5 ms·

> Red Flag. Key advice: don't shit where you eat. I mean sure it's good advice but a prohibition of romantic relationships doesn't actually work. When people g

> Red Flag. Key advice: don't shit where you eat. I mean sure it's good advice but a prohibition of romantic relationships doesn't actually work. When people get close after working together romantic feelings can happen its only natural. A study from 2006 found 40% of office workers had a romance with someone they worked with. 40% [1]. Hell, anecdotally almost half of everyone I can think (that I know personally of course) in a relationship I know met their spouse at a place where they both worked. Yeah there are reasons why it's a bad idea. Yeah it shouldn't happen with supriors. But it will happen and a flat out prohibition on it will cause more harm than good. If you flat out prohibit it then it won't get reported and then no one will know about the possibile conflict of instrest that needs to be handled properly. If you have open policies regarding this and encourage people to notice management and that they won't get punished then you can make arrangements to ensure no conflicts of instrests occur (or at least minimize them). I would be curious if there have been studies between the two schools of thought. [1] http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx

exhilaration 10y ago
If you flat out prohibit it then it won't get reported and then no one will know about the possibile conflict of instrest that needs to be handled properly. Arguably this would shield the company from lawsuits if things go south and one party files a sexual harassment lawsuit. The employer can claim ignorance, point to the policy, and fire both parties.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  Would it though? I'm not a lawyer but what's the difference between the employer understanding there is a consensual relationship and then sexual harassment is accused versus not knowing about a relationship and the same thing occurring? It's not like the company knew about sexual harassment and once they know about it they'll likely be terminating the offending party. So why would them knowing there is a consensual relationship add to their accountability?
pmiller2 10y ago
Who's going to believe that reporting their workplace romance isn't going to involve consequences?
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  Why would it necessarily? I've done it without consequences and I've seen plenty of others do so as well. Depending on the culture and management sure there could be consequences (especially if they have rules against it) but I'm not sure I understand the default position of assuming consequences.
  - pmiller2 10y ago
    Why take the risk? There's almost certainly no benefit to disclosing, and possible (even if unlikely) consequences for doing so.
    - tdb7893 10y ago
      I know someone who had a problem because they didn't disclose it and the other person ended up harassing them so it would've been waaayyy easier if they had talked to HR about it before.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      The benefit in disclosing is avoiding the penalty for dishonesty (which is usually termination). It's true that many companies aren't going to fire you for being in a relationship, but they want to know so they can manage both their legal and professional liabilities. Leaving the legal component aside for now, creating a reporting relationship between people who are romantically involved is usually a bad idea -- even if both people are perfectly objective about it, no one else will believe they are, and it will cause contention and suspicion in the ranks. No employer wants to deal with that.
      - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
        > creating a reporting relationship between people who are romantically involved is usually a bad idea -- even if both people are perfectly objective about it, no one else will believe they are, and it will cause contention and suspicion in the ranks. No employer wants to deal with that. Most employers I've worked at when this happened simply shifted responsibilities. So even if the person was "technically" under the other person, they would now report to someone else and their partner would have zero input into any performance processes. Granted now perfect especially in small companies but most companies I've worked at seem pretty understanding that this type of thing happens and there are ways to work around it. Surely not all places are like this but I'd like to think a fair amount are and I'd also like to think this is a good way to handle the situation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
weberc2 10y ago
> I mean sure it's good advice but a prohibition of romantic relationships doesn't actually work. What do you mean "it doesn't actually work"? Do you mean it doesn't work every single time? Or do you mean it never works? Because a prohibition that substantially reduces the relationship count (thereby reducing corporate liability, damage to team structures, morale, culture, etc) might be a very successful policy indeed.
- Trombone12 10y ago
  Try reading the rest of the comment, you'll see that your questions are answered with "People will still form relationships, they just won't talk about it and things will be much worse than if they had."
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    He's saying that fewer people will form relationships if that policy is in place. Anyone with management experience knows that prohibitions are never followed 100%. It doesn't mean that they're useless. They minimize the incidence of the undesirable activity. Believe it or not, there are some people with discipline and emotional control out there. Romance is not an unstoppable force (despite what Hollywood wants you to believe). In the presence of a prohibition on office romance, parties who take their job seriously will employ personal restraint and refrain from engaging in office romance. "Telling people they're not allowed to do something just makes them hide it" is a tired and frankly juvenile argument. Yes, it's true that in some cases, which, generally speaking, are fairly rare (depending on what you're prohibiting), people will continue to break the rules and hide it. But many people will choose to avoid the risk altogether and follow the rules.
    - ElComradio 10y ago
      What is juvenile is having policies that treat adults as a whole as incapable of making their own decisions about who to get into relationships with.
      - deleted 10y ago
Spooky23 10y ago
You have to protect the company. If you have a policy and the couple doesnt follow it, you reduce the risk of getting dragged into their litigation.

