To decide whether a love contract is right or wrong, good or bad, should or should not be enforced, requires that we first lay down the basic purpose of the organisation and the HR department. The basic purpose of an organisation and its HR department is to ensure that:
1. Employees work for the maximum benefit of the organisation.
2. Employees are as objective as possible in their judgement and actions.
The first thing to understand is that the employees can never be completely objective in their decisions. This is because a firm deals with human beings and not non-living things. Human beings have emotions and are thus bound to be subjective.
Now, let’s us look at the options before the company and their outcome in relation to the above mentioned objectives. The possible options are:
Case 1: Employees are in love and the love contract is signed: In this case, such a love contract would help in maintaining the decorum of the organisation. But in some cases, it might lead to problems. For example, in a situation where say Jagruti’s actions are in favour of the organisation according to Pritam but other employees are against Jagruti and Pritam needs to take a stand then there are chances he might make a decision against Jagruti (and thus organisation as a whole) in order save his or her or both jobs. But since 100% objectivity is not possible, we can put aside these special cases.
Case 2: Employees are not in love and the love contract is signed: This can be the situation under certain circumstances like this (the case of Pritam and Jagruti) where if the contract is not signed one of the employees will have to leave. In this case, after signing the contract, the likely response of the employees would be they would become very formal and would avoid any sort of friendship. They might even stop talking to each other. In extreme cases, they can even go to the extent of avoiding any professional talk which might be necessary for the benefit of the organisation. But in general they might become little uncomfortable in working with each other. There can be circumstances where if performance of Jagruti falls for some other reasons and Pritam needs to talk to her and find the probable causes for performance appraisal etc..., then such discomfort can prove detrimental to the organisation. Also, even if these two people manage to be professionally comfortable and continue to work for the benefit of the organisation, the signing of contract can have several impacts on other employees and the culture of the organisation as such. After knowing about such contracts, employees already committed or conscious of their repute, might reduce their interactions with other employees of opposite sex because of the possibility of getting associated with the other person even when there is no such thing. This will hamper team work and hence will be harmful for the growth of the organisation.
Case 3: Employees are in love and the contract is not signed: When an employee is forced to leave the organisation (as in this case Jagruti would be), it would breed hostility in the employee who stays and he might start working against the company’s benefit.
Case 4: Employees are not in love and the contract is not signed: If in such case, one of the employees is forced to leave (as here), then the employee who stays in the company may feel guilty. This is because he (because Jagruti was asked to leave) might think that because of his friendship the other person had to leave. There is a possibility that the employee might cut himself off from other female employees for avoiding any such issue from being raised again. This not only would hamper team work but also employee’s efficiency as well. This is because man is a social being by nature and if he is refrained from such interactions, this would affect his emotional stability and would eventually lead to a fall in his efficiency. Also in extreme case, his (in particular an HR manager’s) remoteness may be misunderstood by other female employees as arrogance and attitude and they may consequentially view all his actions and policies as against their well being and may oppose it.
In all the cases, such contracts are likely to have an adverse effect on other employees as they would feel that organisations treat them as machines and not as humans. They are only supposed to work and not make friends. Such behaviour of employees would work against the company.
Under most of the circumstances, these contracts seem to work against the achievement of the stated objectives of the company and the HR department. Hence, other ways should be taken to achieve these objectives. The possible alternatives could be:
1. Training of employees for keeping their personal and professional life separately,
2. The GM(HR) can talk to the employees concerned and ask them to maintain the decorum of the organisation and to work objectively. The employees are likely to take it positively primarily because of the power of his position.
3. Changing their accountability or responsibilities so as to avoid the professional interaction between the 2 employees as much as possible.
1. Employees work for the maximum benefit of the organisation.
2. Employees are as objective as possible in their judgement and actions.
The first thing to understand is that the employees can never be completely objective in their decisions. This is because a firm deals with human beings and not non-living things. Human beings have emotions and are thus bound to be subjective.
Now, let’s us look at the options before the company and their outcome in relation to the above mentioned objectives. The possible options are:
Case 1: Employees are in love and the love contract is signed: In this case, such a love contract would help in maintaining the decorum of the organisation. But in some cases, it might lead to problems. For example, in a situation where say Jagruti’s actions are in favour of the organisation according to Pritam but other employees are against Jagruti and Pritam needs to take a stand then there are chances he might make a decision against Jagruti (and thus organisation as a whole) in order save his or her or both jobs. But since 100% objectivity is not possible, we can put aside these special cases.
Case 2: Employees are not in love and the love contract is signed: This can be the situation under certain circumstances like this (the case of Pritam and Jagruti) where if the contract is not signed one of the employees will have to leave. In this case, after signing the contract, the likely response of the employees would be they would become very formal and would avoid any sort of friendship. They might even stop talking to each other. In extreme cases, they can even go to the extent of avoiding any professional talk which might be necessary for the benefit of the organisation. But in general they might become little uncomfortable in working with each other. There can be circumstances where if performance of Jagruti falls for some other reasons and Pritam needs to talk to her and find the probable causes for performance appraisal etc..., then such discomfort can prove detrimental to the organisation. Also, even if these two people manage to be professionally comfortable and continue to work for the benefit of the organisation, the signing of contract can have several impacts on other employees and the culture of the organisation as such. After knowing about such contracts, employees already committed or conscious of their repute, might reduce their interactions with other employees of opposite sex because of the possibility of getting associated with the other person even when there is no such thing. This will hamper team work and hence will be harmful for the growth of the organisation.
Case 3: Employees are in love and the contract is not signed: When an employee is forced to leave the organisation (as in this case Jagruti would be), it would breed hostility in the employee who stays and he might start working against the company’s benefit.
Case 4: Employees are not in love and the contract is not signed: If in such case, one of the employees is forced to leave (as here), then the employee who stays in the company may feel guilty. This is because he (because Jagruti was asked to leave) might think that because of his friendship the other person had to leave. There is a possibility that the employee might cut himself off from other female employees for avoiding any such issue from being raised again. This not only would hamper team work but also employee’s efficiency as well. This is because man is a social being by nature and if he is refrained from such interactions, this would affect his emotional stability and would eventually lead to a fall in his efficiency. Also in extreme case, his (in particular an HR manager’s) remoteness may be misunderstood by other female employees as arrogance and attitude and they may consequentially view all his actions and policies as against their well being and may oppose it.
In all the cases, such contracts are likely to have an adverse effect on other employees as they would feel that organisations treat them as machines and not as humans. They are only supposed to work and not make friends. Such behaviour of employees would work against the company.
Under most of the circumstances, these contracts seem to work against the achievement of the stated objectives of the company and the HR department. Hence, other ways should be taken to achieve these objectives. The possible alternatives could be:
1. Training of employees for keeping their personal and professional life separately,
2. The GM(HR) can talk to the employees concerned and ask them to maintain the decorum of the organisation and to work objectively. The employees are likely to take it positively primarily because of the power of his position.
3. Changing their accountability or responsibilities so as to avoid the professional interaction between the 2 employees as much as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment