Vantage 2000: Romance in the Workplace and I/O Across the World
Charmine E. J. Hrtel
University of Queensland, Australia
The Vantage 2000 column seeks to provide a forum for discussing the latest in practice, research, and theory especially in relation to emerging views and characteristics of workforces and workplaces. The informative value of the column depends heavily upon your knowledge, experience, and intuition. You can personally help by sending me a note-be it your vision of the future, a problem you are trying to solve, research you are conducting, a consulting tip, something you'd like to hear about, or the name of a person or organization you recommend that I contact. You can also send newspaper clippings, references to a great article or book you read, or areas of emerging controversy (for your organization or for theory). Furthermore, I am seeking to profile organizations or academic departments that provide examples of innovation in philosophy, research, development, application, or implementation aimed at meeting the demands of contemporary and emerging environments. I am eager to receive your ideas and submissions. You can reach me at any of the following: Graduate School of Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia; Phone: +61 7 3365-6747; FAX: +61 73365-6988; INTERNET: C.Hartel@gsm.uq.edu.au
This issue's Vantage 2000 column features two contributions. The contribution entitled "The Office-The Place to Look for Love" is written by Kelly McIntyre, a 3rd-year I/O graduate student at Colorado State University researching workplace romance, sexualized work environments, and resultant coworker attitudes. The contribution entitled "I/O In The Global Village: The Imperative To Internationalize" is derived from a short paper written by Neal Ashkanasy, Associate Professor of OB in the Graduate School of Management, The University of Queensland. The contact details for both authors are: Kelly S. McIntyre, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1082, Office Phone: (970) 491-6091, Fax: (970) 491-1032, e-mail: Kellymc@lamar.colostate.edu and Assoc/Professor Neal Ashkanasy, Graduate School of Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia, Office Phone: +61 (7) 3365-7499, Fax: +61(7) 3365-6988, e-mail: N.Ashkanasy@gsm.uq.edu.au My thanks to Kelly and Neal for their contributions which follow. I am looking forward to receiving your ideas, experiences, views, and research related to these topics.
The Office-The Place to Look for Love
Kelly S. McIntyre
Colorado State University
Workplace romance-the mere mention of it causes a variety of responses. Snickers, snide comments, and stares are often responses to my mention of workplace romance as a research avenue. Comments include "Well, are you doing any personal research?" and "No, really, what are you doing?" Fortunately, just as often, I receive comments along the lines of "Really? Let me tell you a story about where I work" and "Gosh, you could use our organization for a case study!" This tells me that many people have had some sort of personal experience with workplace romance, either as a participant or an observer. Yet, researchers have been slow to follow the experiences. Perhaps many researchers don't consider workplace romance a "serious" I/O topic. Given the responses I have received, it is easy to see this point of view. However, these same comments also suggest that this phenomenon is common in organizations and has some very profound effects on individuals and organizations. Doesn't the frequency and impact of workplace romance therefore make it worthy of scientific study?
What is Workplace Romance?
Workplace romance is defined as a relationship between two people who are employed by the same organization. It is characterized by mutual attraction between the parties and a desire for a personal, romantic relationship. For research purposes, the definition is often more limited. For instance, in their review of workplace romance literature, Pierce, Byrne, and Aguinis (1996) defined workplace romance as "any heterosexual relationship between two members of the same organization that entails mutual sexual attraction" (p.6). As defined here, workplace romance has likely been happening as long as men and women have been working together. However, it has probably been increasing in the last few decades (BNA, 1988). Societal changes may be the culprit. More women are in the workforce, people are getting married later in life, and there is a higher number of divorces, all of which transfer into more single people working together. The office is a safer place to get to know someone than a bar, and there is at least some similarity between the participants at the beginning of the relationship-the place where they both work. In addition, people are spending more of their time at work than ever before, and are in the same vicinity and in more contact with their coworkers (Anderson & Hunsaker, 1985). When all of this is taken together, it may be that the workplace has become the latest "singles' scene."
Workplace romance has actually been studied scientifically for 20 years. Quinn (1977) wrote the first widely cited article of workplace romance research. Quinn approached a random sample of people in an airport and asked them about workplace romances they have observed. Quinn found that many people had in fact observed a romance, and that very negative effects had occurred. Quinn concluded that workplace romance is something that should be avoided. He went so far as to suggest that policies be put in place to ban them from workplaces. Anthropologist Margaret Mead (1980) agreed, as have other researchers (e.g., Collins, 1983). Researchers have found that performance has decreased, quality of output has decreased, more errors have occurred, and gossip interrupts working (Anderson & Hunsaker, 1985). This negative perspective has tended to color many popular press accounts of workplace romance as well (e.g., Chesanow, 1992; Flax, 1989; Rapp, 1992).
