3 ms·

You can't handle that retrospectively. That's what you need HR policies in place for pre-emptively; so that these frustrations can be channeled into a productiv

by mtrimpe 12y ago

You can't handle that retrospectively. That's what you need HR policies in place for pre-emptively; so that these frustrations can be channeled into a productive resolution. It's like an airplane crash; it virtually always involves several failures along several points and only when all failures come together do you get into an irreparable situation. Keep in mind that the irreparable situation in this case is Julie-Ann leaving, because even with the abuse clear HR support could still have easily prevented the issue from escalating.

tomp 12y ago
What would appropriate HR policies be? The following is what I thought of, and rejected (note - I'm not a lawyer, I don't know any laws about HR, and most importantly: this is all highly hypothetical, I haven't even considered starting a company yet): (1) forbid "workplace romance" - this is very against my philosophy of encouraging personal freedom, and I don't think I would want to work for a company that had this policy. Moreover, I don't think this would solve the problem - false allegations could still be made, and true allegations could still be denied. (2) disciplining the one who makes the inappropriate action - this too has the "he said, she said" problem as above, and furthermore the appropriateness of the action is often determined not by the subject's action itself, but how the object perceives it. The best policy that I can think of is: all employees are expected to act professionally in the workplace, and to not be affected by their emotions (if they can't manage that, they should take a day off). Workplace romances are discouraged, because they may result in hard feelings between employees, but if you think being with the person is worth risking your job, go for it. In case two people have a conflict unrelated to their work, they should handle it as adults. If they expect action from the employer, they should present concrete evidence (emails, code commits, phone call logs, voice recording of the conflict, ...). I realise that this sounds a bit harsh and insensitive, but that's what would work for someone like me - in the rare instances where I disliked my coworkers, I put my feelings aside and consciously decided to give them "another chance" by recognising all the great work they do. What are your thoughts, and what kind of policy would you suggest/instantiate?
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  Well; there are tons of HR books with general advice and probably dozens about what you're discussing here. The general consensus is that there is no right approach [1] but that there are a lot of best practices and no-brainers and that it seemed that very few of them were in place here. As for my advice; there was just no escalation strategy at all here. HR is just like anything else with costs increasing exponentially the longer something goes undetected. That's why good HR isn't even so much about policy (although setting rules, no matter what they are, does help a lot,) but more about setting up structures so that you can resolve conflicts at an earlier stage. [1] You can even see it in their statements where the first was the 'minimize legal risk' school of thought whereas the second was 'maximize empathy' kind of thinking.
- malandrew 12y ago
  I can't imagine that forbidding workplace romance outright is the answer since we spend most of our adult lives working and is one of the places we are likely to form a long lasting romantic relationship. Think about all the people you know in your life in a happy relationship. My experience has been that a non-trivial percent of those relationships involve people who met through work. I'm curious if something like tinder could be used to solve the question of how workplace romances could begin without exposing the company to issues. Basically, a tinder like system would allow employees to opt in or out of the possibility of workplace romance. Someone that isn't interested in any unwanted advances at work would swipe no to everyone and therefore any advance would be an unwanted advance. On the other hand, swiping yes to someone is acknowledgement that you are open to a workplace romance and that you acknowledge the risks of making an advance and you have clear responsibilities on how to handle it like an adult and in a way that absolves the company of responsibility. Furthermore, if this system were managed by the company, they would have records of opting in from both parties. Any advances outside those recorded by the system, would clearly indicate who is to blame. There may be some unintended consequences here, but this seems at least to be a better system than the status quo. Maybe Tinder can try to pivot into a tool for human resources departments?
  - thwarted 12y ago
    This is interesting because it helps address the problem of how do you know an advance is unwelcome without doing something that could be considered an advance. It avoids the awkwardness of having to ask that question "are you open to advances?" before actually making an advance. However, relationships are formed over time, and romantic and sexual relationships are often serendipitous. It's up to each party to communicate effectively and unambiguously if misunderstandings are to be avoided. Using this kind of app/service/record-keeping sounds just as interesting/desirable/sexy as having to ask that question point blank (that is not at all). Is there really much difference between "Would you like to go out with me?" and "Can I ask you to go out with me?"

by mtrimpe 12y ago

tomp 12y ago

What would appropriate HR policies be? The following is what I thought of, and rejected (note - I'm not a lawyer, I don't know any laws about HR, and most importantly: this is all highly hypothetical, I haven't even considered starting a company yet): (1) forbid "workplace romance" - this is very against my philosophy of encouraging personal freedom, and I don't think I would want to work for a company that had this policy. Moreover, I don't think this would solve the problem - false allegations could still be made, and true allegations could still be denied. (2) disciplining the one who makes the inappropriate action - this too has the "he said, she said" problem as above, and furthermore the appropriateness of the action is often determined not by the subject's action itself, but how the object perceives it. The best policy that I can think of is: all employees are expected to act professionally in the workplace, and to not be affected by their emotions (if they can't manage that, they should take a day off). Workplace romances are discouraged, because they may result in hard feelings between employees, but if you think being with the person is worth risking your job, go for it. In case two people have a conflict unrelated to their work, they should handle it as adults. If they expect action from the employer, they should present concrete evidence (emails, code commits, phone call logs, voice recording of the conflict, ...). I realise that this sounds a bit harsh and insensitive, but that's what would work for someone like me - in the rare instances where I disliked my coworkers, I put my feelings aside and consciously decided to give them "another chance" by recognising all the great work they do. What are your thoughts, and what kind of policy would you suggest/instantiate?

mtrimpe 12y ago
Well; there are tons of HR books with general advice and probably dozens about what you're discussing here. The general consensus is that there is no right approach [1] but that there are a lot of best practices and no-brainers and that it seemed that very few of them were in place here. As for my advice; there was just no escalation strategy at all here. HR is just like anything else with costs increasing exponentially the longer something goes undetected. That's why good HR isn't even so much about policy (although setting rules, no matter what they are, does help a lot,) but more about setting up structures so that you can resolve conflicts at an earlier stage. [1] You can even see it in their statements where the first was the 'minimize legal risk' school of thought whereas the second was 'maximize empathy' kind of thinking.
malandrew 12y ago
I can't imagine that forbidding workplace romance outright is the answer since we spend most of our adult lives working and is one of the places we are likely to form a long lasting romantic relationship. Think about all the people you know in your life in a happy relationship. My experience has been that a non-trivial percent of those relationships involve people who met through work. I'm curious if something like tinder could be used to solve the question of how workplace romances could begin without exposing the company to issues. Basically, a tinder like system would allow employees to opt in or out of the possibility of workplace romance. Someone that isn't interested in any unwanted advances at work would swipe no to everyone and therefore any advance would be an unwanted advance. On the other hand, swiping yes to someone is acknowledgement that you are open to a workplace romance and that you acknowledge the risks of making an advance and you have clear responsibilities on how to handle it like an adult and in a way that absolves the company of responsibility. Furthermore, if this system were managed by the company, they would have records of opting in from both parties. Any advances outside those recorded by the system, would clearly indicate who is to blame. There may be some unintended consequences here, but this seems at least to be a better system than the status quo. Maybe Tinder can try to pivot into a tool for human resources departments?
- thwarted 12y ago
  This is interesting because it helps address the problem of how do you know an advance is unwelcome without doing something that could be considered an advance. It avoids the awkwardness of having to ask that question "are you open to advances?" before actually making an advance. However, relationships are formed over time, and romantic and sexual relationships are often serendipitous. It's up to each party to communicate effectively and unambiguously if misunderstandings are to be avoided. Using this kind of app/service/record-keeping sounds just as interesting/desirable/sexy as having to ask that question point blank (that is not at all). Is there really much difference between "Would you like to go out with me?" and "Can I ask you to go out with me?"