Role of workplace romancepolicies and procedures on job

pursuit intentionsCharles A. Pierce

Department of Management, University of Memphis, Memphis,Tennessee, USA

Katherine A. KarlDepartment of Management, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,

Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA, and

Eric T. BreyKemmons Wilson School of Hospitality and Resort Management,

University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

AbstractPurpose This paper seeks to examine experimentally the effects of stipulations in an organizationsworkplace romance policy and procedures on individuals perceptions of fairness, workplace fun,person-organization (P-O) fit, organizational attraction, and intent to pursue employment in theorganization.

Design/methodology/approach A total of 103 business students and 79 casino employeesassumed the role of a job seeker. They read one of five versions of a vignette that describes anorganizations romance policy and consensual relationship agreement, and completed measures ofdependent and control variables.

Findings An organizations type of romance policy has an effect on individuals perceptions offairness of the policy and degree to which the organization would be a fun place to work, and its type ofconsensual relationship agreement has an effect on individuals perceptions of the degree to which theorganization treats its employees fairly. The results also indicate that individuals perceptions of thefairness of the type of romance policy and relationship agreement are positively associated with thedegree to which they perceive the organization to be a fun place to work and their perceived P-O fit.Individuals perceptions of the organization being a fun place to work and P-O fit are, in turn,positively associated with their organizational attraction, which, in its turn, is positively associatedwith their job pursuit intentions.

Practical implications Perceived fairness of stipulations in an organizations romance policy andprocedures may signal to job seekers the degree to which the organization would be a fun place towork, provide P-O fit, and be attractive to pursue as an employer. Thus, with respect to managingworkplace romances proactively via policies and procedures, organizations should consider thefairness perceptions of job seekers and not just organizational members.

Originality/value This is the first study to show that workplace romance policies and proceduresmay play a role in job pursuit intentions.

Keywords Workplace romance policy, Consensual relationship agreement, Organizational justice,Signalling, Job pursuit intentions, Recruitment, Workplace, Human resource management

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

The authors thank David Allen, Frank Bosco, and Ron Landis for helpful comments. A previousversion was presented in a paper session (B.W. Swider, Chair) at the meeting of the Academy ofManagement, San Antonio, Texas, August 2011.

Workplaceromance policies

237

Received July 2011Revised October 2011

October 2011Accepted October 2011

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 27 No. 3, 2012

pp. 237-263q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683941211205808

It has been 35 years since Quinn (1977) published a seminal article on the formation,impact, and management of workplace romances. A workplace romance is aconsensual relationship between two members of an organization that entails mutualsexual attraction (Pierce et al., 1996; Powell and Foley, 1998). Since 1977, workplaceromance research has examined formation factors such as motives (Brown andAllgeier, 1996; Dillard, 1987; Dillard and Broetzmann, 1989; Dillard et al., 1994) andorganizational climate (Mainiero, 1986; Mano and Gabriel, 2006; Riach and Wilson,2007; Salvaggio et al., 2011), and impact factors such as job performance (Dillard, 1987;Pierce, 1998; Pierce and Aguinis, 2003), workgroup functioning (Brown and Allgeier,1996; Jones, 1999; Powell, 2001), and harassment (Pierce and Aguinis, 1997, 2001, 2005;Pierce et al., 2000, 2004, 2008; Summers and Myklebust, 1992). However, little researchhas examined the management of workplace romances.

This lack of management research is noteworthy considering that estimatesindicate nearly 10 million workplace romances develop annually in the USA (Spragins,2004) and, moreover, there is not consensus regarding best managerial practices(Lickey et al., 2009). From a human resource (HR) management standpoint,organizations struggle with deciding whether they should have a romance policyand, if so, what stipulations to include (Boyd, 2010). According to a survey of HRprofessionals (Parks, 2006), about 70 percent of responding organizations did not havea workplace romance policy. For those that did, 25 percent permitted, 66 percentpermitted but discouraged, and 9 percent prohibited workplace romances.

Organizations that discourage or prohibit workplace romances are concerned aboutsexual harassment lawsuits (Parks, 2006; Pearce, 2010) and thus have legal-centric HRpractices (Roehling and Wright, 2006). Despite organizations fears, relatively fewharassment lawsuits stem from workplace romances (Pierce et al., 2008). Consequently,researchers have recommended that HR leaders should shift their focus from using alegal-centric approach to an organizationally sensible approach for managingworkplace romances (Pierce and Aguinis, 2009). An organizationally sensible approachwould not focus on the potential for harassment claims at the expense of other workcriteria (e.g., employees job performance (Roehling and Wright, 2006)). Given therecommendation that HR leaders should adopt an organizationally sensible approach,a key question is: What types of romance policies and procedures are sensible fororganizations? As a first step toward addressing this question, we examineindividuals perceptions of different types of romance policies and consensualrelationship agreements. A romance policy consists of general guidelines and rules,whereas a relationship agreement is a contractual method used to manage employeeswho are participating in a workplace romance.

The goals of our study are as follows:. determine whether different types of romance policies and relationship

agreements are perceived differently in terms of fairness;. determine whether an organizations type of romance policy and relationship

agreement affect how the organization is perceived in terms of potentially beinga fun place to work; and

. assess whether individuals perceptions of fairness of different types of romancepolicies and relationship agreements are associated with their perceptions of theorganization potentially being a fun place to work, person-organization (P-O) fit,organizational attraction, and degree to which they would intend to pursueemployment in the organization.

JMP27,3

238

Collectively, these goals are aimed at determining whether perceptions of fairness ofromance policies and procedures play a role in individuals job pursuit intentions andhence an organizations ability to recruit. Given the prevalence of workplace romancesand dual-career couples, organizations are faced with recruiting paired employees(Moen and Sweet, 2002; Werbel and Hames, 1992, 1996). Next, we draw fromorganizational justice, signaling, and attraction theories to develop a framework forunderstanding the role of romance policies and procedures on individuals job pursuitintentions.

Theoretical framework and hypothesesOrganizational justice theoryAs a first step toward developing organizationally sensible romance policies andprocedures, a key perspective to consider is fairness perceptions. It would not besensible for organizations to implement policies and procedures that are perceived asunfair. According to organizational justice theory, individuals perceptions of justiceare socially constructed based on subjective assessments of the:

. fairness of outcome distributions (distributive justice);

. fairness of procedures used to determine outcome distributions (proceduraljustice); and

. quality of interpersonal treatment people receive when procedures areimplemented (interactional justice).

Interactional justice consists of the following two types of interpersonal treatment, thelatter of which is relevant herein: informational justice and interpersonal justice.Interpersonal justice is the perceived degree to which people are treated withpoliteness, dignity, and respect by those involved in implementing procedures ordetermining outcomes (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1987).

Foley and Powell (1999) posit that coworkers evaluate the distributive andprocedural justice of managerial interventions regarding workplace romance. Theseactions include taking no action, positive action, or punitive action depending onwhether the romance poses a conflict of interest or causes work disruption. Coworkersshould perceive distributive justice when there is congruence between the severity oftheir preferred action and the managerial action. They should perceive proceduraljustice when there is congruence between their beliefs about a fair decision-makingprocess and the managerial decision-making process. In support of Foley and Powellsdistributive justice perspective, Karl and Sutton (2000) examined observersperceptions of fairness of workplace romance management interventions ranging inseverity from lenient to punitive. Results indicate that observers considered moresevere actions fair only when romance participants job performance declined or theirrelationship caused work disruption, whereas observers considered no action fair onlywhen romance participants job performance improved. Likewise, Coles (2009) resultsshow that observers consider it fair for management not to take action unless aromance causes work disruption, occurs between employees in the same department,or the organization has a romance policy[1].

Unlike Karl and Sutton (2000) and Cole (2009), we use procedural and interpersonaljustice perspectives to assess individuals perceptions of fairness of stipulations in

Workplaceromance policies

239

different types of romance policies and relationship agreements (none, lenient, orrestrictive). If implemented, romance policies and relationship agreements are enforcedupon all employees. Thus, it is critical to assess fairness perceptions from proceduraland interpersonal justice perspectives. Consider the importance of fair procedures andinterpersonal treatment when organizations ask romantically involved employees tosign a consensual relationship agreement. Each employee is asked to acknowledge thefollowing:

. the workplace romance is consensual, voluntary, welcome, and unrelated to hisor her professional relationship at work;

. each employee will abide by the employers sexual harassment policy;

. each employee is free to terminate the romance at any time without coercion,prejudice, or job-related consequences; and

. the workplace romance will not inhibit his or her work or offend coworkers(Eidelhoch and Russell, 1998; Schaefer and Tudor, 2001; Tyler, 2008).

