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
INTIMACY
Decision
Factors
Time
COMMITMENT
PASSION
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”