We are working on a new resource for employers about workplace romances. A version of this article was published in The People Bulletin on September 22 2010.
Is the British workplace a hotbed of sexual and
romantic intrigue? Is the
office romance booming (at a time when little else is)?
And if so, should employers be bothered, or should they treat
employees’ private relationships as private and leave them well alone?
There is so little data to answer these questions
that Angel Productions decided to conduct its own survey.
The purpose was to get an idea of what’s happening, to help us
design a new training resource to help managers to deal with workplace
romances – or to leave them alone.
Responses to our survey came from small, medium and large
workplaces, and from every sector including banks, charities,
universities and construction firms.
There were not enough responses for us to claim great scientific
validity, but enough to build a fascinating picture.
Altogether, 26 HR managers answered our questions, as did 27 men
and women of all ages who have been in workplace relationships
(including two same sex relationships).
A lot of it about?
| The managers in our survey were divided about
whether workplace relationships have become more common in the
last 5 years, but a small majority believe they have.
If true, this is perhaps surprising, during a period when
internet dating has boomed, offering people a new alternative to
finding partners at work.
According to Dr Lisa Matthewman, an occupational
psychologist who is conducting research on this subject at |
 |
The individuals in our survey described
relationships with colleagues, some working closely in the same teams,
some in different departments at work; some with the boss, others with
colleagues at the same level; some very brief, but mostly lasting more
than a year. Asked about
their motives for starting the relationship, most referred to love or
lust (or both) and nobody admitted to work-related reasons such as
seeking promotion. A third
felt able to be open about the relationship with colleagues and
managers, another third had kept it secret, and the rest had been
selective about who they ‘came out’ to at work.
Half the relationships were between two single people, but half
involved at least one partner who was married, living with someone or
already in a relationship.
Costs and
benefits
What, then, of the costs and benefits of these
relationships? Presumably
those involved got something out of them, but this was not what we
asked. We wanted to know
the impact on the workplace.
More than half the HR managers told us they did not think
relationships often caused problems at work, but a substantial 39
percent felt that they did.
One mentioned “perceived problems from other employees who assume there
is preferential treatment, especially if it is a line manager and
subordinate”, and several other managers referred to favouritism, real
or perceived. Conflicts of
interest and issues of confidentiality were also mentioned.
To balance the picture we also asked the managers if
relationships often have beneficial results at work.
Most said no, but two of them said yes, one of them explaining
that “We actively encourage friends and family to join [the
organisation] via a recommend a friend recruitment scheme, so we can
hardly put the dampers on relationships that arise out of working
together”.
The employees in our survey took a far more
positive view than the managers of the impact of their relationships at
work. Most said it had made
no difference to their productivity, with just 6 saying they had been
less productive and 4 claiming to have become more productive.
Only 30% believed the relationship had caused any problems for
their employers or colleagues, two of them mentioning the practical
issue of wanting to take holidays together.
Others referred to divided loyalties and one “got the impression
some staff members felt that I favoured the staff member I was seeing”.
But 5 of our respondents spoke of positive benefits at work from
their relationships. They
mentioned collaborative working, social interaction between departments,
completing projects together out of hours, and one whose attitude had
been so changed by her partner that she had taken on more responsibility
and become a senior manager.
One stated simply, “I was a happier person to work with”.
This, according to Lisa Matthewman, is unsurprising: “Someone who
is in love, or even just lust, is likely to be more creative, energetic
and positive. They will be
happy to go to work knowing they will see the object of their
affections.”
How to understand this difference in perception
between the managers and the individuals in relationships?
Are the HR managers heartless killjoys and control freaks?
Or are the staff self-deluding pleasure seekers, blinded by love
or lust to the mayhem they are causing at work?
Or maybe some of each?
On one point, the individuals were more willing to
admit to problems. Nearly
half of those whose relationships had ended, said the split had led to
problems at work: “Awkwardness and generally an unpleasant atmosphere,
what a ******* mistake!” said one man.
This was echoed, less colourfully, by others including a woman
who “was very distracted, and very upset for quite a few weeks. If I saw
him in the corridor it would always put me back to square one.”
Of course all staff can be upset and distracted by life events,
whether involving a workplace romance or not.
But if two members of a team are distracted at the same time, and
troubled by each other’s company, this must be hard for the team.
Policies
and discretion
Few organisations appear to have a consistently
enforced policy about workplace relationships.
Less than half our sample of managers, mainly in the larger
organisations, said their organisation had any kind of policy, and not
all of these were formal, written policies.
Even where policies exist, only a third said they were
consistently enforced, the rest giving managers discretion to be
flexible or to turn a blind eye.
Most of the policies required staff to disclose relationships to
managers, and if action was taken, it was normally to ensure that nobody
was managed or supervised by a partner, or to prevent fraudulent
financial transactions.
With so little policy and so much discretion for
managers, it’s easy to imagine managers ducking sensitive issues for
fear of getting their interventions wrong.
Asked whether HR professionals in their organisations knew how to
respond to staff’s relationships, only 70% of the HR managers in our
sample said yes. And asked
the same question about line managers, only half of our HR managers
thought line managers knew how to act.
Several of our sample of employees reported passive or clumsy
management action: “They ignored the relationship, which suited me;”
“Didn’t really say anything;” “Whilst no concerns were actually voiced
it was apparent that they were not comfortable with the relationship;”
“Unfounded concerns around confidentiality caused managers to leave me
out of decision making ... I eventually left the organisation.”
Training
need
What emerges is a clear training need for managers:
not to turn them all into repressive killjoys, but to help them pinpoint
exactly when relationships among staff might cause fallout at work, and
to know how best to act when that is the case.
The main problem areas identified by our survey are:
By clarifying exactly where the potential problems lie, managers can be helped to intervene sensitively, appropriately and constructively, instead of ducking difficult issues or blundering in clumsily; that is what we aim to do with our new training resource. Equally importantly, managers can be permitted to sit back and mind their own business when relationships between staff do nobody any harm. After all, any organisation that employs human resources must remember that they are human, and not just resources, and therefore expect a little normal human behaviour.
Stephen Engelhard © Angel Productions 2010
Next steps
To develop our new training resource on workplace romances, Angel Productions would be pleased to hear from
anyone interested in discussing the project at a planned focus group
any organisation interested in supporting the production as a sponsor, to help us cover the production costs and to have your brand associated with a unique training resource
Please email Stephen Engelhard for more details.