East Carolina University
Dating in the Workplace
An Organizational Behavior Approach
John Murtha, Kylen Smith, Michael Blankenship
2012
In corporate America today we are seeing women fill positions they had never held
before. This all started about 25 years ago when we began to see an influx from stay at home
moms to college graduates. Gone are the days when women could only be housewives and
secretaries; we live in a new era. Women are now holding positions that used to be dominated
by men such as CEOs, Doctors, diplomats, sports-casters, firefighters, and even soldiers on the
front lines. One such person is Indra K. Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi. Nooyi became President and CEO
of PepsiCo on October 1, 2006 and is now in charge of their $66 billion in annual retail sales
(Mergent, 2012). This is just one of many success stories, but with this success also came a new
wave of issues in the modern workplace. Problems such as sexual harassment, sexual assault,
and hiring biases are just a few. All of these issues stem from our lack of exposure to a gender
balanced workforce. However, the biggest of all these issue is dating in the workplace.
For years, this issue was the elephant in the room, in that it was not accepted, but it was
an issue few corporations were ready to tackle at the time. A recent example of how corporations
are taking a more firm stance against dating in the workplace is the firing of Boeing’s CEO.
Harry Stonecipher was fired as Chief Executive Officer after just one year for having a
consensual relationship with a female executive. Even though the employee did not directly
report to Stonecipher, fraternization among co-workers is often prohibited in many companies
regardless of organizational hierarchy. In the case of Boeing, workplace dating is not allowed as
part of their code of conduct. Thus, the CEO and his mistress were blatantly violating a major
company value. With that understanding the board of trustees was left with no choice but to
terminate Stonecipher. This is an example of something that happens every day in the workplace,
but due to the company’s high profile this instance was incredibly scrutinized by the public. This
1
directly affected the decision to let him go as it allowed Boeing to save face in the court of public
opinion. (Isidore, 2005)
To illustrate the prevalence of workplace dating one group member had a similar instance
in their high school. Here, two of his teachers became romantically involved and decided to
make their relationship public. Due to policies by the school board, the man was forced to cease
his employment at that institution before he was able to propose to his future wife. These are two
distinct examples of dating in the workplace: one giving someone the courage to make a decision
to be with the person they love and the other forcing a company to terminate a high ranking
executive. The examples given reinforce that there are many different ways to handle dating in
the workplace.
There are many schools of thought on dating in the workplace, but the one we will focus
on is the theory of propinquity, or proximity. This theory has two different parts to it, functional
and spatial propinquity. Functional refers to how easy it is for two people to interact and have a
conversation, whereas physical refers to the actual spatial proximity between two people.
(Pierce, 2006)
To delve further into the two perspectives of this theory, two group members have
personal examples of each:
In many cases of functional propinquity the hierarchy of an organization provides
a cultivating environment for a workplace relationship. In our group member’s personal
experience they were on the executive board of a campus organization. The obligations of
their position required them spending extensive amounts of time with board members on
2
a weekly basis. This created an ease for a familiarity between the two people who
eventually engaged in a relationship. After spending several months interacting with the
President of their organization the two eventually developed feelings towards one
another. These feelings eventually manifested into a physical relationship that lasted
several months. After that time the relationship ended abruptly and left the one of them
emotionally distraught. These emotions immediately affected that person’s ability to
handle the duties of their position and interact on a professional level as both parties had
done before. It took some time to restore a level of professionalism, but the two are now
able to carry on their duties with no tension.
The alternate viewpoint of propinquity involves the physical distance of two coworkers influencing the ability to start a romantic relationship. Our second example
involves a scenario where one of our group members became intimate with someone
during a summer job. Here, he worked at a bar at a summer destination where the
nightlife fostered a promiscuous ambiance. The two were in constant proximity of one
another, as he was a bouncer assigned to protect her and other employees in a specific
area of the establishment. One point worth noting, the female was a bartender and it is
assumed, but not endorsed that many bartenders will have a few drinks during the course
of a shift. Also, the two would share drinks and converse regularly after hours once the
bar patrons had left. These contributing factors of proximity, alcohol, and a promiscuous
setting had a direct correlation to the eventual relationship. This interaction between them
was a brief summer fling, but both of them maintained a strong professional bond and are
still friends today.
3
Organizational Behavior researchers care about work place dating because of the
negative effects on the people in the relationship, their coworkers, and the company as a whole.
Some examples of negative effects include higher employee turnover (as in Boeing example),
decreased productivity (group member example one), and costly lawsuits. “For the employer, the
benefits of banning romance appear to be primarily financial and administrative: there is a
presumed (but contentious) net improvement in productivity plus a reduction in costs from
sexual harassment suits arising from romances gone wrong, less the cost of replacing employees
who may be fired for violations of a no-romance rule (Boyde, 2012).” Another important aspect
OB researchers care about is the decline in employee motivation. Dating in the workplace has
both positive and negative effects on those in the relationship. However, those in the relationship
fail to realize their relationship’s effect on their co-workers through emotional contagion. For
instance, if a couple expresses negative emotions in the workplace it is likely that their poor
attitude will radiate to other employees, thus decreasing morale and motivation (Barsade, 2002).
From management’s perspective, work place dating is an issue because they are
responsible for the employees beneath them and their productivity. Anything affecting their
employee’s ability to work more efficiently is counterproductive. Managers have a vested
interest in their employee’s success because it reflects on their abilities to lead their team. As a
manager, one has a duty to keep the company’s best interest in mind and in most instances dating
in the workplace has proven to be an obstacle, not an asset. For example, “in The Society for
Human Resource Management’s 2002 survey of workplace romance, 95% of HR professionals
cited ‘‘potential for claims of sexual harassment’’ as a reason to ban or discourage workplace
romance, whereas the second most cited reason, ‘‘concerns about lowered productivity by those
involved in the romance,’’ was cited by just 46%” (SHRM, 2002).
4
The primary objectives of an organization are to maintain a sustainable competitive
advantage and generate profits. Keeping that in mind, anything that takes away from those
overall goals should be eliminated from their corporate culture. While some cases of dating in
the workplace are acceptable, others do end negatively and in the past avoidance was the
preferred strategy. However, recent studies estimate around 10 million new workplace romances
each year compared to 14,200 sexual harassment suits. That equates to one instance of
harassment in every 704 romances. It is also worth noting that only one in every 3-to-5000
harassment suits actually stems from a failed case of dating in the workplace. These new findings
have forced companies to alter their way of handling this unique issue. “Cole suggests that
companies need to have rules around office romance, but not outright bans. Policies should
address what constitutes inappropriate behavior (for example, vindictive acts if the relationship
ends) and any rules regarding managers dating subordinates. They should also indicate what
action will be taken if a problem arises (Nelson, 2011).” (Pierce and Aguinis, 2009)
In conclusion, there are always some types of problems with dating in the workplace
from any stand point, whether it is with the organization or the direct manager. The times have
changed to where people are forced to look at the issues at hand and address them before it does
any harm to the company as a whole. Women and men will always interact with each other on
the job where permitted but to what extreme does the company have a problem with them doing
so. Dating in the workplace is not something unheard, it’s how the situation is handled within the
different corporations that truly matters.
5
Bibliography

