Presentation on theme: "RULES OF ROMANCE AT WORK: WHO'S THE BOSS? ANGELINE G. CLOSE University of Georgia."— Presentation transcript:
RULES OF ROMANCE AT WORK: WHO'S THE BOSS? ANGELINE G. CLOSE University of Georgia
INTRODUCTION 8 Million Relationships a year begin at the workplace (Society for HR Management) 52% have been asked out by a co-worker (U.S. Pew National Survey) Difficult to compartmentalize personal and business lives Americans live at work, why not date at work?
OBJECTIVES I facilitate a contribution of : RQ1. When should there be a policy discouraging workplace dating? RQ2. Why have such a policy? RQ3. Would such a policy be taken seriously?
LITERATURE REVIEW Corporate HR Documents Relevant Court Cases CRM Literature OB Literature Applied Psychology Journals Business Law Journals Policy Journals
METHODS Observations (exploratory data) Field notes on proximity and body language Focus Group (n=12) college-aged singles, (active daters or unmarried) pre-focus group questionnaire, $30 compensation In-depth Interviews (n=22), min., consented recording, transcriptions, coding of themes, reconstruct themes in terms of 3 research objectives.
THEORY Sternberg's Triangle Theory of Love (1986) Love is understood in terms of three points. Intimacy: feelings of closeness Passion: desire for sexual communication Commitment: decision to maintain love
FINDING 1: Workplace dating is not a policy concern when: productivity is not hindered non-career oriented positions seasonal, short-term employment consulting different departments or locale
FINDING 2A:A WORKPLACE DATING POLICY MAY: recognize committed employees reduce problems of perceived fairness uphold a corporate image reduce expensive employee turnover resulting from failed relationships diminish relationship conflicts not left at home limit sexual harassment claims limit tension among coworkers and couples
FINDING 2B:YET, WORKPLCE DATING MAY: promote camaraderie increase understanding heighten productivity in effort to impress promote carpooling/resource sharing increase involvement at work increase communication eliminate frigid policy environment encourage a polished appearance attract employees
FINDING 3:POLICY SERIOUSNESS anti-sexual harassment policy will be taken seriously workplace dating policy much less serious intensity of romance may unwillingly exceed workplace loyalty, e.g. love is the boss- even at work
RECONSTRUCTING THE DATA Sternberg's Theory of Love (intimacy, passion, and commitment) does not tell the whole story. emerging themes: priority decision factors time proximity
THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION: Priority Time Proximity Decision Factors INTIMACY COMMITMENTPASSION
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS Where does your company stand? Keep communication channels open Give point of contact for advice Be fair-regardless of gender or rank Respond promptly and discreetly Respect privacy Be pro-relationship
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS Effectively communicate what constitutes sexual harassment via seminars, etc. Focus on productivity at work, not personal relationships that do not interfere with productivity. Be aware that employee priorities change. Realize time, proximity, decision factors, and priority constraints. Re-examine any "dated" policies.
MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Internal Relationship management via datings constructs: Risk Trust Care Power Societal motivations B2B Courting