PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE Introduction It is human nature to interact with others and it is those relationships

that help determine our own unique character (Cann, 2004, pg. 322). In a persons life, the majority of their time is spent in the workplace, where being antisocial would be nearly impossible. (Sias & Perry, 2004,

p. 589). In a study completed by Cann (2004), he hypothesized that there are four different types of relationships: two personal types, varying from a close friend to a romantic partner; and two types of professional relationships that could be a fellow coworker or boss (p. 323). Additionally, Fitzpatrick-Timm (2011) mentioned a blended relationship which has both a social and work component and concentrates on task and work-related goals (p. 1). In these types of relationships in an office setting, Wilson and Ferch (2005) mentioned that past research shows how they can improve our ability to change by simply connecting us to each other, for if we can sit together and talk about what is important to us, we begin to come alive. We share what we see, what we feel, and we listen to what others see and feel (p. 46). The types of relationships that are considered platonic can be analyzed in several different ways and can affect both superiors and their subordinates. They can also affect other coworkers that are in the same hierarchical position with whom they have the relationship. In work relationships, the main purpose is to complete goals without any form of conflict (Fitzpatrick-Timm, 2011, p. 1). Even though leaders, or bosses, are considered the most gifted and determined amid a group of workers, remaining flexible with their subordinates is crucial in order to have a successful workflow and positive interactions with their employees (Cann, 2004, p. 323). Similarly, when coworkers start to grow stronger friendships because of the close proximity to one another, there are several reasons as to why people choose to be friends with one another, but problems could occur if trust is lost.

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE The last kind of relationship is specifically romance in the workplace. This can involve both a superior and a subordinate or it can be amongst peers. Each one has its own

complications and motives as to why people decide to embark on a relationship in the workplace. Trust is one of the most talked-about issues in this area, because some take advantage of a relationship in the workplace to get ahead in their careers. In this generation, computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been the easiest form of keeping the relationship low-key, yet successful (Hovick, Meyers, & Timmerman, 2003, p. 468). Spending a significant amount of time in a work environment is can be nearly impossible to not date someone with whom you work (Binetti, 2007, p. 165). Deciding to be involved in relationships with various people in a workplace can be advantageous or problematic especially if it is with someone of seniority or in the same hierarchal rank. Platonic Relationships Having a stable relationship in the workplace is very crucial, especially when it relates to a subordinate and superior. When a boss hires a new employee, they not only want to see if they are a good fit for the job and company, but also if their personality will work well with the supervisor and the other employees that the person would be working with (Fitzpatrick-Timm, 2011, p. 5). The superiors goal is to make sure the work setting is positive so the new employee will stay for a considerable length of time, thus the turnover rate for the company and the position are reduced (Walter, Anderson, & Martin, 2005, p. 57-58). They want their new subordinates to enjoy coming to work and create a satisfactory work environment (Walter et al., 2005, pg. 67). Along with that, it is an employee's desire to have a successful work ethic by fulfilling their employer's needs and goals. By doing so, it is also required to communicate effectively with the people they work with and for (Walter et al., 2005, pg. 60). Consequently,

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE the following sections will review how platonic relationships in a workplace are quite incomparable when it is with a superior or with a fellow peer. Platonic relationship: Subordinate-Superior Being in a stable and positive relationship with a boss is necessary to remain motivated.

Walter et al. (2005) mentioned the Interpersonal Needs theory, in order to explain the motives as to why having effective, positive associations can be advantageous. The three principles: inclusion, control, and affection, will be reflected in the way a person can take advantage of communicating amongst others. This could also be an explanation why a person could earn more power, and why people enjoy that persons company. For example, women attempt to use this theory with their superior for affection and relaxation purposes (Walter et al, 2005, pg. 61). Employees who have taken advantage of this theory have the ability to obtain more power. Specifically, Machiavellianism enables people to control their coworkers. Also, when they are already in good standing with their superior, or having high levels of Machiavellianism, those types of people are able to manipulate and control situations more than with people who have low levels. However, superiors might think that behavior as inappropriate (Walter et al., 2005, p. 59-60). Specifically, in the study conducted by Walter et al. (2005), they concluded that having a full satisfactory relationship with a superior, results in a low Machiavellian level and that Machiavellianism is not directly related to the Interpersonal Needs theory (Walter et al., 2005, p. 65-66). Therefore, it is critical for a subordinate to have an effective and communicative relationship with their superior in order to maintain a positive relationship. (Walter et al., 2005, p. 58). Having a good quality relationship with a superior consists of less uncertainty with tasks, job satisfaction, and high work performance (Sias, 2005, p. 375). Based on the Leader-Member