If stipulations in a relationship agreement (or romance policy) are restrictive orinvading of ones privacy, individuals may perceive that they are being treated unfairlyby management and the organizations procedure is unjust. Thus, we posit thatindividuals will perceive an organizations romance policy and procedures as fair ifthey contain lenient as opposed to restrictive stipulations. Our rationale is thatworkplace romances are inevitable and have become part of organizational life (Cole,2009; Mano and Gabriel, 2006; Pierce et al., 1996). In terms of a blame avoidance motive(Shaver, 1970), some individuals may prefer lenient policies to avoid being disciplinedshould they decide to have a workplace romance. Furthermore, some think thatworkplace romances are a private matter and should not be managed viaorganizational policies and procedures (Lickey et al., 2009). Given that workplaceromances may be considered a private matter, are part of organizational life, and canbe beneficial (Pierce and Aguinis, 2009), we predict that individuals will perceive anorganizations romance policy and relationship agreement as fair if they contain lenientas opposed to restrictive stipulations. An example of a lenient policy is one that allowsromances between peers but prohibits romances between supervisors and theirsubordinates. An example of a restrictive policy is one that prohibits all workplaceromances. An example of a lenient relationship agreement is one that requires anemployee to notify the organization when his or her romantic relationship with anotheremployee is serious or ongoing for several months. Finally, an example of a restrictiveagreement is one that requires an employee to notify the organization immediatelyonce he or she starts dating another employee. In sum, we tested the followinghypotheses from procedural and interpersonal justice perspectives:

H1a. Individuals will perceive having no workplace romance policy or a romancepolicy with lenient stipulations as more fair than a workplace romancepolicy with restrictive stipulations.

H1b. Individuals will perceive having no consensual relationship agreement or arelationship agreement with lenient stipulations as more fair than aconsensual relationship agreement with restrictive stipulations.

JMP27,3

240

Workplace fun and signaling theoryAccording to Ford et al. (2003, p. 22), a fun-at-work environment intentionallyencourages, initiates, and supports a variety of enjoyable and pleasurable activitiesthat positively impact the attitude and productivity of individuals and groups.Examples of fun activities at work include company-funded parties, meals, music, anddancing (Ford et al., 2003; Karl et al., 2008; Peluchette and Karl, 2005). Organizationsthat support these fun-at-work activities have reported an enhanced ability to recruitemployees (Ford et al., 2003). Thus, in addition to providing parties, meals, music, anddancing, organizations could permit peer romances as a way to create a fun-at-workenvironment and potentially improve recruitment. Like company-sponsored parties,meals, and dancing, workplace romances involve fun social interactions that canbenefit participants, coworkers, and the organization (Pierce et al., 1996; Pierce andAguinis, 2009). Hence, we posit that the nature of an organizations romance policy andprocedures may signal the degree to which it supports having fun at work and,consequently, is potentially a fun workplace.

According to signaling theory, organizational characteristics that are observed byindividuals during the recruitment process (e.g., a company policy) can serve assignals for characteristics that are important during a job pursuit but cannot beobserved directly (e.g., an organizations climate; i.e. its personality or values)(Connelly et al., 2011; Rynes et al., 1991). If, for instance, an individual learns that anorganization permits peer romances, this policy information may serve as a signal thatthe organization values having fun at work and, consequently, would potentially be afun workplace. Even policies that are irrelevant to job seekers (e.g., family-friendlypolicies for job seekers without families) can serve as signals of the organizationsclimate and hence affect its ability to recruit employees (Casper and Buffardi, 2004;Ryan and Kossek, 2008). Similar to being named on a best places to work list (e.g.,Fortunes Best Companies (Breaugh, 2008)), perhaps being perceived as a fun placeto work is key for an organizations image and hence its ability to recruit. In sum, wetested the following hypotheses from the perspectives of signaling theory andfun-at-work environments:

H2a. Individuals will perceive an organization that does not have a workplaceromance policy or that has a romance policy with lenient stipulations as amore fun place to work than an organization that has a workplace romancepolicy with restrictive stipulations.

H2b. Individuals will perceive an organization that does not administerconsensual relationship agreements or that administers relationshipagreements with lenient stipulations as a more fun place to work than anorganization that administers consensual relationship agreements withrestrictive stipulations.

As a visual aid, relationships between variables in H3a-H7 are depicted in Figure 1 ahypothesized theoretical model of the relationships between individuals perceivedfairness of workplace romance policies and procedures, perceived workplace fun,perceived person-organization (P-O) fit, organizational attraction, and intent to pursueemployment in the organization. This model summarizes how individuals perceptionsof fairness of an organizations romance policy and procedures may play an indirectrole in their intent to pursue employment in the organization. Because our model

Workplaceromance policies

241

depicts perceived fun place to work, P-O fit, and organizational attraction as mediators,we report tests of indirect effects and alternative models to confirm the mediation.

Recall that policies, even if irrelevant to job seekers, can serve as signals of anorganizations climate (Casper and Buffardi, 2004; Ryan and Kossek, 2008). Thus, weassert that job seekers would perceive fair (vs unfair) policies and procedures assignals of a desirable climate. We derive this assertion from:

. minority recruitment research which indicates that job seekers perceivedfairness of an organizations HR policies and procedures predicts theirperceptions of the organizations diversity climate (McKay and Avery, 2006; MorBarak et al., 1998); and

. occupational safety research which indicates that individuals perceptions of anorganizations safety policy and procedures predict their perceptions of theorganizations safety climate (Barling and Hutchinson, 2000).

By extension, we posit that individuals who perceive an organizations romance policyand procedures as fair will perceive the organization to be a fun place to work. In sum,we tested the following hypotheses from the perspectives of organizational justicetheory, signaling theory, and fun-at-work environments:

H3a. Individuals who perceive an organizations type of workplace romancepolicy as fair will perceive the organization to be a fun place to work.

H3b. Individuals who perceive an organizations type of consensual relationshipagreement as fair will perceive the organization to be a fun place to work.

P-O fitP-O fit is the compatibility between individuals and organizations in which they workand is important for successful recruitment (Kristof, 1996). During the prehire stage ofrecruitment, perceived P-O fit is determined from individuals assessments of thedegree of congruence between their values and the recruiting organizations values(Cable and Judge, 1996). With respect to individuals values, most individuals valueand prefer justice in organizations (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). With respect toorganizations values, by drawing from signaling theory and Kristofs (1996, p. 37)proposition regarding recruitment strategies, we posit that the fairness of romancepolicies and procedures can exemplify or signal organizations justice values. Hence,individuals should perceive fit with organizations that enforce fair as opposed to unfairromance policies and procedures. We tested the following hypotheses from theperspectives of organizational justice theory, signaling theory, and perceived P-O fit:

H4a. Individuals who perceive an organizations type of workplace romancepolicy as fair will perceive person-organization (P-O) fit.

Figure 1.Hypothesized theoreticalmodel

JMP27,3

242

H4b. Individuals who perceive an organizations type of consensual relationshipagreement as fair will perceive person-organization (P-O) fit.

Organizational attraction and intent to pursue employmentAttracting job seekers is a main goal of recruitment and key to an organizationssuccess (Ehrhart and Ziegert, 2005). Drawing from the reinforcement-affect model ofattraction, job seekers will be attracted to an organization that they perceive as havingsimilar values. Perceived similarity in values is reinforcing because it providesconsensual validation, elicits positive emotions, and hence fosters attraction (Byrneand Neuman, 1992). If policies and procedures serve as signals of an organizationsvalues (e.g., having fun at work), then job seekers who perceive that their values aresimilar to and thus fit with the organizations values will be attracted to theorganization. Indeed, organizational attributes (e.g., a company policy) can affect jobseekers perceived P-O fit which, in turn, predicts their organizational attraction which,in turn, predicts their job pursuit intentions (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001; Chapman et al.,2005; Resick et al., 2007; Turban et al., 1998). Drawing from this recruitment research,we posit that romance policies and procedures are organizational attributes that mayaffect indirectly individuals perceived P-O fit. We posit that individuals wouldperceive P-O fit and thus be attracted to and intend to pursue jobs in organizations thathave desirable (e.g., fair, fun) as opposed to undesirable policies, procedures, and workenvironments. In sum, we tested the following hypotheses from the perspectives offun-at-work environments, P-O fit, attraction, and job pursuit intentions:

H5. Individuals perceptions of the degree to which an organization is a funplace to work are positively associated with their degree of attraction to theorganization.

H6. Individuals perceptions of their person-organization (P-O) fit are positivelyassociated with their degree of attraction to the organization.

H7. Individuals degree of attraction to an organization is positively associatedwith the degree to which they would intend to pursue employment in theorganization.

MethodParticipantsA total of 182 individuals participated of which 103 were undergraduate businessstudents and 79 were casino employees. Their demographics are as follows: 55 percentfemale; 64 percent white, 21 percent African American, 10 percent Asian; 61 percentsingle, 29 percent married, and 8 percent divorced. Participants ages ranged from 18 to61 years (M SD 30:35 [9.77]), tenure in their organization ranged from 1 to 264months (M SD 43:06 [45.23]), 92 percent were employed, and 63 percent wereemployed full time. Nine percent were involved in a workplace romance. Forty-ninepercent were employed by an organization that had a romance policy and 44 percentwere employed by an organization that did not have a romance policy.

