International Labour Process Conference
April 5-7, 2011
Leeds, UK
Work-Life Boundaries Stream
Exploring the Tension between Personal and Spousal intimacy
in Workplace Romance Couples
Marie-Claude Natalie Rabeau
PhD Candidate (All but Dissertation)
HEC Montréal
EXPLORING THE TENSION BETWEEN PERSONAL AND SPOUSAL INTIMACY IN
WORKPLACE ROMANCE COUPLES
INTRODUCTION
Love and romance in the workplace have become commonplace in 21st century organizations. Given
the increasing importance of networking and teamwork and the promotion of project management,
interactions between co-workers are more frequent and sustained than ever. Moreover, considering
the efforts individuals put in their jobs and the long hours culture, more opportunities exist to forge
relationships at work while reducing chances to look elsewhere (Moen and Sweet, 2002: 473). Hence,
the workplace constitutes fertile ground for love to flourish among co-workers and, not surprisingly,
some authors have shown that this phenomenon is on the rise (Mano and Gabriel, 2006: 8; Moen and
Sweet, 2002: 473).
Workplace romance couples1 evolve in circumstances where the challenge of managing the work-life
boundary is exacerbated by the fact that the interlocking of their careers further blurs the limits
between personal and work life. In addition, individuals involved in workplace romance couples cannot
rely on work to flee from problems at home, contrary to those in other types of dual earner couples
(Moen and Sweet, 2002: 467). Therefore, for workplace romance couples, the task of negotiating
equilibrium between spousal and personal intimacy becomes even more arduous.
This paper draws on an interpretative methodology that is holistic and exploratory in nature in an
attempt go beyond current studies on how couples involved in a workplace romance manage the
boundary between work and life and how they define, locate and set the boundary between work and
non-work life. Rather, this study focuses on the additional challenge of managing the personal-spousal
intimacy border faced by workplace romance couples. By means of an exploration of the underlying
emotional and subjective dynamics, it aims at providing an understanding of how couples manage the
tension between the need for personal and spousal intimacy resulting from being both colleagues and
spouses.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The work-home boundary and its management
Up to now, research on the dynamics resulting from the interaction of work and home2 has primarily
examined the clashes and tensions that arise from work-home contradictory demands. Antecedents,
predictors and consequences of work-home conflict have been widely investigated as well as more
complex correlations where work-home conflict is brought in as the mediating variable between work
and home domains (Eby et al., 2005:142-143). The relationship between work-role stress and home
activities, in accordance with the concepts of work-family spillover and work-family fit, has also been
1
Moen and Sweet (2002) use the term co-working couples to refer to couples working for the same
organization. This however does not allow any distinctions between those who met on the job and became a
couple, and those who decided to get a job for the same organization as a strategy for managing dual-careers
when they were already in a relationship. I use the term « workplace romance couple » to reflect the particular
case I am studying that is, co-working couples that met at work and entered a love relationship.
2 Throughout this paper, I will refer to work-home domains (as opposed to work-family domains), as suggested
by Kreiner et al. (2009: 704), to account for a broader array of different households, ensuing from various life
circumstances.
2
documented (Eby et al., 2005:149). Reflecting the increase among dual earner households, some
research also aimed at understanding the particular issues faced by such individuals (Eby et al. 2005:
173). Other researchers focused on documenting the challenges associated with managing the workhome boundary and the strategies used by individuals in their attempt to attain work-home balance
(Campbell-Clark, 2000; Woodward, 2007; Haddock et al., 2006; Haddock et al., 2001; Sturge, 2008;
Kreiner et al., 2009). Pivotal to this stream of research is Campbell-Clark’s (2000) work-family border
theory pioneered by Nippert-Eng (1996) that explains how individuals manage and negotiate the work
and home domains and the border between them in order to attain much sought-after balance.
Work-Home Border Theory
The work-home border can be defined as the line of demarcation between the two domains setting the
point where domain-relevant behaviours start and end (Campbell-Cark, 2000: 756). Individuals are
active agents in building this work-home interface (Kreiner et al., 2009: 705). They are border-crossers
who transit on a daily basis between the home and work domains. Doing so, they negotiate and tailor
their goals and interpersonal conducts in a way that fit the particular requirements of each domain.
Indeed, individuals are able, to some extent, to shape the character of both work and home domains.
They are proactive in the management of the border between the two domains as they try to bend and
modulate it while moving back and forth between their work and home lives (Campbell-Clark, 2000:
751; Woodward, 2007: 15). As such, the work-home border is an ongoing situated accomplishment
that results from social interactions and practices among various actors (Kreiner et al., 2009: 705).
Individuals develop strategies aimed at preserving equilibrium amid the competing demands of both
domains. This equilibrium – or balance – can be described as a condition where an individual is able
of good and satisfactory functioning at work and at home through the ability to successfully combine
work with other responsibilities and aspirations (Sturges, 2008: 118).
Despite the fact that work and home domains are two different worlds that command distinct sets of
behaviours and rules about what means and ends have priority (Campbell-Clark, 2000: 754), it was
established that, to some extent, individuals integrate both worlds on a continuum ranging from full
integration, on the one end, to full segmentation on the other end. Individuals who integrate both work
and home maintain a rather blurred and flexible border between domains whereas segmentation
requires individuals to raise and keep a strict and impenetrable border (Nippert-Eng, 1996 apud
Campbell-Clark, 2000: 755).
According to Campbell-Cark (2000: 756) the work-home border takes three main forms: (1) the
physical border that circumscribes where domain-relevant behaviours actually take place; (2) the
temporal border that prescribes when one attends to work versus homes responsibilities; (3) the
psychological border which is largely self-created and takes the form of a set of rules that determine
when thinking and behaviour patterns as well as emotions are appropriate for the home or the work
domain. Furthermore, borders are characterized by their permeability and their flexibility. One’s workhome border is permeable when it lets elements from one domain enter the other. The degree to
which one’s work-home border extends or tightens to allow for each of the domains’ unforeseen
demands determines its flexibility (Hall and Ritcher, 1988 apud Campbell-Clark, 2000: 756-757).
Permeability and flexibility are key to the management of the psychological border as the flow of
emotions, insights and ideas between the work and home domains strongly influence balance
between domains. So how does one goes about to manage this border, attain and maintain
equilibrium?
Management of the work-home boundary and strategies to balance work-life domains
Nippert-Eng (1996: 7 apud Sturges, 2008: 120) asserts that the management of the work-home
boundary entails various cognitive, physical and emotional behaviours by which one organizes
domain-specific matters, objects, people and aspects of one self into work and home domains.
3
Involved in this process is the regulation of the border’s flexibility and permeability, whether applied to
its physical, emotional or temporal dimensions (Sturges, 2008: 120).
Consistent with the fact that the work-home border is a social co-construction, border management is
an inter-subjective activity involving several individuals. Campbell-Clark (2000) points out that one of
the main difficulties associated with border management is that individuals often disagree about what
constitutes each domain, where exactly sits the demarcation between them, and how permeable and
flexible it ought to be. This points to the importance of other domain member’s role in the attainment of
work-home balance. Other domain members, such as spouses and kids, can be facilitators in this
endeavour: their awareness of the commitment and challenges faced by the border crosser allows
them to adopt a more tolerant and collaborative attitude.
Kreiner et al. (2009) identified four broad types of tactics used by individuals attempting to achieve
work-home balance, namely behavioural, temporal, physical and communicative tactics. Behavioural
tactics entail allowing for differential border permeability, that is, creating an asymmetrically permeable
border by allowing for difference in the direction of the border’s permeability. This also involves
choosing what gets through the work-home line of demarcation, and which elements of work and
home responsibilities are integrated or segmented (Kreiner et al., 2009: 716-717). Individuals rely on
temporal tactics as they create separate blocks of time scheduled to meet potentially conflicting work
and home demands (Kreiner et al., 2009: 719). Physical tactics involve manipulating physical
boundaries, whether materially or metaphorically. For instance, some individuals create a physical
distance between work and home relying on such things as walls and doors – in the case of freelancers or people with a home office – or commute distance (Woodward, 2007: 14). As well, artefacts
symbolizing work and home – such as photos, calendars, mail – are used to delineate where the work
and home domain boundary stands or, on the contrary, use those artefacts to blend the two domains
(Kreiner et al., 2009: 721-722). In terms of communicative tactics, individuals attempt to clearly set
expectations and outline their preferences to important stakeholders concerning their work-home
boundary. This is especially the case with spouses with whom individuals make sure to negotiate
expectations about managing the work-home interface, time spent together and the sharing of home
responsibilities, as part of a give and take process (Kreiner et al., 2009: 722). Interestingly, Kreiner et
al. found that individuals often make use of more than one management tactic at the same time. In
fact, data revealed that overlapping tactics complement and reinforce each other.
Tactics used to achieve work-life balance become even more important for dual-earner couples since
in such circumstances both spouses become potential sources of work-family conflict and are likely to
experience work-“family/home” spillovers. An extreme case of dual earner couples is that of workplace
romance couples where both partners work for the same organization. The dynamics experienced by
such couples are reviewed in the following section.
The case of workplace romances
Workplace romances belong to the unmanaged terrain of the organization (Jones, 1999: 1057;
Gabriel, 1995: 478). Although some managers wish they could eradicate this phenomenon, it remains
an inevitable by-product of the organization’s social interaction networks and is intrinsic to
organizational life (Powell and Foley, 1998: 424). This is not without triggering concerns for couples in
such relationships about making concerted effort to keep others in the workplace from finding out
about the relationship, especially at its onset (Moen and Sweet, 2002: 473).
Workplace romances have had substantial coverage in the popular business press and other nonacademic sources of information such as magazines and newspapers (Williams et al., 1999: 76).
Though Quinn’s (1977) paper laid the foundation for academic research on this topic, scholars
4
generally consider the phenomenon too mundane to warrant extensive studies (Powell and Foley,
1998: 422). Since then, the literature has become a rather compact and consistent core with respect
to the methodology it draws upon and the conclusions it puts forth. It furthers our understanding of the
phenomenon with respect to issues relating directly to the organization. Hence, a number of
researchers have identified contributing factors within the organization that facilitate the development
of workplace romances as well as their implications on workers’ productivity and the organization’s
performance (Pierce et al., 1996). They have also formulated recommendations concerning
managerial interventions and human resources policies that organizations should adopt in order to
control and discourage workplace romances (Collin, 1983; Mainiero, 1986; Powell and Mainiero, 1990;
Lobel et al., 1994; Pierce et al., 1996; Pierce and Aguinis, 1997; Karl and Sutton, 2000; Pierce et al.,
2000; Pierce and Aguinis, 2001; Powell, 2001;). However, up to now, research remains essentially
silent concerning the particular challenges arising from workplace romances with respect to the
management of work-life boundaries and its underlying subjective and emotional dynamics inherent to
such love relationships. As for all dual-earner couples, organizational romance couples face the
challenge of managing the work-home boundary and attaining some balance between the two
domains.
