Not so lovely 'love contract'

Love contract, I feel, is an oxymoron with nothing lovely about it. The company requires the employees to sign this contract in order to ensure that the employer does not face any sexual harassment litigation afterwards or the relationship does not in any way affect employees’ performance. But does just signing a contract help? What if there is a sexual harassment case even after the signing of the contract. Anyways the company will take some steps according to its code of conduct policies. So, how is love contract actually helping? On the other hand, this may some how be an insult to the employees’ personal life and they may feel that the professional life is a little bit too much intruding into their personal life. People may not like to join the firm due to this. So, Recruitment process might get a set back.
Also, as has been mentioned in this discussion before, there are companies like TCS who give incentives to employees who marry their co workers from TCS. So, are these companies wrong in thinking that a relationship between their own employees actually enhances their performance and reduces attrition?

Yes, I agree that PDA should be discouraged. Because that makes other colleagues around you feel uncomfortable. But that can be covered under the normal code of conduct policy of the company. Is their actually a need for a love contract for that?
It’s not necessary that only couples behave this way. People might behave the same way and still maintain the say that they are just good friends. So, this should be controlled through a general rule that applies to all employees and not through love contracts only applicable for couples who accept that they are into a relationship.

The Balancing Act

Let me begin by narrating a few examples straight from the corporate arena. In June 2005, Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher was asked by the board to put down his papers after having admitted to having an affair with a female sub-ordinate. Starwood Hotels CEO Steven Hayer had to pay a lump severance sum of USD 35 million after investigations by the board revealed his involvement in romantic office link-ups. Very recently there was a lot of hue-n-cry created over the alleged involvement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn in similar affairs.

In short, all the above mentioned happenings provide a clear cut indicator of the seriousness of the issue on hand. Of course, you may argue that these were high profile cases and when CEOs get involved in office link-ups the repercussions are bound to show up on the company. But then the reality at the middle and bottom of the pyramid is no different. We've heard of numerous instances of office affairs at the lower level turning to be a big pain for the companies' senior management, specially in the ITES-BPO sector. For those who have been a part of the IT industry, this should not really come as a surprise, given the never-ending work schedule that makes up an individual's day. This is precisely the reason why most of the BPO companies have stringent rules in place to ensure that an associate's personal life doesn't end up over-riding the company's business. To put it straight, most of them have now started implementing "The Love Contract".

A mere glance at the Love Contract would indicate a few crucial components that make the deal:

• Acknowledgment that the relationship is voluntary and consensual
• Acknowledgment that both parties understand the employer's policy against harassment
  
• A pledge of avoiding conflict of interest because of the relationship
• A pledge to keep the relationship discreet to avoid claims of favoritism
• Provision of severance from the services of the company in case either party is found violating the above mentioned norms

So, are these clauses justified? By putting such a contract in place, are companies peeping a bit too much into the personal lives of the employees? Well, a few more stats and the picture would be crystal clear. A survey reveals that 4 out of 10 employees have at some point or the other been involved in office link-ups. 1 out of 5 end up in a matrimonial association. With such a significant proportion of the workforce indulging in office affairs, companies are bound to take note and act accordingly. Moreover, for the employees involved, the workplace is no longer an escape from personal issues and there's every chance of these private matters being aired in public thereby putting colleagues and the employees themselves at discomfort.

The scenario is even more complex when the matter involves direct hierarchical reporting of the couple. Even in the case mentioned, although Pritam doesn't happen to be Jagruti's immediate boss, his role of an HR manager in a way does provide significant control over Jagruti's professional actitivities. Thus the clause of favoritism pretty much stands validated and so does the "Love Contract".

Now lets flip over to the other side of the coin. In case of Pritam and Jagruti, the link-up was trouble-free but what if the relationship suddenly turns sour and the very next moment you have law questioning the firm's integrity. The much publicized Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky affair is a case in point. No wonder the clause of harassment forms a major component of the "Love Contract".

In short, although love affairs are pretty much a part of an individual's personal arena but one needs to understand that in today's age of steeply rising company workforce and cut throat corporate competiton, the last thing you need is the company getting into trouble or losing business just because two people could not maintain a clear distinction between their personal and professional lives. Moreover, a "Love Contract" simply provides the company a certain control over workplace liasons. I'm sure everyone would agree that this option is far better than the implementation of a rigid framework which out-n-out bans workplace affairs, as is the case with a few companies operating in the communist world.

Look Beyond Love...

