Anything that Can go wrong Will go wrong

"Leave me no loose ends and I shall not tie you down.." Often that's the policy the management follows today. Companies don't wish to be liable for any loose ends to speak of; anything that might implicate their credibility as an employer to the outside world. As long as the matter remains internal and resolvable; the management will fight tooth and nail to achieve a result to that end, like that elaborated by Pritam Singh's case.

Coming to this case in particular, the situation depicts a nascent romantic relationship between Pritam and Jagruti being brought to an abrupt halt by the intervention of higher management in a way which could be described as 'cowardly' at best. The GM (HR) having forseen their relationship as one likely to grow a lot more intense with time, attempts to trick Pritam into signing the love contract thereby providing the HR department the leverage to sack Jagruti right away. They fear a relationship of this sort, if gone awry can be disastrous to both the employees as well as employer; in a way pointed out by participants before me. (female can bring a sexual harassment lawsuit into the company, thereby tarnishing its reputation) Further as it lays out norms for acceptable romantic behaviour at the work place, the firm can use some past occurrence as a premise for invoking this contract's terms,thereby dismissing one or both of them for having previously violated these terms. (as is the case here)

So let's understand why do firms hold such a negative view of work place romances? One obvious explanation is a possible drop in productivity due to loss of focus from the core aspects of one's job. But there is also a probability of rise in productivity or yield if the romance flourishes and renders both parties in a happy state. Happiness we hear, is what we as humans ultimately desire. If one is even within striking distance of attaining happiness, their drive is observed to intensify many-fold. So visualizing a romance that is conducive to enhanced performance is not an altogether Utopian phenomenon. But one may argue this is an optimist's view. The case may be totally opposite in so many more ways. After all, as per Murphy's law, "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." Thus, we must pay heed to the both sides of the coin.

As Chinmoy rightly pointed out before, accusations of favoritism, jealousy etc. may all ultimately lead to reduced performance or indulgence in internal politics. And the worst that can happen is probably, the male ego assuming center stage and the consequent commitment of a wildly blunderous act of machismo, thereby worsening status and esteem further.

But all this is subjective talk. The million and one emotions that the employee may go through are none of the employer's concern. He is concerned only with his output and consequences of his behavior at the work place. In order to ensure both, the invocation of the love contract is taken as a rational enough approach by the firms.

And from the employee's perspective; he has to maintain that expected level of decorum at the work place. After all, the firm is not responsible for your upsurging hormones or associated emotions. It is in no way liable for whatever fruit or poison your conduct with regard to the relationship bears. So it has to build for itself, certain safeguards, among some of which is the very contract in debate. Though it may seem over the top and irrational on the face of it, the firm has to ensure proper decorum in the work place, while upholding its status as an employer and the use of the love contract seems a fair enough bargain. Though there may be several arguments to this, it is one of the safest ways out!