fatal attractions: the (mis) management of workplace romance

ABSTRACT 

FATAL ATTRACTIONS: THE (MIS) MANAGEMENT OF WORKPLACE ROMANCE 

Steven H. Appelbaum, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec 

Ana Marinescu, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec 

Julia Klenin, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec 

Justin Bytautas, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec 

The purpose of this article is to synthesize, through a comprehensive review of historic and contemporary 

literature, critical contributors to the development of workplace romance as a challenge, its effects on the 

organization’s performance and its employees, as well as strategies for action. The article is divided in 

three main sections: the summary of the rise of the phenomenon, the outline of possible negative and 

positive consequences in the workplace, and the discussion on organizational policies and employer/ 

employee responsibilities in dealing with the issue. The objective was achieved of providing a multilateral 

and complete view of the topic, and directions to address it by examining research findings from a 

multitude of experts representing a variety of sectors (Scholars, CEOs, Employees, and HR 

Specialists).Workplace romance is a reality that is here to stay. Nevertheless, an alarming majority of 

organizations do not have formal policies to address workplace romance and to control its negative 

effects, which impact the organization and its employees. It can be useful for both management 

researchers and current managers and policy makers, who can become more aware of the effects of the 

phenomenon and the necessity of crafting appropriate policies to address it. 

Keywords - Workplace romance, employee behavior, corporate favoritism, sexual harassment, morale 

and work climate, human resources, and terminations. 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Workplace romance has been a significant issue for most employers for quite some time. According to 

data on the topic, over 80 percent of American employees have experienced “some type of a romantic 

relationship at work” (Copley News Service, 2000; Schaefer and Tudor, 2001). It is also important to know 

that the majority of employers are aware of their employees’ romantic involvement with another co-worker. 

Thus, a number of surveys featured in Business Wire have shown that some employers feel the cliché of 

office romance has become a “company-wide epidemic” (Business Wire; Schaefer and Tudor, 2001). Why 

should it matter to the employer whom his or her employees are dating? For the most part, employers are 

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, Volume VII, Number 4, 2007 31

not worried about the happiness of their employees or of the quality of choices they make as to finding a 

suitable romantic partner; rather, the employers are worried about “sexual harassment charges and 

potential for huge penalties, settlements, and legal fees,” which occasionally accompany romantic 

relationships at work (Schaefer and Tudor, 2001). Companies have acknowledged the existence and, 

moreover, the inevitability of office romance and the implications they tend to bring into the corporate 

milieu, such as corporate favoritism, poor communication, lack of motivation, productivity and efficiency, 

as well as the aforementioned sexual harassment. Employers have also begun to consider utilizing a 

number of pragmatic tools in dealing with the issue and its ramifications, such as proper company policies, 

training and educations for both the employer and the employees. 

This article will explore the background and the issue of workplace romance through the review of the 

empirical research regarding the trends in office romance through time, the effects that romantic 

relationships have on the organization, as well as the roles management can play in monitoring romance 

through its proper use of policies and education. The major focus of this article is to debate romantic 

relationships in the workplace can have serious implications both for the company and the parties 

involved. In order to minimize or avoid the negative effects of a workplace romance, it is critical for a 

company to adopt a policy and education strategies on workplace romances and issues associated with 

them. This article will discuss workplace romance, both the cause and implications, and address possible 

solutions to a critical contemporary workplace issue. 

2. THE BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE: THE RISE OF OFFICE ROMANCE 

It has been argued that the primary reason for the increased frequency of office romance occurrences is 

simply more women entering the workforce (Freedman and Phillips, 1988). According to Beau and 

Ferber’s (1987) comparison analysis of figures from 1970 and 1980, “representation of women has 

increased from 5 to 14% for lawyers, from 11 to 28% for operations and systems researchers and 

analysts, from 12 to 24% for pharmacists, and from 5 to 13% for veterinarians; […] from 17 to 38% for 

executive, administrative, and managerial positions (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975; U.S. 

Department of Labor, 1987; Freedman and Phillips, 1988). It was also noted in the research and analysis 

of the late 1980s that given women’s enrollment for the professional programs, such as law, dentistry, and 

medicine, the trend is bound to continue in the similar pattern (Rix, 1987; Freedman and Phillips, 1988). 

Not only does an increase in the number of women in the workforce have a potential to contribute to 

higher incidence of office romance; it may also be the increase in time spent in the office. According to the 

results of the General Social Survey conducted by Statistics Canada in 2005, “during the last two decades 

the average total workday for people aged 25 to 54, which includes both paid and unpaid work, has 

increased steadily, from 8.2 hours in 1986 to 8.6 in 2005” (www.statscan.ca: Statistics Canada, 2005). 

Furthermore, research has shown that “the workplace has been referred to as a ‘natural dating service’ 


ecause it is where most employees spend the majority of their waking hours, they are more likely to 

share similar interests and values (Anderson and Hunsaker, 1985), and people tend to be attracted to 

those like themselves (Byrne, 1971)” (Jones, 1999). Moreover, as Pierce, Byrne and Aguinis found in 

1996, “antecedents of workplace attraction include propinquity, repeated exposure, and physical arousal 

from work factors” (Jones, 1999). Furthermore, as companies have started to move towards building a 

collaborative, team-oriented work environment with a high-interaction factor, “the workplace will be 

increasingly conducive to finding love at work” (Jones, 1999). Factors, such as the increase in time spent 

at work as well as companies’ choice to move towards an interactive, collaborative, team structure have 

influenced the increase in employees’ interaction, thereby turning the workplace into a potential hub for 

romantic involvement. 

Since the incidence of workplace romances is almost inevitable it is no surprise that employers are 

considering certain tools to help them deal with the sudden build-up of “sexual tension” in the workplace. 

The reasons for that are not necessarily the distractive effects that public displays of affection of the two 

genders may have on other employees; rather it is serious consequences that such a relationship may 

potentially have on the wellbeing of the company, the parties involved as well as the fellow workers. The 

next section will discuss in detail the effects, both positive and negative, that workplace romance may 

bring to a firm and the participants in the “affair”. 