exhilaration 10y ago

If you flat out prohibit it then it won't get reported and then no one will know about the possibile conflict of instrest that needs to be handled properly. Arguably this would shield the company from lawsuits if things go south and one party files a sexual harassment lawsuit. The employer can claim ignorance, point to the policy, and fire both parties.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
Would it though? I'm not a lawyer but what's the difference between the employer understanding there is a consensual relationship and then sexual harassment is accused versus not knowing about a relationship and the same thing occurring? It's not like the company knew about sexual harassment and once they know about it they'll likely be terminating the offending party. So why would them knowing there is a consensual relationship add to their accountability?

pmiller2 10y ago

Who's going to believe that reporting their workplace romance isn't going to involve consequences?

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
Why would it necessarily? I've done it without consequences and I've seen plenty of others do so as well. Depending on the culture and management sure there could be consequences (especially if they have rules against it) but I'm not sure I understand the default position of assuming consequences.
- pmiller2 10y ago
  Why take the risk? There's almost certainly no benefit to disclosing, and possible (even if unlikely) consequences for doing so.
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    I know someone who had a problem because they didn't disclose it and the other person ended up harassing them so it would've been waaayyy easier if they had talked to HR about it before.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    The benefit in disclosing is avoiding the penalty for dishonesty (which is usually termination). It's true that many companies aren't going to fire you for being in a relationship, but they want to know so they can manage both their legal and professional liabilities. Leaving the legal component aside for now, creating a reporting relationship between people who are romantically involved is usually a bad idea -- even if both people are perfectly objective about it, no one else will believe they are, and it will cause contention and suspicion in the ranks. No employer wants to deal with that.
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      > creating a reporting relationship between people who are romantically involved is usually a bad idea -- even if both people are perfectly objective about it, no one else will believe they are, and it will cause contention and suspicion in the ranks. No employer wants to deal with that. Most employers I've worked at when this happened simply shifted responsibilities. So even if the person was "technically" under the other person, they would now report to someone else and their partner would have zero input into any performance processes. Granted now perfect especially in small companies but most companies I've worked at seem pretty understanding that this type of thing happens and there are ways to work around it. Surely not all places are like this but I'd like to think a fair amount are and I'd also like to think this is a good way to handle the situation.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

weberc2 10y ago

> I mean sure it's good advice but a prohibition of romantic relationships doesn't actually work. What do you mean "it doesn't actually work"? Do you mean it doesn't work every single time? Or do you mean it never works? Because a prohibition that substantially reduces the relationship count (thereby reducing corporate liability, damage to team structures, morale, culture, etc) might be a very successful policy indeed.

Trombone12 10y ago
Try reading the rest of the comment, you'll see that your questions are answered with "People will still form relationships, they just won't talk about it and things will be much worse than if they had."
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  He's saying that fewer people will form relationships if that policy is in place. Anyone with management experience knows that prohibitions are never followed 100%. It doesn't mean that they're useless. They minimize the incidence of the undesirable activity. Believe it or not, there are some people with discipline and emotional control out there. Romance is not an unstoppable force (despite what Hollywood wants you to believe). In the presence of a prohibition on office romance, parties who take their job seriously will employ personal restraint and refrain from engaging in office romance. "Telling people they're not allowed to do something just makes them hide it" is a tired and frankly juvenile argument. Yes, it's true that in some cases, which, generally speaking, are fairly rare (depending on what you're prohibiting), people will continue to break the rules and hide it. But many people will choose to avoid the risk altogether and follow the rules.
  - ElComradio 10y ago
    What is juvenile is having policies that treat adults as a whole as incapable of making their own decisions about who to get into relationships with.
    - deleted 10y ago

Spooky23 10y ago

You have to protect the company. If you have a policy and the couple doesnt follow it, you reduce the risk of getting dragged into their litigation.