Design and procedureQuestionnaires were administered to and collected from 103 students during class time.Questionnaires were also administered to 325 casino employees during work hours. A

Workplaceromance policies

243

total of 79 casino employees returned completed questionnaires producing a 24 percentresponse rate. Questionnaires contained the following sections:

. study description and instructions;

. measures of control variables;

. vignette describing the nature of a companys romance policy (none, lenient, orrestrictive) and relationship agreement (none, lenient, or restrictive);

. measures of manipulation checks; and

. measures of dependent variables.

Each participant was randomly assigned to read one of five versions of a vignette thatasked him or her to assume they applied for a full-time position in Company X (seeAppendix). With respect to manipulations:

. a lenient policy stipulated that while workplace romances are generallydiscouraged, those between supervisors and their subordinates are prohibitedbut those between coworkers/peers are allowed, whereas a restrictive policystipulated that all workplace romances are prohibited; and

. a lenient relationship agreement stipulated that employees who are romanticallyinvolved with one another must notify the HR director as soon as their romancebecomes serious or the relationship is ongoing for six months, whereas arestrictive agreement stipulated that employees who are romantically involvedwith one another must notify the HR director before they have a second date.

In sum, each participant was randomly assigned to read one of five vignettes in a 3 (type ofworkplace romance policy: none, lenient, or restrictive 3 (type of consensual relationshipagreement: none, lenient, restrictive) between-subjects experiment. The design is not fullycrossed because four of nine possible conditions are unrealistic or uncommon.

Measures of manipulation checks and dependent variablesManipulation checks. We used two items to assess whether type of romance policy andtype of relationship agreement were manipulated successfully (see Appendix)[2].

Procedural justice. Respondents were instructed to review the organizationsromance policy and relationship agreement and indicate their agreement with fouritems from Rupp and Cropanzanos (2002) measure of procedural justice (Cronbachsa 0:81 in the present study). The items are as follows: I can count on theorganization to have fair policies and procedures, The organizations rules andregulations are fair, There are no fair policies and procedures in the organization,and The procedures used by the organization to make decisions are not fair(1 strongly disagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 7 strongly agree).

Interpersonal justice. Respondents were instructed to review the organizationsromance policy and relationship agreement and indicate their agreement with fouritems from Colquitts (2001) measure of interpersonal justice (Cronbachs a 0:93 inthe present study). The items are as follows: The organization treats its employees in apolite manner, The organization treats its employees with dignity, Theorganization treats its employees with respect, and The organization treats itsemployees fairly (1 strongly disagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 7 stronglyagree).

JMP27,3

244

Fairness of policy and procedures. Respondents rated the degree of fairness of theorganizations romance policy and relationship agreement using three items developedfor the present study (Cronbachs a 0:93). The items are as follows: Theorganizations workplace romance policy is _, The procedures used by theorganization to manage workplace romances are _, and The terms stipulated in theorganizations consensual relationship agreement are _ (1 extremely unfair,4 neither fair nor unfair, 7 extremely fair). Results of a factor analysis usingprincipal component extraction and varimax rotation indicate that only the first factorhad an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and it accounted for 88 percent of the scale variance.Factor loadings for the three items ranged from 0.93 to 0.96. In short, the three-itemscale is unidimensional.

Fun place to work. Respondents indicated their agreement with seven items, five ofwhich were from Peluchette and Karl (2005) and Karl et al.s (2007, 2008) measure of thedegree to which an organization is perceived as being a fun place to work and two ofwhich were developed for the present study (Cronbachs a 0:93 in the present study).The seven items are as follows: This organization sounds like a fun place to work,Employees at this organization try to have fun whenever they can, Managersencourage employees to have fun at work, This organization seems to value fun,Employees have a good time at work, Working for this organization would beenjoyable, and Employees at this organization get pleasure from their work(1 strongly disagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 7 strongly agree). Results ofa factor analysis using principal component extraction and varimax rotation indicatethat only the first factor had an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and it accounted for70 percent of the scale variance. Factor loadings for the seven items ranged from 0.77 to0.89. In short, the seven-item scale is unidimensional.

P-O fit. Respondents indicated their agreement with the five items used by Resicket al. (2007) to measure perceived P-O fit (Cronbachs a 0:95 in the present study).Three of the items were developed by Cable and Judge (1996) and are as follows: I feelmy values match or fit this organization and the current employees in thisorganization, I think the values and personality of this organization reflect my ownvalues and personality, and My values match those of current employees in thisorganization. Two of the items were developed by Saks and Ashforth (1997) and areas follows: The values of this organization are similar to my own values and I feelmy personality matches the personality or image of this organization (1 stronglydisagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 7 strongly agree for each of the five items).

Attraction to organization. Respondents indicated their agreement with the fiveitems from Highhouse et al.s (2003) measure of organizational attraction (Cronbachsa 0:92 in the present study). The items are as follows: For me, this company wouldbe a good place to work, I would not be interested in this company except as a lastresort, This company is attractive to me as a place for employment, I am interestedin learning more about this company, and A job at this company is very appealing tome (1 strongly disagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 7 strongly agree).

Intent to pursue employment in organization. Respondents indicated their agreementwith the five items from Highhouse et al.s (2003) measure of intent to pursueemployment in an organization (Cronbachs a 0:94 in the present study). The itemsare as follows: I would accept a job offer from this company, I would make thiscompany one of my first choices as an employer, If this company invited me for a

Workplaceromance policies

245

second job interview, I would go, I would exert a great deal of effort to work for thiscompany, and I would recommend this company to a friend looking for a job(1 strongly disagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 7 strongly agree).

Measures of control variablesAttitude toward workplace romance. Respondents indicated their agreement with 14items from Powells (1986) measure of beliefs regarding romance and sexual intimacyat work (Cronbachs a 0:83 in the present study). Sample items include: Sexualrelations foster better communication between the workers involved in therelationship, It is all right for someone to look for a dating partner at work, andIt is all right for someone to look for a marriage partner at work (1 stronglydisagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 7 strongly agree). Females had lessfavorable attitudes (M 3:62, SD 1:09) than did males (M 4:09, SD 1:03)(t177 2:91, p , 0:01, h2p 0:05) (see Pierce, 1998; Pierce and Aguinis, 2003; Powell,1986).

Attitude toward workplace fun. Respondents indicated their agreement with 12items from Karl et al.s (2005, 2007) measure of attitudes toward workplace fun(Cronbachs a 0:82 in the present study). Sample items include: Joking, laughing, orhaving a playful attitude while on the job is immature and unprofessional, It isinappropriate to have fun at work, and Managers should discourage employees fromhaving fun at work (1 strongly disagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree,7 strongly agree).

Participation in a workplace romance. Respondents indicated whether they werecurrently romantically involved with (e.g., dating, married to) someone who isemployed by the same organization (1 No, 2 Yes, my spouse and I work for thesame organization, 3 Yes, my domestic partner (i.e. someone you live with but arenot married to) and I work for the same organization, or 4 Yes, I am dating someonewho is employed by the same organization as I am) (see Pierce, 1998; Pierce andAguinis, 2003; Salvaggio et al., 2011).

Demographic and employment variables. Respondents reported their age, gender,ethnicity, and marital status. Respondents indicated whether they were employed(1 yes, 2 no) and, if yes, to indicate their status (1 full time, 2 part time) andnumber of months employed by their organization. Finally, respondents indicatedwhether their company has a written workplace romance policy (1 yes, 2 no,3 uncertain=dont know).

ResultsTable I reports means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability estimates forall study variables. As evidence for convergent validity, the fairness variables(variables 5-7) are significantly positively correlated with one another. As evidence fordiscriminant validity, the dependent variables (variables 5-11) are, overall, notsignificantly correlated with the control variables (variables 12-20)[3]. In sum,reliability, factor, and correlation analyses indicate that the measures arepsychometrically sound (see also Table II).

JMP27,3

246

Var

iab

leM

SD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

1.W

Rp

olic

y(E

1)a

0.24

0.87

2.W

Rp

olic

y(E

2)a

20.

100.

680.

52*

3.C

RA

(E1)

b2

0.45

0.81

0.59

*0.

104.

CR

A(E

2)b

20.

510.

730.

58*

0.10

0.72

*

5.P

roce

du

ral

just

ice

4.46

1.48

20.

012

0.12

0.05

0.01

(0.8

1)6.

Inte

rper

son

alju

stic

e4.

581.

472

0.07

20.

16*

0.06

20.

080.

62*

(0.9

3)7.

Fai

rnes

sof

pol

icy

and

pro

ced

ure

s4.