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE (LMX) Theory, a superior develops specific relationships with certain subordinates based on the strength of their affiliation. Positive characteristics include respect, obligation and trust among

the other coworkers. Those personalities are directly related to the LMX Theory and people with those traits are able to communicate more freely. The employee, who has a high quality, specialized relationship with their superior, will have the ability to receive more accurate and qualified information (Sias, 2005, p. 377-378). According to Sias (2005), her study concluded that the amount and quality of information distributed to the subordinate is related to the value of the subordinate-superior relationship. Being able to have a trustworthy relationship with a superior is will ultimately create a positive environment for both individuals. Trust is one of the most important foundations of a relationship, which helps measure the quality of the relationship between two people, whether it is personal or professional (Cheney & Barnett, 2005, p. 73). Whitener et al. (1998) mentioned that using the social exchange theory and agency theory would benefit the subordinate and superior as well as minimize the risk of having a less efficient workplace. This also involves not having the superior monitor the subordinate as closely compared to the other subordinates (as cited in Cheney & Barnett, 2005, p. 79). When a superior trusts a particular subordinate more and there is less monitoring necessary, the subordinate will feel like their boss would help them out if any problems were to occur, since they already have confidence in the particular workers adequacy (Sias, 2005, pg. 382). However, when a boss becomes a friend to the subordinate, the employee gradually becomes more dependent (Cann, 2004, pg. 331). Being able to have a dependable friendship with someone you work with will make the work environment more enjoyable for all. However, if it is with someone with whom you work closely with, it could result in difficult implications. Platonic Relationship: Peers

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

Relationships among peers are quite comparable to a friendship with a superior in a workplace. A peer co-worker relationship is between employees at the same hierarchical level who have no formal authority over one another; the members of the friendship have the same job routine and the friendship can give emotional support (Bryant & Sias, 2011, p. 115). They usually have the same superior and are within a group of several other subordinates. They tend also to be in an atmosphere like an office, where people in the same proximity as others have the same interests, complete the same tasks, or even work together in groups. Peer relationships can vary in the strength and quality of the communication. They can range from being simple acquaintances to best friends. Having a strong emotional support system and a great amount of trust is what differentiates between the many levels of friendship (Sias, 2005, p. 379). A main factor, which can help determine and strengthen a persons relationship with their other coworkers, is centrality. Monge and Contractor (2003) explained how a position in an office could be measured based on three criteria: degree, closeness and betweenness. Degree shows how close a person is in an arrangement; closeness tells how easily they are able to communicate with others; and betweenness is the power to control interaction among others in the network (as cited in Raile, Kim, Choi, Serota, Sun Park & Wook Lee, 2008, p. 169). According to research completed by Raile et al. (2008), when people develop friendships in their workplace, the satisfaction of their job changes and this is directly related to how close people work together. Of the three principles explained by Monge and Contractor (2003), closeness is considered the most significant when it came to finding the necessary resources to work efficiently within an organization (Raile et al., 2008, pg. 173). In a conclusion of this study, the authors summarized that by having these types of network connections can help increase job

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

satisfaction. One could conclude the more hours a person works in a job, the more relations with others that person is going to have (Raile et al., 2008, pg. 174-175). Even though people spend a majority of their time working, the close proximity and commonalities are truly what help relationships grow between people in organizations. However, those attachments can fall apart and have major consequences with negative emotions (Sias, 2004, pg. 592). There is very little research as to why they fade away and Sias et al. (2004) is the only known study that conducted this type of research. They came up with five different factors as to why a workplace relationship could deteriorate: problem personality, where a personality trait becomes annoying and the members cannot handle it; distracting life events, where a members negative personal problems start to affect the workplace; conflicting expectations, where someones expectations of workplace behavior becomes conflicting; promotion, when someone gets promoted over another peer of the same hierarchical level; and betrayal, when someone is no longer able to trust another organizational member (p. 591). When someone is working, their ultimate desire and goal is to get promoted and move up the company hierarchy. Since the workplace is always considered a competition, Cheney (1995), believed the structural standing of each member in an organization would affect a friendship (as cited in Sias & Perry, 2004, p. 593). At the conclusion of the study conducted by Sias and Perry (2004), they described three ways to remove oneself from a workplace relationship: cost escalation, depersonalization, and state-of-the-relationship talk. The depersonalization approach was considered the most mature because it still maintained a professional and efficient workplace, but removed the personalized portion of what the relationship. The two parties are still able to work together and perform

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE tasks. However, with this strategy, there is a higher possibility that betrayal, conflicts, and personality problems will result (Sias & Perry, 2004, p. 597-598).