However, this viewpoint is not shared by all observers. More recently, the views have changed somewhat. Other authors believe that workplace romance can have some very positive effects (Anderson & Hunsaker, 1985; Brown & Allgeier, 1995; Dillard, 1987). Anderson and Hunsaker (1985) found that some participants were observed to be more productive, easier to get along with, enjoyed being at the office more, and experienced less tension. Brown and Allgeier (1995) found that in specific instances, perceptions of workplace romance were very positive.
Past research has looked at workplace romance from several different angles. Some researchers have looked at the consequences of workplace romance (e.g., Mainiero, 1986, 1989; Westhoff, 1985), such as job satisfaction, coworker responses, and productivity. Others have focused on the causes of workplace romance, and have posited many predictors (e.g., Dillard & Broetzmann, 1989; Dillard & Witteman, 1985). For instance, propinquity, attitude similarity, and repeated exposure are taken from the attraction literature to be hypothesized causes of workplace romance (Pierce et al.,1996). The motives of the participants, the desire to be a part of a relationship, and the organizational culture have all been studied (Mainiero, 1993). However, as workplace romance is a relatively new topic for research, validation and confirmation of results are needed for the aspects already studied. Pierce et al. (1996) provide a review of previous workplace romance research. However, there are still many areas of workplace romance which have not yet been investigated.
Workplace romance appears from the research to be ubiquitous. Anderson and Fisher (1991) found that 77% of respondents were personally aware of a workplace romance, Brown and Allgeier (1995) found that 87% were familiar with a workplace romance, and Anderson and Hunsaker (1985) stated that 86% of the participants had been exposed to a workplace romance. Because of the high rate of occurrence and the mixed results from the research, there are several avenues for future inquiry:
The prevalence of workplace romance. We don't know precisely the occurrence rate of workplace romance. It may be that a few especially colorful instances make the entire phenomenon more salient. It may also be possible that there is more workplace romance than people admit to, such as in organizations which forbid romances.
We don't know precisely the occurrence rate of workplace romance. It may be that a few especially colorful instances make the entire phenomenon more salient. It may also be possible that there is more workplace romance than people admit to, such as in organizations which forbid romances.
The causes of workplace romance. We need to learn more about why workplace romance occurs. We can assume some of the relationships are caused by attraction, but there are likely to be other factors to include when dealing with the unique environment of the workplace.
We need to learn more about why workplace romance occurs. We can assume some of the relationships are caused by attraction, but there are likely to be other factors to include when dealing with the unique environment of the workplace.
Homosexual relationships. Most of the previous research on workplace romance has dealt with heterosexual relationships. To date, there has been no research on homosexual relationships in the workplace. The occurrence of homosexual relationships is likely to be less common than heterosexual relationships because of the base rate of homosexual people to heterosexual people. However, more and more people are "coming out," and it is becoming more accepted for homosexual relationships to occur.
Most of the previous research on workplace romance has dealt with heterosexual relationships. To date, there has been no research on homosexual relationships in the workplace. The occurrence of homosexual relationships is likely to be less common than heterosexual relationships because of the base rate of homosexual people to heterosexual people. However, more and more people are "coming out," and it is becoming more accepted for homosexual relationships to occur.
Organizational culture. We need to understand how organizational culture affects workplace romance. In this case, we can use the sexualization of a work environment to understand how this culture impacts the cause of workplace romance as well as how it is dealt with in an organization. A sexualized work environment is most often used in connection with sexual harassment (Gutek, 1985). Gutek defines a sexualized workplace as "the extent to which sex is a topic of conversation or men and women are expected to flirt with the other sex..." (p. 121), as well as "the extent to which personal appearance and having a 'good' personality affect treatment at work or the probability of being hired..." (p. 123). This type of culture may have severe effects on the perceptions of workplace romance.
We need to understand how organizational culture affects workplace romance. In this case, we can use the sexualization of a work environment to understand how this culture impacts the cause of workplace romance as well as how it is dealt with in an organization. A sexualized work environment is most often used in connection with sexual harassment (Gutek, 1985). Gutek defines a sexualized workplace as "the extent to which sex is a topic of conversation or men and women are expected to flirt with the other sex..." (p. 121), as well as "the extent to which personal appearance and having a 'good' personality affect treatment at work or the probability of being hired..." (p. 123). This type of culture may have severe effects on the perceptions of workplace romance.