261.

762

0.06

20.

28*

0.05

20.

050.

64*

0.65

*(0

.93)

8.W

ork

pla

cefu

n3.

961.

182

0.26

*2

0.45

*2

0.02

20.

100.

41*

0.54

*0.

55*

(0.9

3)9.

Per

son

-or

gan

izat

ion

fit

3.90

1.65

0.09

20.

110.

120.

030.

59*

0.62

*0.

67*

0.50

*(0

.95)

10.

Org

aniz

atio

nal

attr

acti

on4.

071.

520.

052

0.11

0.06

0.01

0.54

*0.

58*

0.61

*0.

54*

0.80

*(0

.92)

11.

Inte

nt

top

urs

ue

emp

loy

men

t4.

141.

510.

102

0.10

0.14

0.08

0.53

*0.

57*

0.60

*0.

53*

0.74

*0.

89*

(0.9

4)12

.A

ttit

ud

eto

war

dW

R3.

821.

082

0.02

20.

070.

070.

100.

050.

100.

100.

090.

110.

130.

19*

(0.8

3)13

.A

ttit

ud

eto

war

dw

ork

pla

cefu

n5.

620.

880.

040.

050.

030.

050.

120.

050.

030.

020.

040.

050.

080.

28*

(0.8

2)14

.C

urr

ent

par

tici

pat

ion

inW

R1.

190.

660.

070.

030.

022

0.02

20.

020.

022

0.03

0.09

0.06

0.01

20.

020.

102

0.03

15.

Ag

e30

.35

9.77

0.03

0.06

20.

052

0.07

0.05

20.

030.

070.

19*

0.04

0.13

0.11

20.

22*

0.03

0.01

16.

Gen

der

1.55

0.50

0.08

0.03

0.02

0.03

20.

032

0.03

20.

042

0.11

0.01

20.

032

0.05

20.

21*

0.05

0.04

0.04

17.

Cu

rren

tem

plo

ym

ent

1.08

0.28

20.

022

0.05

0.02

0.04

0.12

0.11

0.20

*0.

050.

130.

16*

0.14

0.02

20.

120.

072

0.14

20.

0518

.E

mp

loy

men

tst

atu

s1.

370.

482

0.05

20.

050.

060.

030.

042

0.03

20.

072

0.13

20.

082

0.09

20.

070.

142

0.09

0.01

20.

53*

20.

10n

.c.

19.

Mon

ths

emp

loy

ed43

.06

45.2

32

0.04

0.01

20.

012

0.10

20.

022

0.13

0.04

0.16

*2

0.03

0.02

0.02

20.

152

0.01

20.

020.

54*

0.11

n.c

.2

0.45

*

20.

Com

pan

yh

asw

ritt

enW

Rp

olic

y1.

590.

630.

120.

130.

040.

080.

042

0.06

20.

092

0.15

0.08

0.08

0.05

0.05

20.

112

0.01

20.

39*

20.

020.

46*

0.22

*2

0.24

*

Notes:n

ran

ged

from

138

to18

2;C

ron

bac

hs

alp

has

are

inp

aren

thes

eson

the

mai

nd

iag

onal

;n:c:

not

com

pu

tab

leb

ecau

seon

eof

the

var

iab

les

isco

nst

ant;

aT

yp

eof

wor

kp

lace

rom

ance

(WR

)p

olic

y(n

one,

len

ien

t,or

rest

rict

ive)

was

cod

edin

totw

ov

aria

ble

s,E

1an

dE

2,u

sin

gu

nw

eig

hte

def

fect

sco

din

g.E

1co

mp

ares

non

eto

len

ien

tan

dE

2co

mp

ares

non

eto

rest

rict

ive;

bty

pe

ofco

nse

nsu

alre

lati

onsh

ipag

reem

ent

(CR

A)(

non

e,le

nie

nt,

orre

stri

ctiv

e)w

asco

ded

into

two

var

iab

les,

E1

and

E2,

usi

ng

un

wei

gh

ted

effe

cts

cod

ing

.E

1co

mp

ares

non

eto

len

ien

tan

dE

2co

mp

ares

non

eto

rest

rict

ive;

* p,

0:05

Table I.Means, standard

deviations, correlations,and reliability estimates

for study variables

Workplaceromance policies

247

Tests of hypothesesH1a-H2b. Table III reports means and standard deviations for individuals perceivedfairness, workplace fun, P-O fit, organizational attraction, and job pursuit intentions bytype of romance policy and type of relationship agreement. To test H1a, H1b, H2a, andH2b, we conducted a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA)[4]. We includedthe following controls: Individuals attitudes toward workplace romance, attitudestoward workplace fun, current participation in a workplace romance, age, gender,ethnicity, marital status, current employment, employment status, organizationaltenure, and whether their company has a romance policy. In support of H1a and H2a,results reported in Table IV indicate that type of romance policy has a multivariatemain effect (F[14, 204 3:13, p , 0:001, Wilks l 0:68, h2p 0:18). Type ofrelationship agreement and all controls did not have a multivariate main effect.

We conducted univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) with the samecontrols as follow-up tests to the MANCOVA. In support of H1a, H1b, and H2a, resultsreported in Table V indicate that type of romance policy has a main effect onindividuals perceived fairness (F [2, 108 7:62, p , 0:001, h2p 0:12) and perceivedworkplace fun (F [2, 108] 13.36, p , .001, h2p 0:20), and type of relationshipagreement has a main effect on individuals perceived interpersonal justice (F [2,108 3:21, p , 0:05, h2p 0:06). Consistent with H1a, H1b, and H2a, Tukeys HSDtests indicate that:

. individuals perceived no policy (M 4:76) and a lenient policy (M 4:36) asmore fair than a restrictive policy (M 3:27) (ps , 0:005);

Variable Construct validity evidence

Dependent 1. Procedural justice (Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002): organizational proceduraljustice r 0:36 with supervisory procedural justice

2.. Interpersonal justice (Colquitt, 2001): r 0:43 with procedural justice, r 0:64 with informational justice, r 0:41 with distributive justice

3. Fairness of policy and procedures (developed for present study, see Table 1)a:r 0:64 with procedural justice, r 0:65 with interpersonal justice

4. Workplace fun (Karl et al., 2007; Peluchette and Karl, 2005): rs 0:28 and0.14 with attitude toward workplace fun

5. Person-organization fit (Resick et al., 2007): r 0:46 with needs-supplies jobfit, r 0:28 with demands-abilities job fit

6. Organizational attraction (Highhouse et al., 2003): r 0:86 with intent topursue employment

7. Intent to pursue employment (Highhouse et al., 2003): r 0:86 withorganizational attraction

Control 1. Attitude toward workplace romance (Powell, 1986): r 0:17 withparticipation in a workplace romance (Pierce and Aguinis, 2003)

2. Attitude toward workplace fun (Karl et al., 2007; Peluchette and Karl, 2005):rs 0:28 and 0.14 with workplace fun

Note: a With the exception of the fairness of policies and procedures measure, all validity coefficients(rs) are from the respective studies cited

Table II.Construct validityevidence for measures ofdependent and controlvariables

JMP27,3

248

Mal

esF

emal

esT

yp

eof

WR

pol

icy

Ty

pe

ofC

RA

Ty

pe

ofW

Rp

olic

yT

yp

eof

CR

AN

one

Len

ien

tR

estr

icti

ve

Non

eL

enie

nt

Res

tric

tiv

eN

one

Len

ien

tR

estr

icti

ve

Non

eL

enie

nt

Res

tric

tiv

eD

epen

den

tv

aria

ble

aM

SD

MS

DM

SD

MS

DM

SD

MS

DM

SD

MS

DM

SD

MS

DM

SD

MS

D

1.P

roce

du

ral

just

ice

4.64

1.54

4.64

1.32

4.06

1.07

4.45

1.38

4.86

1.40

4.36

1.14

4.60

1.47

4.41

1.64

4.01

1.65

4.37

1.57

4.51

1.75

4.32

1.56

2.In

terp

erso

nal

just

ice

4.81

1.66

4.78

1.24

4.02

1.20

4.51

1.47

5.52

1.06

3.96

0.77

4.98

1.58

4.46

1.59

4.29

1.35

4.69

1.50

4.52

1.72

4.05

1.50

3.F

airn

ess

4.86

1.69

4.47

1.67

3.19

1.59

4.28

1.81

5.23

1.29

3.27

1.46

4.62

1.42

4.29

1.84

3.33

1.90

4.22

1.78

4.14

2.06

4.18

1.48

4.W

ork

pla

cefu

n4.

791.

283.

990.

933.

261.

214.

131.

314.

290.

973.

581.

004.

591.

033.

750.

923.

041.

453.

891.

283.

831.

033.

610.

865.

Per

son

-org

aniz

atio

nfi

t3.

981.

974.

061.

453.

041.

303.

701.

674.

611.

563.

261.

253.

671.

734.

151.

593.

441.

793.

791.

794.

131.

354.

031.

616.

Att

ract

ion

4.31

2.17

4.27

1.29

3.25

1.28

4.01

1.81

4.51

1.27

3.75

1.21

3.74

1.46

4.18

1.26

3.82

1.69

3.93

1.49

4.13

1.37

4.09

1.06

7.In

ten

tion

4.29

2.16

4.51

1.25

3.35

1.41

4.07

1.78

4.91

1.15

3.86

1.41

3.79

1.35

4.29

1.28

3.71

1.69

3.91

1.43

4.31

1.48

4.33

1.05

Notes:n

ran

ged

from

179

to18

2;aW

ith

resp

ect

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

sw

ork

pla

cero

man

cep

olic

ies

and

pro

ced

ure

s,g

reat

erv

alu

esin

dic

ate

that

ind

ivid

ual

s(1

)per

ceiv

edth

ep

olic

ies

and

pro

ced

ure

sas

pro

ced

ura

lly

fair

,(2)

per

ceiv

edth

atth

eor

gan

izat

ion

trea

tsit

sem

plo

yee

sfa

irly

,(3

)p

erce

ived

the

pol

icie

san

dp

roce

du

res

asfa

ir,

(4)

per

ceiv

edth

eor

gan

izat

ion

tob

ea

fun

pla

ceto

wor

k,(

5)p

erce

ived

thei

rv

alu

esto

mat

chor

fit

wit

hth

eor

gan

izat

ion

sv

alu

es,

(6)

wer

eat

trac

ted

toth

eor

gan

izat

ion

asa

pot

enti

alem

plo

yer

,an

d(7

)ex

pre

ssed

inte

nt

inp

urs

uin

gem

plo

ym

ent

inth

eor

gan

izat

ion

Table III.Means and standard

deviations for males andfemales perceivedfairness, perceived

workplace fun, perceivedperson-organization fit,

organizational attraction,and intent to pursue

employment in theorganization by type of

workplace romance (WR)policy and type of

consensual relationshipagreement (CRA)

Workplaceromance policies

249

. individuals perceived an organization with no policy (M 4:69) or a lenientpolicy (M 3:85) as a more fun place to work than an organization with arestrictive policy (M 3:14) (ps , 0:005); and

. individuals perceived a lenient agreement (M 4:95) as more fairinterpersonally than a restrictive agreement (M 4:01) (p , 0:05).Inconsistent with H2b, results reported in Table V indicate that type ofrelationship agreement does not have a main effect on individuals perceivedworkplace fun (F [2, 108 0:89, p . 0:05, h2p 0:02).

H3a-H7. We used Amos 18 (Arbuckle, 2009) to test our hypothesized model in Figure 2.In support of H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b, individuals perceptions of procedural justice,interpersonal justice, and fairness of policy and procedures are positively associatedwith their perceptions of the organization being a fun place to work (bs 20:01[p . 0:05], 0.33, and 0.34, respectively, ps , 0:001, R 2 0:36) and P-O fit (bs 0:20[p , 0:05], 0.25, and 0.38, respectively, ps , 0:001, R 2 0:52). In support of H5-H7,individuals perceptions of the organization being a fun place to work and P-O fit arepositively associated with their degree of organizational attraction (bs 0:19 and 0.71,respectively, ps , :001, R 2 0:65) which, in turn, is positively associated with theirjob pursuit intentions (b 0:89, p , 0:001, R 2 0:79).

Results of this path analysis support the fit of our hypothesized model (x 2 [9,n 182 14:56, p . 0:05; CFI 0:99, IFI 0:99, NFI 0:98, RMSEA 0:06,TLI 0:98). Moreover, a subgroup analysis reveals that our hypothesized model fitsequally well for business students (x 2 [9, n 103 13:52, p . 0:05; CFI 0:99,IFI 0:99, NFI 0:97, RMSEA 0:07 [90 percent CI 0:00 to 0.14], TLI 0:98) andcasino employees (x 2 [9, n 79 17:04, p 0:05; CFI 0:98, IFI 0:98,NFI 0:96, RMSEA 0:11 [90 percent CI 0:01 to 0.18], TLI 0:94). Finally, wereport path estimates for indirect effects in Table VI. All indirect effects are significantand hence provide support for the mediation in our hypothesized model.

Source dfbtwn dferror F Wilks l h2p p

Independent variable1. Type of WR policy 14 204 3.13 * 0.68 0.18 0.002. Type of CRA 14 204 1.10 0.86 0.07 0.36

Control variable1. Attitude toward WR 7 102 0.77 0.95 0.05 0.612. Attitude toward fun 7 102 0.35 0.98 0.02 0.933. Participation in WR 7 102 0.59 0.96 0.04 0.774. Age 7 102 0.69 0.96 0.05 0.685. Gender 7 102 0.40 0.97 0.03 0.906. Ethnicity 7 102 1.35 0.92 0.09 0.237. Marital status 7 102 0.49 0.97 0.03 0.848. Currently employed n.c. 105 n.c. 1.00 n.c. n.c.9. Employment status 7 102 1.61 0.90 0.10 0.14

10. Months employed 7 102 1.64 0.90 0.10 0.1311. Company WR policy 7 102 1.27 0.92 0.08 0.27

Note: n 123; btwn between subjects; n:c: not computed; *p , 0:001

Table IV.Multivariate analysis ofcovariance forindividuals perceivedfairness, perceivedworkplace fun, perceivedperson-organization fit,organizational attraction,and intent to pursueemployment in theorganization by type ofworkplace romance (WR)policy and type ofconsensual relationshipagreement (CRA):multivariate tests

JMP27,3

250

Tests of alternative modelsTable VII shows comparisons between the fit of our hypothesized model and the fit of11 alternative models. The purpose of comparing the first nine alternative models toour model was to confirm its mediated relationships. In support of the mediation,chi-square difference tests indicate that none of the nested alternative models (models2-7) fit significantly better than our model and, moreover, none of the added paths aresignificant. In addition, none of the non-nested alternative models (models 8-10) fitbetter than our model. Finally, the purpose of comparing the last two alternativemodels to our model was to assess whether structural changes produce a superior fit.

Source Dependent variable df MS F h2p p

Type of WR Procedural justice 2 5.82 2.37 0.04 0.10policy Interpersonal justice 2 4.86 2.30 0.04 0.11

Fairness of policy/procedures 2 22.74 7.62 * * 0.12 0.00Workplace fun 2 17.77 13.36 * * 0.20 0.00Person-organization fit 2 8.75 3.08 0.05 0.05Organizational attraction 2 4.70 1.90 0.03 0.15Intent to pursue employment 2 6.40 2.70 0.05 0.07

Type of CRA Procedural justice 2 1.61 0.65 0.01 0.52Interpersonal justice 2 6.79 3.21 * 0.06 0.04Fairness of policy/procedures 2 5.91 1.98 0.04 0.14Workplace fun 2 1.18 0.89 0.02 0.42Person-organization fit 2 6.28 2.21 0.04 0.12Organizational attraction 2 1.99 0.81 0.02 0.45Intent to pursue employment 2 1.78 0.75 0.01 0.48

Error Procedural justice 108 2.46Interpersonal justice 108 2.12Fairness of policy/procedures 108 2.98Workplace fun 108 1.33Person-organization fit 108 2.85Organizational attraction 108 2.47Intent to pursue employment 108 2.38

Notes: n 123; *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:001

Table V.Multivariate analysis of

covariance forindividuals perceived

fairness, perceivedworkplace fun, perceived

person-organization fit,organizational attraction,

and intent to pursueemployment in the

organization by type ofworkplace romance (WR)

policy and type ofconsensual relationship

agreement (CRA):univariate tests

Figure 2.Completely standardized

path-analytic solution forthe relationships between

individuals perceivedfairness of workplaceromance policies andprocedures, perceived

workplace fun, perceivedperson-organization (P-O)

fit, organizationalattraction, and intent to

pursue employment in theorganization

Workplaceromance policies

251

Chi-square difference tests indicate that these nested alternative models (models 11-12)produce a significantly inferior fit compared to our model. Moreover, neither of thesemodels produce an adequate fit to our data.

DiscussionThe impetus for our study was to determine whether individuals perceptions of anorganizations workplace romance policy and consensual relationship agreement playa role in their job pursuit intentions. As predicted, results show that:

. having no policy or a lenient policy was rated as more fair than a restrictivepolicy;

. a lenient agreement was rated as more fair interpersonally than a restrictiveagreement; and

. an organization with no policy or a lenient policy was rated as a more fun placeto work than an organization with a restrictive policy.

