Organization: Machiavelli or a MatchMaker!!

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?

Love thy Work(ers)

In the earlier posts we were seeing the different perspectives of Love contract.
In the case mentioned, 3 different approaches can be followed,
1. Summary Discharge policy
2. Non-fraternization policy
3. Love contracts

Summary Discharge policy says that if any manager enters into romantic relationship with subordinate will be summarily discharged. However, it seriously affects the morale of employees.
Non-fraternization policy prohibits romantic relationship among the employees and the consequence is generally transfer or reassignment of work. This is very difficult in today's world considering that employees tend to spend long hours in workplace and could develop relationships.
Hence, Love contract offers a middle path maintaining a balance between the aspirations of the employers and behavior of the employees. The Love contract is mutual consensual agreement between the employees enabling a restrictive behavior of the persons involved in sexual relationship.

Something is better than nothing
As Sushma pointed out, the Love contracts does NOT make the organization free from litigations but it definitely gives a solid defence in case any litigation is failed.

Relationship management in India
It was earlier mentioned that TCS, CSC and Max NewYork Life follow Love contracts. In fact, TCS had been paying Rs. 1 lakh for a couple and Infosys was offering a car for the newly wedded couples. While there are reports that some companies like NIIT go on extreme levels like offering "dating allowance" which is not acceptable on different grounds

A Win-Win Situation
From the employers' perspective, the contract helps in defending that there was no forced relationships and that the performance of the employees would not go down in case the relationship fails.
From the employees' perspective, the contract helps in constantly reminding them about their commitment to work and to the spouses(in case of married employees!). It also reminds them of appropriate behavior in workplace.
Like Varun mentioned, there is loss of privacy by signing this contract and there are also cases where one person may not sign the contract. But still Love contract holds good in managing workplace relationships considering all the above points mentioned.

Just a different perspective....

I don’t see any action in this world, for which everyone will have exactly the same opinion. In the end it’s all about individual perception. When I first read about Love contract, I found it totally ridiculous. Then I read my friends’ opinion about it. Most of them accepted the fact that such contracts are not of much significance. Then I decided to change my perception and thought about it from an employer’s perspective and I found certain aspects of the contract really interesting.

As it has been said earlier that with the amount of time an employee spends in an office, it’s very much possible for a person to have a relationship with his/her colleague and employer have every reason to feel concerned about it. It’s very much evident that such contracts are there to ward off the complaints like that of favoritism or problems like sexual harassment claims and revenge-motivated complaints in case of a breakup.

And if employer wants to avoid any such situation then what’s the harm. It’s always said that precaution is better than the cure and employer has every right to be cautious. In this world of high professionalism employees can go to any extent for their personal interest and it might hamper the image of an employer. People do feel that through this contract employer is trying to interfere in the private life of the employees. But actually it’s the opposite. Through this contract employer is making sure that you will keep your professional life away from private life. This way they are not discouraging anyone to go for romantic relationships within the company, they are just making sure that you will show utmost commitment towards your work and won’t allow any personal factor to come in between you and your work.

I belong to that category of people who says that “Love happens just like that”. So I never feel that person will look at company's Manual of Policies before indulging in any workplace relationship. But such sort of contract does help in discouraging people who indulge in such activities just for their personal gains.

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!