3. THE EFFECTS OF WORKPLACE ROMANCE 

Although workplace romances can benefit their participants with respect to factors such as job 

satisfaction, they can also result in punitive managerial actions such as a denied promotion, job relocation, 

or employment termination (Pierce, Byrne, & Aguinis, 1996). According to a survey of 3,000 human 

resources professionals by the Society for Human Resource Management, workforce romance has 

resulted in complaints of favouritism from co-workers (28%), claims of sexual harassment (24%), 

decreased productivity of the participants (24%), decreased morale of coworkers (16%), and decreased 

productivity of co-workers (11%) (SHRM, 1998). All of these outcomes constitute disruptions to the 

conduct of work, which can pose serious problems for organizations. Nevertheless, between 2001 and 

2005, HR professionals reported that instances of decreased productivity, sexual harassment and 

complaints of retaliation had declined. Employees also indicated declines in office romances that ended 

with a negative outcome (SHRM, 2006). The following sections will present in more detail the impact of 

office romance on productivity, motivation, job satisfaction, morale and work climate, managerial decisions 

regarding promotions and relocations/ terminations, and finally, sexual harassment. 

3.1 Productivity: Additional research in the mid-nineties permitted researchers to establish the impact of 

workplace romances on productivity both in a positive or a negative way. In some instances, “workplace 

romance can have an enhancing and sometimes impeding effect on an employee’s quantity and quality of 


work output” (Mainiero, 1995). More recent studies advancing how workplace romances can enhance 

employees’ productivity include a US Bureau of National Affairs survey, showing that the process of 

channeling attraction into work goals in mixed work groups allows them to achieve a higher productivity in 

comparison with same sex groups (Bureau of National Affairs, 1988; Eyler and Baridon, 1991, 1992ab; 

Westhoff, 1985). Moreover, Mainiero (1989) also found instances of workplace romances where 

communication, teamwork, cooperation and workflow were increased. Other researchers have observed 

that maintaining an appropriate distance while feeling attracted to one another increases productivity due 

to the stimulating effects of the situation. For instance, research conducted by Anderson and Hunsaker 

(1985) has shown that 21% women and 9% of men involved in an office romance reported increases in 

productivity; another similar research found these percentages to be 17% and 15% respectively (Quinn, 

1977). Nevertheless, this corresponds to merely one fifth of the employees involved. Romances in their 

early stages seem to lower productivity. Thus, both Mainiero and Westhoff observed that during the first 

year of the relationship, productivity declines, and then rise again in steady relationships that last over a 

year (Mainiero, 1989; Westhoff, 1985, 1986). Newly formed couples are less productive because the large 

amount of time and energy invested into the relationship tends to keep them away from work (Westhoff, 

1985, 1986). 

The third aspect that may have an impact on productivity is the participant’s motive for engaging in such 

relations. Couples engaging in workplace relationships with a love motive, characterized by Quinn (1977) 

as ‘true love’, and by Sternberg (1986) as ‘consummate love’, are motivated by their fear of negative 

repercussions, thereby actually increasing their productivity. On the other hand, those engaging in 

workplace romances with ego-boosting or job-related motives tend to show no change in performance 

(Dillard, 1987) or in most cases display a negative impact on productivity (Quinn and Judge, 1978). The 

type of relationship, whether boss-subordinate or peer-to-peer, is also a strong determinant of the degree 

of impact on productivity. While Devine and Markiewiez (1990) found that couples involved in lateral 

relationships are more productive that those involved in hierarchical ones, a consensus on this topic is that 

hierarchical relationships typically impede the productivity of participants and their peers (Bureau of 

National Affairs, 1988; Mainiero, 1989; Powell and Mainiero, 1990). This can be explained by the fact that 

intimate hierarchical relationships create a perception of inequity and a feeling of resentment within the 

work group, whose members spend their designated work time to discuss the details of a hierarchical 

office romance, instead of fulfilling their work responsibilities (Chesanow, 1992; Mainiero, 1989). 

3.2 Motivation: Similar to the other variables observed, research has indicated that workplace 

relationships can have both positive and negative impact on employee motivation. Mainiero has found that 

motivation is at higher levels when an intimate involvement takes place at the workplace; this is because 

such relationships are “uplifting for participants, who feel better about themselves and therefore are more 

motivated towards their work and on the job” (Mainiero, 1989). Dillard and Broetzmann also observed the 

same enthusiasm and increase in motivation noted by Mainiero. Their results show that 40% of men and 


57% of women interviewed, who had participated in romantic relationships on the job, felt their motivation 

increased as a result (Dillard and Broetzmann, 1989). It is also worth to note that the stage of the 

relationship is determinant of the degree of the impact on motivation (Dillard and Broetzmann, 1989). A 

decrease in motivation during the early stages is attributed to participants’ emotional involvement in the 

emerging relationship, while renewed motivation is reported after the relationship has stabilized (Pierce, 

Byrne, Aguinis, 1996). 

3.3 Job Satisfaction: A relatively under-examined effect of office romances is job satisfaction, which is 

based on affect (Cranny et al., 1992). The reinforcement-affect model originally developed by Clore and 

Byrne (1974) indicates that a “positive affect” from the romantic relationship can “spill-over” and elevate 

the overall group satisfaction. In addition, Pierce, Byrne and Aguinis (1996), consistent with theories of 

social exchange, stress that employees who perceive the outcomes of such a relationship to exceed his or 

her expectations, will have a higher level of satisfaction with his or her job. Pierce, Byrne and Aguinis 

(1996) also conclude that employees who are satisfied with their workplace flings will be more likely to be 

satisfied with other aspects of their job. 