2007:“World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz resigned yesterday, effective June 30, yielding to demands from governments around the world that he leave to end the ethics controversy that has consumed the institution. Wolfowitz has argued that he sought to resolve an obvious conflict of interest by transferring his longtime companion, Shaha Riza, to another job at the State Department so that he could avoid supervising her, while increasing her pay as compensation for the career disruption. Her income jumped from $133,000 to $193,590 in just two years - which is more money than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice makes before taxes.”(Courtesy ABC News)

Favoritism exists in the workplace. But favoritism is not confined to love and sex. Family relations and office friends can also upset co-workers' sense of fairness and end up undermining the organization's performance. Such dilemmas are acute in a family business, when a founder who is choosing a successor must decide whether to favor his son or daughter or search outside for a better qualified manager.

How can an organization control these relationships? In countries like India, personal connections are positively viewed and it is accepted and in many cases even expected - that a father will pass the business to his son. But business performance could suffer if the decision maker loses objectivity and does not use merit as the top criterion.

It is very difficult to quantify relationships. Then, how to measure the negative impact of perceived unfairness and favoritism?

A situation, in which employees receive fewer resources than they believe they deserve, is perceived as unfair, and it may lead to counterproductive work behavior. Unfairness makes matters worse, but fairness may not eliminate the negative influences of jealousy. Workers may engage in harming behaviors if they feel envious that someone else received a relatively better result.

The topic of favoritism becomes even more controversial in terms of Nepotism and supervisor-subordinate dating.

There is a long history to conflicts of interest. In post world war era, organizations had to deal with romantic relationships as more women became part of the workforce. Rigid no-dating policies were set up which invited discrimination charges as they tended to penalize women more often than men, as men, were more likely to be supervisors.

But, no-dating policies do not fit a modern workforce. People marry late, work for longer hours and work is the place where they meet people with similar interests. Hence banning personal relationships is highly unrealistic.

What the organization has to ensure that the senior person does not make important decisions concerning the other, such as pay and promotions. It may be necessary that such issues be handled by a person or committee outside the command under which the subordinate works. The main approach is to act fair. The other employees are less likely to see all the members of a committee as biased.

Employees have many reasons to keep a relationship secret. It could be the fear of looking unprofessional, to avoid gossip or just to keep it private. They think it can safely be managed this way. But it's hard to have good judgment when emotionally connected.

Some organizations have a policy, through a contract, which emphasizes an employee's duty to disclose, to a designated supervisor, any personal relationships that could involve conflicts of interest. The policy should keep it confidential and restrict the information to a few concerned. Once the disclosure is made, it is for the company to decide whether a conflict warrants action, such as an employee transfer.

Finally, no policy works well if employees see it as a punishment. Employees must be ensured that the company is not opposed to relationships, just to conflicts of interest. This climate of trust has to be developed and the policy, properly communicated. A small paragraph in the MOP is not enough to override human impulses.

Till Boss does us apart.........

I agreed with Shankhadeep on the point that relationship at workplace can be used for gaining some unfair advantage as we have seen in the movie “Life in a Metro”. But what is missing in the story is any evidence which suggests that Pritam has favored Jagruti at any point of time which brings in the concept of favoritism.

What is also questionable is that whether Top-management is worried that if Pritam is promoted to higher position he will use his position for giving unfair advantage to Jagruti.

Now as we have seen this culture of Love Contract is quite prominent in foreign countries especially in England, what ground it holds when it comes to Indian Corporate Culture. For this when I was browsing on net I came across different point of views which I would like to site:

Organization uses love contract to ensure maximum objectivity at work. Keeping jealousy, favoritism and conflict at bay is another motivating force. I am posting few examples of HR people and employees and what they think about this Love-Contract culture in Indian context:

Dwaipayan Guha (DGM) said that organization should not interfere with personal life of employees and they should provide private space and organization should respect this.

Neha Mishra (HR professional) also dismisses the idea. ‘‘It is not the HR department’s job to step into their employees’ lives. Also, with people falling in and out of love all the time these days, it will be difficult to accomplish.’’

Smriti Nawani, a BPO exec, said that as long as employee is doing no harm to organization, organization has no right to keep a tab on them.

But there are people who support the idea.

PR professional Kavita B said, “A love contract sounds like a wonderful idea. The Indian HR should implement it soon.”What is peculiar about this example is that this lady had applied for a job in a company where she had cleared all rounds of selection but ultimately rejected when she told top management that her husband is also working in the organization. So she felt that having a love-contract would have solved her case.

There are many cases of married couples working the same organization by hiding their marital status. This arrangement lets them enjoy the ‘single status’ and they don’t have to bear the brunt for the other’s goof-up.

What is my concerned is how will you draw a line between people’s interaction and their consequences on the job productivity, favoritism etc.

