3 ms·

As someone who has been first working alongside and later as overseeing engineer for my fiancee (both as programmers over the last few years), this saddens me a

As someone who has been first working alongside and later as overseeing engineer for my fiancee (both as programmers over the last few years), this saddens me a little bit. Not to suggest that I don't see why things like this might cause problems, but that for me (and for my boss, who is a researcher along side his wife) it's been an overwhelmingly positive and productive experience.

SwellJoe 13y ago
Some companies simply require relationships to be reported to HR. There are tons of different ways to deal with the problem. But, it definitely is an ethical dilemma. I tend to recommend to friends that they avoid office romances unless the romance is more important than the job to them, especially in situations where there is a power imbalance.
facepalm 13y ago
I've seen various statistics, but I think up to 20% of marriages are between people who met at work. That's why I also tend to remain skeptic about that approach to the issue (to simply forbid relationships between employees).
unreal37 13y ago
Working alongside your gf or wife is one thing. But if she reports to you, do you get to decide her annual review rating? Do you decide her raises? If she's not doing her fair share of work, do you warn her and then fire her? There are reasons why managers can't generally have relationships with a direct report. HR at my company forbids it.
- existencebox 13y ago
  There may be some truth in to that. I do contribute to her annual review and am responsible for making sure she's completing work effectively, but I don't decide raises or determine firing, which are probably the most powerful capabilities one can have. That being said, perhaps this is a way to work around the normal pitfalls, where if there is a potential conflict, the person in question can be a "practical" manager, but perhaps not a "supervisory" manager. Those are horrible words for it, but I mean in that one manager would be actively overseeing the work, and the other would be a lower level of involvement check/balance against the former. It may be more manpower to do this, but it's generally how the engineering teams here work out anyway; that there are the engineers who have been here longer overseeing the new hires in the work, with a more uninvolved formal supervisory structure as well. (This has other problems, I'll openly add, but has allowed for a situation like mine to exist, so it does make me look twice.) Sorry for the essay, this ended up being a lot longer than I had originally intended.

SwellJoe 13y ago

Some companies simply require relationships to be reported to HR. There are tons of different ways to deal with the problem. But, it definitely is an ethical dilemma. I tend to recommend to friends that they avoid office romances unless the romance is more important than the job to them, especially in situations where there is a power imbalance.

facepalm 13y ago

I've seen various statistics, but I think up to 20% of marriages are between people who met at work. That's why I also tend to remain skeptic about that approach to the issue (to simply forbid relationships between employees).

unreal37 13y ago

Working alongside your gf or wife is one thing. But if she reports to you, do you get to decide her annual review rating? Do you decide her raises? If she's not doing her fair share of work, do you warn her and then fire her? There are reasons why managers can't generally have relationships with a direct report. HR at my company forbids it.

existencebox 13y ago
There may be some truth in to that. I do contribute to her annual review and am responsible for making sure she's completing work effectively, but I don't decide raises or determine firing, which are probably the most powerful capabilities one can have. That being said, perhaps this is a way to work around the normal pitfalls, where if there is a potential conflict, the person in question can be a "practical" manager, but perhaps not a "supervisory" manager. Those are horrible words for it, but I mean in that one manager would be actively overseeing the work, and the other would be a lower level of involvement check/balance against the former. It may be more manpower to do this, but it's generally how the engineering teams here work out anyway; that there are the engineers who have been here longer overseeing the new hires in the work, with a more uninvolved formal supervisory structure as well. (This has other problems, I'll openly add, but has allowed for a situation like mine to exist, so it does make me look twice.) Sorry for the essay, this ended up being a lot longer than I had originally intended.