The work place might or might not offer a wonderful ambience to work for, one might or might not like it or the job one is doing but one thing certainly can never be ruled out that irrespective of how loathsome the workplace is, one still ends up making friends (assuming one is not reticent beyond fathomable), at times even getting into relationships, sometimes frivolous, other times serious. If this be the case, then the question on what should be the role of the organization in governing one’s decisions, interactions specific to the relationship is worth finding an answer to.
The story in the discussion forum is a classic case of Catch 22 where the organization comes with an Odysseus like tactic in the form of an agreement wreaking havoc in the love birds’ nest. Organizations these days facilitate team building activities, interactions, information flow and social gatherings all in an attempt to bring employees to gel well amongst each other with the premise: well knit employees can propel it in the path of progress. While gelling in most cases is perfunctory, in some cases it beats the strongest of adhesives. It is not unnatural for two employees to fall for each other and getting carried away in the flow of emotions, breach the code of conduct in the workplace. While there is no denying that all organizations should have stringent business conduct guidelines in place and should enforce the guidelines in cases of its breach, creating an environment to foster camaraderie and then blaming two individuals for falling prey to the system might not be entirely justifiable. And this at a time when quite a few organizations are facilitating within the company marriages and even giving incentives for them makes the move look all the more anachronic. Are we missing something here? Is the organization trying to be the Match Maker?
Pritam has been a high achiever in his company and is almost on the verge of being promoted to the level of Sr. HR Manager. His close acquaintance with Jagruti, a software engineer was bound to have raised a few eyebrows in the workplace and the overt display of affection certainly did exacerbate affairs. Notwithstanding this fact, asking them to sign the agreement whereby they acknowledge their romantic relationship and take full responsibility of any misconduct directly or indirectly due to them being in the relationship is highly Machiavellian. It is an individual’s prerogative to declare or not declare what kind of relationship he/she is into and especially in a country like India where relationships before marriage are look down upon, openly declaring one’s romantic relationship can deem one as an outcast. The organization has every right to impose a breach of the conduct guidelines as and when it finds it necessary but creating a prisoner’s dilemma and forcing the employees to sign the agreement just because they are in a relationship can hardly be termed as playing the role of a Match Maker. This can be further substantiated by raising the following few questions:
If both the husband and wife work in the same organization, would they be asked to sign the same agreement or is it specifically for couples in romantic relationship?
If it is not meant for married couples because the entire world knows about their relationship status, does it mean that being married gives them the right to display their affection in the office and get away with it? I hardly think so. Hence the agreement loses its ground in this aspect. What holds true for both the parties (married couples/ unmarried couples) is the basic conduct guidelines irrespective of their marital status for which the organization does not need an exclusive agreement to be signed.
If nepotism, favoritism, corruption were really the matter of concerns, then would the company make use of the agreement when it spots two employees being best of friends with one of them being in a high position of authority? Once again the argument in favor of the agreement loses its ground.
The agreement does not make sense merely to be enforced for inhibiting romantic relationships in the workplace. Simply because the very reasons (nepotism, favoritism, corruption, sexual harassment, etc) why the agreement is supposed to be signed is not just confined to romantic relationships. These so called PYAR KE SIDE EFFECTS can occur in many other relationships which might or might not be carrying a definitive name. Can the organization spend its valuable time and resources to curtail all such possible relationships?
No comments:
Post a Comment