3.4 Morale and Work Climate: Research has shown that the mood or spirit of a work group may be 

impacted as a result of workplace romances (Mainiero, 1989). Once again, the types of effects that will 

occur are dependent of the type of the relationship at stake. It is not surprising to learn that hierarchical 

work romances have been associated with more negative effects on employees’ morale that lateral 

romantic relationships. In fact, the research by the Bureau of National Affairs (1988) has demonstrated 

how disruptive the boss-subordinate type relationships can be, when 45 out of 112 executives surveyed 

stated that hierarchical intimate relations undermined morale within their organizations. Consistent with 

these findings, Mainiero (1989) surveyed US female executives and found that 78% affirmed resenting 

hierarchical relations, due to their negative effect on workplace morale, while only a mere 21% of 

respondents felt the same about peer-to-peer romantic involvement (Mainiero, 1989). Powell (1993) found 

the romantic dependence arising from a hierarchical relationship disrupts the balance between task- and 

career-dependence: “unequal social power, which characterizes intimate hierarchical relations also 

impacts members of the organization by causing them to perceive unjust and preferential treatments and 

fear favoritism” (Powell, 1993). Thus, a work environment that is perceived as unjust lowers employee 

morale. 

Therefore, it becomes apparent that a romantic hierarchical relationship that is visible and known to all is 

more likely to affect overall employee morale than a relationship that is not out in the open (Pierce, Byrne, 

Aguini, 1996). Conflict of interest resulting from this type of relationship is likely to disrupt the functioning of 

the work group because it violates co-workers' sense of equality within the group (Foley and Powell, 

1999). Moreover, research has further indicated that such relationships can disrupt the functioning of the 

work group even if they do not present a conflict of interest, such as when two participants engage in 


inappropriate workplace behavior in the presence of co-workers (Foley and Powell, 1999). A romantic 

relationship that results in a conflict of interest, as in the case of a supervisor-subordinate relationship, 

ultimately impacts the effective functioning of the entire group (Foley and Powell, 1999).The degree of 

visibility of a romance in the workplace will have a different impact on the level and type of gossip 

generated in the office. The most exhaustive research on this variable was conducted by Dillard (1987) 

and concluded that the tone of the gossip, whether positive or negative, depended on the type of 

relationship and the perceived motives of each participant. If a male pursues a relationship for a love, 

consummate or genuine motive, he is likely to generate positive gossip among his co-workers, thereby 

letting the relationship be viewed favorably and perceived as sincere (Sternberg 1986; Quinn 1977). On 

the other hand, females whose motives for romantic involvement are perceived to be job-related, receive a 

much harsher treatment from co-workers, generating hostile gossip amongst colleagues. This can result in 

loss of work time and productivity, as well as a negative impact on the climate within the group. 

3.5 Managerial Decisions: Promotions. Research on this topic indicates hierarchical relationships result 

in perceptions of favoritism and inequity. This is particularly true with respect to promotion decisions. In 

fact, both Quinn (1977) and Judge (1978)originally found male managers in positions of power were more 

likely to provide higher remuneration or promotion opportunities to the female subordinate with whom they 

were involved, than to another employee. This favoritism is highly apparent to the participants’ colleagues 

resulting in envy (Schultz, 1982) and alienation (Chesanow, 1992). Both Jamison (1993) and Mainiero 

(1989) confirm that this disrupts the balance of power in the work environment. A disruption of the power 

balance in an organization leads managers involved in such relationships to distorted decisions pertinent 

to promotions. Other managers, aware of this perception of inequity among their employees, will avoid 

promoting participants involved in workplace romances, to avoid accusations of favoritism (Spelman and 

Carry, 1984). Research by the Bureau of National Affairs (1988) indicated that it is usually females 

occupying the lower positions, which are discriminated against in order to avoid such negative 

perceptions. Pierce, Byrne and Aguinis (1996) advance that organizational power can act as a potential 

moderator in such instances. 

3.6 Managerial Decisions: Relocations and Terminations. There is a consensus among researchers 

that employees occupying a lower occupational status in the organization are more likely to be relocated 

or terminated in a case of problematic office romance; this is especially apparent for female participants 

(Pierce, Byrne and Aguinis, 1996). While relocations can be a way of solving problematic cases arising 

from workplace relationships (Driscoll and Bova, 1980; Leighton, 1984), their impact on employees and 

organization needs to be further assessed (Pierce, Byrne and Aguinis, 1996). Employees involved in a 

romantic relationship are more at risk of being transferred or terminated than those who abstain from it. 

Nevertheless, relocations can involve discrimination based on organizational status and gender 

(Josefowitz, 1982; Rap, 1992) with the female participant usually being the one relocated. With respect to 

terminations, the Bureau of National Affairs (1988) as well as Mainiero’s and Powell’s (1996) research 


concluded that employees are often dismissed for participating in workplace romances. Also, extramarital 

affairs are more likely that any other type of involvement to trigger a dismissal (Mainiero, 1989; Westhoff, 

1985). Consequences are generally more serious for females (Devine and Markiewiez, 1990), who usually 

occupy lower-status positions than men (Anderson and Fisher, 1991; Quinn, 1977; Westhoff, 1985). 

Hence, it is apparent that organizational status and gender are determinants of managerial decisions with 

regards to workplace romances, such as relocations and terminations, with serious consequences for the 

parties involved. 

3.7 Sexual Harassment .Workplace romances are defined as mutually desired relationships involving 

sexual attraction between two employees of the same organization (Mainiero, 1986, 1989; Pierce, Byrne 

and Aguinis, 1996; Quinn, 1977). In contrast, sexually harassing behavior involves unwelcome sexual 

advances, requests for sexual favors, and other physical or verbal conduct of a sexual nature that is 

unwanted (Fitzgerald, Gelfand and Drasgow, 1995; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

1993). The Society for Human Resource Management conducted two nationwide studies, which indicated 

that sexual harassment claims are increasingly being made as a result of previously dissolved workplace 

romances (SHRM, 1998, 2001). Some of the Federal cases entailing a sexual harassment claim that 

stemmed from a dissolved workplace romance between the plaintiff and defendants, had been supported 

by the court (e.g., Jones v. Keith, 2002; McDonough v. Smith, 2001). In 2005, a joint survey by 

SHRM/CareerJournal.com indicated an important attitude shift for HR professionals: their concern over 

potential sexual harassment allegations has dropped from 95% in 2001 to 77 % in 2005, while the fear 

that office dating might bring about conflicts and retaliation among co-workers ending their relationship 

jumped from 12 % to 67 % (SHRM, 2006). Thus, it is apparent that the fears of sexual harassment claims 

and potential retaliation remain the biggest fears for employers. This indicates how potentially ambiguous 

situations arise when romantic or affectionate behavior that, once considered appropriate, becomes 

unwanted by a former partner and thus develops into a sexually harassing behavior. This issue becomes 

even more delicate when it involves a manager and a subordinate. In a hierarchal office relationship, as 

opposed to a lateral relationship, there exists the risk that the subordinate is using the relationship for 

career gains, since the exchange of resources between the two participants can include rewards, 

promotions and raises (Greenberg, 1987). Furthermore, the existence of hierarchal relationships can 

create more organizational problems than in the case with lateral relationships, especially if the 

relationship is short-lived. Approximately half of workplace romances dissolve (Henry, 1995), most 

particularly those with partners who have misaligned romance motives (Mainiero, 1993). 

Research has indicated that hierarchical workplace romances are more pervasive than lateral (peer-topeer) 

workplace romances (Dillard et al., 1994) and quid pro quo sexually harassing behavior typically 

involves a social power differential between the harasser and the target (Cleveland and Kerst, 1993; 

Gutek, 1985; Thacker and Ferris, 1991). The end of a romantic relationship does not bring about the end 


of the work or business relationship; therefore problems can arise resulting in complaints of sexual 

harassment especially against the employee of the higher-rank position, who still has the power over 

promotions, raises and his or her subordinate’s career advancement (Powell, 2001). A survey by Fisher 

(1994) indicated that 76% of CEO’s polled thought that hierarchal romantic relationships expose the firm to 

potential sexual harassment lawsuits. Several researchers, such as Mainiero (1989), Mondy and 

Premeaux (1986), Powell (1986) and Westhoff (1986) emphasize that managers should only address the 

issues of workplace romances if those issues disrupt the employees’ and/or co-workers’ job performance, 

and, consequently, have declining effects of productivity. Powell also continues to propagate this view 

trough his 1999 and 2001 research. Nevertheless, due to the legal implications of hierarchal romantic 

relationships, such as sexual harassment, the need for enforcement of a strict policy is obvious (Wilson, 

Filosa & Fennel, 2003). The next section will examine managerial implications and corporate tools that can 

be used in dealing with the widespread phenomenon of workplace romance, which in so many cases has 

proven to be inevitable. 

4. MINIMIZING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF WORKPLACE ROMANCE 

As previously mentioned, office romance has the potential to have both positive and negative affects on 

the individuals involved and the organizations to which they belong. The next question to address is what 

can be done by organizations to help minimize these negative affects? What tools are at the organizations 

disposal? Finally, what role do employees and management play in helping to minimize negative impacts 

of office romance? 

4.1 Need for Policy: A recent survey performed by the Society of Human Resource Management found 

that in 2001 and 2005, 70% of organizations did not have a policy, either written or verbal, concerning 

office romance (Gurchiek, 2006). Does this mean that office romance is not an organizational concern? 

This may indicate that office romance is not as common as believed. However, according to the research 

by Kruse and Kleiner (1999), “dating issues among co-workers have complicated the workplace since the 

dawn of the business world: managers have always struggled with the issue of dating due to the 

complications included, some apparent and some invisible’. In fact, office relationships have become more 

regular, due in part to the changes taking place inside organizations, such as the increased time spent at 

work and the increased presence of women in the work place (Powell, 2001). Furthermore, according to a 

poll on office romance, issued by Vault Inc., a career information website, in 2006, 21% of the 693 

respondents in the US reported having a policy at their office – an increase from 17% the year before; the 

majority of the 21% with a policy on office romance have also indicated that the policy was aimed primarily 

at hierarchal romance (i.e., supervisor-subordinate) (Vault, 2006). If, in fact, office romance is perceived as 

a potential threat to the organization and the number of companies creating polices on workplace romance 

is on the rise, then why do not more firms have them? According to some researchers, the reason that 

most organizations do not have a policy addressing office romance and its implications is that “it is quite 


the delicate subject, especially when dealing with the hierarchical type of workplace romance” (Gurcheik, 

2006). Furthermore, some organizations’ concerns of implementation of policy cause the companies to 

hesitate in addressing the issue of office romance; companies then tend to leave it to unwritten rules to 

discourage romantic involvement among the employees (Wilson, Filosa and Fennel, 2003). On the other 

hand, with other companies, there seems to be a separation in views on lateral (peer-to-peer) romance 

and hierarchal romance, with more emphasis on the latter, thus leading to different policies. For instance, 

Marriot International, a worldwide reservation center, indicates that its guidebook has separate 

consequences for lateral and hierarchal relationships. For example, when it comes to peer dating, it is 

necessary to offer certain restrictions, such as no displays of affection while on company grounds; yet it is 

also crucial to be cautious not to infringe on employees civil rights (Kruse and Kleiner, 1999). The focus 

should therefore be on understanding both hierarchical and lateral romantic relationships and the affects 

that a policy can have on minimizing their negative aspects on an organization. 