As predicted, results also show that individuals perceptions of fairness of the type ofromance policy and relationship agreement are positively associated with the degree towhich they perceive the organization to be a fun place to work and perceived P-O fit.Individuals perceptions of the organization being a fun place to work and P-O fit are,in turn, positively associated with their organizational attraction which, in turn, ispositively associated with their job pursuit intentions. Thus, organizations romancepolicies and procedures, even if irrelevant to job seekers (see Casper and Buffardi, 2004;Ryan and Kossek, 2008), may play an indirect role in predicting individuals job pursuitintentions.

Theoretical implicationsOur results have implications for organizational justice and signaling theories. First,Karl and Sutton (2000) and Cole (2009) showed that observers perceptions of fairnessof management interventions taken in response to a workplace romance can beexplained from a distributive justice perspective. We extend organizational justicetheory from a reactive management intervention context to a proactive organizational

Indirect path b 95 percent CI

Procedural justice ! attraction 0.13 * [0.02, 0.24]Interpersonal justice ! attraction 0.24 * [0.13, 0.35]Fairness ! attraction 0.34 * [0.23, 0.45]Procedural justice ! employment intention 0.12 * [0.02, 0.22]Interpersonal justice ! employment intention 0.22 * [0.12, 0.32]Fairness ! employment intention 0.30 * [0.21, 0.41]Fun place to work ! employment intention 0.17 * [0.08, 0.26]P-O fit ! employment intention 0.63 * [0.55, 0.71]Note: n 182; CI confidence interval; Standardized indirect effects (bs) are for the hypothesizedmodel in Figure 2; values for bs and 95 percent bias-corrected confidence intervals are based on aMonte Carlo parametric bootstrap with 10,000 samples; *p , 0:05

Table VI.Standardized indirecteffects for relationshipsbetween individualsperceived fairness ofworkplace romancepolicies and procedures,perceived workplace fun,perceivedperson-organization (P-O)fit, organizationalattraction, and intent topursue employment inthe organization

JMP27,3

252

Mod

elP

ath

sad

ded

orre

mov

edx

2d

fDx

2d

fb

RM

SE

AN

FI

RF

IIF

IT

LI

CF

I

Mod

el1

Hy

pot

hes

ized

theo

reti

calm

odel

inF

igu

re2

14.5

69

0.06

0.98

0.95

0.99

0.98

0.99

Mod

el2

Ad

dp

roce

du

ral

just

ice!

attr

acti

on10

.74

63.

823

0.03

0.07

0.99

0.95

0.99

0.98

0.99

Ad

din

terp

erso

nal

just

ice!

attr

acti

on0.

06A

dd

fair

nes

s!

attr

acti

on0.

06M

odel

3A

dd

pro

ced

ura

lju

stic

e!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

9.41

65.

153

0.03

0.06

0.99

0.95

0.99

0.98

0.99

Ad

din

terp

erso

nal

just

ice!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.03

Ad

dfa

irn

ess!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.06

Mod

el4

Ad

dp

roce

du

ral

just

ice!

attr

acti

on5.

593

8.97

60.

030.

070.

990.

940.

990.

970.

99A

dd

inte

rper

son

alju

stic

e!

attr

acti

on0.

06A

dd

fair

nes

s!

attr

acti

on0.

06A

dd

pro

ced

ura

lju

stic

e!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.03

Ad

din

terp

erso

nal

just

ice!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.03

Ad

dfa

irn

ess!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.06

Mod

el5

Ad

dfu

np

lace

tow

ork

!em

plo

ym

ent

inte

nti

on10

.03

74.

532

0.06

0.05

0.99

0.96

0.99

0.99

0.99

Ad

dP

-Ofi

t!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.08

Mod

el6

Ad

dp

roce

du

ral

just

ice!

attr

acti

on6.

224

8.34

50.

030.

060.

990.

950.

990.

980.

99A

dd

inte

rper

son

alju

stic

e!

attr

acti

on0.

06A

dd

fair

nes

s!

attr

acti

on0.

06A

dd

fun

pla

ceto

wor

k!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.06

Ad

dP

-Ofi

t!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.08

Mod

el7

Ad

dp

roce

du

ral

just

ice!

attr

acti

on4.

26*

110

.30

80.

030.

130.

990.

870.

990.

900.

99A

dd

inte

rper

son

alju

stic

e!

attr

acti

on0.

06A

dd

fair

nes

s!

attr

acti

on0.

06A

dd

pro

ced

ura

lju

stic

e!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.03

(con

tinued

)

Table VII.Chi-square difference

tests between theoreticalmodel and alternativemodels, standardizedpath coefficients, and

model fit indices

Workplaceromance policies

253

Mod

elP

ath

sad

ded

orre

mov

edx

2d

fDx

2d

fb

RM

SE

AN

FI

RF

IIF

IT

LI

CF

I

Ad

din

terp

erso

nal

just

ice!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.01

Ad

dfa

irn

ess!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.05

Ad

dfu

np

lace

tow

ork

!em

plo

ym

ent

inte

nti

on0.

04A

dd

P-O

fit!

emp

loy

men

tin

ten

tion

0.05

Mod

el8

Rem

ove

pat

hs

toan

dfr

omfu

np

lace

tow

ork

5.46

3N

otn

este

da

0.07

0.99

0.96

0.99

0.98

0.99

Rem

ove

pat

hs

toan

dfr

omP

-Ofi

tA

dd

pro

ced

ura

lju

stic

e!

attr

acti

on0.

16*

Ad

din

terp

erso

nal

just

ice!

attr

acti

on0.

27*

Ad

dfa

irn

ess!

attr

acti

on0.

34*

Mod

el9

Rem

ove

pat

hs

toan

dfr

omfu

np

lace

tow

ork

15.6

5*

7N

otn

este

da

0.08

0.98

0.94

0.99

0.97

0.99

Mod

el10

Rem

ove

pat

hs

toan

dfr

omfu

np

lace

tow

ork

5.88

4N

otn

este

da

0.05

0.99

0.96

0.99

0.99

0.99

Ad

dp

roce

du

ral

just

ice!

attr

acti

on0.

03A

dd

inte

rper

son

alju

stic

e!

attr

acti

on0.

10A

dd

fair

nes

s!

attr

acti

on0.

10M

odel

11b

Th

ree

fair

nes

sv

aria

ble

s!

fun

pla

ceto

wor

k10

6.96

*12

92.4

0*

32

0.01

,0.

33* ,

0.33

*0.

210.

880.

730.

900.

750.

89

Fu

np

lace

tow

ork

!P

-Ofi

t0.

50*

P-O

fit!

attr

acti

on0.

80*

Att

ract

ion

!em

plo

ym

ent

inte

nti

on0.

89*

Mod

el12

bT

hre

efa

irn

ess

var

iab

les!

P-O

fit

102.

82*

1288

.26

*3

0.21

* ,0.

22* ,

0.35

*0.

200.

890.

740.

900.

760.

90

Fu

np

lace

tow

ork

!P

-Ofi

t0.

14*

P-O

fit!

attr

acti

on0.

78*

Att

ract

ion

!em

plo

ym

ent

inte

nti

on0.

88*

Notes:

n

182;

Mod

els

2-12

com

par

edto

Mod

el1;

aM

odel

isn

otn

este

dw

ith

Mod

el1;

bM

odel

isst

ruct

ura

lly

dif

fere

nt

from

Mod

el1

bu

tin

clu

des

the

sam

ev

aria

ble

s;* p

,0:

05

Table VII.

JMP27,3

254

policy and procedure context. We show that individuals perceptions of fairness ofdifferent types of romance policies can be explained from a procedural justiceperspective, and different types of relationship agreements can be explained from aninterpersonal justice perspective. Thus, with respect to managing workplace romancesproactively, organizations may want to consider justice perceptions of job seekers andnot just organizational members. Moreover, these justice perceptions may be importanteven when policies and procedures are irrelevant to a job seeker.

Second, work-life balance and family-friendly policies can serve as signals that theorganizational climate is supportive of employees and their families. Job seekers aremore likely to intend to pursue employment in organizations that offer these policieseven if they do not have families, perhaps because they think the organization is caring(Casper and Buffardi, 2004; Ryan and Kossek, 2008). Similarly, our study participantswere more likely to perceive P-O fit, workplace fun, organizational attraction, andindicate intent to pursue employment in an organization that they perceived as havingfair as opposed to unfair romance policies and procedures. Thus, consistent withsignaling theory, the present study suggests that romance policies and procedureswhich are perceived as fair may serve as signals that the organizational climatesupports having fun at work and, hence, the organization is potentially a funworkplace.

Managerial and societal implicationsOur results have implications for how organizations can manage workplace romancesproactively. Specifically, researchers have recommended that HR leaders should use anorganizationally sensible approach (Pierce and Aguinis, 2009). The present studysresults suggest that a sensible policy and procedure may be either no policy/procedureor those with lenient rather than restrictive stipulations because they were perceived asbeing fairer. Romance policies and procedures that are perceived as fair may signal tojob seekers, and society at large, that the organization is potentially a good fit and funworkplace, which could ultimately affect its ability to recruit employees.

