Workplace romance policies, behaviors, and reputational beliefs: experiences of employees from major US cities

ABSTRACT

The present study examined employees’ knowledge of their organization’s workplace romance policy and its relationship with their workplace romance experiences and beliefs. It also investigated differences in employees’ beliefs about workplace romance’s reputational effects based on their workplace romance experiences. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of self-reported responses obtained from a sample of 642 adults working across industries in major US cities yielded several meaningful findings. Namely, employees in organizations with (versus without) a workplace romance policy were more likely to have participated in and observed a workplace romance, were more comfortable with future workplace romance participation, and were more likely to believe workplace romances were common and affected professional reputations. Employees with (versus without) workplace romance experience were also more likely to report positive reputational effects of hierarchical workplace romances for both male and female executives. Based on reported findings, we offer evidence-based recommendations for policy development.

KEYWORDS:

• HR
• organizational communication
• policy
• relational communication
• workplace romance

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. A WR is defined as “a nonplatonic relationship between two members of an organization in which sexual attraction is present, affection is communicated, and both members recognize the relationship to be something more than just professional and platonic” (Horan & Chory, 2011, p. 565). As with other WR research, we focus on consensual, non-harassing relationships.

2. For exceptions, see Burrell (1992), Warhurst and Nickson (2009), and Williams et al. (1999).

3. Additional data from this sample was previously reported (see Chory et al., 2022).

4. WR policy was related to the number of times employees had engaged in a WR, χ² (6) = 53.78, p < .001. A greater proportion of individuals whose companies had an informal policy (45.5%, vs. no policy, 23.8%) had participated in a WR only once. One-time WR participation was also more likely to occur among those in companies with either WR policy type (informal, 45.5%; formal, 35.3%) than among employees who did not know if their company had a WR policy (16.8%). The likelihood of participating in only one WR did not differ according to the formal or informal nature of the WR policy. The proportions of employees who participated in more than one WR did not differ based on the company’s WR policy: Formal (15.1%), informal (13.4%), no policy (7.1%), don’t know if there’s a policy (6.0%).

5. The number of times employees had engaged in a WR was linked to their beliefs about the reputational impacts of hierarchical WRs on male, χ² (4) = 19.17, p < .001; and female, χ² (4) = 23.43, p < .001; executives. Employees who had been in a WR once (16.2%) and more than once (24.2%) compared to those who had never been in a WR (7.8%) were more likely to believe that male executives’ reputations were positively impacted by participation in a WR. A similar pattern was observed for beliefs about the reputational impact of female executives’ hierarchical WRs: participated in WR once (16.8%) and more than once (22.6%) versus never (6.6%).

6. We suspected that differences in policy awareness were due to differences in employees’ relationship status, however employee knowledge of their employer’s WR policy was not associated with employees’ relationship status, χ² (2) = .445, p = .800. Almost a quarter (24.2%, n = 64) of married or partnered respondents and 22.2% (n = 84) of single, divorced, or widowed respondents did not know whether their organization has a WR policy.

7. Aside from considering the information private, employees may be hesitant to disclose their sexual activity to their organization for other reasons. Consider situations in which employees are LGBTQ but do not want their employers to know. Disclosure of WR would force sexual orientation disclosure, introducing both legal and ethical questions. In addition, research shows that individuals may engage in limited or one-time same-sex sexual activity due to curiosity and/or fluidity (see Diamond, 2018). If an employee maintains a heterosexual identity but has same-sex sexual activity once, the employee is unlikely to disclose this to the organization (see Festinger, 1957). Likewise, individuals in committed, monogamous relationships who are cheating on their partners with their colleagues are unlikely to report this information to their organization, as many people would consider jeopardizing a marriage or committed romantic relationship to be more undesirable than facing organizational sanctions. Altogether, it cannot be emphasized enough that organizations should question their role in legislating employees’ close relationships and required reporting, whether it be casual sex or an ongoing relationship.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sean M. Horan

Sean M. Horan (PhD, West Virginia University) is professor and chair of the Department of Communication, a part of the College of Arts & Sciences at Fairfield University.

Rebecca M. Chory

Rebecca M. Chory (PhD, Michigan State University) is a professor of Management in the College of Business, Engineering, and Computational & Mathematical Sciences at Frostburg State University.

Erin S. Craw

Erin S. Craw (PhD, Chapman University) is Account Manager for the public sector at Youturn Health and teaches at Fairfield University.

Lisa Mainiero

Lisa Mainiero (PhD, Yale University) is professor of Management in the Dolan School of Business at Fairfield University.