Organizations are beginning to see the value in having a well-articulated policy for office romance, 

especially between supervisors and subordinates. Companies are adopting policies to safeguard 

themselves from liability – such as perceived favoritism and legal implications of sexual harassment – that 

they would otherwise encounter because of a supervisor-subordinate relationship (Wilson, Filosa and 

Fennel, 2003). Workplace romance is a touchy subject especially when it involves a manager and a 

subordinate. As noted above, in a hierarchal office relationship as opposed to a lateral relationship, there 

is a chance that the subordinate is using the relationship with the manager for career advantages, since 

the exchange of resources between the two participants can include rewards, promotions and raises 

(Greenberg, 1987). Moreover, the existence of hierarchal relationships can result in more organizational 

problems than lateral relationships, especially if such a relationship should end. Obviously, after the 

termination of a romantic involvement work relations continue, thereby creating a fertile ground for certain 

problems to arise, which may lead to complaints of sexual harassment, especially in the case of a 

hierarchical relationship (Powell, 2001). Thus, a poll by Fisher in 1994 revealed that 76% of high-rank 

managers indicated that hierarchal romantic relationships expose the firm to potential sexual harassment 

lawsuits. Moreover, respondents felt that punishments should be handed out to those involved in 

hierarchical relationships, while most believed that nothing should be done for those involved in lateral 

romantic relationships (Karl and Sutton, 2000). The existence of hierarchal romance poses a threat to the 

organization on multiple levels, however most companies do not have policies, either written or unwritten, 

to address the issues. The companies that do have policies tend to ignore the romance unless it has an 

obvious detrimental impact on the firm. Unless organizations can alter their policy concepts, then 

organizational problems will continue to appear as a result of office romances (Powell, 2001). Finally, 

based on the need to maintain a workable office atmosphere, ensure productivity, and protect the firm 

from potential litigation, it is an organization’s obligation to draft rules and guidelines aimed at reducing or 

even avoiding possible problems that arise due to office romance (Wilson, Filosa and Fennel, 2003). 


Therefore, policies addressing office romance should be created by organizations to reduce the risk of 

sexual harassment claims and other office disturbances. The challenge now is to determine the policy that 

is viewed as just and fair by employees, while at the same time protecting the firm form potential liabilities 

(Karl and Sutton, 2000).Corporations that adopt policies regarding office romance are considered well 

protected, provided the policies are fair and implemented within reason. Courts have also started to show 

understanding towards the task that employers have in monitoring office romance; courts now 

acknowledge that there are negative affects that affect a firm due to implications of office romance. Yet, 

courts of law continue to respect and hold in high regard the privacy rights of employees, and refuse to 

allow infringement upon such rights (Wilson, Filosa and Fennel, 2003). However, before a company-wide 

policy can be administered, it must first be determined what type of workplace romance the policy 

attempts to monitor – a lateral relationship or a hierarchal relationship (Karl and Sutton, 2000). Once the 

type of relationship and situation has been established, the organization can then proceed to select the 

appropriate policy. Essentially, corporate policies governing office romances can take two directions: 

either the strict, in which office relationships are prohibited, or the lenient humanistic approach, in which 

companies realize that they cannot control the romantic aspects of their employees’ lives (Schaefer and 

Tudor, 2001). The following sections will consider both hierarchical and lateral workplace romances and 

the policies that may be associated with them. 

4.2 Hierarchal Workplace Romance: Many legal experts agree that organizations should protect 

themselves from potential litigation, but deciding which type of policy and for which situation seems to be 

the issue (Schaefer and Tudor, 2001). The one situation that almost all employees and employers agree 

should be governed through strict policies is the hierarchal relationship situation (Schaefer and Tudor, 

2001). Due to the legal implications of a hierarchal romantic relationship, especially in terms of sexual 

harassment, the enforcement of a strict policy is not surprising (Wilson, Filosa and Fennel, 2003). Many 

individuals within an organization believe that punishments should be handed out to supervisors involved 

in a hierarchal relationship (example of a strict policy), while a neutral stance should be taken towards the 

subordinate (Karl and Sutton, 2000). On the other hand, others believe that during a romantic relationship 

that results in a conflict of interest, such as a supervisor-subordinate relationship, punitive actions should 

be taken against both parties, for the existence of such a relationship could ultimately affect the effective 

functioning of the entire group (Foley and Powell, 1999). Although parties differ on how a hierarchal 

romantic relationship should be dealt with, there seems to be a general agreement that hierarchal 

relationships should be avoided and clearly explained in a strict company policy. Karl and Sutton offered 

this hypothesis in their research that indicates that “strict workplace romance policies will be perceived 

fairer than lenient policies for hierarchal romances” (Karl and Sutton, 2000). A strict company policy is best 

when dealing with hierarchal relationships, due to the negative affects that such a relationship can have on 

the workplace. Developing a clear written policy, tailored specifically to an organization, can greatly 

increase the chance of avoiding potential liability that can arise from hierarchal romances (Schaefer and 

Tudor, 2001). 


4.3 Lateral Workplace Romance: While most organizations see the benefits of having a clearly written 

policy protecting the firm from liability while protecting the civil rights and freedoms of its employees, the 

difficulty seems to lie in the uncertainty as to how to implement such a policy. While a majority of 

employers agree that a strict policy is the right kind of policy in dealing with hierarchal relationships, there 

seems to be mixed emotions regarding lateral relationships. During a recent poll conducted by Society for 

Human Resource Management in 2006, it was found that more employees do not see a need for 

corporate interference (restrictions) in office romance, compared to 2001 (Gurchiek, 2006). In another poll 

it was found that 75% of CEO respondents believed that office romance was “none of the organizations’ 

business” (Karl and Sutton, 2000). A good mindset toward office romance is that workplace relationships 

are not something to be prohibited, but rather managed (Schaefer and Tudor, 2001). So how does an 

organization address lateral office romances and what criteria does it base it on? Mainiero (1989) offers an 

excellent criterion to be used as a base for managerial action: Office productivity should be the guideline 

that determines management action – not the presence of romance itself. When worker performance is 

affected, management should take action. If worker performance remains unaffected, there is little reason 

to act. 

When workplace romance exists within an organization, it can alter regular operations of the firm with a 

number of negative effects, such as harm to one’s career, increase of secrecy among workers, reduced 

co-worker morale, cooperation and a reduction in office productivity (Adebowale, 1992; Paul and 

Townsend, 1998). In order to address lateral office romance, managerial responses should be based on 

the existence of any negative impacts the romance is having or can have on the regular workings of the 

office. The research of Foley and Powell (1999) states that “when co-workers perceive a workplace 

romance to be disruptive or potentially disruptive to the work group, then punitive actions, which may 

consist of verbal reprimands, written warnings, transferring and termination of employment, should be 

taken against both parties involved”. Conversely, if co-workers do not perceive workplace romance as 

disruptive, then either positive action, consisting of counseling on the risks and implications of office 

romance, or no action should be taken (Foley and Powell, 1999). Moreover, in a survey, it was found that 

38.8% of respondents felt that office romance was no business of the employers, and no action should be 

taken against those involved, while 42.2% believed it was the job of management to intervene and counsel 

the employees involved in office romances. At the same time, 15.5% of respondents suggested that 

punitive action be taken against those involved in a workplace romance (Karl and Sutton, 2000). 

Therefore, it can be recommended that when crafting a policy pertinent to workplace romance, it is 

essential to ensure that the policy reflects the implications of office romance only when the performance of 

those involved is negatively affected (Wilson, Filosa and Fennel, 2003). In other words, action should be 

taken against those involved in an office romance only if the relationship has had or is expected to have 

negative affects on performance of those involved or those within their work group (Foley and Powell, 

1999). However, it should be noted that counseling is still considered the most favorable way of dealing 

with office romance and its negative affects (Karl and Sutton, 2000). 


As mentioned previously, with the increase in sexual integration within the workplace and the increased 

time spent at work, the presence of workplace romance is inevitable (Pierce, Byrne and Aquinis, 1996). A 

well crafted, carefully implemented and disseminated corporate policy on office romance can be an 

effective tool in reducing the liability risk of the organization (Wilson, Filosa and Fennel, 2003). Because it 

is impossible to have one policy to address all of the unique romance issues in the workplace, an 

organization should tailor its policy to hierarchal romance and lateral romance. Adopting a policy that is 

strict (verbal and written warnings, transfers and terminations) in relation to hierarchal romance and lenient 

(no action or counseling) towards lateral romance, will not only prevent work disturbances and protect 

employers from potential litigation, but will also be perceived as fair among the employees (Karl and 

Sutton, 2000). 

5. RECOMMENDATIONS: EMPLOYER ROLES ON MINIMIZING NEGATIVE AFFECTS OF OFFICE 

ROMANCE. 

The development of policies pertinent to office romance is an effective tool that an organization can use to 

protect itself from liability. But a policy on its own is not enough (Kiser, Coley, Ford and Moore, 2006). 

Managers and employees have their part to play in ensuring that office romance is addressed and its 

negative affects are minimized. According to research conducted by Schaefer and Tudor, policies on their 

own possess certain weaknesses. Strict policies have a risk of crossing the line of what is legally 

acceptable, and most companies fail to heed the warnings of office romance, especially hierarchal 

romance, with only 4% actually adopting strict policies. On the other hand, lenient policies are difficult to 

communicate and apply, as they tend to count on individuals to show good judgment. The relative term 

‘good judgment’ does not allow for consistency among employees’ and supervisors’ actions: where one 

supervisor may hand out reprimands, another simply chooses to ignore the romance altogether (Schaefer 

and Tudor, 2001). To address these issues, organizations need to ensure that the proper steps are taken 

by managers and employees alike in developing a company wide policy. The following section will present 

examples of what employers and employees can do to help minimize the negative effects of office 

romance. 

When developing a corporate policy, there are several steps that the employer needs to take to ensure its 

effectiveness. Kiser, Coley, Ford and Moore (2006) offer some ideas as to how employers can effectively 

draft a romance policy. First managers need to recognize that office romance exists. Following that, 

employees should notify management when a romance begins and ends, as well as of its voluntary 

nature. It is also essential to maintain the right to disciplinary action (warnings, transfers and termination), 

should there be a hierarchal romance or serious implications. Furthermore, it is important to create a path 

for which employees can express concerns or problems with certain romantic relationships confidentially. 

To help with romance issues, employers can offer mediation or counseling services and ensure that 

seminars are occasionally available on the topic of office romance. Employers should communicate openly 


with employees regarding office romance and create an environment of trust and support. Due to the 

significance of counseling as a responsive action on behalf of the employer, and its popularity among 

workers, managers should be trained on how to counsel individuals involved in a workplace romance and 

on the risks associated with it (Karl and Sutton, 2000). Additionally, all employers should make sure that 

the guidelines in the policy are clearly written and include coverage of sexual harassment concerns. 

Employers should also be careful not to invade employee privacy. A policy should be job-related, matching 

corporate actions with disruption in office workings. Moreover, policies should be updated often and in a 

timely manner (Paul and Townsend, 1998). Corporate policy should also be put in information packages 

and distributed from time to time (Schaefer and Tudor, 2001). In addition, managers should be trained how 

to effectively administer the policy fairly and consistently (Schaefer and Tudor, 2001). One way to address 

the issue of consistency and access is to place the policies and guidelines in the company handbook 

(Kiser, Coley, Ford and Moore, 2006). Finally, employers need to make sure that the policy as well as the 

efforts of managers remain ongoing, by continually updating the policy, providing training and ensuring the 

clarity and conciseness of the policy (Kiser, Coley, Ford & Moore, 2006). In this way the organization can 

profit from the work of the managers and realize the value of a required corporate policy on romance. 

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH 

Through extensive literature and research review, this article has presented a summary of varied 

researcher findings on the topic of workplace romance, in order to better understand the formation, 

evolution and consequences of the issue. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of workplace romance requires 

additional research: as organizational culture continuously evolves and changes, so does the pool of 

knowledge on this critical and evolving issue. 

Since relatively little is known about the effects of a workplace romance, its duration and outcomes, 

additional research is needed to complement existing models (Pierce, 2001). In addition, legal 

ramifications surrounding workplace romance represent another issue that needs further inquiry (Pierce, 

Byrne and Aguinis, 1996). It is also to be noted that all models and research available on the topic are 

limited to heterosexual relationships (Foley and Powell, 2001, Pierce et al.'s, 1996). Generally, 

homosexual relationships tend to provoke strong negative reactions among many people (Carr-Ruffino, 

1996; Friskopp and Silverstein, 1995). Since workplace romance can also occur between homosexuals, 

this would be another aspect requiring additional research. 

Overall, research on the topic has established that hierarchical relationships constitute the most 

controversial type of office romance. Since they present a higher risk of impacting the workforce and its 

environment negatively, boss-subordinate involvements need to be addressed more specifically than, for 

example, lateral involvements (Powell, 2001). Despite researchers’ findings indicating that co-workers 

expect management to identify and address problems caused by hierarchical work romances, relatively 


few organizations have written or unwritten policies about workplace romances (SHRM, 1998, 2001, 

2005). Nevertheless, romantic relationships pursued in work settings will remain a controversial issue for 

employees, managers and organizations, due to potential serious legal implications both for all parties. 

Policies appear to be the most enigmatic issue and also have the most potential for some resolvable 

structure and solutions. 

A corporate policy governing office romance can have an important impact on the organizations ability to 

protect itself from liability. By adopting policies that address both hierarchal and lateral romances and 

implement actions accordingly, an organization can ensure fairness and increase acceptance of the policy. 

Employers have to take great care in designing/implementing policies and ensuring they protect the 

organization’s interests while respecting the civil liberties of its employees. Finally, a policy is only one 

piece of the puzzle for an organization to successfully handle the issue of workplace romance. 

Furthermore it needs to ensure that managers and employees receive the proper training and adequate 

up-to-date information about the company’s policies and success. By aligning the actions of both 

employees and employers with the liability protection requirements of the organization through a welldeveloped 

corporate policy, the adverse affects of work place romance can be minimized. 

Linked to the legal aspect of the issue, researchers are currently conducting studies to determine the 

extent to which observers, such as human resource staff members, affirmative action officers, managers, 

judges and jurors, engage in an ethical decision-making process when asked to investigate claims of 

sexual harassment that stem from a dissolved workplace romance. More specifically, Pierce (SHRM, 

2006) is currently investigating how various case characteristics, such as type of workplace romance and 

whether or not the court noted if the organization had a workplace romance policy, might be predictive of 

judges' decisions regarding a request for summary judgment. Findings of such studies will undoubtedly 

shed more light on the issue in order to help professionals with drafting and managing corporate policies, 

and creating effective training programs to help deal with workplace romance and its implications. This is 

just the beginning of studying a problem that has been an enigma for organizations since their evolution. 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, C.J. and Fisher, C. (1991). “Male female relationships in the workplace: Perceived motivations 

in office romance”, Sex Roles, Vol.25, 163-180. 

Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2002). Ethics in research. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of Research 

Methods in Industrial/Organizational Psychology (pp. 34–56). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 

Anderson C. and Hunsaker, P.L., (1985, February), “Why there’s romancing at the office and why it’s 

everybody’s problem, Personnel, Vol.62, pp. 57-63 

Adebowale, A., “One More Time: The Mentor Connection”, Equal Opportunities International, 1992. Vol. 

11, Iss. 4; p. 6. 


Bureau of National Affairs (BNA). (1988). Corporate Affairs: Nepotism, Office Romance and Sexual 

Harassment. Washington, DC: BNA 

Bowes-Sperry, L., & Powell, G. N. (1999). Observers’ reactions to social–sexual behavior at work: an 

ethical decision making perspective. Journal of Management, Vol.25, pp.779–802. 

Cleveland, J. N., &Kerst, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of power: An under-articulated 

relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.42, pp.49-67. 

Chesanow, N. (1992 July), “Do office affairs ruin careers?” New Woman, pp.84-87 

Devine, L. and Markiewiez, D. (1990). “Cross-sex relationships at work and the impact of gender 

stereotypes”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.9, pp. 333-338. 

Dillard, J.P. (1987).Close relationships at work: Perceptions of the motives and performance of relational 

participants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 4, pp.179-193. 

Dillard, J.P., and Broetzmann, S.M. (1989).Romantic relationships at work: Perceived changes in jobrelated 

behaviors as a function of participant’s motive, partner’s motive, and gender. Journal of Applied 

Social Psychology, Vol.19, pp.93-110. 

Driscoll, J.B. and Bova, R.A. (1980 July) “The sexual side of enterprise”. Management Review, Vol.69, 

pp.51-54 

Eyler D.R. and Baridon, A.P. (1991), “More than Friends, Less than Lovers: Managing sexual attraction in 

working Relationships”, Jeremy P. Tatcher, Los Angeles CA. 

Eyler D.R. and Baridon, A.P. (1992a,), “Far more than friendship”, Psychology Today, pp. 59-67. 

Eyler D.R. and Baridon, A.P. (1992b), “Managing sexual attraction in the workplace”, Business Quarterly, 

Vol.56, pp.19-26. 

Fitzgerald, L.F., Gelfand, M.J., & Drasgow, F. (1995).Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and 

psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol.17, pp.425-445. 

Foley, S., Powel, G.N, (1999) “Not all is fair in love and work: Coworkers' preferences for and responses 

to managerial interventions regarding workplace romances”. Journal of Organizational Behavior., .Vol. 20, 

Iss. 7; pg. 1043 

Fisher, A.B. (1994). “Getting comfortable with couples in the workplace”, Fortune, Vol.130, pp.138-143. 

Freedman, S.M. and Philips, J.S. (1988), “The Changing Nature of research on women at work”, Journal 

of Management, Vol.14-2, pp. 231 

Greenberg, J., (1987) “A taxonomy of organizational justice theories”, Academy of Management Review, 

Vol.12, pp.9-22. 