With respect to recruitment, our results suggest that having either no romancepolicy and relationship agreement or a lenient policy and agreement may be better thanhaving a restrictive policy and agreement. Organizations that have either no policy andagreement or a lenient policy and agreement may want to consider informing jobseekers, and society at large, of the nature of their policy and procedures via websites,job advertisements, social networking media, recruitment brochures, and employmentinterviews. Having either no romance policy and relationship agreement or a lenientpolicy and agreement may signal that the organizational climate promotes work-lifebalance. Organizations should, however, think carefully before deciding not toimplement romance policies and procedures because the aftermath of a dissolvedworkplace romance can occasionally result in legal liability (Lickey et al., 2009).Finally, HR leaders should consider our results and recommendations as preliminarybecause they are based on experimental scenarios.

Limitations and directions for future researchThe present study has limitations. First, the vignettes did not specify whetheremployees had a voice in developing the romance policy and relationship agreement.The absence of this procedural information may explain why our results indicate that

Workplaceromance policies

255

type of romance policy and relationship agreement had effects on only two of thejustice variables. Future research should manipulate whether employees had a voice indeveloping the policy and procedures to determine its effect on perceived proceduraljustice.

Second, the vignettes did not contain contextual information other than detailsregarding the organizations romance policy and procedures. Thus, future researchshould hold constant additional contextual variables (e.g., drug use policy) todetermine whether individuals job pursuit intentions are still affected by anorganizations romance policy and procedures. Given this limitation, our results shouldbe interpreted with caution.

ConclusionWe draw from procedural and interpersonal justice perspectives to help organizationsidentify what may be perceived as fair workplace romance policies and consensualrelationship agreements. Based on our results, we conclude that enforcing workplaceromance policies and procedures that are perceived as fair is vital because individualsfairness perceptions may play a role in their job pursuit intentions.

Notes

1. Managers also prefer not to intervene unless a romance causes work disruption or declines inparticipants job performance (Brown and Allgeier, 1995).

2. Of the participants, 100 percent responded accurately to the type of romance policymanipulation and type of relationship agreement manipulation.

3. P-O fit is strongly correlated with organizational attraction (r 0:80). However, as evidencefor discriminant validity, a two-factor model (CFI 0:96, IFI 0:96, NFI 0:94,RMSEA 0:11, TLI 0:93) produced a better fit than a one-factor model (CFI 0:85,IFI 0:85, NFI 0:84, RMSEA 0:21, TLI 0:77) (Dx 2 [1, n 182 204:86,p , 0:001). Similarly, organizational attraction is strongly correlated with intent to pursueemployment (r 0:89). However, as evidence for discriminant validity, a two-factor model(CFI 0:94, IFI 0:94, NFI 0:92, RMSEA 0:14, TLI 0:90) produced a better fit thana one-factor model (CFI 0:93, IFI 0:93, NFI 0:91, RMSEA 0:15, TLI 0:89) (Dx 2[1, n 182 19:77, p , 0:001).

4. We examined the fit of our hypothesized model with the addition of paths from each of oureffects-coded independent variables (i.e. type of romance policy and type of relationshipagreement, see Table I for coding details) to the organizational justice variables. This modelproduced a poor fit (x 2 [34, n 182 578:43, p , 0:001; CFI 0:56, IFI 0:57,NFI 0:56, RMSEA 0:30, TLI 0:15) even though eight of the 12 paths between theindependent variables and fairness variables are significant. We recommend to interpret thispoor-fitting model with caution because our categorically-manipulated independentvariables violate path-analysis multivariate normality assumption.

References

Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T.N. and Cable, D.M. (2001), Are you attracted? Do you intend topursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16No. 2, pp. 219-37.

Arbuckle, J.L. (2009), AMOS 18 Users Guide, Amos Development, Crawfordville, FL.

JMP27,3

256

Barling, J. and Hutchinson, I. (2000), Commitment vs control-based safety practices, safetyreputation, and perceived safety climate, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 76-84.

Boyd, C. (2010), The debate over the prohibition of romance in the workplace, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 325-38.

Breaugh, J.A. (2008), Employee recruitment: current knowledge and important areas for futureresearch, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 103-18.

Brown, T.J. and Allgeier, E.R. (1995), Managers perceptions of workplace romances:an interview study, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 169-76.

Brown, T.J. and Allgeier, E.R. (1996), The impact of participant characteristics, perceivedmotives, and job behaviors on co-workers evaluations of workplace romances, Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 577-95.

Byrne, D. and Neuman, J.H. (1992), The implications of attraction research for organizationalissues, in Kelley, K. (Ed.), Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 29-70.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, andorganizational entry, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67No. 3, pp. 294-311.

Casper, W.J. and Buffardi, L.C. (2004), Work-life benefits and job pursuit intentions: the role ofanticipated organizational support, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 3,pp. 391-410.

Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A. and Jones, D.A. (2005), Applicantattraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates ofrecruiting outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 928-44.

Cole, N. (2009), Workplace romance: a justice analysis, Journal of Business and Psychology,Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 363-72.

Colquitt, J.A. (2001), On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of ameasure, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), Justice at themillennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-45.

Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D. and Reutzel, C.R. (2011), Signaling theory: a review andassessment, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-67.

Dillard, J.P. (1987), Close relationships at work: perceptions of the motives and performance ofrelational participants, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 4 No. 2,pp. 179-93.

Dillard, J.P. and Broetzmann, S.M. (1989), Romantic relationships at work: perceived changes injob-related behaviors as a function of participants motive, partners motive, and gender,Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 93-110.

Dillard, J.P., Hale, J.L. and Segrin, C. (1994), Close relationships in task environments:perceptions of relational types, illicitness, and power, Management CommunicationQuarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 227-55.

Ehrhart, K.H. and Ziegert, J.C. (2005), Why are individuals attracted to organizations?, Journalof Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 901-19.

Eidelhoch, A.M. and Russell, B.M. (1998), Consensual relationship agreements: one moreweapon in the arsenal for fighting sexual harassment in the workplace, Preventive LawReporter, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 21-3.

Workplaceromance policies

257

Foley, S. and Powell, G.N. (1999), Not all is fair in love and work: coworkers preferences for andresponses to managerial interventions regarding workplace romances, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 1043-56.

Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ford, R.C., McLaughlin, F.S. and Newstrom, J.W. (2003), Questions and answers about fun atwork, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 18-33.

Greenberg, J. (1987), A taxonomy of organizational justice theories, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 9-22.

Highhouse, S., Lievens, F. and Sinar, E.F. (2003), Measuring attraction to organizations,Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 986-1001.

Jones, G.E. (1999), Hierarchical workplace romance: a experimental examination of teammember perceptions, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 1057-72.

Karl, K.A. and Sutton, C.L. (2000), An examination of the perceived fairness of workplaceromance policies, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 429-42.

Karl, K.A., Peluchette, J.V. and Hall, L.M. (2008), Give them something to smile about:a marketing strategy for recruiting and retaining volunteers, Journal of Nonprofit andPublic Sector Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 71-96.

Karl, K.A., Peluchette, J.V. and Harland, L.K. (2007), Is fun for everyone? Personality differencesin healthcare providers attitudes toward fun, Journal of Health and Human ServicesAdministration, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 409-47.

Karl, K.A., Peluchette, J.V., Hall, L.M. and Harland, L.K. (2005), Attitudes toward workplace fun:a three sector comparison, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2,pp. 1-17.

Kristof, A.L. (1996), Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,measurement, and implications, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-49.

Lickey, N.C., Berry, G.R. and Whelan-Berry, K.S. (2009), Responding to workplace romance:a proactive and pragmatic approach, Journal of Business Inquiry, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 100-19.

McKay, P.F. and Avery, D.R. (2006), What has race got to do with it? Unraveling the role ofracioethnicity in job seekers reactions to site visits, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 2,pp. 395-429.

Mainiero, L.A. (1986), A review and analysis of power dynamics in organizational romances,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 750-62.

Mano, R. and Gabriel, Y. (2006), Workplace romances in cold and hot organizational climates:the experience of Israel and Taiwan, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 7-35.

Moen, P. and Sweet, S. (2002), Two careers, one employer: couples working for the samecorporation, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 466-83.

Mor Barak, M.E., Cherin, D.A. and Berkman, S. (1998), Organizational and personal dimensionsin diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions, Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 82-104.

Parks, M. (2006), 2006 Workplace Romance Poll Findings, Report No. 06-0019, Society for HumanResource Management, Alexandria, VA, January.

Pearce, J.A. (2010), What execs dont get about office romance, Sloan Management Review,Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 37-44.

Peluchette, J.V. and Karl, K.A. (2005), Attitudes toward incorporating fun into the health careworkplace, Health Care Manager, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 268-75.

