Fraternization Policies - Beneficial, but should be Realistic and Relevant - Research Paper Example

Fraternization Policies - Beneficial, but should be Realistic and Relevant Introduction Many people spend more time at the workplace than at their homes or with their families, and it becomes inevitable that they develop friendships and intimacies in this setting. Organizations, however, are concerned of the legal, ethical, social, and financial downsides of close workplace relationships, such as sexual discrimination and breakups that impact employee morale and productivity. JusticeCorps is one of the organizations that has fraternization policies. This organization is a part of the AmeriCorps program which is federally funded. The fraternization policies of the JusticeCorps program prohibit members from fraternizing with litigants, “site staff, court staff, program staff, and other county/non-profit organization staff working in the courthouse” (JusticeCorps). JusticeCorps defines fraternization as an “unprofessional relationship or behavior which undermines the mission of the JusticeCorps program.” This policy is important because fraternization “detracts from the authority of staff, creates the appearance of favoritism and misuse of office or position, and compromises discipline and morale” (JusticeCorps). The policy also tries “to prevent coercive, manipulative, exploitative and, other unprofessional incidents from occurring between staff and members” (JusticeCorps). The stakeholders are the litigants, members, site, court, and program staff, other county/non-profit organization staff, and court officials. Workplace relationships, nevertheless, cannot be completely stopped or controlled. The main concern is that some JusticeCorps members are ignoring the fraternization policy, which may affect the public perception of the program and result in the program being cut from the federal budget. This paper analyzes the problems of fraternization policies in general and the application of such policies at JusticeCorps. It also recommends organizational trends and strategies that can be used to address general and organization-specific concerns with fraternization policies. Rationale Fraternization policies impact society, because it seeks to uphold professional behavior and detract inappropriate conduct at the workplace. There is scant literature on fraternization policies per se, when searching through Emerald and EBSCO databases. Most literature are focused on workplace romance and friendships. Zachary (2007) explored the inconsistency and legal implications of fraternization policies. She argued that workplace relationships have its pros and cons, where the pros are higher productivity and morale, as well as stronger teams. She admitted, nevertheless, that these relations can also negate its supposed gains, especially when romances turn sour, or when there are allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and favoritism. Legislative mandates and other external factors shape fraternization policies. Some relative legislative mandates that support fraternization policies are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevent discrimination based on color, race, gender, and national origin and the Sexual Harassment Law. These laws aim to protect employees from an unsafe and violent workplace environments and undue experiences of workplace discrimination. Concerns for dismantling gender discrimination, particularly for women and gays/lesbians groups (Rumens, 2008) also underscored the need for an even application of fraternization laws, although Rumens (2008) was also concerned of how these policies affect employee privacy and freedom to form genial relationships that do not necessarily interfere with workplace performance. Some theories that can also be applied and can affect the understanding of fraternization policies are theories on sexuality, feminism, and workplace intimacies, especially workplace friendship and romance (Riach & Wilson, 2007; Rumens, 2008). Analysis JusticeCorps has a specific fraternization policy. This policy aims“to prevent coercive, manipulative, exploitative and, other unprofessional incidents from occurring between staff and members” (JusticeCorps). It also seeks to stop practices of favoritism and other incidents that can embarrass or tarnish the image of the organization (JusticeCorps). The scope of the problem is that some JusticeCorps members are ignoring the fraternization policy, which may affect the public perception of the program and result to the loss of its federal budget. The main problems of fraternization policies in general are that they are hard to monitor and implement, they can conflict with employee's privacy and freedom of expression of sexuality, and they can also lead to legal problems (Riach & Wilson, 2007; Rumens, 2008; Zachary, 2007). Even when improved fraternization policies can also enhance morale, it may only do so because of reduced perceptions and experiences of sexual behavior in the workplace (Salvaggio, Hopper, J& Packell, 2011), so some sources question the importance of fraternization policies that are too broad and vague (Rumens, 2008; Zachary, 2007). The interrelationship between the problems and the policy is that the policy can both support and undermine Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not sufficiently and equally applied in all cases. Pierce et al. (2008), for instance, provided the example of Cleary v. CBRL, 101 FEP Cases 849 (M.D. Pa. 2007). In this case, several female employees under the restaurant manager claimed that they were sexually harassed by the latter. The manager, however, charged that he experienced “reverse discrimination,” because the company only applied its fraternization policy more on male