Attitudes changing toward office romances.

As little as 10 years ago, in big and little organizations alike, office romances were strictly forbidden both by policy and custom. That attitude is changing, writes Milton Zall in the CDS Review, publication of the Chicago Dental Society.

Unwelcome sexual advances by one employee to another can trigger legal trouble, but what about welcome sexual or romantic advances, Zall asks.

Research shows that four out of 10 people are destined to meet husbands or wives in the workplace. In 1998, the Bureau of National affairs reported that about 33 percent of all romantic relationships develop in the workplace, Zall writes.

Although dating or courting might be allowed, affairs are still taboo. An office romance is different from an affair, Zall says, and a completely different set of values and rules apply. He notes that affairs cross the boundary from involvement to infidelity and bring up such issues as exploitation and sexual harassment.

Given the long hours people spend at work and the bonds that can develop, some romances are unavoidable, according to Zall. Such couplings have advantages: They can build company loyalty and make workers happier to spend more time on the job. But there are always rules and there are always limits, Zall writes.

The dark side to office romances is that relationships between coworkers can sour and lead to sexual harassment lawsuits if one person continues to pursue the other. Also, office relationships can hurt morale and productivitiy if, for example, other coworkers resent someone getting special treatment from a supervisor.

So-called anti-fraternization and anti-nepotism rules that restrict dating within a workplace are useful, Zall writes. He recommends having a reasonable policy in place on how much to regulate employees' private lives before a real situation erupts, when emotions and politics enter the equation.

To formulate such a policy, first decide which relationships, if any, to ban in your workplace. Prohibiting all romantic relationships between all employees may sound simple, he says, but it's not. Many dentists, he writes, limit their anti-fraternization rule to those in a direct supervisory-subordinate relationship. Others extend it to situations where an individual could affect someone else's pay or working conditions.

Zall says carefully drafted anti-nepotism and anti-fraternization policies serve a legitimate purpose. Policies that attempt to regulate an employee's conduct outside of the workplace, or that are not sufficiently linked to regulating conduct within the workplace, may not survive litigation, he writes.

Source: Dental Editor's Digest[c] 2001