If in Love…Sign the Love Contract

Workplace romance is becoming more and more visible with the gender ratio improving across industries. As per the HR professionals, workplace romance has seen a marked increase as the number of hours that employees are spending at office has increased and they end up sharing interests, values and hobbies.
Being involved in a relationship at workplace doesn’t necessarily imply that the performance of the employee will suffer. It can lead to better energy levels, increased morale and translate into better discharge of services. TCS had a policy where it would give a sum of Rs. 50000 to a couple that got married and both of them were on the payroll of TCS.
However, as the number of cases of workplace romance increased the failures and reported cases of sexual harassment also increased. The firms were well aware that they cannot stop employees from getting involved. The ‘Love Contract’ was then conceived. This is to confirm that the involvement is voluntary and both are well versed with the sexual harassment policies.
Why is signing the contract a problem?
When the mutual trust and understanding is substantial enough to mature into love that is visible to the public, what is that stops the couple from signing the contract. If in case of problems in future, they have no right to involve the company in their mess. It is not that they were forced to be with each other by the HR. Then why involve the organization to wash your dirty linen when things go sour. If there is an instance of sexual harassment, this could have happened with any other partner whom you were dating. Only when someone is taking undue advantage of you solely because he or she is able to or subjecting you to sexual harassment, the company is a part of the issue. But, when you are a party to the relationship, whether the romance is in office or outside office, the vulnerabilities are no different. Are you trying to use the firm as a tool to use in fighting your bad relationships?
Why should a company insist on a love contract?
Apart from unwarranted sexual harassment litigation, companies also suffer from breach of confidentiality, poor quality of work when problems mushroom between the couple, unproductive work hours and long hours in the cafeteria discussing family and money and what not.
Some of the issues that must be addressed in the love contract must include no direct reporting, the employment at-will if the contract is not adhered to, and standards of behavior at workplace.
It is required that the contract is well crafted as it may face problems like non-disclosure of relationships between same sex couples, or going as far as claiming that the employee was forced to sign the contract when he or she had a critical issue like on site opportunity or promotion in the pipeline.

Romancing Professionally

One of the basic building blocks of good working culture is interactions between employees. But when this interaction is between opposite sexes, more than often it is termed as “romance”. On one hand company wants to promote interactions and on other it wants to limit it to an professionally accepted level, which is difficult to define and measure.

One of the major reasons for rise in office relationship can be attributed to increasing working pressure, resulting in blurring line between work and personal life .As culture of working couple is on rise, they are getting lesser and lesser time to spend together. So looking for better halves at workplace is on rise.

Organization are increasingly getting vary of these relationships as it can be linked to performance of employees to an extent. But all office romances are not dangerous for the health of organizations. Organizations should basically watch out for hierarchical romances and utilitarian romance. In the hierarchical romance the persons involved are direct in reporting structure and any romantic relationship can cause favouritism .In Utilitarian romance, the main aim of the romance is to achieve a purpose, usually to earn mileage in one’s career. This type of romance has high potential for converting into sex scandals in an organisation.

But in spite of all these, organisations should be ever committed to provide workers with right kind of environment. Love contract is definitely not one of the options because it restricts the freedom of interactions. These types of contracts can only induce the feeling of guilty for persons involved.

Clear policies regarding office relationships and right kind of orientation at the time of joining is must for success of defining the right kind of attitude in the work place. Policy can go to as far as defining appropriate and inappropriate behaviours like public display of affection. The policy should not only be crystal clear but also communicated effectively.

Relationships are inevitable

Relationships are inevitable in the workplace. There can be two kinds of relationships in the workplace. One between the supervisor and subordinate and other between the co-workers. Out of these two kinds, the relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate requires immediate attention of the employer. This kind of romantic relationship is observed between Mr. Pritam (HR manager) and Jagruti Patel (Senior Software Engineer). Such a relationship is a cause of concern for the employer. The subordinate may benefit from this relationship as in she may get good appraisal rating or promotion just because of her romantic relationship with the supervisor. This will cause anger and resentment among other employees who are working day in and day out to get high ratings and promotion. These relationships become even more dangerous for the firm if they end abruptly. The Supervisor may start giving bad ratings to the subordinate and the subordinate can claim that she was getting good ratings when they were in relationship and now that the relationship has ended, he is giving bad reviews.

I think the contracts are not the solution to these kinds of issues. Such contracts send the wrong message to the employees that the company is trying to interfere in their personal life. Employer should handle these issues with extreme care. Handling these issues with anxiety may cause anger and resentment among the entire workforce. Employer should arrange a meeting with both the employees and tell them that they should avoid showing off their emotions in the workplace as these are not in the best interest of the firm. Most of time, this step will work. Even after making them aware of the consequences, if the two employees continue to show their emotions in workplace, the employer should end their professional reporting relationship by transferring one of the employees to another office or by assigning different project in the same location.