Workplace romance couples: managing the work-home boundary and the balance between spousal
and personal intimacy
A particularity of work place romance couples is that, in such relationships, the interlocking of careers
implies that the boundary between work life and personal life is further blurred than in other dualearner couples. Work life and home become extremely overlapping domains and such couples
experience higher levels of both negative and positive work-to-family spillover with the challenges that
this situation may pose (Moen and Sweet, 2002: 478). This is especially the case when spouses
happen to collaborate closely and frequently at work.
Moreover, Hochshild (1997 apud Moen and Sweet, 2002: 467) asserts that many employees rely on
work to flee from problems they face at home. This “strategy” is clearly no longer available for
individuals involved in workplace romances. In such case, individuals will find it nearly impossible to
leave their home concerns when at work and inversely, to leave work behind when they go home
(Moen and Sweet, 2002: 467). In such relationships, the workplace is no longer available for
individuals as a “secret garden” to preserve, in part, their personal privacy. Hence, the case of
workplace romances couples is a special one as the challenges of balancing work-home domains and
balancing personal and spousal intimacy become inherently intertwined, as opposed to dual-earner
couples that are not working for the same organization. Indeed, workplace romance couples face this
additional and strenuous challenge with respect to the balance of personal and spousal intimacy and
the need for personal independence and spousal fusion (Bridge and Baxter, 1992, apud Baxter and
Montgomery, 1996: 91).
Spousal fusion can sometimes be experienced as oppressing for one of the partners, especially if
partners do not share the same desired level of intensity. It then can be felt as an invasion of one’s
personal terrain or as Kaufman (1993: 93) would put it, a “territorial offense”. Kaufman distinguishes
two types of territorial offenses: on the one hand, the invasion by one of the partner of the other’s
personal territory and on the other hand, the avoidance of one partner to share his personal territory
with the other. This calls for the need for the partners to negotiate, within the relationship, equilibrium
between the “I” and the “We”. This demand to preserve one’s personal territory resurfaces once the
frivolous times typical of a new relationship gradually begin to wear out. The peculiarities of workplace
romances exacerbate those dynamics.
Yet, to date, there is a clear lack of research on the challenge of balancing spousal intimacy and
personal intimacy faced by workplace romance couples. Still, it remains important to get a better
5
understanding of the work and home dynamics and practical issues involving this particular type of
dual-earner couples considering the consequences they may have on the couple’s good functioning at
work and, hence, on the organization. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to gain insight on these
dynamics by exploring the strategies workplace romance couples draw on to balance the conflicting
need for spousal and personal intimacy.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
A DIALECTICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WORKPLACE ROMANCE AND THE
EQUILIBRIUM BETWEEN SPOUSAL AND PERSONAL INTIMACY
The notion of contradiction and unified oppositions
Central to the dialectical perspective is the notion of contradiction. On the onset, it should be noted
that within this framework, the term contraction is liberated from any negative connotation.
Contradiction is inherent to social life and it is the basic drivers of change and stability (Baxter and
Montgomery 1996: 7). Social relationships, in a dialectical perspective, begin and are maintained
through the ongoing interplay of contradictory voices (Baxter and Montgomery 1996: 73).
Contradiction refers to the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions. Oppositions can be seen as
two tendencies or features of a phenomenon that are actively incompatible and mutually negate each
other. Yet, unified oppositions imply that the very meaning of social phenomena can only be defined
through the existence of their oppositional tendency3 (Baxter and Montgomery 1996: 8).
Contradictions are thus a ubiquitous aspect of social reality and social relationships. Social reality
results from the contradiction-ridden, tension-filled unity of opposing tendencies. It is constituted in the
contradictory interplay of what Bakthin (1981, apud Baxter and Montgomery, 1996: 25) describes as
centripetal and centrifugal forces, where centripetal forces are those of unity and centrifugal forces
those of differences. Furthermore, this interplay is not a static binary opposition. Rather, it is dynamic
and endlessly evolving in the immediate context of the moment as captured in Bakthin’s
“chronotope”4: every dialog and hence, relationship, is enacted in a concrete spatial-temporal context
(Baxter and Montgomery, 1996: 26).
Within this dialectical perspective of social relationships, individual autonomy and relational
connection form a unified opposition and as such, define their fundamental essence (Baxter and
Montgomery 1996: 9). Bonding can occur only through interdependence with the other and
independence from the other. As much as total autonomy precludes a relational connection and total
connection precludes individual autonomy, it is only through the interdependence of these centripetal
and centrifugal forces that an actual relationship can exist as a practical interdependent unit (Baxter
and Montgomery 1996: 9, 43).
Relationship closeness and ensuing dialogues of connectedness/separateness
Connectedness and separateness are centripetal and centrifugal forces at the heart of any
relationship, love relationships being one particular case. Relationship closeness can be pictured as a
dynamic boundary between connectedness and separateness improvised between relationship
partners as they interact together. Love relationships hence thrive on the dialectical contradiction
opposing connectedness and separateness.
3
As Baxter and Montgomery (1996: 9) exemplifies, the concept of certainty only has significance because we
understand its oppositional tendency, that is, unpredictability and chaos.
4 The concept of “chronotope” literally translates as “time-space” (Bakthin, 1981: 84 apud Baxter and
Montgomery, 1996: 25).
