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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment