Pritam Singh received a call from the GM HR of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd for an urgent meeting with him in his chamber. While he was rushing to the office of GM (HR), he squeezed his brain to get the reason for this meeting. Am I going to be fired? Or is it that the long standing promotion is to be announced leading to an onsite opportunity? Unable to decide, he knocked the door of GM(HR) looking through glass pane.
He noticed that somebody was sitting facing the GM(HR). It did not take much time for him to figure out that it was Jagruti. Before he could knock the door, the GM said, “Come in, Pritam… We are waiting for you…” He did not know as how to start the conversation. He mumbled, “Sir, you wanted to meet me, I suppose…”
“Yes Pritam, take your seat. In fact, I wanted to meet both of you. That’s why I called you”
Pritam took the corner seat so as to avoid sitting in the middle seat next to Jagruti. He was unable to decode the purpose of the meeting and looked at Jagruti for answers. But Jagruti was indifferent to his visit and looking at the portrait hanging on the wall.
GM HR looked into his eyes and asked, “Pritam, how long you have been with Intermediaries Technologies?”
“Six years Sir…”
“I hope you are aware that your name is being considered for Senior Manager HR for our Detroit Office?”
“Yes Sir, I heard from my boss…”
“You really want to be promoted?”
Pritam did not know as how to answer.
“Why Sir? Is there any problem?”
GM(HR) did not answer his question but went ahead and said, “if you really want to be promoted, you will have to sign this agreement. Jagruti has already signed it.”
Pritam was bewildered after hearing this statement. He was speechless. As a HR Manager, Pritam had administered many contracts for various employees and got their signature. But he never came across a situation, where two employees were asked to sign on the same agreement.
Pritam asked meekly, “What is this agreement Sir?”
GM(HR) said, “I prefer that you sign the agreement first and read it at your leisure. It’s self explanatory. Or later you can get to know from Jagruti.”
Pritam said, “But Sir, I want to know first as what is there in the agreement before signing it.”
Jagruti was looking into his eyes and sensing from her facial cues, Pritam felt as if she was signaling him to sign the agreement. He could not understand as what was going on.
He said, “Sir, Sorry for questioning you. But I really don’t know what is happening. I feel like you are up for a mind game. If could explain me as what the problem is, we could discuss and resolve. I really don’t know as how my promotion and signing this agreement are related.”
GM (HR) looked at him with a fire in his eyes and said, “So, you don’t want to sign the agreement. Well. Then, we have only one choice left with us.”
Pritam asked, “What is it, Sir?”
“One of you have to resign from Intermediaries Technologies. I prefer Jagruti puts down her paper before Six O’ Clock.”
When he said this, Pritam could see that tears welling up in her eyes and rolled down on the cheeks of Jagruti. He could now understand as why Jagruti was all along silent and could somehow guess the reason for the meeting.
Pritam as a part of HR team has always enjoyed the fun of recruiting people especially the young college graduates. The recruitment team members, including male and female colleagues, always used to comment looking at the photographs of prospective recruits and derive immense happiness about discussing the characteristics of the candidates turned up for interviews.
Two years back, Pritam recruited Jagruti as a senior software engineer and the day he interviewed her along with his colleagues, he felt a kind of rare intimacy with her which he never felt with anybody during his career spanning almost 8 years in field of HR in his previous organization and also here in Intermediaries Technologies. He felt that there was something special with her.
The subsequent interaction with her while facilitating her placement within the organization as a HR manager and during various other occasions, Pritam found that both of them tried to engage in “sweet nothings” sort of conversations. They slowly started exchanging sms, talked over mobile for long hours, bought expensive gifts for birthdays, and hugged each other during office parties shedding inhibitions.
Now sitting in the office of GM(HR), Pritam realized that this meeting was about their personal relationship and could not understand as why the GM(HR) should poke his nose into their affair. Moreover, he wanted to know as what was written in the agreement and why did Jagruti sign the agreement without consulting him.
In an act of jiffy, he picked up the agreement and started glancing through the page. The GM(HR) raised his voice to protest his move, “Pritam, do you know what you are doing?”
Pritam replied, “Wait a minute, Sir. I am not doing any crime. I am just reading to decide whether to sign it or not” and continued to read the agreement. It read,
Dating and Relationship Agreement
We i.e., Pritam Singh (HR Manager) and Jagruti Patel (Senior Software Engineer) employees of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd., hereby acknowledge that we have entered into a romantic relationship.
We understand that Intermediaries Technologies Ltd is an equal opportunity employer committed to a discrimination and / or harassment free workplace. By signing this “Dating and Relationship Agreement” we declare openly and explicitly that ours is a voluntary relationship of mutual consensus and we both of us guarantee that our relationship would not in any slightest possible way affect our performance in our jobs directly or indirectly and promise to avoid any romantic and / or sexual behavior within the organization.
We also assure the management that in no way our reporting relationship would be influenced by personal romantic relationship and we would always strive hard to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of business operations of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd avoiding any possible misunderstanding, moral, ethical, and social problems such as favoritism, nepotism, corruption, sexual harassment etc.,
In case, the management of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd concludes that we fail to adhere to the company code of conduct for employees due to this personal romantic relationship, we understand that it is appropriate and legitimate for the management of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd to take disciplinary action against both of us and discharge either of us or both of us from the services of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd.
………………..
………………………………………….
……………………………………………………….
Signaure: ________________________ (Pritam Sing, HR Manager)
Signature: ________________________ (Jagruti Patel, Senior Software Engineer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Rationale Behind Contracts
===========================
Companies have always shown a tendency to exercise control over the behavior of the employees to the maximum extent possible. This control gets restricted to the professional scope mostly but in certain cases the line between the personal and professional restrictions gets blurred.
This is what can be seen in the case of "love contract". The company is trying to control the professional behavior of the managers and is interfering into their personal life as well. GM (HR) expects Pritam Singh to blindly sign the contract immediately, without reading through it. The way the contract signing is being executed, it would lead to:
- Pressure:
There is an attempt to increase the pressure on them, without providing enough time to think. Also the simple fact that Pritam is being asked to sign the contract just before he’s expecting his promotion is increasing the emotional pressure on him to sign it. Since people are most vulnerable just before a promotion and are likely to do things asked with second thoughts.
- Control:
To show them who is in control. This is being done by dictating the behavior expected from them in office and telling one of them to resign in case either of them doesn’t sign. It’s a “do or go” situation with hardly any option left before Pritam and Jagruti.
- Unexpected Clauses:
The clauses in the contract are beyond the normal expected and acceptable levels, since reading through the document isn’t allowed. So somewhere even GM (HR) is sure if Pritam goes through the contract before signing it might lead to complications. So he tried his best not to let him read it.
Moreover this case also shows another aspect of control experienced over managers; that is managers however senior or well performing they may be cannot evade from the contracts and controlling part of professional life. Being a HR manager, Pritam himself had administered various kinds of contracts for employees, but in this case he is the one being targeted; so everyone can be made a target of contracts and restrictive clauses be it post the job or dictating terms while he’s in job.
When employees spend more than 40 hrs a week in the workplace it is probable that such romantic relationships are going to develop in the workplace. But the organizations like Intermediaries Technologies are not concerned about the personal implications of such relationships but are more worried about the professional eventualities. Moreover, no organization in these modern times where co-operation, cross- cultural ties etc. are promoted would go for such contracts which would restrict employee’s behaviour. And nor such a contract can cover all the circumstances which can crop up in such situations because most situations like these are individualistic and specific. But these contracts can obviously in a number of ways can make the organization’s work easier in preventing the professional ineffectiveness which are generated in the workplace and do way with many other problematic situations like favouritism, corruption, costly legal charges, poor publicity, effect on workplace morale etc.
Previously these contracts were restricted to prevent negative effects of a relationship on a professional reporting relationship like boss-subordinate relationship to do way with discrimination charges, sexual harassment charges at the later stage when the relationship gets sour. But the rise of incidents like these have brought many other professional relationships under purview of contract like relationship between colleagues of same grade, or between departments which can give rise to many complex situations at work. For examples colleagues of same grade in such a relationship and who are involved in performance management of each other can result in adverse workplace situations.
