Romantic Relationships at Work: Why Love Can Hurt

• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Author: Fiona Wilson
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12034
• Date: 01 January 2015

Romantic Relationships at Work: Why

Love Can Hurt

Fiona Wilson

Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK

Corresponding author email: fiona.m.wilson@glasgow.ac.uk

The academic community, practitioner literature and newspapers have all taken an

interest in workplace romance.This paper aims to review the literature on workplace

romance and to argue that the issue of power is key to understanding the negative

consequences for individuals and organizations, linking workplaceromance with theo-

ries or explanatory models of power. The paper first examines definitions of workplace

romance, presents evidence of its prevalence, distinguishes between different types of

workplace romance,and then looks at the main issues that managers and organizations

face when considering the issue.The approaches taken by research in management,law,

psychology and sociology are contrasted.The motivations for romance and the place of

culture are described. Secrecy, gender differences and the negative and positive out-

comes for men and women are discussed.The link between romance and harassment is

explored. The paper looks at what organizations have done to manage romance. The

research methods that have been used are reviewed, as are the gaps and weaknesses in

order to make recommendations for future research. The review synthesizes accumu-

lated knowledge in both researchand practice, ending by identifying recommendations

for managers.

Introduction

Since the late 1970s, workplace romance has been

researched and debated by scholars and academics. It

is likely that the first definition of workplace romance

was ‘a relationship between two members of the

same organization that is perceived bya third par ty to

be characterized by sexual attraction’ (Quinn 1977,

p. 30). More recently workplace romances havebeen

defined by Pierce and Aguinis (2001, p. 206) as

‘mutually desired relationships involving sexual

attraction between two employees of the same

organization’. Sexual attraction is thus a defining

feature of workplace romance.

Surveys over the last few decades have clearly

illustrated the prevalence of workplace romance. In

the UK more than 70% of employees have experi-

enced a workplace romance (Clarke 2006). It is

thought that up to a fifth of us meet our partners at

work, and a quarter to half of office romances lead

to marriage (Furnham 2012). In the US, a 2011

survey by CareerBuilder.com showed that 40% of

respondents had dated a co-worker, while a third

said they had married the person they dated at

work (Adams 2012a, 2012b; see also Society for

Human Resource Management (SHRM) 2011).

Crail (2006) reported that 71% of survey respond-

ents were aware of a romance currently happening

in their office. Nearly a quarter of managers said

they had been involved in a workplace romance

at least once during their career (Peak 1995).

Workplaces are now seen as having an important

sexual component (Fleming 2007; Kakabadse and

Kakabadse 2004). Social–sexual behaviour is

common in organizations, with a majority reporting

that they experience it (Burke and McKeen 1992).

Kakabadse and Kakabadse (2004) found that 60%

of their survey of 221 participants of different

nationalities admitted to an intimate experience in

the workplace.

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 17, 1–19 (2015)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12034

© 2014 British Academy of Management and JohnWiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

The literature fails to draw out the different types

of romance, but there are two essential factors:

whether both parties are ‘single’, and whether there

is an issue of consent. A workplace romance between

single workers may be simply a ‘one night stand’or

the beginning or continuation of an established part-

nership. However, workplace romance relationships

where one or both partners are involved in an exist-

ing relationship may potentially bring about the

infamy of extramarital affairs. A romance in which

consent is in question may or may not result in accu-

sations of harassment. These distinctions apply

across relationships of same-gender or different-

gender couples.

Only two types of workplace romance are identi-

fied in the literature: lateral and hierarchical (e.g.

Karl and Sutton 2000; Pierce and Aguinis 1997). A

lateral romance is a relationship between employees

of equal status. A hierarchical romance is one where

the two employees are at different organizational

levels, as when a manager is romantically involved

with his or her subordinate. Hierarchical workplace

romances are both more frequent and more problem-

atic than lateral romances, involve power differences

between those in the partnership, and are often a

source of hostility (Powell 2001).

Romantic behaviour is frequently contrasted with

sexually harassing behaviour, which is unwelcome,

non-consensual and a form of sex discrimination. For

example, Pierce et al. (1996) refer to workplace

romance as a consensual relationship between two

partners of opposite sex that does not constitute

unwanted or harassing activity. Definitions also tend

to assume that the romance is between two partners

of the opposite sex (e.g. Dillard and Witteman 1985;

Mainiero 1986; Pierce et al. 1996; Powell 1993;

Powell and Mainiero 1990).The workplace romance

literature has been fairly silent on the topic of same-

sex romances (Powell and Foley 1998). While

Rumens (2008) discusses gay men’s friendships at

work, and Bowring and Brewis (2009) look at how a

group of lesbian and gay employees manage their

identities at work, neither examines workplace

romance. The definitions also tend to exclude cross-

organizational romances.

Workplace romance presents a number of ques-

tions. One of the most important is: should work-

place romance be banned because it can potentially

hurt the organization and the couple? The research

literature on workplace romance has been driven bya

concern about potential negative impacts of work-

place romance: in particular, impacts on productivity

and claims of favouritism or sexual harassment. The

literature offers advice to managers on questions

such as whether managers should treat romantic rela-

tionships as private affairs, external to the organiza-

tion and its business, or should intervene with an

anti-fraternization policy. This question has been

debated since 1978, when Margaret Mead,an anthro-

pologist, stated her opinion: ‘You don’t make passes

or sleep with people you work with’ (Mead 1978).

People who believe that expressions of sexuality

should never appear at work get upset and expect

management to do something (Powell and Foley

1998). ‘Sexuality’ and ‘work’ are seen as ‘somehow

at odds with each other’ (Hearn and Parkin 1987, p.

7). Blending the boundaries of personal and work life

is considered a ‘risky business’ (Burke 2010), as it

raises conflicts between professional codes of

conduct and the right to privacy (Mainiero and Jones

2013). Consensual workplace romance can lead to

negative outcomes such as job loss, litigation or

negative publicity in newspapers (Williams et al.

1999). McDonald (2000) illustrates the dangers that

managers face by entitling his article ‘Failed work-

place romances: If you’re lucky you’ll just get sued’.

The issue of workplace romance becomes highly

topical when well-known individuals lose their jobs

or professional reputations. Cases that have been

widely discussed in the media include Clinton–

Lewinsky (Powell 2000), in which consensual sexual

relations between a married man and a single intern

resulted in the impeachment of the US president, and

the case of a then-married Mary Cunningham who

was accused of ‘sleeping her way to the top’ at the

Bendix Corporation (Harrison and Lee 1986; Swartz

et al. 1987). The Red Cross fired its married presi-

dent because of a personal relationship with a sub-

ordinate (CNN 2007); the World Bank president

resigned following a conflict of interest from his

relationship with an employee; Boeing’s chief execu-

tive lost his job after an ‘improper relationship’ with

a colleague (Isidore 2005); and more recently, a CIA

chief resigned after his extramarital affair was uncov-

ered (BBC News 2012).

The research literature in human resource manage-

ment and law has been driven by concerns about the

harmful outcomes of workplace romance; this

perspective has led to their contribution being func-

tionalist and prescriptive. However, in sociology

and organizational theory, the approach has been

quite different. This literature first notes how the

issue of sexuality in organizations has been largely

untouched (Burrell and Hearn 1989; Hearn and

2F. Wilson

© 2014 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.