According to Bryant and Sias (2011), trust is one of the main factors that help maintain a healthy relationship; however, if trust is lost, it can lead to deterioration and depersonalized communication (p. 116). Most commonly, deception is what ruins relationships and people are not willing or able to trust others again. Lying is one of the most common ways people are dishonest towards others. Studies have shown that merely 38% of what people say are truthful statements (Bryant & Sias, 2011, p. 116). People deceive because they are trying to protect their own well-being, protecting someone else, accomplish their own personal goals, or maintain independence from another person (Bryant & Sias, 2011, p. 116-117). In the study conducted by Bryant and Sias (2011), there were four analyzed types of narratives that were examined to assess why people in the workplace tend to deceive their fellow coworkers. The first idea is simply a corrupt system, where there were immoral practices within an organization. The coworkers lied about their company ignoring the problem. Other times, workers who had been at a company for a long period of time were able to get away with breaking the companys system by being deceptive and stealing clients. The next one is cover your ass or CYA, which is when an employee made a mistake and then lied about it to cover up the obvious failure. The third is personal gain, which is the most powerful type of deceit. This involves gaining control or status within the company through a monetary means, such as stealing money or taking inexpensive items from the company whether it is food or office supplies. The final narrative is personality trait, which involves different types of personalities that may be conflicting to others (p. 121-128). Based on the study conducted, it has been

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE concluded that people lie because of selfishness; not realizing the actual result will be negative consequences (Bryant & Sias, 2011, p. 131).

When various people in a hierarchical organization are in close proximity with each other and have the same mutual goals, friendships are created. Since superiors are known for being the smarter branch of the hierarchy, like Machiavellianism, it shows a sign of power among their other subordinates. Research has shown that subordinates job satisfaction decreases as the Machiavellianism levels increase. Relationships, varying in different strengths, can help coworkers with support if necessary. They will share organizational and personal information as well as gossip (Sias, 2005, p. 379). Two factors that actually help those relations grow are work-place problems, where people might discuss who does not like their position in the organization; or personal life events, where they might tell fellow organizational members more personal information that is not work-related (Sias, 2005, p. 392). The amount of how much a person is willing to self-disclose to a fellow peer is directly related to the strength of the relationship (Sias, 2005, p. 380). However, when those relationships become too strong, there is a risk they can deteriorate, trust levels can decrease and the workplace climate becomes less organized and less resourceful. Platonic relationships with different people in a workplace are a great advantage to have in a workplace, but they can carry risks and pose problems for others in the environment. When people decide to be friends with their coworkers, whether it is with a supervisor or colleague, that strong bond could result in romantic feelings. Romantic Relationships In the workplace, where coworkers are in close proximity to one another, they can grow into friendships, as well as grow into mutual sexual attraction (Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 350). Several studies have verified the notion that because more hours are spent at the office, there are

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

10

fewer opportunities to meet your prospective mate elsewhere (Binetti, 2007, p. 153). A romantic relationship between coworkers happens more often than people think. According to a survey completed by Vault Inc. (2004), 47% of employees have been in a romantic relationship with someone they worked with and 19% more would be willing to participate in one (as cited in Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 349). Professor Roger Harrison Ph.D. (2008) thought that of course this was occurring, but it was not considered significant enough to be a major topic in the environment (Harrison, 2008, pg. 1). It has however, become more common (Malachowski, Chory, & Claus, 2012, p. 359). Compared to any form of passionate association with someone, a workplace relationship tends to be the most negatively perceived; nonetheless people prefer an office relationship (Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 350). Choosing to be involved romantically with someone you work with has its benefits, but there can be exquisite downfalls and consequences that could lead to overall negative opinions from many different departments when a person is decides to be in a relationship with either a superior or associate. Romantic Relationship: Subordinate-Superior Being a subordinate and desiring to be a part of a romantic relationship with a superior contrasts greatly when compared to a similar type of relationship that occurs in the workplace with a pair that are in similar hierarchical positions. Even though there are initial negative perceptions of an employee being infatuated with a boss, research has revealed several explanations for making that choice: ego boosting, job-related antics, and love. Quinn (1977) shared that a main reason is an ego booster and the experience is more thrill seeking (as cited in Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 350; Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 359). The employee is able to obtain some of the superiors power and have that label of dating the boss (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 360). Another very important factor is that it can be advantageous to the employees career. If