6
Baxter and Montgomery (1996: 88, 93) refer to the “Me-We Pull”, a typical dynamic observed in love
relationships, to describe relationship partners’ simultaneous “desire to be with the partner” and “need
for autonomy and independence to be their own person and to do their own thing”. According to those
two scholars, the essence of this dialectical contradiction can be superficially compared to the notion
of role conflict where a person faces incompatible role-based expectations. Such incompatibility can
emerge from incongruent expectations within a single role or from competing expectations related to
two different roles a person must deal with concurrently. The latter is referred to as intra-role conflict
and the former as inter-role conflict. A typical example of intra-role conflict would be a dialectical
struggle faced by relationship parties resulting from incompatible expectations about autonomy and
interdependence (Baxter and Montgomery 1996: 7). Workplace romance partners will most likely
experience role conflict – and therefore dialectical contradictions – of both forms: intra-role and interrole.
Responding to the exigencies of the connectedness/separateness dialectic: three
improvisational dialogs
Baxter and Montgomery based on previous qualitative studies involving open-ended interviews and
self-report survey on non-romantic and romantic pairs (Baxter, 1990, Baxter and Simon, 1993 Hause
and Pearson, 1994 apud Baxter and Montgomery, 1996: 99) direct our attention to three strategies or
“improvisational dialogs” relied on to cope with the connectedness/separateness tension.
The first of those improvisational dialogs is “spiralling inversion” where partners go back and forth in
time with efforts to fulfill oppositional demands of separateness and connectedness, akin to the
endless back-and-forth movement of a pendulum. However, this movement is uneven in that it
depends on the partners evolving qualitative interpretation of what connectedness and separateness
means (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996: 99), reflecting its chronotopic character.
“Segmentation” is the second improvisational dialog. Here, partners divide topics and activity domains
of their relationship in order to negotiate “Me Zones” and “We Zones”. Again, in keeping with the
chronotopic character of relationships, these particular activity domains will evolve in synch with the
continuous construction of separateness and connectedness through the relationship parties’ dialog
(Baxter and Montgomery, 1996: 99).
The last improvisational dialog consists of “denial” where partners ignore the tension at work and back
only one polarity, most likely connectedness, to the expense of the other. As Baxter and Montgomery
put it, this strategy is prone to be brief, considering that the interplay of connectedness with autonomy
is an integral feature of relating to others (Baxter and Montgomery 1996: 100).
METHODOLOGY
For the purpose of this paper, in-depth interviews were conducted with seven heterosexual couples
involved in workplace romances that led to stable, long-term love relationships. This process entailed
performing three distinct interviews with each of the two individuals involved in the relationship
separately. Carrying out three interviews per individual allowed me to gradually become more familiar
with the respondent and build trust. This was essential to gathering meaningful and rich narratives.
Overall, 42 interviews were conducted (3x2x7). As for demographics, the respondents all held
professional positions such as analysts or consultants (computer software engineers, financial
experts, communication specialists, and HR counsellors) within knowledge organizations based in
Montreal, Canada. Ages ranged from 25 to 40. Only one of them had children at the time where they
were working for the same organization. It should be further noted that none of these workplace
7
relationships were of hierarchical nature — that is, none of them involved a superior-subordinate
employment relationship.
An important obstacle in studying workplace romances lies in their hidden nature (Quinn, 1977: 31;
Mainiero, 1986: 750; Michelson and Mouly, 2004: 199). Given their notoriousness, one might want to
keep such a relationship low profile. Furthermore, one could well be reluctant to talk about such
intimate and personal matters. Therefore, in order to circumvent the difficulty of finding people that
were involved in workplace romances and were willing to discuss it openly, I initially started with
personal and professional contacts and then relied on word of mouth and snowball sampling (Riach
and Wilson, 2007: 83).
Respondents were encouraged to give an account of their love life. The second interview in the data
collection process was solely dedicated to the workplace romance per se5. The researcher would only
intervene to direct the narrative toward information of critical importance to the study such as:
 when and in what work circumstances they noticed their “girlfriend/boyfriend to be” for the first
time;
 how and when they first meet/had a chat/bumped into each other at work;
 their first date and who called the shots;
 whether or not they changed the way they interacted at work together after the relationship’s
onset;
 whether or not they talked about their flirt, dating phase and romance with close colleagues or
friends at work;
 to what extent they tried to keep their relationship secret from their entourage and difficulties
they may have encountered in doing so;
 whether or not they discussed about their work at home;
 whether or not they kept solo leisure activities for themselves or exclusive friendships;
 their perception about who in the couple was the most independent and who needed the most
personal time, privacy and maintenance of a “secret terrain”;
 whether or not the fact of working together impaired ability to keep some personal
independence;
 the way they coped with their spouse’s need for privacy or how they managed to allow for their
needs for privacy;
 their perception about their spouse’s reaction to their need for privacy and the maintenance of
a “secret terrain”.
A qualitative research framework based on storytelling (Mano and Gabriel, 2006: 8) and, in particular,
a life-story approach (Poirier et al., 1983; Pineau and Le Grand, 1993; Atkinson, 1998;) was adopted.
The meaning and significance of the data collected through this approach depend essentially on the
quality of narratives recorded. In turn, the rapport built between respondents and the researcher is
critical in establishing the level of trust required for them to confide profound, sincere and insightful
narratives infused with emotional nuance (Mano and Gabriel, 2006: 12). For Gabriel (1998 apud Mano
and Gabriel, 2006: 12), the researcher “must become a fellow traveler on a narrative or story rather
than an interrogator”.
The narratives were analyzed qualitatively using a reflexive approach (Alvesson and Sköldberg,
2000). Accordingly, it should be mentioned that the narrative (or story) in itself becomes the unit of
The first interview dealt with the respondent’s love life prior to the workplace romance while the third interview
concerned how the they envision their future love life with the partner they met at work as well as how they
perceive workplace romances and love in general. This allowed me to consider how the workplace romance fits
into the respondents’ overall love life narrative.
