Consensual Relationship Agreements: A Comprehensive Review

Office romances have been shown to be pervasive in our society. When people work together for long periods of time, it is very likely that many of them are going to engage in a fling or long term relationship with one another. According to Hellriegel and Slocum (2011), almost fifty percent of the respondents in a survey given to 1,000 employees claimed that they were “involved in an office romance, and another 19 percent would consider it” (p. 65). Clearly, workplace relationships are a very common facet of how we operate. Moreover, managers engaged in similar behaviors, although not to the same extent as employees. According to Charles Pierce and Aguinis (2001) in A Framework for Investigating the Link Between Workplace Romance and Sexual Harassment, “24% of managers have been involved in such a relationship at least once during their career” (p. 207). The relationships between managers and subordinates are typically the most concerning for any organization. While any romance has the capacity to affect a company or business, managerial ones can create severe problems, often leading to an atmosphere of workplace bullying. 

Consequently, many companies have resorted to using consensual relationship agreements, or CRAs. Ultimately, CRAs are nothing more than contracts in which romantic parties agree to specific terms and conditions regarding their workplace romance. This document helps keep the interests of the company aligned and avoids legal implications. Also, because the “interpretation of sexual harassment laws includes third parties,” companies can separate problems that are theirs and their employees’ out (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2011, p. 65). The real questions remain however: should organizations use CRAs and are there any other alternatives. In the following sections, I will explore the reasons that CRAs should and should not be used in organizational contexts. Moreover, the ethical implications of CRAs will be evaluated, followed by an alternative solution. 

Argument for CRAs

In my next job, it would be a good idea to have to sign a CRA because it can help avoid common legal problems and conflicts from affecting the company. For instance, it is the human resource department’s job to make sure that employees are happy, satisfied and not being subjected to circumstances that affect their work performance. Unfortunately, office romances have the capacity to affect workplace performance heavily. As a result, human resource departments should have some authority or means of being able to step in and monitor workplace relationships: “If they perceive a conflict of interest or see the relationship as disruptive or potentially disruptive, human resources should step in…” (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2011, p. 65). With signing a CRA, the human resource department can utilize its power in order to make sure that the best interests of the company are aligned with the employees’ intentions. Without this document and authority, human resource departments are left powerless of a very touchy and personal subject matter.

CRAs should be required in order to avoid legal ramifications. When the issue of sexual harassment and workplace disturbance comes up, there is a precedent for companies being forced to pay big bucks in order to settle. For instance, recently a mobile payments technology company named Square was center stage after its Chief Operating Officer, Keith Rabois, resigned after being sued for sexual misconduct by an employee (Carlson, 2012). According to the report, Rabois noted that “I was told that only a payment of millions of dollars will make this go away and that my career, my reputation, and my livelihood will be threatened if Square and I don’t pay up” (Carlson, 2012, para. 17). Clearly, the company is subjected to a lawsuit because of the workplace romance that took place. If a CRA had been in place that disqualified them from suing the company, then it would not be the big scandal that it is. This previous example illustrates why CRAs benefit companies and individuals when it comes to an organizational context. 

Argument against CRAs

Despite the previous argument, the complex and personal nature of romantic relationships makes it difficult to effectively control through a contract. For instance, there are many subjective gray areas when it comes to office romances. One example is passing benefits in exchange for sexual favors: “the supervisor could exchange rewards such as a lighter workload, pay increase, promotion, heightened job security, or more vacation time with his subordinate in return for sexual favors” (Pierce & Aguinis, 2001, p. 211). Although a CRA may be signed and documented, it would be inappropriate and unfeasible for a human resources department to do research and investigate whether employees are actually doing something in their free time. Also, if employees break up, a CRA would have little power to justify and substantiate the behavior of people who undermine each other in subtle ways through break up behavior (Pierce & Aguinis, 2001). There are just too many personal and complex factors (such as spite and revenge) that can go unnoticed in a CRA. Even if a CRA was intended to cover all possible issues, no amount of clauses would account for the possibilities of exploitation. 

The sheer complexity of personal relationships in the workplace also posits another major problem. For instance, consider a prison Warden that is carrying on sexual relationships with multiple employees and subordinates. Since this is a clear catalyst for problems, should there be a limit for how many employees a manager can date? This is an example of a question that a CRA cannot reasonably solve.  In the case of Miller v. Department of Corrections, “the California Supreme Court unanimously held that consensual sexual relationships that result in favoritism in the workplace may constitute sexual harassment of employees who were not so favored” (Fletcher, 2006, p. 1363). This case exemplified a situation where a Warden was carrying on three separate sexual relationships in the workplace that resulted in adverse workplace behavior. No matter how a CRA was structured, someone would get upset and the document would soon become obsolete when dealing with personal emotions and complex situations. Given that relationships are emotional and people do take it personally (despite the organizational context), having a CRA is not only a moot point but a bad idea. 