Managers need to keep many things in view before drafting such contracts. These may include laws of land which the organization caters to, the organizational culture, the nature of the industry, preventing gender bias in implementation, applying it uniformly among organizations irrespective of their marital status, social status, etc. But even then there are many reasons that HR professional may not be encouraged to look at the criticality of these factors and ignore such contracts. The reasons may include consideration by employees that it is invasion of privacy, the mere fact that there are more worthwhile things to be done rather than keeping track on romantic relationships cropping up, mere refusal by the employees to sign the contract because they want to keep the relationship secret. But such reasons should not deter managers from pursuing such “love contracts” and close the eyes to such situations assuming such situations won’t arise.
A love contact properly imposed establishes guidelines for married or romantically involved coworkers in the workplace. The policy was there to solve any disputes between the parties involved in the relationship and to avoid any sexual harassment cases. The purpose of the policy was also to alleviate the liability of the organization in the event that the relationship of the couple ends. The contract is required to be signed by the two employees in a consensual dating/marital relationship, after reading all the guidelines on behavior appropriate at work for the dating/married couple. It also declares that the relationship is by consent.
The few things questionable in the above reading are.
• The nature in which the couple was asked to sign the contract. The GM (HR) made no effort to speak to the employees and confirm the relationship. We are still unaware if the two were really involved in a romantic relationship or not. Jagruti was called first and made to sign the contract without consulting Pritam. We still don’t know what the intention of the GM was when he called Jagruti made her sign the contract alone.
• Pritam was asked to sign the contract without reading it. This is very unusual in the workplace where the employee is forced to sign a contract and not giving him enough time to even read what the contract is all about. Pritam was not even told what the nature of the contract was.
• Blackmailing the employee was the other unusual aspect of the story. Pritam asked to sign the contract otherwise Jagruti loses her job. There was no logic behind the urgency of signing the contract and why he wasn’t allowed to read it. The GM’s method of getting the contract signed was totally unethical.
• Another thing that comes to my mind is the clause in the contract, which is unclear. “In case, the management of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd concludes that we fail to adhere to the company code of conduct for employees due to this personal romantic relationship, we understand that it is appropriate and legitimate for the management of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd to take disciplinary action against both of us and discharge either of us or both of us from the services of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd. “ In the contract it is not mentioned what is the code of conduct for employees in a romantic relationship. What an acceptable behavior is extremely subjective. This should be made clear in the contract.
Well are love contracts required or not can be debated. Some think it should but others won't agree to the norms. Today a normal person in a private firm spends most of his/her time with their colleagues. It is natural to develop a bond in between. While workplace romantic involvement can create awkward situations and claims of favoritism, breakups can be even harder - on the employer. In fact thinking on behalf of the employer one can thus expect them to have some ways to counter this growing phenomena in the organizations. There may be several problems that the employer as well as the employee concerned would have to deal with. Potential problems include sexual harassment claims and revenge-motivated complaints. Thus the usage of "Love Contracts" or more commonly called "consensual relationship agreement" are used by companies to avoid the awkward situation that it can go into. These "love contracts" typically spell out that the relationship is mutually agreeable, consensual, and unrelated to the company; that couples are aware of the policy against sexual harassment and know how to use it; and that they agree to settle any relationship dispute through binding arbitration, not a lawsuit.
A love contract policy establishes workplace guidelines for dating or romantically involved coworkers. The purpose of the policy is to limit the liability of an organization in the event that the romantic relationship of the dating couple ends. Love contracts eliminate the possibility of a later sexual harassment lawsuit when the relationship ends. Love contracts relieve the company of any liability during the time period of the office romance prior to the signing of the contract. In fact as shown in the story the GM-HR is trying to take the signatures of the two parties involved and thus avoiding any future problems.
Thus here in the story we see that the employer "Intermediaries Technologies" is trying to prevent itself from the situations that may arise in future. The debate is on and many may believe that the policy is not suitable and vice-versa.
"Love?? Actually!!!!"
Is this a new way by which employers want to take away an iota of any personal space left. To be asked to sign a contract would not only make the personal life public but also would put pressure on both the parties who have signed the contract.
The very concern of the company remained unanswered by the contract. Although they might have mitigated a not-so-good situation for themselves but have they really done the right thing.
Assuming that Pritam and Jagruti were not in love and would have been best of pals. The concerns of the company of giving undue advantage to either of the employee would still hold. In such case would they come up with "Friendship Contract"!!!