5
8
analysis (Mano and Gabriel, 2006: 12). The analysis is of an interpretive nature and aims at
uncovering certain aspects surrounding the phenomenon of organizational gossip around workplace
romances. Here, what matters is not so much the factual accuracy of the narratives collected, but the
sense-making processes and emotional dynamics at play. The researcher can thus go beyond “factsas-information” and reach “facts-as-experience” (Mano and Gabriel, 2006: 13). The analysis of the
narratives discussed in this paper addresses the meaning of the coping strategy as felt by the
respondents through ongoing sense making as they recount one of their life episodes (Atkinson, 1998:
3).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data analysis revealed that most workplace romance couples interviewed drew on at least one of
the dialectical improvisational dialogues in an attempt to cope with the tension they were experiencing
from the connectedness/separateness contradiction. Interview excerpts that revealed the presence of
tensions between partners as recounted by each of them were initially isolated. Tensions often
resulted from being “too much and too often together” as a direct consequence of being in a
workplace romance type of love relationship, clearly pointing to the manifestation of the
connectedness/separateness dialectics at work.
Once the tension resulting from the connectedness/separateness contradiction was acknowledged, I
then proceeded to identifying the mechanisms engaged in trying to resolve it. I found evidence of the
presence of all three improvisational dialogues – “spiralling inversion”, “segmenting” and “denial” – as
couples were finding ways to cope with the conflict/tension.
Couple 1
Going Back-and-Forth: the “spiralling inversion” couple
Individuals in “Couple 1” where both in their mid 20s went they met. The organization they were
working for spanned its activities in several buildings. At the time they met, they were both working in
the same building and on the same floor. However, after about two years into the relationship, the
woman moved offices and in another building though still working for the same organization. In the
first months into the relationship, the partners would enjoy the fact of being able to see each other
very often throughout a day’s work. Eventually, tensions came to surface as the following interview
excerpts clearly indicate.
“… we started going to lunch together and then with his colleagues, 4-5 of them … at
some point I thought this was way too much… I need, you know… I felt I needed my
own life aside from our life together. And there was a time our relationship was not going
so well at all because we were seeing each other too much. Cause at home, it’s OK, but
then at work, you feel you don’t have a life of your own! You’re always with the other: it’s
too much together… It was getting on my nerves… We would have more and more
arguments at home about it. We had to face the fact that we needed time on our own –
doing our own thing.” [Gaby6 - female]
“I need a lot of time to myself. Time to do my things alone. I think I’m more independent
than Gaby. Again, yesterday, while we were at the office she told me: “Tonight, after
work, I need you to go do groceries with me”. And then, gosh! I wasn’t planning for this
and I really don’t feel like it. I was like, come on, can’t you go alone? You don’t need me!
6
To preserve anonymity, all names appearing in the interview excerpts have been altered.
9
You’re a grown-up girl! Go do the groceries and we’ll see each other at home later! It
was kind of too much!” [Andrew - male]
“I need a girlfriend who needs a boyfriend, not an entertainer! Lucy really likes crosscountry skiing. So last year, we went a couple of times together. At first I’d make an
effort though I don’t quite enjoy it. But after a whole season it became clear to me that I
really hated it! I had to tell her “Look, it’s not my thing! I get bored. I really hate it! You’ll
have to go alone”. Yet this year she came back with: “Try it again, it’d be nice if you’d
come”. But no, I just can’t handle this anymore!” [Andrew – male]
One can see that both individuals clearly express a need for their autonomy and their own
independence, which refers to the separateness side of the dialectic contradiction. However, the other
side of the contradiction, the need for connectedness, although it remained “unsaid”, is implicitly
present. Indeed, it can be inferred from these interview excerpts that, on the one hand, a partner’s
need for separateness results from too much of a pull, or need for connectedness, exerted by the
other partner. On the other hand, a partner’s need for connectedness can be seen through the other’s
need for separateness. This finding is a reflection of the unified opposition of connectedness and
separateness.
Eventually both partners felt things were out of balance and sought after ways for resolving this
tension. As a strategy to cope with too much pressure from each other’s “we” pull, they opted for a
rather clear retreat, both reasserting their autonomy.
“At a point we both decided that you had to stop going to lunch together and we started
seeing each other much less at the office. He didn’t come to see me at my desk that
often anymore.” [Gaby - female]
“Now I have activities alone: on Tuesdays I go to the gym with a friend and on weekends I’ll go skiing with my family alone once in a while. We’re not that much together
cause we need our own time. And well… I think it’s good. Cause I felt sort of… You
know, like now we do not work in the same building anymore and I finally feel like I have
my own life at the office. So yes, it’s a good thing…” [Andrew - male]
“Gaby can do her things on her own. She knows she is allowed to have her own
independence. And she can do whatever she wants. I will never keep her from doing
what she wants. Same for me: if one night I want to go out with a friend, I go. That’s it,
that’s all.” [Andrew - male]
Partners in “Couple 1” shifted from a chronotope where the connectedness side of the unified
opposition was favoured to one where the opposing dialogic exigency, separateness, became
prevalent. This move corresponds to Baxter and Montgomery’s spiralling inversion improvisational
dialogue. The data from interviews with this couple did not allow me to assert if the couple eventually
reverted back to the connectedness side of the unified opposition as would imply this strategy. Indeed,
at the time of the interviews the partners where both situated at the separateness pole of the dialogic
contradiction7.
7
I was informed that six months after the third – and last – set of interviews, “Couple 1” had broken-up.
10
Couple 2
Time for “me”, time for “you” and time for “us”: the “segmenting” couple
At the time they met, both individuals in “Couple 2” were in their early 30s. Here, partners had very
different needs in terms of autonomy and independence, and of connectedness. As the following
excerpts show, the female clearly needed a lot of independence while her spouse felt a need for
nearly constant connectedness.
“Well… yes… some sort of adjustments where needed because… I didn’t like it that
much for… Mike was really happy to have me around; he had that habit of always
coming to my desk to ask me to go for lunch. Yes, I always somehow felt invaded. I
didn’t feel free to go do the things I wanted to do because I always had to tell him “no”…
You know, always having to be with him at the office, I could not meet other colleagues
and other people… It was not fun anymore.” [Suzy - female]
“Oh for sure I need my space more than Mike does! On the contrary, he likes to do
everything together. But I always needed my own space. I had to make it a point. Even if
he said he understood and agreed, he persisted in wanting us to do everything together!”
[Suzy - female]
“If I wanted to do something on my own, at the beginning of our relationship, it was a
major issue. Like I’d tell him “Friday I’m going to see this or that friend…” then it was a
big hassle! I had to tell him way ahead of time: “Next week, next Tuesday, I will not be
with you, I will be with that friend of mine” [Suzy - female]
“To me, my girlfriend is my friend, my life partner, my lover. I share everything with her.
You know, she’s my everything! As I told you, sometimes I’m like f***! I know I need to
leave her alone and that I’m a little too intense but still, it’s annoying!” [Mike - male]
“Yes, she started to bring it up! She feels I’m a little too present. She’s slowly isolating
herself a little. She started taking painting lessons. On my side I don’t need space! It’s
her. But she needs it so I need to work on that issue.” [Mike - male]
In the case of “Couple 2”, the tension that eventually emerged between partners stemmed from their
opposite needs. From the very beginning of their relationship, one partner wanted autonomy, the other
connectedness. This dynamic is different from that of “Couple A” where both partners first experienced
a strong need for connectedness that eventually became overwhelming and led to the opposing
dialogic exigency of separateness. The two types of territorial offenses distinguished by Kaufman
(1993) is brought to light: Mike feels an offense from the avoidance of his partner to share her
personal territory while Suzy suffers from Mike’s “invasion” into her private territory.
“Couple B” eventually had to negotiate “me zones”/“me time” and “we zones”/“we time”. Actually, the
female initiated this move while her spouse agreed to put the required efforts on his side in order to
respect his spouse’s needs, as shown in the following interview excerpts.
“So at some point we had to make an agreement and abide by it. We first made it a
point to tell each other always in advance [if we were to do some activities alone or with
other friends]. And we decided that Saturday night was our night. That was nonnegotiable. We respected it and now we’re able to live with it.” [Suzy - female]
11
“Yes I go for a boy’s night out on some Fridays… Also I started taking guitar lessons. So
now, during the evening I’ll leave her alone doing her things and I’ll practice my guitar.”
[Mike - male]
“Last fall they all went to Old Orchard together [Suzy and four of her friends]. They were
away for a girl’s weekend. I was alone and I was OK. You know, I did my things. I didn’t
stay home alone crying!” [Mike - male]
“Couple B” relied on segmenting activities as an improvisational dialogue in an attempt to meet
opposing dialogic exigencies. Time was set for activities together to fulfil the need for connectedness
while rules were set to clarify what could be expected from each other in terms of the “Me We Pull”, all
in an effort to resolve the tension issued from divergent needs in term of personal and spousal
intimacy. What “Couple B” also illustrates is that the perception of what connectedness entails and
what separateness represents is not always the same for both partners. In the case of Suzy, for there
to be connectedness did not imply the same intensity in terms of amount of time spent together.
Hence, what Mike could have perceived as a strong call for separateness and as almost offensive was
not necessarily meant as such by Suzy. Indeed, as Baxter and Montgomery (1996: 98) assert,
partners are likely to be at different levels of synchrony in terms of their perception of the
connectedness/separateness dialogic contradiction and this further complicates the praxis of
improvisation dialogue used to resolve the tension.
Couple 3
Just bear with it!: the “denial” couple
“Couple 3” started dating when they were both working for “organization A”. This organization is a
major newspaper in Montreal. Kim was a journalist for the arts section and her spouse Philip was
director of the economic press section. Kim was in her early 30s and Philip in his early 40s. After four
years in the relationship, Philip changed job for “organization B”. At the time of the interview, Kim was
still working for “organization A” and Philip now held a senior position at “organization B”. What is
remarkable here is the discrepancy in each of the partner’s assertion about the presence – or absence
– of tension arising from the conflicting needs for spousal intimacy and individual intimacy. Moreover,
it appears that partners are not even aware of this discrepancy, as shown in the following interview
excerpts.
“There was a phase… at some point in my last months working at ‘organization A’ where
it became some sort of a burden. You drive to the office together. You leave the office
together. My office had glass walls so Kim could see me all the time. At a point she even
got a little jealous cause she thought I was spending too much time with a female
employee of mine! Apparently, Kim thought she was dressed too sexy… It was getting
very difficult for me as I was really only having a professional relationship with this
employee. I’m very friendly and encouraging with my team so of course, from the
outside, Kim could interpret it the wrong way. It was very difficult and I felt there was a
barrier I would have needed but that wasn’t there. … It’s just too much all the time.”
[Philip - male]
“When I left ‘organization A’ for my new job, Kim was very demanding… She wanted me
to call her 3-4 times a day… See, she sort of wanted to maintain the same type of
relationship we had when we where both working at The Press. It’s still somewhat the
same now: Kim is still a little needy. I feel it’s honestly a little complicated. Often she’ll tell
me “I bet girls are hitting on you.” She fears I might fall in love with someone else at work
at ‘organization B’.” [Philip - male]
12
“I never got to the point of telling Kim ‘Look, I’ve got work to do so just let me do my
things!!’ I think I only tried to help her understand I had some work to do as a director…
Was it ever managed? … Well… very little managed. I think I just bear with it. Yes, it
was endured, not managed.” [Philip - male]
“You know, now that I have some distance, I think it’s way easier not to work together. It
became an advantage not to work for the same company. I think. For the relationship’s
long term stability. Well at least to avoid frictions that are possible when working in the
same environment.” [Philip - male]
“I don’t know if Philip will tell you anything negative about working for the same
organization but I’m pretty sure he won’t! I was great. We would see each other very
often. We are in the same work environment. You know, as I told you, because you are
so much left to yourself in a newsroom, having a colleague who’s always there for you
and understands what you’re going through is just amazing! Priceless! It was really a
great support! Really! We’d bring work home and home to work and it was always
positive!” [Kim - female]
“Our relationship is much like a fusion. We are a lot together. When he switched jobs, I
thought it was a bummer because we would lose part of this amazing connection.” [Kim female]
“The only drawback is when we’d have a clash at home in the morning before going to
work. Then you’re at work and you see your boyfriend. Sometime I would ear him laugh
with one of his colleague and I was like ‘Hey, you cannot be in a good mood! We are
having an argument here!’ But then, you cannot remain sulking all day long at work when
your boyfriend is just next-door. So, most of the time, we would go for lunch together to
talk it over. In the end, it was positive because we’d deal with conflicts right away.” [Kim female]
This case clearly shows that while the tension emerging from the connectedness/separateness
dialogic contradiction was just plainly not acknowledged by Kim, Philip did in fact feel this tension and
struggled with it in silence. As he himself clearly puts it was “endured, not managed”. This
undoubtedly points to the denial improvisational dialog where emphasis is obviously on the
connectedness polarity without any regards for separateness. Though Baxter and Montgomery (1996)
argue that this strategy is likely to be short-lived because the interplay of connectedness and
autonomy is inherent to any long-lasting relationship, it happens that this couple appeared to me –
considering the information I collected in the six interviews with the two spouses – as the strongest
amongst all couple I interviewed8.
The Outsiders: no tension?
Individuals in the four other couples interviewed for this research project did not share any account of
significant tensions ensuing from the connectedness/separateness opposing exigencies.
8It
should be said that tensions in “Couple 3” rose from particular circumstances where Philip had just undergone
a divorce from a 20-year relationship with his ex-spouse with whom he had three sons. Issues in “Couple C”
emerged from the challenge of a reconstituted family and the “mediation process” following the divorce. Yet Kim
and Philip were able to go through this major challenge and at the time of the interview, they were married and
their relationship was thriving.
13
In “Couple 4”, spouses were in their mid 20s and were both thrilled about their relationship. They just
had moved together – their first “adult home” away from parents. Both spouses only recounted
benefits from the particular circumstances of being in a workplace romance. There appeared to be no
tensions at all in this couple, on the contrary, they both sounded ecstatic about the level of
connectedness in their relationship.
Spouses in “Couple 5”, though they did not report any tension resulting from the
connectedness/separateness dialogical contradiction, did recount tensions that ensued from inter-role
conflict or the management of the work-life border. Unsurprisingly, it happens to be a couple where
both partners had very demanding jobs in the financial sector and with a child under one year old. In
addition, both partners were very career-oriented and at a stage in their career where they had to
invest substantially to secure their advancement. As such, it was a typical “three careers couple” with
two occupational careers and one common family career (Moen and Sweet, 2002: 469).
Spouses in “Couple 6” reported no significant tension ensuing neither from the opposing exigencies of
connectedness/separateness nor from the management of the work-life boundary.
Spouses in “Couple 7” could both be qualified of workaholics. Again, they reported no tensions with
respect to the opposing demands of connectedness/separateness. Being in a workplace romance
suited both spouses’ crave for time and energy spent at work.
CONCLUSION
This paper aimed at studying the peculiar challenge workplace romance couples face over and above
managing the work-home boundary, namely the tension that ensues from the opposing needs of
personal intimacy and spousal intimacy. The data collected through qualitative interviews based on a
life-story approach revealed the presence of such tension steaming from opposing demands made for
personal independence and autonomy and for spousal fusion. A dialectical perspective on workplace
romance, here revolving more precisely around the notion of the contradiction opposing
connectedness and separateness, was drawn upon to uncover how workplace romance couples
managed the tension caused by these conflicts. It was shown that couples relied on one of three
different improvisational strategies to cope with this tension: “spiralling inversion”, “segmenting” and
“denial”.
It was found that only one of the seven couples interviewed expressed concerns about managing the
work-home boundary. In fact, this couple was the only one with a child under one year old – contrary
to all the other couples who did not have small children – and both partners had highly demanding
jobs in the financial sector. This finding should not lead to the hasty conclusion that there is no workhome boundary management tension between spouses. This issue was not included in the interview
design, but this theme emerged as the interviews progressed.
