Consensual Relationship Agreements - Research Paper Example

Consensual Relationship Agreements Case Study Outline Argue for the use of Consensual Relationship Agreements (CRAs) in your current (or future) workplace. Counter argument against the use of CRAs in your current (or future) workplace. Discuss the ethical principles involved in the use of CRAs. Create at least one (1) other option besides CRAs that would address workplace romances conclusion Consensual Relationship Agreements Case Study Argue for the use of Consensual Relationship Agreements (CRAs) in your current (or future) workplace Romance at the place of work is expected to happen because the offices consist of individuals who share common interests and relate with one another on a daily basis (case study, N.d, p.65). Therefore, it is vital for the managers to accept this situation and embrace it, but at the same time implement policies that will address office romance. Most companies do not have workplace romance policies, as they forbid the romance itself, since they view office romance as a contributing factor to conflict of the organization’s interests, especially in a hierarchical aspect where a boss may be dating a subordinate. The consensual relationship agreement (CRA) involves the two individuals acknowledging that their relationship is voluntary and promising to behave professionally while at the place of work. They also agree to behave ethically, therefore not offending other employees with their behavior; favoritism between them is discouraged. Moreover, the involved parties at the workplace are required to sign the consensual relationship agreement and abide to its rules and regulations. However, workplace romance can at times compromise the employees’ concentration, especially when the two lovebirds work in the same place. According to Amaral (2006, p.1), the mixture of genders in the places of work and time spent together creates room for growth of romantic feelings towards the employees, which yields to significant consequences. Most managers are sued by their employees for sexual harassment and failed relationships. Therefore, CRA works as a savoir for employers in such situations. In addition, a relationship that has the potential of yielding to a lawsuit is not worth it; therefore, CRAs creates a balance between individual interests. According to Amaral (2006, p.1), office romance has serious repercussions such as low productivity, as other employees believe that the boss is favoring his partner who is an employee. Therefore, in my future workplace, I would recommend the use of consensual relationship agreements, as their rules oppose favoritism and encourage professionalism. Upon signing this agreement, the involved parties are expected to comply with the rules and regulations of the CRAs. Consensual relationship agreements also reduce legal issues associated with sexual harassment. Upon signing a consensual relationship agreement, the parties attest that they are in the relationship voluntarily, and therefore, sexual harassment is out of question. In addition, CRA ensures that a relationship ends amicably, without involving lawsuits. To regulate office romances, consensual relationship agreements are essential; not many employees and employers wish to sign the contract, and as a result, their relationship is not allowed. Therefore, the organization is not liable for any negative outcomes. The consensual relationship agreement makes it difficult for an employee to claim that the relationship was unwelcome, especially if the relationship goes sour, since he/she signed the agreement voluntarily. In addition, CRA ensures that the involved employees are governed by a no-harassment policy, and therefore, reducing the lawsuits associated with sexual harassment (case study p.65). Nevertheless, it is vital for employers to be aware of the impacts of consensual relationships, especially on the morale of employees and productivity of an organization. Counter argument against the use of CRAs in your current (or future) workplace Consensual relationship agreement gives room for consensual relationships at the place of work. However, it is rather evident that office romance can jeopardize the productivity of employees as well as the organization. Amaral (2006, p.1) argues that, once office romance is allowed, the morale of other employees may be affected. These employees may monitor the manager’s steps, and allege favoritism of his/her partner; they may resent the preferred employee as well. Such attitudes from fellow employees result to low morale, which will affect their productivity as well. Resentment of the preferred employee may cause him/her to be secluded, hence becoming more unproductive. In addition, employees may also use working hours to build on their relationship, especially if not closely monitored. Nevertheless, the romantically involved employees do not have an option when it comes to the signing of the consensual agreement, since it is a requirement by the organization. According to Cole (2009, p.364), work romances can threaten career advancement and also ruin professional relationships, especially in the case of breakups, which can yield to anger and resentment at the place of work. In addition, a company that employs many teenagers, especially on holiday basis, cannot guarantee the effectiveness of CRAs for the young employees. In the case of an education institution such as the university where the lecturer is involved romantically with his legal age student who is an intern, other students may assume the preferred students good grades are the result of such relationship. This may lead to low morale of other students and create unrests in the university. Therefore, consensual relationship agreements may not be applicable in learning institutions, which recruit underage students. Moreover, a universal policy is required, one that is applicable to all workplaces; nevertheless, an employer should know that all policies have both negative and positive impact. CRAs may appear to be intrusive as they interfere with an employee’s personal life by ensuring that he informs the employer about a relationship. In addition, though employees have signed the agreement, they can still break some rules without the awareness of management. When I am employed in the future, I would prefer not to sign the CRA agreement concerning my relationship with a fellow workmate, and prefer keeping the relationship private. By signing the agreement, the management would monitor my every step to make sure I do not break the rules, which would be an uncomfortable situation. According to Cole (2009, p.365), organizational justice theory emphasizes on fairness of workplace romance management; it is the management’s role to meet its employee’s best interest. Therefore, this theory asserts that fairness should be included when dealing with workplace romance, especially on the management decision-making. Discuss