Organizational responses. What should organizations do about workplace romance? As mentioned above, previous research has shown mixed results on the outcomes of workplace romance. Some say that all workplace romance is negative and should be categorically banned (Quinn, 1977; Collins, 1983). Other researchers disagree. This will be the topic of the last section.
What should organizations do about workplace romance? As mentioned above, previous research has shown mixed results on the outcomes of workplace romance. Some say that all workplace romance is negative and should be categorically banned (Quinn, 1977; Collins, 1983). Other researchers disagree. This will be the topic of the last section.
Implications of Workplace Romance
So, once we have information on the different aspects of workplace romance, what can we do with it? I believe that there are several opportunities to use these results.
Interventions. We can use this information as a basis for organizational interventions, if they are deemed necessary. The information can be used to help decide when it would be best for an organization to control workplace romance. For instance, some firms may still want to ban workplace romance, and can decide where to intervene to accomplish this. Other organizations may be in favor of the positive effects of workplace romance, but may want to minimize the negative effects. For example, one might only allow relationships between coworkers of equal rank, or only relationships where one is not the direct supervisor of the other.
We can use this information as a basis for organizational interventions, if they are deemed necessary. The information can be used to help decide when it would be best for an organization to control workplace romance. For instance, some firms may still want to ban workplace romance, and can decide where to intervene to accomplish this. Other organizations may be in favor of the positive effects of workplace romance, but may want to minimize the negative effects. For example, one might only allow relationships between coworkers of equal rank, or only relationships where one is not the direct supervisor of the other.
Legal/ethical considerations. There are several legal and ethical issues to consider. If propinquity and repeated exposure are found to be predictors of workplace romance, should an organization separate the genders? To say the least, this may raise some serious legal issues. Also, some organizations actually require that one or both participants leave the company, which risks legal battles. Policies regarding workplace romance need to be decided with careful thought and caution, in order to respect the rights of all members of the organization.
There are several legal and ethical issues to consider. If propinquity and repeated exposure are found to be predictors of workplace romance, should an organization separate the genders? To say the least, this may raise some serious legal issues. Also, some organizations actually require that one or both participants leave the company, which risks legal battles. Policies regarding workplace romance need to be decided with careful thought and caution, in order to respect the rights of all members of the organization.
Sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a very serious issue. Pierce and Aguinis (1997) have posited that sexual harassment may sometimes arise when a bad workplace romance is terminated. There are several reasons why this link may exist. One of the participants of a failed romance may seek revenge, may seek to rekindle, or seek to remove the other participant. Also, there may merely be differing perceptions on the part of each party. One may consider an interaction such as flirting a prelude to a romance, while another may consider it offensive and harassment. It is a very sensitive, thin line. But, is this a reason to ban workplace romance from the office? Are there good effects that will be lost? Is there a way to control for this type of workplace romance? These are questions for the future of the field.
Sexual harassment is a very serious issue. Pierce and Aguinis (1997) have posited that sexual harassment may sometimes arise when a bad workplace romance is terminated. There are several reasons why this link may exist. One of the participants of a failed romance may seek revenge, may seek to rekindle, or seek to remove the other participant. Also, there may merely be differing perceptions on the part of each party. One may consider an interaction such as flirting a prelude to a romance, while another may consider it offensive and harassment. It is a very sensitive, thin line. But, is this a reason to ban workplace romance from the office? Are there good effects that will be lost? Is there a way to control for this type of workplace romance? These are questions for the future of the field.
References
Anderson, C. I., & Hunsaker, P. L. (1985, February). Why there's romancing at the office and why it's everybody's problem. Personnel, 57-63.
Anderson, C. J., & Fisher, C. (1991). Male-female relationships in the workplace: Perceived motivations in office romance. Sex Roles, 25, 163-180.
Brown, T. J., & Allgeier, E. R. (1995). Managers' perceptions of workplace romances: An interview study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(2), 169-176.
Bureau of National Affairs (1988). Corporate affairs: Nepotism, office romance, & sexual harassment. Washington D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
Chesanow, N. (1992, July). Do office affairs ruin careers? New Woman, 84-87.
Collins, E. G. C. (1983). Managers and lovers. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 142-153.
Dillard, J. P. (1987). Close relationships at work: Perceptions of the motives and performance of relational participants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 179-193.
Dillard, J. P., & Broetzmann, S. M. (1989). Romantic relationships at work: Perceived changes in job-related behaviors as a function of participant's motive, partner's motive, and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 93-110.
Dillard, J. P., & Witteman, H. (1985). Romantic relationships at work: Organizational and personal influences. Human Communication Research, 12, 99-116.
Flax, E. (1989, August). Should you outlaw romance in the office? Working Woman, 16.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mainiero, L., A. (1986). A review and analysis of power dynamics in organizational romances. Academy of Management Review, 11, 750-762.