While this research provides valuable insights into the challenge of competing demands for spousal
intimacy and individual intimacy faced by workplace romance couples and the way in which such
couples deal with this struggle, some limitations should be noted. Chief among these, the
methodological framework, which forms the basis for this study, relies on a somewhat static
conceptualization of the connectedness/separateness dialectical contradiction. Indeed, the interview
design gave an instant snapshot of this contradiction without accounting for the dynamic interplay
between those two opposing dialogic demands. However, one must not forget that relationship
partners live in ever changing time-space locations, or chronotopes. Hence, connectedness and
separateness are constructed within a relationship’s constant evolution and therefore, they will have
14
different meanings at different times, in accordance with the particular chronotope in which the couple
finds itself at any given time. Because of its design, this research was not able to capture this dynamic
on-going evolution in the meaning of the connectedness/separateness contradiction in accordance
with the relationship’s changing chronotopes. In order to do so, longitudinal data collection on the
evolution of the relationship’s chronotopes could help the researcher clarify how they modify the
meaning of the connectedness/separateness contradiction and how this translates in terms of the
improvisational dialogues at work in the relationship to manage this contradiction.
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvesson, M. and K. Sköldberg (2000) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research.
Sage Publications, CA.
Atkinson, R. (1998), The life story interview, Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research
Methods, Volume 44, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Baxter, L. A. (1990), Dialectical Contradictions in Relationships Development, Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, Vol. 7, p. 69-88.
Baxter, L. A. and Barbara M. Montgomery (1996), Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics, The Guilford
Press, New York.
Campbell-Clark, S. (2000), “Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53, No. 6, p. 747-770.
Collins, E.G.C. (1983), “Managers and Lovers”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, No. 5, p. 142-153.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C. and A. Brinley (2005), “Work and family
research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002)”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 66, p. 124-197.
Karl, K. A. and C. L. Sutton (2000), “A Examination of the Perceived Fairness of Workplace
Romances”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 429-42.
Gabriel, Y. (1995), “The Unmanaged Organization: Stories, Fantasies and Subjectivity”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3, p. 477-501.
Haddock, S. A., Ziemba, S. J., Zimmerman, T. S. and L. R. Current (2001), “Ten Adaptive Strategies
for Family and Work Balance: Advice from Successful Families”, Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, Vol. 27, No. 4, p. 445-458.
Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Ziemba, S. J. and K. P. Lyness (2006), “Practices of Dual Earner
Couples Successfully Balancing Work and Family”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 27,
No. 2, p. 207-234.
Jones, G. E. (1999), “Hierarchical Workplace Romance: an experimental examination of team
member perceptions”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 20, No. 7, p. 1057-72.
Kaufmann, J.-C. (1993), La sociologie du couple, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E. C. and M. L. Sheep (2009), “Balancing Borders and Bridges: Negotiating
the Work-Home Interface via Boundary Work Tactics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52, No.
4, p. 704-730.
Lobel, S., Quinn R., St-Clair, L. and A. Warfield (1994), “Love Without Sex: The Impact of
Psychological Intimacy Between Men and Women at Work”, Organizational Dynamics, Vo. 23, No. 1,
p. 4-17.
16
Mainiero, L. (1986), “A Review and Analysis of Power Dynamics in Organizational Romances”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 4, p. 730-62.
Mano, R. and Y. Gabriel (2006), “Workplace Romances in Cold and Hot Organizational Climate: The
Experience of Israel and Taiwan”, Human Relations, Vol. 59, No. 1, p. 7-35.
Michelson, G. and V. S. Mouly (2004), “Do Loose Lips Sink Ship? The Meaning, Antecedent and
Consequences of Rumour and Gossip in Organization”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 9, No. 3 p.
189-201.
Moen, P. and S. Sweet (2002), “Two Careers, One Employer: Couples Working for the Same
Corporation”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, p. 466-483.
Pierce, C. A. and H. Aguinis (1997), “Bridging the gap between romantic relationships and sexual
harassment in organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, p. 197-200.
Pierce, C. A., Aguinis, H. and S. Adams (2000), “Effects of a dissolved workplace romance and rater
characteristics on responses to a sexual harassment accusation”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 869-880.
Pierce, C. A. and H. Aguinis (2001), “A framework for investigating the link between workplace
romance and sexual harassment”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 26, No. 2, p. 206-240.
Pierce, C. A., Byrne, D. and H. Aguinis (1996), “Attraction in organizations: a model of workplace
romance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, p. 5-32.
Pineau, G. and J.-L. Le Grand (1993), Les histoires de vie, Que sais-je ?, Presses Universitaires de
France, Paris.
Poirier, J., Clapier-Valladon, S. and P. Raybaut (1983), Les récits de vie. Théorie et Pratique, Le
Sociologue, Presse Universitaires de France, Paris.
Powell, G. N. (2001), “Workplace romance between senior-level executives and lower-level
employees: An issue of work disruption and gender”, Human Relations, Vol. 54, No. 11, p. 1519-1544.
Powell, G. and S. Foley (1998), “Something to Talk About: Romantic Relationships in Organizational
Settings”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, p. 421-448.
Powell, G. N. and L. Mainiero (1990), “What Managers Need to Know About Office Romances”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1.
Quinn, R. (1977), “Coping With Cupid. The Formation, Impact and Management of Romantic
Relationships in Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 30-45.
Riach, K. and F. Wilson (2007), “Don’t Screw the Crew”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, p.7992.
Sturges, J. (2008), “All in a day’s work? Career self-management and the management of the
boundary between work and non-work”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, p.
118-134.
17
Sweet, S. and P. Moen (2004), “Coworking as a Career Strategy: Implications for the Work and Family
Lives of University Employees”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 255-272.
Williams, C., Giuffre, P. and K. Dellinger (1999), “Sexuality in the workplace: Organizational control,
sexual harassment, and the pursuit of pleasure”, Annual Review of Sociology, Palo Alto, Vol. 25, p.
73-94
Woodward, D. (2007), “Work-life balancing strategies used by women managers in British «modern»
universities”, Equal Opportunities International: equality, diversity and inclusion, Vol. 26, No. 1, p. 617.
18