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

11

the relationship goes smoothly, according to the equity theory, the subordinate will have a greater probability of having a more secure position within the company, have privileged treatment, obtain potential company bonuses, or advance in their job field (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 360-361, 374; Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 363). The final intention is love, however, a subordinate who truly desires a promotion can be more interested in that than actually loving their superior and is very negatively perceived by the other members of the workplace (Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 352; Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 372). Though, for those who want a possibility of a relationship or even marriage (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 360), they enjoy the ability to be loved and to be close to someone, so therefore they come with commitment and satisfaction (Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 353). Even though being romantically involved can have its benefits in a persons career and personal life, research has shown that there are negative implications to that type of relationship with a coworker of a different hierarchy. Deciding to be in an intimate relationship with a superior can put a toll on both the participants in the relationship and the peers that have been affected by it. For the many reasons why people decide to be involved with someone of a higher rank, so many others have to witness it and see how it negatively affects their jobs and workplace environment. Because the coworker is getting more privileges, the peers of that subordinate recognize that the person has an unfair advantage in the workplace, either to receive a raise, a promotion, or tenure position in the organization. The romantic relationship creates a sense of information manipulation and the spread of this information to many people within the company is increased due to the unfair treatment and the lack of trust between everyone in that particular workplace. However, if it appears that there is a true connection, and the relationship is truly based on affection, and if the romance does not affect anyone in his or her environment, then there is a lower chance of

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE manipulation and it will be seen as being more positive. Therefore, if one of the subordinates more significant motives is job-related, rather than emotional, than the climate of the workplace will give off a negative vibe (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 361-363). In the study conducted by Malachowski et al (2012), they concluded that fellow organizational members think that peers who date a superior are only in it for the job satisfaction and less motivated by the romantic aspect of the relationship (p. 372).

12

When sexuality becomes part of an organization, bureaucracies tend to be unintentionally formed, and conflict begins to grow in the workplace. Therefore, it can become difficult for everyone to trust each other (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 359). According to Rousseau et al. (1998), trust is defined as a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (as cited in Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 351; Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 361). Being able to trust one another is a very important characteristic to possess in order to have an environment with healthy and positive relationships. Specifically, having a positive relationship with peers and superiors is necessary to have a functioning work environment and open communication (Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 351). However, Chory and Hubbell (2008) state that a lack of it could lead to aggression, hostility, obstructionism, and deception (as cited in Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 351; Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 361). When a trusting relationship among a coworker and boss becomes affectionate, modern research has found that it will have negative implications and will affect the overall work environment with the other employees. Horan and Cheny (2009) have concluded that dating a superior will lead to other organizational members to trust the peer less and the general quality of the friendship will decline (p. 361).

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE In order to determine the negativity of a workplace, a person can compare the quantity and quality they contribute to the company and compare those factors to the coworker who is

13

involved in the romantic relationship (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 363). Compared with peers dating each other, research conducted by both Horan and Cheny (2009) and Malachowski et al. (2012), organizational members have concluded that employees trust subordinates dating superiors less than peers dating one another (p. 359; p. 373). With that conclusion, Horan and Cheny (2009) also established that there is also less unity and fewer shared objectives (p. 360). When a friendship deteriorates, the members will not self-disclose as much (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 369). According to the communication privacy management theory, if there was a free flow of information, the superior could possibly be aware of the unwanted and probable manipulative information (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 373, 375). With all of the mentioned data research that has been compiled regarding trust, self-disclosure, and solidarity levels, members are more likely to deceiving one another. The productivity, teamwork, and general environment of the organization will deteriorate (Horan & Cheny, 2009, p. 364). Having accurate and honest information in the office is necessary to have a successful and effective environment. At times, there is a possibility that organizational members can control the accuracy of that knowledge. That self-disclosure amongst all the workers in a workplace can affect the way people trust each other. In fact, research has shown that trust is directly related to the quantity and quality of the information people share (Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 354). When there is a subordinate-superior relationship, fellow peers trust them the least. Thus, there is not as much accurate information and the reliability of the information will be questioned, which is called deception (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 362). The false information is meant to mislead the people (Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 355). Information

