chapter 10

Case Study 10.3: Regulating Love at the Office

The office has become a hotbed of romance. In one survey, 60% of employees surveyed reported that they had participated in an office romance during their careers and 64% said they would do so again. And the percentage of workplace romances is likely to climb as younger workers (ages 25 to 34) put in more hours at work. As one human resource writer notes:

Traditional places like church, family events, and leisure time don’t present the same pool of candidates as they did in earlier times. The workplace provides a preselected pool of people who share at least one important area of common ground. People who work together also tend to live within a reasonable dating distance, and they see each other on a daily basis.1

Office romances can pose a number of problems, including a loss of productivity, public displays of affection, gossip, damage to the professional image of the organization, charges of favoritism, and affairs in cases where romantic partners already have spouses or significant others. Serious issues arise when superiors and subordinates date and then break up. The subordinate (often a young female assistant) may claim that she was sexually harassed because she was pressured into having sex to keep her job or that her supervisor (often an older male executive) retaliated when the relationship ended.

The nation was reminded of the dangers of superior–subordinate relationships when former late-night talk show host David Letterman admitted that he’d had a series of sexual relationships with female writers and staffers at his production company. Letterman went public with his affairs after a CBS producer who dated his long-term girlfriend, Stephanie Birkett, tried to extort money from the entertainer in return for keeping silent about his sexual activities. While Letterman’s relationships were consensual, it appeared as if the women he dated received special benefits. For example, Birkitt was featured in broadcast segments even though she did not seem to be particularly talented.

Human resource departments are taking note of the dangers of office romances. The number of companies developing written policies to address office romances rose from 20% to 42% over an eight-year period, according to the Society of Human Resource Management. And the policies grew stricter. Almost all the firms surveyed by SHRM forbid romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates; one-third forbid relationships between those reporting to the same supervisor or with a client or customer; 10% don’t allow romances between their employees and employees of competitors. Punishments range from minimal (relationship counseling and department transfers) to severe (suspension and termination). Executives at the American Red Cross, the World Bank, Walmart, Boeing, and the Harvard Business Review lost their jobs for having relationships with subordinates.

Not everyone is convinced that restrictions on dating are justified or ethical. Canadian business professor Colin Boyd believes these policies invade employee privacy and restrict their right to associate with others. The costs to employees outweigh any benefits to the company. He points out that the number of romance-related sexual harassment claims (14,200 in one recent year) is small compared with the total number of work relationships. Conflict-of-interest policies can deal with those issues that do arise when a few couples misbehave. Further, workplace romances benefit participants, with 44% leading to marriage and 23% to long-term relationships. (Michelle and Barack Obama met at work, for instance, and she was his supervisor.) This high relational success rate may be due in part to the fact that parties get to know each other gradually over a period of years. In addition, Boyd notes that spouses who work together are much less likely to divorce. Because office romances are low risk/high reward, Boyd urges organizations to promote rather than restrict romance. He points to Southwest Airlines, AT&T, and Ben & Jerry’s as examples of successful companies that actively encourage employee marriage and long term relationships.

Discussion Probes

1. What has been your experience as an observer of workplace romances? What impact have they had on other employees and the organization?

2. Should all romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates be banned? Should romantic partners be able to report to the same supervisor?

3. If you were asked to develop an office romance policy, what would you include in it?

4. Do strict romance policies violate employee privacy, autonomy and the right to associate with others? Are they unfair?

5. Do the benefits of restricting office romances outweigh the costs?

6. Should office romances be promoted instead of restricted?