by
Charles Lamson
 |
How to Handle the Scarlet E-mail
In some ways, the interpersonal relationships that we form at work are like the interpersonal relationships that we form throughout our lives.But in other ways they are different. Natural relationships seem to be voluntary - we encounter people, discover that we are attracted to one another and begin to develop a relationship. We learn about them, develop expectations about how they will act, and begin to trust them when those expectations are fulfilled. If they violate our expectations, we interpret their behavior as a negative comment on them or as a negative comment on our relationship. If the relationship continues, we develop psychological contracts about how we will act toward and communicate with one another, and we make sure that those contracts are understood by both parties. The nature of our relationships is influenced by our relational histories and our anticipated future and our expectation that our relationship should be mutually fulfilling. We continue then because they fulfill what leadership expert Frederic Jablin has called "psychological-individual" functions.
Being members of the same organization complicates our relationships in many ways. Some organizational relationships are imposed on us, at least initially. We enter into them because they fulfill "formal organizational" functions. Some of those are with people we would have voluntarily formed relationships with; others are not. The differences in power and status that accompany different organizational roles also complicate relationships - buying lunch for someone in the next cubicle does not mean the same thing as buying lunch for the vice president of sales. We communicate differently with people of different power or status and we expect to be treated differently by them. Friends usually provide comfort and support to one another. But supervisors are required to evaluate their subordinates' work (and in organizations, subordinates also evaluate their supervisors), and those evaluations may involve uncomfortable assessments of one another's competence, performance and personality. Working relationships are also complicated by a "fishbowl effect," they are public in a way that natural relationships are not.
The work situation also complicates normal aspects of relationships. All friends have to balance autonomy and connectedness. If friends work together, they may be forced to spend too much time together or to work too closely. Friends also tend to be more open and honest with one another because of their higher levels of trust. But organizational roles often require people to keep information secret, even from their closest friends. For a number of reasons, the blended relationships that people form at work simply are more complicated than natural relationships. As they develop some become close relationships because the parties help one another solve work related problems and find areas of similarity and attraction. Co-workers become trusted confidants and their communication becomes more personal and less cautious. Eventually, some co-workers become important in one another's personal life.
The complications are easiest to see in romantic relationships at work. Although most experts on office etiquette flatly advise that if you care about your career, you should keep romance out of it, about 40 percent of workers admit to dating a colleague. With 50-60 hour workweeks, people simply do not have the time or opportunity to look elsewhere for romantic partners. Perhaps more importantly, people can gather accurate information about a potential mate by working with him or her - much more than they can learn at a singles' bar or a classified. In recent years a few organizations have had recent policies forbidding dating between supervisors and their subordinates, often married male supervisors and single female subordinates. Most seem to be based on "true love" rather than on job or advancement related motives. Research indicates that romances do not harm organizational performance, unless they generate a high level of gossip that interferes with task performance. Perceptions of favoritism are more like for employees involved in a romantic relationship with their supervisors. Gossip and discomfort among co-workers are extremely likely. If the relationship is terminated, it becomes difficult to see one's ex every day.
There are a number of commonsense steps that people can take to manage the complications created by office romances. First, all employees should learn their organization's view of workplace relationships. Seventy percent of organizations have no official policies, so it is sometimes difficult to obtain this information. But even in that case, once a relationship becomes serious, a frank conversation with your supervisors is warranted. Second, decide when and how to go public. Advisers differ on this issue. Some say that it is best to come clean about the relationship as soon as it gets serious. Others say that keeping it private is the best strategy. According to this perspective, your goal should be to minimize heresay and innuendo, and especially to make sure your relationship does not interfere with your work. In some situations, those goals can best be achieved by keeping quiet; in others the open approach is less disruptive. Third, have an exit plan. Discuss what the two of you will do if the relationship ends. Then if you break up follow the plan. Finally, be discreet. Maintain a professional relationship at work. Richard Phillips a career counselor in Palo Alto, California, reminds employees that "what you consider to be lovey-dovey between the two of you may make your co-workers retch. You're forcing them into a situation they don't want to be in." Do not hold hands in the hallway, play footsie at meetings, or anything else that is perfectly appropriate in romantic relationships but completely inappropriate in professional relationships. And make sure your partner knows that your "aloof" behavior at work is not an indication they you are cold or uncaring toward him or her.
Washington Post columnist Marc Fischer once wrote a column that vividly described how awkward office romances can be to coworkers. One of his co-workers accidentally sent him an e-mail that was meant for her romantic partner, probably by clicking the wrong line of her address directory. The massage started out in a friendly tone, but very quickly became erotic. To make things worse, Marc knew the woman and her husband (who was not the recipient of the message); in fact, he had been invited to their home for dinner. What should he do? respond in a businesslike tone ("Your message of 9-to-6 on Sunday was misdirected to me. Cheers.")? Notify the husband of what was going on? Keep quiet? Find some excuse for canceling the dinner date? He asked his friends for help. Most of the women told him to stay out of it; most of the men wanted him to find out all the sordid details and then let them in on it. He decided to do nothing.
Then another message arrived, one that was more intimate than the first. He went to dinner, sat between husband and wife, and very nevous throughout the evening. He squirmed during a private after-dinner conversation when the husband told him about his dreams for future years with his wife. He went home rattled and vowed to not have anything more to do with either of them. Then he went to a stationary store and bought notecard and envelopes - the appropriate medium for private messages.
*SOURCE: STRATEGIC ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT 6TH ED. BY CHARLES CONRAD AND MARSHALL SCOTT POOLE*
End
|
No comments:
Post a Comment