Love Contract: A farce

To complete the story, there could be two possible alternatives: one is that Pritam Singh signs the contract and the other is that he does not sign it. Signing the contract may get him the promotion but in the long run he will definitely feel bogged down because of this. There is an excerpt from the contract which states “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.” When a person becomes so conscious he simply cannot perform efficiently. What is the guarantee that the GM (HR) won’t make him sign another such contract by holding another promotion at stake? The GM is actually digging his own grave by doing so. He is in the process losing out on efficient performers.

The other alternative is that Pritam does not sign it as he personally does not approve of this. Then why is Jagruti asked to resign. Both of them were partners in crime. Why is the axe falling on Jagruti? Won’t that make Pritam feel guilty and in the process even he may resign. A love contract would simply compel them to behave more professionally (no more hugging in office premises). Two mature individuals can understand the gravity of the situation from gestures itself. A reprimand could have followed. What’s the need for this so-called ‘love contract’ in the first place? Many participants have stressed upon the point of sexual harassment allegation that may follow after a break-up. My point is that sexual harassment is applicable also to people who do not believe or indulge in PDA (public display of affection) shedding all inhibitions. So for me a love contract is nothing less than a farce.

It is very difficult to come to a conclusion about the GM’s intentions. He wants to promote Pritam but is extremely circumspect. Perhaps he feels that with more power, he will start favouring Jagrti which will be detrimental to Intermediaries Technologies’ interests and is trying to restrict his behaviour. That is why Jagruti was asked to resign. He is trying to shoot Pritam keeping the gun on her shoulders. My concern is that the GM has made this honest effort to restrict his employee’s behaviour. But is he aware of all the clauses in the ‘code of business conduct’ of the Organisation? I worked for Honeywell Automation before joining XIMB. There is a clause in the code of conduct of Honeywell called “We Respect Each Other’s Privacy” which states that “The Company will not interfere in our personal lives unless our conduct impairs our work performance or adversely affects the work environment or reputation of the Company.” Two of my team mates were having an affair and later it turned out to be ugly because of some family issues. They used to fight violently inside the office area. The admin head summoned both of them and gave a serious reprimand as both of them had violated the clause. He did not make them sign any contract because the provision for this was already made by the company. In this case also, apparently their affectionate bonding was affecting the work environment. The GM, HR could have made his point clear about this and the matter could have been resolved.

Lastly, I appreciate the argument raised about the matter of favouritism, nepotism, corruption and transparency by one of the participants. The GM should actually develop a holistic view of the unethical and flawed means adopted by various influential people and should not restrict himself to only a mere love contract. Even the suggestion that the GM should go about making every employee sign some sort of a contract with every other employee is valid because moral policing will only agonise the employees.