employees and managers than female employees and the crew. This example shows the problematic concept of fraternization policies and how they can clash with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The assumptions that are related to the problem are: 1) The existence of fraternization policies ensures that these policies' goals are met; 2) The employees are aware of the organization's fraternization policies; and 3) The top management and other levels of management are willing to apply these policies across organization departments and levels. The strengths of JusticeCorps in relation to the problem are: 1) It has a clear fraternization policy that defines and illustrates fraternization and its acts; 2) The punishment for every violation of the fraternization policy is clearly stated; and 3) The fraternization policy explains the rationale behind it, so that it can persuade employees to deter from committing fraternization acts. The weaknesses of the organization are: 1) The fraternization policies are weakly applied; 2) Weak application of the fraternization policies undermines their importance; and 3) The management condones violations of the fraternization policies that can extend to other organizational policy violations. This happens because the managers are also friends with the stakeholders and so they cannot apply fraternization policies in a strict manner, without damaging workplace and other social relations. The opportunities to Justice Corps are: 1) It can improve the communication and application of its fraternization policies, which can also enhance communication strategies in the future, 2) It can have the opportunity of examining the weaknesses of fraternization policies and amend its policies so that they can be more realistic and reasonable to stakeholders, and 3) It can use organizational trends and strategies to enhance the language, communication, and implementation of its fraternization policies. The threats to Justice Corps are: 1) Lack of consistent application of the fraternization policies can lead to lawsuits in the future, when it is finally implemented, 2) Future personnel management policies may also be lightly heeded and applied, and 3) Trends of gender rights can interfere with the implementation of fraternization policies, because of potential charges of sexual or gender discrimination. Trends of informal social relations can also hamper the application of fraternization policies. Conclusion/Summary JusticeCorps has a clear fraternization policy, where fraternization acts are sufficiently defined and described, as well as specific punishments for each level of violations. These policies, however, are weakly applied in the organization, because of organizational trends that promote informal workplace relations and the rise of the gender equality movement. The management understands that workplace socialization among stakeholders are natural and can improve workplace relations. They also value workplace relations and so they cannot strictly apply their organization's fraternization policies. Gender rights activism can also curtail the strict implementation of fraternization policies, because they can be construed as discriminating against the stakeholders' socialization and privacy rights. Recommendations The short-term recommendations are: 1) The management should review why they cannot sufficiently apply fraternization policies and amend them if they think that these policies are not realistic and reasonable to stakeholders and 2) The new policies should be properly communicated through all available and new channels. The long-term recommendations are: 1) The management should refresh the organization's awareness for the organization's fraternization policies by reviewing its content and application every year and 2) The management should also survey the feedback on these policies and its implementation, as well as analyze policy outcomes. The implications of this problem for the public are that fraternization policymaking is more complex than originally imagined and its scope might restrict the development and strengthening of vital and productive workplace relations and practices. The public should be open to criticizing and improving fraternization policies that they can benefit from. For public managers, they should also criticize their fraternization policies for their relevance and validity to the workplace context. They cannot expect to successfully implement public personnel policies that do not respond to workplace realities and interests. They should also improve how these policies are communicated, where their urgency and meaningfulness are strongly emphasized to stakeholders. References JusticeCorps. JusticeCorps minimum time member contract 2011-2012. Pierce, C.A., Muslin, I.S., Dudley, C.M., & Aguinis, H. (2008). From charm to harm: A content-analytic review of sexual harassment court cases involving workplace romance. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 6 (1), 27-45. Retrieved from Emerald database. Riach, K. & Wilson, F. (2007). Don't screw the crew: Exploring the rules of engagement in organizational romance. British Journal of Management, 18 (1), 79-92.Retrieved from Advanced Placement Source database. Rumens, N. (2008). Working at intimacy: Gay men's workplace friendships. Gender, Work & Organization, 15 (1), 9-30. Retrieved from Advanced Placement Source database. Salvaggio, A.N., Hopper, J., & Packell, K.M. (2011). Coworker reactions to observing sexual behavior at work. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26 (7), 604-622. Retrieved from Emerald database. Zachary, M. (2007). Fraternization policies: Inconsistency vs. unlawfulness. Supervision, 68 (12), 22-26. Retrieved from Advanced Placement Source database. Read More