-examine any "dated" policies.

MARKETING IMPLICATIONS • Internal Relationship management via dating’s constructs: • Risk • Trust • Care • Power • Societal motivations • B2B “Courting”