Mainiero, L. A. (1989). Office romance: Love, power, and sex in the workplace. New York, NY: Rawson Associates.
Mainiero, L. A. (1993). Dangerous liaisons? A review of current issues concerning male and female romantic relationships in the workplace. In E. A. Fagenson (Ed.) Women in management: Trends, issues, and challenges in managerial diversity. (pp. 162-185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Mead, M. (1980). A proposal: We need taboos on sex at work. In D. A. Neugarten and J. M. Shafritz (Eds.) Sexuality in organizations, 3rd ed. (pp. 53-56). Oak Park, IL: Moore.
Pierce, C. A., & Aguinis, H., (1997). Bridging the gap between romantic relationships and sexual harassment in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 197-200.
Pierce, C. A., Byrne, D., & Aguinis, H. (1996). Attraction in organizations: A model of workplace romance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 5-32.
Quinn, R. E., (1977). Coping with cupid: The formation, impact, and management of romantic relationships in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 30-45.
Rapp, E. (1992, February). Dangerous liaisons. Working Woman, 56-61.
Westoff, L. A. (1985). Corporate romance. New York, NY: Times Books.
I/O in the Global Village: The Imperative to Internationalize
Neal Ashkanasy
University of Queensland, Australia
In his 1993 Presidential address to the SIOP Conference, Wayne Cascio noted that "global competition is the single most powerful economic fact of life in the 1990s" (Cascio, 1995, p. 928). In fact, the globalization process affects every facet of our economic and social fabric (Adler, 1991). In this respect, it is clearly an imperative for I/O psychologists to develop and to maintain a global outlook. The indications, however, are that SIOP members have yet to adopt a truly international outlook. Farr (1997) goes so far as to describe this attitude as "parochialism" (p. 6), and notes that SIOP functions and institutions are still characterized by an overwhelming preponderance of U.S.-based participants and contributions. Clearly, if the discipline of I/O psychology is to be sustainable into the 21st Century, it will need to move away from its traditionally localized perspective to a global perspective. This will require a more eclectic approach than has traditionally been the case, and acceptance of new and different paradigms. In order to achieve this, I argue that the discipline will need to consider the factors that mitigate against adoption of a global outlook.
Three factors mitigate against the discipline of I/O adopting a global outlook: (a) an erroneous perception that the I/O discipline is inherently an American institution; (b) a perception that paradigmatic differences between American and European researchers are irreconcilable; and (c) a belief that multilingual skills are a pre-requisite for internationalization.
The impression that I/O psychology is an American institution is reinforced by the sheer volume of contributions in U.S.-based publications. Indeed, while it is true that U.S. journal outlets are regarded as prestigious and influential, it is also the case that there is a great volume of literature published elsewhere, both in English and other languages. This literature, however, is under-cited by U.S.-based authors.
The issue of paradigmatic differences is based on a perception that research in the U.S. tends to be logical-positivist and deductive in orientation, while European researchers use qualitative data, case studies, and intuitive and inductive logic. Nevertheless, these differences are not mutually exclusive, as is evidenced in the triangulation approach (Jick, 1979).
Finally, there is the issue of language. Development of multilingual skills in English speaking countries is not as well developed as in European and other countries. While a researcher based, say, in Finland clearly must master other languages if she/he is to develop an international profile, an English speaker need only know his or her native language to converse on the international scene. In fact, indications are that English is becoming the standard for scholarly discourse. English is already the de facto Internet standard. Thus, while knowledge of languages other than English is an advantage, lack of this facility is not a barrier to internationalizing.
Perhaps the most significant enabling mechanism for globalizing in the 1990s is the Internet. The effect of Internet communication has, virtually overnight, eliminated national borders as a communication barrier in all respects except for language. The Internet has thus allowed us to move a step closer to the "Global Village." Sources of organized communication on the Internet include e-mail discussion lists, electronic bulletin boards, Web sites, and electronic journals (e.g., M@n@gement: An international research review of management).
The Academy of Management has lifted its international contribution rate from a near-zero base rate 10 years ago to a 20% international participation rate at the 1997 Annual Meeting (Huse, 1997). It is proposed that similar initiatives can lift the international participation rate in SIOP, and thus assist in the emergence of a globalized discipline of I/O, sustainable into the 21st Century.
References
Adler, N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.
Farr, J. L. (1997). A message from your president. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 34(3), 6-8.
Huse, M. (August, 1997). Paper presented to the Academy of Management International Programs Committee, Boston.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research: Triangulation in action. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 24, 602-611.