It’s not just about Love-Contract, in future we might see Friendship Contract, where if you are working in any organization where any of your friend is working at senior or junior position you have to sign this contract. If this happens then it will be hard to join any organization as world is so small.

What is more intriguing and confusing is what if a person develops a relation at workplace after joining, Does this mean that you are not supposed to express your feelings at workplace or you have to express simple human emotions under the guidlines of your organization? There can be alternative solutions which do not require presence of contracts.

As one of the executive rightly said that ‘‘No workplace can function in an absolute objective manner. Favoritism can be talk as a positive term also.Relationships in offices can be both romantic and non-romantic. A boss can be friendly with some of his employees. This is where favoritism comes in. Also, we mustn’t ignore the fact that everyone likes to bet on the best.’’

A Question of Conflict of Interest

Some Questions

What is the scope of a "Love Contract"? Does it always have to be one with romantic implications? From an Organisation's point of view, other than "avoid any romantic and / or sexual behavior within the organization" are there any other clauses that set it apart from any other such agreement that may be have to be forwarded to a parent & sibling or 2 siblings working in the same organization?

Forms of Love

To be limited by thinking in terms of a romantic relationship only may not give us a holistic view of Love; after all there definitely is Love between between parents and siblings and between siblings too. For that matter there can be Love between close friends too. Thus Love, as we know of it can imply any a strong positive emotion of regard and affection. Do Organizations go around forwarding contracts to all such people who are potentially in Love and working in the same Organizations?

Behavior Control Through Contract!!

The statement about avoiding romantic and/or sexual behavior within the organization may look important but may actually not be that significant in any Organizational context. It may sound that I am not being sensible but think of this, do you really need to sign a contract to behave in a socially acceptable way maintaining the implicit decorum of the place where you are in? First of all, Love or no Love there can be a range of unacceptable behavioral cases which are always implicit while working in any Organization. Do we sign contracts to make sure that we do not start a physical brawl with another employee or we shout and holler with colleagues or do any such thing that may be socially inappropriate in the context? Generally the behavioral aspect is implicitly understood or taken care of through some simple statement relating to disciplinary behavior in employment contracts. Any sane or rational human being is not expected to involve in any behavior that may be inappropriate in the context. Hence, although it is one of the clauses of the contract under discussion, I do not believe that this is the major purpose of the contract.

Conflict of Interest

Not always do Love relationships have to be bound by contracts. There are multiple instances where parent-siblings, 2 siblings, married couples and committed souls work in the same Organization but never come across such a situation where they are forwarded a contract. I know of a lot of such cases but probably the most significant one for me is that in my first job at Technologies, I and the person with whom I am committed romantically from our college days, joined together and was trained and posted in same locations. It definitely does not take a KGB/CIA to know of such cases but let alone a "Dating and Relationship Agreement" we were never even approached by anyone and questioned or briefed about our relation in the context of the Organization for the 1 year while we worked together. We worked in different Business Units and could not, in any way, influence each others professional position in the organization. As far as consuming each others time and thus affecting performance is concerned, it solely depends on the sincerity of the individuals. A individual who knows no one else in the organisation personally may end up wasting office hours doing nothing.

In the case of Pritam & Jagruti, what becomes significant is that Pritam is an HR Manager & Jagruti is a Senior Software Engineer; as per the implicit indications in the case, there is scope of direct influence in this context. Being an HR Manager, Pritam could influence Jagruti's position in the Organization by offering her certain favors, divulging certain information which she may not be entitled to know otherwise or even influence in some way processes like performance appraisals, etc that will have major implications in her carrier growth. The way I see it, this is the primary reason of concern for the employer and hence there emerges a need of a contract that, more than controlling such actions, actually makes the individuals involved, very conscious about how they are dealing with each other in the professional context. Even if there was no agreement, probably they would not have involved in any kind of influence on professional positions but by asking them to sign such a contract the company essentially make them very conscious about any action that may involve the other person; it forces them to think twice before taking any step which may involve the other.

This probably is the reason why such a contract, which apparently may not seem very logical, may actually be required in cases where there are conflicts of interest, be it a romantic relationship or a blood relationship or any other human relationships for that matter.

What is the basic purpose ??