Mergent, . (2012). PepsiCo Inc. In Mergent Online. Retrieved April 8, 2012, from
http://www.mergentonline.com/companyfinancials.php?pagetype=analysis&compnumber=6581

SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management): 2002, Workplace Romance Survey (Item no.
62.17014) (SHRM Public Affairs Department, Alexandria, VA).

Letterman case spotlights boss/employee relationships. (2009). HR Specialist: New York
Employment Law, 4(12), 5.

Boyde, C. (2010, December). The Debate over the Prohibition of Romance in the Workplace
[Electronic version]. The Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 325-338. doi:10.1007/s10551-0100512-3

Barsade, S. G. (2002, December). The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on
Group Behavior [Electronic version]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.

Nelson, J. (2011, September 12). Is your policy on office dating updated for the twenty first
century [Electronic version].Canadian Business, 84(14), 71.

Pierce, C. A. and H. Aguinis: 1997, ‘Bridging the Gap Between Romantic Relationships and
Sexual Harassment in Organizations’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 18(3), 197–215

Pierce, C. A., & Byrne, D. (1996). Attraction in organizations: a model of workplace romance
[Electronic version]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 5-32.

Isidore, C. (2005, March 7). Boeing CEO out in sex scandal. In CNN Money. Retrieved April 12,
2012, from http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/07/news/fortune500/boeing_ceo/
6