ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
by Steven L. McShane and Mary Ann Von Glinow


New Information for Chapter 12: Power, Politics, and Office Romance

Romance is blooming, and much of it originates in the workplace. A recent survey reported that 40 percent of employees in the United States and other countries have dated a coworker and 72 percent know of others who have dated coworkers. Other surveys suggest that one-quarter of employees say they have had intimate relations with a coworker.

The reason why so many romantic relationships today are started in the workplace is obvious: most contemporary workplaces employ almost as many women as men. They work long hours together, often on collaborative projects requiring frequent interaction. The long days also make it more difficult to meet people outside the workplace.

A more serious concern is that some consensual relationships can lead to sexual harassment when the relationship falls apart. "A lot of sexual harassment complaints result from consensual relationships that went bad," advises a lawyer who specializes in sexual harassment cases. "One of them decides to break it off. The other continues to pursue and it becomes something other than consensual, and the person claims he or she is being sexually harassed."

The problem with this trend is that office romances don’t mix very well with organizational power. One problem is that coworkers tend to think one or both employees in the relationship abuse their power by favouring each other. They perceive bias and abuse of power, particularly where one person in the relationship has higher status.

The risk of sexual harassment is potentially greater in a supervisor-subordinate relationship. If the subordinate ends the relationship, the supervisor might create a hostile work environment through subtle day-to-day decisions. Even where the jilted supervisor acts appropriately, the subordinate may still feel intimidated by the former lover’s power over work and career decisions.

Addressing the Office Romance Issue

Several companies have tried to minimize the adverse effects of organizational power by prohibiting office romances altogether. For example, Staples, the office supply company, fired the company president when an internal investigation revealed that he had an affair with his secretary. The difficulty with prohibiting amorous relationships is that employees still fall in love with each other; they just keep the relationship quiet. Moreover, courts have ruled that companies can’t prevent employees from having consensual relationships with coworkers, even when one of them supervises the other.

Experts suggest that a better solution than banning relationships is to ensure that employees make them known. In some cases, employees must sign a document indicating that the relationship is consensual. These "love forms" reduce the risk that one party later claims the relationship occurred through an abuse of power.

Even with disclosure, an office romance can have damaging consequences unless the power dynamics are sorted out. That’s why some firms advise employees to remove themselves from a position of power over their partner. For example, when Heather and Mike McClure starting dating at Arthur Andersen Inc., they approached the managing partner for a satisfactory arrangement. "The partner in charge simply said we couldn’t work on accounts together and that I couldn’t sit in on any meetings where Heather’s name came up for promotion or salary increase," explains Mike McClure, who holds a more senior position at the accounting firm. "For that, I believe, Arthur Andersen is a little ahead of the curve."

Discussion Questions

1. Identify two problems with office romances in terms of organizational power and politics.

2. In your opinion, what is the best strategy for minimizing these power and politics problems in office romances?

Sources: G. N. Powell and S. Foley, "Something to Talk About: Romantic Relationships in Organizational Settings," Journal of Management, 24 (1998), pp. 421cf; S. Foley and G. N. Powell, "Not All is Fair in Love and Work: Coworkers' Preferences for and Responses to Managerial Interventions Regarding Workplace Romances," Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (1999), pp. 1043-56; M. Jameson, "Partners in Work and Play," Los Angeles Times, August 16, 1999, p. E1 ; M. Kasindorf, S. Armour; A. Stone, "In Work World, Affairs can Drag down People at the Top," USA Today, August 24, 1998, p. A8; N. Nejat-Bina, "Employers as Vigilant Chaperones Armed with Dating Waivers: The Intersection of Unwelcomeness and Employer Liability in Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment Law," Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, December 22, 1999, pp. 325 cf; H. Pauly, "Sex and the Workplace: Companies Revisit the Rules," Chicago Sun-Times, August 26, 1998 (on-line); C. M. Solomon, "The Secret’s Out: How to Handle the Truth of Workplace romance," Workforce, 7 (July 1998), pp. 42 cf.

Check another chapter






Copyright ©2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of the The McGraw-Hill Companies.