Ethical implications of CRAs

Also, the ethical implications of CRAs should be taken into account. For instance, the issue of privacy is a major concern as many people view relationships a private matter. According to Hellriegel and Slocum (2011), “when employees bring their relationships into the workplace, they don't have a legal right to privacy” (p. 65). Stripping people of their legal right to privacy goes against laws that are rooted in the United States Constitution and many organizations. Ethically, is it right to strip people of their privacy when it comes to these personal matters? That question is not easily solved and must be taken into account when evaluating any document or ordinance that regulates romance. 

Subjecting people to potential humiliation is also a serious ethical concern that companies must take into account before enforcing CRAs. Again, personal matters such as relationships involve dealing with people’s feelings and self-esteem. According to Catherine Fisk (2001) in Humiliation at Work, “people experience humiliation when others treat them as objects or as having worth, not equal to that of the humiliator or witnesses” (p. 77). Humiliation can easily be a commonplace facet of workplace romances. For instance, in the prison case of a Warden carrying multiple sexual relationships at work, a woman was subjected to adverse behavior that affected her performance and self-esteem: “Mackey suffered verbal abuse in front of other employees, a decrease in pay and interference with her duties at the hands of Brown, who was angered that Mackey was considering complaining about Brown’s relationship with Kuykendall” (Fletcher, 2006, p. 1365). When one part is humiliated, even a document such as a CRA may not be able to tackle the ethical considerations that need to take place. Ultimately, ethical aspects of CRAs do not do a good job of accounting for the possible scenarios where people can be severely mistreated, although it may not be directly associated with workplace performance. After all, it is the company’s duty to make sure that these things are not a common part of the workplace experience. 

Alternative to CRAs

While there may not be a single good alternative to CRAs, there are alternatives that companies can use in order to minimize potential problems. For instance, companies can enforce and integrate a standardized set of guiding principles when evaluating and dealing with workplace romances. Companies would have better luck with developing a framework for dealing with these types of issues. A great alternative to CRAs would be to follow through with firstly avoiding lawsuits such as those made against Harvey Weinstein and other legal problems:

(i) Employees who take part in workplace romances cannot hold the company liable for lawsuits that result from such behavior. 

(ii) The company acts as an arbitrator on such matters and has the capacity to make employment-based decisions from such matters.

Also, a framework for dealing with such personal mattes should be written in an open-ended way that allows for evaluation on a case by case basis. That way, there is no strict policy that employees and employers must follow down to every clause. Utilizing a general framework rather than an actual CRA may be more effective in dealing with the complex nature of personal romance and how it affects organizational behavior. 

Such an approach would surely give the company much more flexibility in carrying out actions that are in everyone’s best interest. For instance, if a manager and subordinate are involved in a situation where workplace performance is affected, the company would be able to handle this differently based on the severity of the problem and extent of the resolution process. While still working together may be appropriate in some contexts, it may be dangerous in others. A framework to make decisions on a case by case basis would effectively give the company a standardized procedure and open-ended way of dealing with it

Discussion

We have seen that workplace romances are a common facet of organizational behavior. Employees who choose to engage in romantic relations are oftentimes subjected to signing a CRA in order for the company to manage any potential problems that may arise. Companies should use CRAs in order to protect themselves from legal problems and align the interests of the company with their decisions. On the other hand, CRAs should not be used on the grounds that they invade people’s privacy and cannot possibly account for the complex nature of interpersonal relationships, especially romantic ones. From an ethical standpoint, we saw that the issue of personal privacy and humiliation are important factors to take into account. The case of the prison Warden showed that humans are capable of creating complex scenarios where a single document may not be sufficient. Finally, an alternative was presented which detailed how a general framework of principles may be more effective than a CRA.

References

Carlson, N. (2013, January 25). Square COO Keith Rabois: I resigned because of a sexual harassment claim, but I'm innocent. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/wsj-square-coo-resigned-after-sexual-harassment-claim-rabois-denies-allegations-2013-1

Fisk, C. (2001). Humiliation at work. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 8(73), 73-95.

Fletcher, C. (2006). Are you simply sleeping your way to the top or creating an actionable hostile work environment? A critique of Miller v. Department of Corrections in the Title VII context. St. John's Law Review, 80, 1361-1399.

Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W. (2011). Organizational behavior: 2011 custom edition (13th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. 

Pierce, C., & Aguinis, H. (2001). A framework for investigating the link between workplace romance and sexual harassment. Group & Organization Management, 26(2), 206-229.