the ethical principles involved in the use of CRAs Vast majorities of organizations do not have policies governing workplace romances, which are vital for any organization. Phillips & Bostian (2011, p.365) explain that some organizations have resulted to the implementation of non-fraternization policies, which prohibit workplace relationships. Whereas, other employers recognize the need to encourage workplace romance via CRAs agreements due to the fact that employees spend a third of the day at the place of work, hence relationships are bound to happen. There are several ethical principles involved in the use of CRAs, one of them being the organization interest principle. According to Hellriegel & Slocum (2007, p.362); Anon (N.d, p.40), this principle entails acting on the basis of what is good for an organization. In the issue of workplace romance, the employees involved are required to comply with CRAs. This imposed policy prevents the negative impacts associated with workplace romance from affecting the company, for instance, through law suits, which could cost the company huge sums of money. Employees are capable of suing the organization on the basis of favoritism and sexual harassment. Therefore, the organization’s interest principles assist management in avoiding such cases by implementing effective policies, such as CRAs. Nevertheless, in some cases, the employees can refuse to sign the agreement, basing their argument on the utilitarian principle, which entails that one acts on the basis of whether the harm from the decision is overweighed by the good in it. In this case, an employee may decline from signing the agreement, by arguing that he would rather keep his relationship private, as sharing such information with the management feels like invasion of privacy. In addition, an employee may decline from signing the agreement in a mission to protect his own interest, which is his privacy, and therefore, applying the hedonist principle, which entails doing what interests an individual (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007, p.362; Anon, N.d, p.40). Distributive justice principle involves treating a group fairly in regards to the decisions made. When an organization decides not to ban workplace romance, but rather impose a policy to govern it, it portrays equitability and fairness at the place of work, regardless of the rank of employees, and hence motivating them to mingle. The golden rule principle entails actions based on placing the decision maker in the position of the recipients, hence determining how they would feel. Organizations that adopt CRAs policy feel that denying employees the freedom to establish relationships at the place of work would be unfair - this is an indication of concern for others. Create at least one (1) other option besides CRAs that would address workplace romances Workplace romance can be disastrous, especially when the involved employees discriminate against other employees. An employer can choose to prohibit workplace dating by enforcing policies against such practices. However, this policy may seem to be unfair to many, as it can reduce the negative repercussions associated with bad breakups; thereafter, some employees claim to have been sexually harassed. This can be used as a form of revenge for many. Workplace romance may seem harmless at an early stage, however, when it consists of extra-marital affairs, it becomes disastrous, and it is unpreventable. Therefore, banning workplace romance can be effective in avoiding such situations in the future. An organization can implement prohibition policies that are geared towards discouraging relationships that present a conflict of interest, such as a relationship involving an employee and her supervisor. Such relationships can be prohibited with an aim of avoiding favoritism. It is obvious that organizations do not approve of distracted workers; workplace romance can be distracting to employees, as it affects their concentration. Therefore, banning workplace dating can be a solution to such impacts. Pierce & Aguinis (1997, p.198) argue that there is need to create a gap between workplace romance and sexual harassment. This is because hierarchical romances, which involve a supervisor and his employees, are perceived more negatively compared to lateral romances. He further adds that sexual harassment may exist after a breakup, since one party may constantly insist on giving the relationship a second chance. Another case may involve falseful accusation of a supervisor by the employee of sexual harassment with an aim of revenge after a soured-up relationship. Pierce & Aguinis (1997, p.199) further add that, implementing a policy that prohibits the seniors to establish relationships with their subordinates can be a solution towards organization conflict. Conclusion Workplace romances are bound to happen, both in hierarchical and lateral forms, since employees spend most of their hours at the place of work. Therefore, policies for managing such relationships are necessary; one policy involves signing of an agreement (CRAs) by both employees, and therefore, promising to abide by the rules of the agreement. Secondly, an organization can implement a policy that discourages workplace hierarchical relationships involving a supervisor and an employee with an aim of protecting the organization’s interest. However, some organizations choose to prohibit any romantic relationship among its employees; this can be termed as unfair since employees tend to spend most of their time in the office. Therefore, a fair decision must be arrived at by the management - one that ensures that employees will remain motivated and the organization will improve its productivity. References Amaral, H. (2006). Workplace romance and fraternization policies. University of Rhode Island. Retrieved from http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/research/papers/Amaral_Fraternization.pdf Anon. (N.d). Individual and organizational ethics. Retrieved from http://www.wadsworthmedia.com/marketing/sample_chapters/143904225X_ch02.pdf Cole, N. (2009). Workplace Romance: A Justice Analysis. Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 24, Issue 4, pp.363-372. Published online. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=82324fc6-9fd4-46d8-8cab-18ca8b3eb047%40sessionmgr10&vid=6&hid=7 Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. (2007). Organizational behavior. 11th Edition. OH: Cengage Learning Publisher. Phillips, H. & Bostian, P. (2011). The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide. OH: Cengage Learning Publisher. Pierce, C. & Aguinis, H. (1997). Bridging the gap between romantic relationships and sexual harassment in organizations. Journal of organizational behavior, vol. 18, pp.197-200. NJ: Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Retrieved from https://umdrive.memphis.edu/capierce/public/Pierce%20%26%20Aguinis%20JOB%201997.PDF Read More