In the story “Love Contract” GM (HR) asking Mr Pritam to sign the contract without even reading is a very undemocratic demand. This is not just about a single employee in an organization; it is about the principles of the organization. Do they really think that it is a better way to keep employees focused towards their work rather than any other or is it simply policing?? Even if it is, I question that whether it is possible to quantify the level of relationship so that it can be concluded that it was responsible for underperformance and also even if it is among many other factors of underperformance how do we conclude that how much is the contribution of extra involvement in personal relationships in the office which resulted in it? It is a level of great subjectivity. Rather the basic purpose that has been stated is wrong or it is just another way of shifting the balance of power in the hands of the employer for throwing employees out. I believe that it is just the other way round that these relationships help employees solve their office problems and generation of empathy for the people you are working with is an obvious thing. You can not restrict basic human tendency to get inclined towards somebody more than the other? Then how do we justify this contract?? We cannot force the employees to work like robots and keep them in constant fear that they are being monitored even for their relationships with other employees. I differ with some of my friends who think that such contracts are prevention and I believe that this is an unjustified regulation for the employees.

I don’t think just making the employees sign a contract will keep them away from such relationships, rather the situation will become more distrustful and the genuine team spirit and coordination required at work place will be lost. In the example of Mr Bill Clinton as given by one of my friends, I think that is totally a personal matter and has nothing to do with the organization. Such people with great power and money are usually likely to overrule such petty things as contracts.

But this also cannot be denied today that the issues of workplace sexual harassment, extra marital affairs etc have become very common. I think that instead of asking every employee to sign such contract, we can set the rules of stringent punishments for whosoever is proved to be guilty of such acts and the management must be very open to listen to the complaints. This will help in maintaining the overall atmosphere in the organization and simultaneously warn the wrong doers of the results of such acts.

Apart from the well-cited reasons in the forum like to protect company in case of lawsuits filed for sexual harassment, issues of favoritism etc. there may be some broad issues at hand for which the companies might feel a need to regulate workplace romance:

· “What will be the effect of this behavior on the company and on its other employees?

o How to address workplace romances so that all the parties are dealt with humanely

o How to ensure that any condoned behavior does not jeopardize other people's professional careers

o How to prevent employees from using rank and power to trap others into relationships they do not want?” (Reference: http://www.financialexpress.com/old/fe/daily/19981101/30555154.html)

Options Available to Companies: The following are some of the many options available to companies for regulating work place romance:

1. Do not have any policy for it: In this case, companies rely on its anti-harassment and antidiscrimination policies to protect both the employees and its own interests. But in 1998, US Supreme Court passed two decisions in which the employer was automatically held liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment for a subordinate.

2. Anti-nepotism Policy:

• · Prohibits spouses or relatives from working at the same company or prohibits employees from supervising colleagues who are related to them either by blood or by marriage.
• · Effective in reducing problems created by favoritism or employees' perceptions of favoritism
• · Doesn’t address relationships between employees who are not married or are not related by blood.
• · Company may face issues of sexual discrimination.

3. No Dating Policy:

• · Anti-fraternization Policy
• · Prohibits dating altogether and prohibits dating between supervisors and subordinates
• · Are difficult to define

4. Notification Policy:

• · Requires employees to report their decision to enter into a consensual romantic relationship to a designated company representative
• · Requires employees to notify the end of relationship.
• · The designated company representative can’t disclose the existence of relationship to others in order to protect employee privacy, unless its necessary to respond to complaints about discrimination, favoritism or from problems arising due to the behavior of employees engaged in the relationship.
• · Company can be protected from litigation if case of sexual harassment arises.

5. Love Contracts: A lot has already been said in the forum about love contracts. Love contracts are voluntary in nature i.e., a company can’t force an employee to sign a love contract. Secondly, the employees involved should be given enough time to review and think over the terms of the agreement and to ask questions. As we see this wasn’t there in case of Pritam and Jagruti. Pritam was asked to sign the agreement first and read it later. And one of them was asked to put down his/her papers in case Pritam do not sign the agreement. The GM (HR) specifically mentioned that he would prefer Jagruti to put down her papers. This may bring trouble for the firm as this can be viewed as discrimination against employees and is not in line with equal employment opportunity law. Therefore, firms should be very careful while using love contracts. The employer must also ensure that the employee understands the company's sexual harassment policy and policy against discrimination. However, there are no clues in Pritam and Jagruti case whether this was made sure by GM(HR) before asking them to sign the agreement.

As pointed out by Sushma, that the company does not become free from litigation possibilities even with a love contract in place. But having a love contract in place shows that the company took steps to ensure that the work place was free from sexual harassment and retaliation. It also affirms that both the employees were aware of the existence of company’s policy on prohibiting sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation and they were obliged to abide by it.

Love Contracts should not be used in each and every case. It is most useful in a supervisor and subordinate relationship. Moreover, a company should use these contracts only when appropriate because it might otherwise give an impression that these relationships are company sanctioned.