When two people are friends won't they try to favour each other? Won't they look out for each other? And what if some rift happens between them? Would a detrimental action performed by one come under the purview of company's contracts? Shouldn't company formulate some rules by which they could guard the interest of employees against other? With the kind of work politics involved in today's atmosphere I think company should come up with "Friendship Agreement", "Spouse Agreement", "Relative Agreement", "Sibling Agreement" etc etc.
Simply because in today's dynamic workplace when relationships form and break in a jiffy is it valid to bind them legally?
Human being is a social animal, he/she tends to get attached with others around him/her. And sometimes this also results in not liking the ones around you. This is how humans work. They tend to build perceptions and act accordingly. And this act of theirs could benefit someone they like or harm someone they are averse to.
Having witnessed the office politics myself I strongly believe that the issues that could be created by anyone for any reason, company can't really protect the interests of all it's employees. However, if such is the motto of the company then strict HR practices, equal say to all the employees should be implemented.
Well.. Lets look at this "Love-Contract" from two different perspectives. Company first!
The intention of the company could only be that the employees will act (always) in the company's best interests, keeping out any personal biases, and it is only fair that they do. But unfortunately for the company, it is these emotions that make us human and it is not possible that we leave it outside the company's gates and become what we would then become... a machine!
Like it had already been pointed out in one of the posts, it is the company themselves that promote a culture that fosters personal ties between its employees for want of improved performance. Most Companies, if not all, strive to create an environment that we call a "Family-like Environment" through various team building activities, office parties etc.
When it is a conscious choice by the organization to promote such a culture, the company needs to be farsighted enough to anticipate the adverse impacts (adverse from the company's perspective, that is), of such a culture. It could then establish a code of conduct central to all employees, that aims to debilitate any perceived effects. Drawing dynamic (run-time) contracts may in some cases (most cases in my opinion) even hamper the performance of the employees in the future, thereby defeating the very purpose of any such contract.
Taking an employee's view of such contracts, the impacts could vary based on the correctness of the allegation. In the given case, it is not very clear as to whether or not the allegations are true. Relationships can be so intricate and complex that most interpretations might turn out to be wrong.
Allegations, right or wrong, tend to have a deep psychological impact on The Alleged. And when such allegations are accompanied with a contract that you are forced to sign, that too without reading it, would only make matters worse. Also, if leaked (which is almost always a subsequent outcome), it sends out a wrong signal (rather a warning signal) to others around, potentially creating serious damages to the Informal Social Systems prevailing within the company.
The company, in my opinion, would be better off, if it cuts out the clutter of "N" number of such reactive contracts and rather have a single contract that employees should sign during induction.. one that is wisely documented. It can then be periodically reviewed and revisions can be made as the company sees fit. Unless it is totally unavoidable, the company should not draft contracts to tag to select employees.
Surely... there has got to be better ways than a "Love Contract".
From the employer's perspective
In my opinion the GM(HR) fails to understand that his employees are humans and not machines.That is because he is trying to regulate the involuntary behavior through an agreement.I wonder how can he judge whether the employees are in a relationship or not in the following situations:
1. When an employee pats his subordinate or phrases few emotionally encouraging lines as a gesture of support.
2. When an employee helps his/her subordinate with her/his work.
3. When an employee shares few lighter moments over a cup of coffee
4. When an employee swaps his/her shift with another employee in order to render help.
Situations such as these are innumerable. And being an HR you are entrusted with the job of managing Human Resources which includes managing them professionally as well as emotionally in the better interest of the company.Instead of signing such a contract with the employees the employer should look into the opportunities of harvesting the potential from such relationships. This story shows the "MYOPIC" view of the employer.
From the employee's perspective:
When humans don't have control over their involuntary behavior, how can a mere agreement regulate them. Such an agreement clearly signals a restrictive employment relationship which is based on mistrust. Such a relationship does not provide autonomy & neither does it last long. Since there is no clear demarcation as to which behavior are classified as "intimate" or not, the employee always has to live in the perennial fear of being terminated.
Such an agreement is per se invalid because there is no parameter which can measure an employee's performance with regards to his relationship. Such cases can be dealt only on a case to case basis.
Post a Comment