Gurchiek, K, (2006). “Most organizations lack policy on office romance”. Society for Human Resource 

Management, Available at: 

http://www.shrm.org/hrnews_published/archives/CMS_015775.asp 

Gutek, B.A. (1985), “Sex and the Workplace: The Impact of Sexual Behavior and Harassment on Women, 

Men, and Organizations” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Henry, D. (1995). “Wanna date? The office may not be the place”, HR Focus, Vol.72 (4), pg.14. 


Jamison, K. (1983) “Managing sexual attraction in the workplace”, Personnel Administrator, Vol.28 (8), 

pp.45-51. 

Jones, G.E., (1999), “Hierarchical workplace romance: an experimental examination of team member 

perceptions”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.20-7, pp. 1057 

Josefwitz N. (1982) “Sexual relationships at work: Attraction, transference, coercion or strategy” Personnel 

Administrator, Vol.27 (3), pp.91-96 

Karl, K.A., Sutton, C.L., “An Examination of the Perceived Fairness of Workplace Romance Policies”, 

Journal of Business and Psychology. New York: Spring 2000. Vol. 14, Iss. 3; p. 429 

Kiser, S.B., Coley, T., Ford, M., Moore, E, (2006). “ Coffee, Tea, or Me? Romance and Sexual 

Harassment in the Workplace”, Southern Business Review, Vol. 31, Iss. 2; p. 35 

Mainiero, L.A. (1986).A review and analysis of power dynamics in organizational romances. Academy of 

Management Review, Vol.11, pp.750-762. 

Mainer, L. A. (1989). Office Romance: Love, Power, and Sex in the Workplace. New York: Rawson 

Associates. 

Mainiero, L. A. (1993). Dangerous liaisons? A review of current issues concerning male and female 

romantic relationships in the work place. In E.A.Fagenson (Ed.),Women in Management: Trends, Issues, 

And Challenges In Managerial Diversity (pp.162-185).Newbury Park, Sage. 

Mondy, R.W. and Permeaux, S.R. (1986), “People problems: the workplace affair”, Academy of 

Management Review, Vol.11, pp.36-39 

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2001), “Sexual harassment as unethical behavior: the role of 

moral intensity”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 73–92. 

Paul, R.J., Townsend, J.B. (1998), “Managing the workplace romance: protecting employee and employer 

rights”, Review of Business, Vol. 19, Iss. 2, pp. 25-30. 

Pierce, C. A., Byrne, D., & Aguinis, H. (1996), “Attraction in organizations: a model of workplace romance”, 

Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 5–32. 

Powel, G.N. (1986), “What do tomorrow’s managers think about sexual intimacy in the workplace?” 

Business Horizon, Vol. 29, pp. 30-35. 

Powell, G. (2001), “Workplace romances between senior-level executives and lower-level employees: an 

issue of work disruption and gender”, Human Relations, Vol. 54, Iss.11, pp. 15-19. 

Pierce, C.A., Broberg, B. J., McClure, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2004), “Responding to sexual harassment 

complaints: effects of a dissolved workplace romance on decision-making standards”, Organizational 

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 95, pp. 66-82. 

Pierce, C. A., Aguinis, H. (2005), “Legal standards, ethical standards, and responses to social-sexual 

conduct at work”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 727-732. 

Quinn, R.E. (1977), “Coping with cupid: the formation, impact, and management of romantic 

relationships in organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, 30-45. 

Quinn, R.E., Judge, N.A. (1978), “The office romance: no bliss for the boss”, Management Review, 

Vol.67.pp.43-49. 


SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). (1998). Workplace Romance Survey (Item No. 

62.17014). Alexandria, VA: SHRM Public Affairs Department. 

SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). (2002). Workplace Romance Survey. Alexandria, VA: 

SHRM Public Affairs Department. 

2006 Workplace Romance POLL FINDINGS, A Study by the Society for Human Resource Management 

and CareerJournal.com Retrieved from: 

http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/surveys_published/2006%20Workplace%20Romance%20Poll%20Findin 

gs.pdf October 10th 2006.SHRM Research Department, Alexandria, VA. 22314, 

Schaefer, C.M., Tudor, T.R. (2001), “Managing workplace romances”, S.A.M. Advanced Management 

Journal, Vol. 66, Iss. 3; pp. 4-10. 

Spelman, D., Crany, M. (1984), “Intimacy or distance? A case on male-female attraction at work”, 

Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, Vol.9, pp.72-85. 

Sternberg, R.J. (1986), “A triangular theory if love”, Psychological Review, Vol. 93, pp. 119-135. 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1993), Proposed guidelines on harassment. 

Westhoff, L.A. (1985). Corporate Romance, Times Books, New York, NY. 

Westhoff, L.A. (1986,), “What to do about corporate romance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.11, 

pp. 50-55. 

Wirth, L. (2001), “Breaking through the glass ceiling: women into management”, Geneva: International 

Labour Office. 

Wilson, R.J., Filosa C., Fennel, A. (2003), “Romantic relationships at work: does privacy trump the dating 

police?” Defense Counsel Journal, Vol. 70, Iss. 1 pp. 78-88. 

AUTHOR PROFILES: 

Dr. Steven H. Appelbaum is Professor of Management and Concordia University Research Chair in 

Organizational Development at the John Molson Graduate School of Business in Montreal, Quebec. He 

formerly served as Dean. He has published more than 100 research and applied articles in major journals in 

Europe, the United States, Canada and the Far East. Several have been selected for citations (awards) of 

excellence. He has authored 11 textbooks and won the Outstanding Teaching Award in 1994 and 1999. 

Ana Marinescu completed the MBA at the John Molson School of Business in Montreal in 2007. 

Julia Klenin completed the MBA at the John Molson School of Business in Montreal in 2007. 

Justin Bytautas completed the MBA at the John Molson School of Business in Montreal in 2007.

fatal attractions: the (mis) management of workplace romance

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?