JMP27,3

258

Pierce, C.A. (1998), Factors associated with participating in a romantic relationship in a workenvironment, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 18, pp. 1712-30.

Pierce, C.A. and Aguinis, H. (1997), Bridging the gap between romantic relationships and sexualharassment in organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3,pp. 197-200.

Pierce, C.A. and Aguinis, H. (2001), A framework for investigating the link between workplaceromance and sexual harassment, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 2,pp. 206-29.

Pierce, C.A. and Aguinis, H. (2003), Romantic relationships in organizations: a test of a model offormation and impact factors, Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 161-9.

Pierce, C.A. and Aguinis, H. (2005), Legal standards, ethical standards, and responses tosocial-sexual conduct at work, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 6,pp. 727-32.

Pierce, C.A. and Aguinis, H. (2009), Moving beyond a legal-centric approach to managingworkplace romances: organizationally sensible recommendations for HR leaders, HumanResource Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 447-64.

Pierce, C.A., Aguinis, H. and Adams, S.K.R. (2000), Effects of a dissolved workplace romanceand rater characteristics on responses to a sexual harassment accusation, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 869-80.

Pierce, C.A., Byrne, D. and Aguinis, H. (1996), Attraction in organizations: a model of workplaceromance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-32.

Pierce, C.A., Broberg, B.J., McClure, J.R. and Aguinis, H. (2004), Responding to sexualharassment complaints: effects of a dissolved workplace romance on decision-makingstandards, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 95 No. 1,pp. 66-82.

Pierce, C.A., Muslin, I.S., Dudley, C.M. and Aguinis, H. (2008), From charm to harm:a content-analytic review of sexual harassment court cases involving workplace romance,Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 27-45.

Powell, G.N. (1986), What do tomorrows managers think about sexual intimacy in theworkplace?, Business Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 30-5.

Powell, G.N. (2001), Workplace romances between senior-level executives and lower-levelemployees: an issue of work disruption and gender, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 11,pp. 1519-44.

Powell, G.N. and Foley, S. (1998), Something to talk about: romantic relationships inorganizational settings, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 421-48.

Quinn, R.E. (1977), Coping with Cupid: the formation, impact, and management of romanticrelationships in organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 30-45.

Resick, C.J., Baltes, B.B. and Shantz, C.W. (2007), Person-organization fit and work-relatedattitudes and decisions: examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1446-55.

Riach, K. and Wilson, F. (2007), Dont screw the crew: exploring the rules of engagement inorganizational romance, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 79-92.

Roehling, M.V. and Wright, P.M. (2006), Organizationally sensible versus legal-centricapproaches to employment decisions, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 4,pp. 605-27.

Workplaceromance policies

259

Rupp, D.E. and Cropanzano, R. (2002), The mediating effects of social exchange relationships inpredicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 925-46.

Ryan, A.M. and Kossek, E.E. (2008), Work-life policy implementation: breaking down orcreating barriers to inclusiveness, Human Resource Management, Vol. 47 No. 2,pp. 295-310.

Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D. and Gerhart, B. (1991), The importance of recruitment in job choice:a different way of looking, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 487-521.

Saks, A.M. and Ashforth, B.E. (1997), A longitudinal investigation of the relationships betweenjob information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 395-426.

Salvaggio, A.N., Streich, M., Hopper, J.E. and Pierce, C.A. (2011), Why do fools fall in love (atwork)? Factors associated with the incidence of workplace romance, Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 906-37.

Schaefer, C.M. and Tudor, T.R. (2001), Managing workplace romances, SAM AdvancedManagement Journal, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 4-10.

Shaver, K.G. (1970), Defensive attribution: effects of severity and relevance on the responsibilityassigned for an accident, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 101-13.

Spragins, E. (2004), Dangerous liaisons: as small firms relax their rules on office romances, someface unexpected consequences, Fortune Small Business, February 1, available at: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2004/02/01/360633/index.htm (accessedJanuary 22, 2009).

Summers, R.J. and Myklebust, K. (1992), The influence of a history of romance on judgmentsand responses to a complaint of sexual harassment, Sex Roles, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 345-57.

Turban, D.B., Forret, M.L. and Hendrickson, C.L. (1998), Applicant attraction to firms:influences of organization reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiterbehaviors, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 24-44.

Tyler, K. (2008), Sign in the name of love: can love contracts decrease an employers litigationrisks and keep office romances in check?, HR Magazine, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 41-3.

Werbel, J.D. and Hames, D.S. (1992), Are two birds in hand worth more than one in the bush?The case of paired employees, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 4,pp. 317-28.

Werbel, J.D. and Hames, D.S. (1996), Anti-nepotism reconsidered: the case of husband and wifeemployment, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 365-79.

Appendix. VignettesStudy participants were told that during the course of their interview with a member of CompanyXs human resource (HR) staff, they either:

(Vignette 1) discovered that some employees are romantically involved with one another andCompany X neither encourages nor discourages workplace romances. Furthermore, Company Xdoes not have a policy prohibiting workplace romances and does not require romanticallyinvolved employees to sign a consensual relationship agreement (i.e. a love or cupid contract).Such agreements outline a companys rules for entering consensual romantic relationships(experimental condition: no workplace romance policy, no consensual relationship agreement).

(Vignette 2) were informed that the employee who they would be replacing was transferredbecause he/she was having a consensual romantic relationship with his/her supervisor andCompany X prohibits workplace romances between supervisors and their subordinates.

JMP27,3

260

Company X then provides a copy of the following workplace romance policy: In Company X,while consensual romantic relationships (i.e. workplace romances) are generally discouraged,only those between supervisors and their subordinates are prohibited. Romantic relationshipsbetween coworkers/peers are allowed. Company Xs standpoint is that workplace romancesbetween supervisors and their subordinates can lead to lowered morale, decreased productivity,perceptions of favoritism, and an increase in the companys risk of liability for sexualharassment. If Company X determines that a supervisor and his/her subordinate are involved ina workplace romance, Company X will transfer one or both employees to a different unit withinthe organization (experimental condition: lenient workplace romance policy, no consensualrelationship agreement)

(Vignette 3) were informed that the employee who they would be replacing was transferredbecause he/she was having a consensual romantic relationship with his/her supervisor andCompany X prohibits romantic relationships between supervisors and their subordinates.Company X then provides a copy of the following workplace romance policy: In Company X,while consensual romantic relationships (i.e. workplace romances) are generally discouraged,only those between supervisors and their subordinates are prohibited. Romantic relationshipsbetween coworkers/peers are allowed. Company Xs standpoint is that workplace romancesbetween supervisors and their subordinates can lead to lowered morale, decreased productivity,perceptions of favoritism, and an increase in the companys risk of liability for sexualharassment. If Company X determines that a supervisor and his/her subordinate are involved ina workplace romance, Company X will transfer one or both employees to a different unit withinthe organization. After discussing their workplace romance policy, Company X indicated that toensure a workplace romance does not violate their sexual harassment policy, employees whoenter into a workplace romance must sign a consensual relationship agreement (i.e. a love orcupid contract). The terms of Company Xs consensual relationship agreement are as follows:The employees involved must:

. notify the human resource director as soon as their romantic relationship becomesserious or the relationship is ongoing for six months (whichever comes first);

. review Company Xs policy that prohibits sexual harassment and agree that theirworkplace romance does not violate the companys sexual harassment policy;

. agree to be transferred to a different unit within the organization if the relationshipnegatively affects their job performance;

. avoid public displays of affection and arguments at work;

. notify the human resource director as soon as their romantic relationship has ended; and

. agree not to file a sexual harassment lawsuit against the organization.

(Experimental condition: lenient workplace romance policy, lenient consensual relationshipagreement.)

(Vignette 4) were informed that the employee who they would be replacing was transferredbecause he/she was having a consensual romantic relationship with his/her supervisor andCompany X prohibits romantic relationships between supervisors and their subordinates.Company X then provides a copy of the following workplace romance policy: In Company X,while consensual romantic relationships (i.e. workplace romances) are generally discouraged,only those between supervisors and their subordinates are prohibited. Romantic relationshipsbetween coworkers/peers are allowed. Company Xs standpoint is that workplace romancesbetween supervisors and their subordinates can lead to lowered morale, decreased productivity,perceptions of favoritism, and an increase in the companys risk of liability for sexualharassment. If Company X determines that a supervisor and his/her subordinate are involved ina workplace romance, Company X will transfer one or both employees to a different unit withinthe organization. After discussing their workplace romance policy, Company X indicated that to

Workplaceromance policies

261

ensure a workplace romance does not violate their sexual harassment policy, employees whoenter into a workplace romance must sign a consensual relationship agreement (i.e. a love orcupid contract). The terms of Company Xs consensual relationship agreement are as follows:The employees involved must:

. notify the human resource director of their romantic relationship before going out