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE manipulation theory (IMT) explains how deception works in communication and suggests

14

messages are deceptive when people provide manipulated information (Horan & Cheny, 2009, p. 355). Based on experimental findings, when a peer decides to date someone of a higher rank, there is more deception amongst the other peers because there is not as much trust. Hence, the involved coworker and other peers do not feel a sense of closeness, and they are both not willing to self-disclose as much. People who do not trust a certain party as much have a higher chance of deceiving and engaging in information manipulation (Horan & Cheny, 2009, p. 355-356). When a coworker decides to be in a relationship with a superior, studies have shown that each gender has a certain affect and will give off a particular image in the organization. When entering a workplace, a new, fresh-out-of-college female has a higher chance of entering into a romance (Horan & Cheny, 2009, p. 356). In comparison to a new male, a females body gives off a sexual sense and brings it into the workplace, while men give off a more masculine and powerful vibe (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 364). Trust is also different between each gender, where according to research conducted by Malachowski et al. (2012), a heterosexual woman dating a superior is seen as less trustworthy. As compared to a man dating someone of a higher rank, there is no change in perception (p. 364-365). Fellow employees may assume that a woman might be involved with a superior in hopes of benefiting from the unfair advantages a romantic relationship might come with to further her career (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 365). Even with the differences in trust by gender, when a man or a woman is dating a superior, they are not trusted as much as when a peer is dating a fellow peer (Horan & Cheny, 2009, p. 361). In the workplace, each gender has their own appearance when they decide to be in a romantic relationship with a superior, and thus are treated differently amongst the other coworkers in the organization.

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE There is a high probability that a relationship in a workplace, especially involving a

15

subordinate and a superior, could negatively affect the climate of a workplace (Horan & Cheny, 2009, p. 362), and comes with a possibility of reporting sexual harassment (Salvaggio, Hopper, Streich, & Pierce, 2011, p. 930). When a relationship turns bad, the consequences may be widespread and can make a significant impact on the workplace. There can be several claims that could occur if the relationship were to disintegrate: if the supervisor ends the relationship and the subordinate might say that the relationship was not voluntary; if the subordinate ends the relationship, the supervisor might retaliate for ending the relationship by terminating the subordinates employment and give them negative unfair treatment. Yet even if the relationship ended, the party who did not wish to end it will still seek sexual advances (Binetti, 2007, p. 155156). Based on the repercussions of a subordinate being in a romantic relationship with someone of a higher rank, Binetti (2007) concluded in her article that if a relationship like this were to end, several negative outcomes could occur, including favoritism, and a changed undesirable and uncomfortable work environment for everyone, including other peers who were aware of this liaison (p. 166). If human resources were to become involved in the matter, the supervisor is the one who will be punished for the violation of the company rules, not the subordinate. Binetti (2007) recommended that if someone wishes to date someone in the same organization, it is best to date someone of the same rank, because if a relationship begins to develop among a subordinate and a superior, then one or both will be forced to leave their job or transfer to a different location, if possible (p. 166). Since being affiliated with a supervisor in a romantic way has primarily undesirable traits, wanting to be involved with someone of the same rank is quite different and is not as challenging. Romantic Relationship: Peers

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

16

Being involved in a relationship with a peer involves a mutual sexual attraction between two people who are usually in the same rank of a company (Salvaggio et al., 2011, p. 907). In a study completed by Salvaggio et al. (2007), it has been confirmed that 35% of the participants had been involved in a workplace relationship and, 56% had been in one in the last five years (p. 917). Quinn (1977) came up with some major factors that contribute to growing attraction in a work environment. One example is physical proximity, where people in the workplace have repeated contact with the same people. Along with the idea of being in close proximity to peers, a close male-female ratio will also contribute to the possibility of developing a romantic relationship. In industries where the male-female ratio is nearly one, there is a greater likelihood of a romantic relationship. This ratio will vary from industry to industry. (908-909). Having both genders in the workplace creates the right environment to spend time with each other, whether it is socializing, engaging in job-related discussions, or working together (Salvaggio et al., 2011, p. 908-909). In a workplace, each person is interdependent on the other person (Salvaggio et al., 2011, p. 911). Furthermore, several authors notice that just being in the presence of the opposite sex is what is going to initiate physical attraction, resulting in a workplace romance (Salvaggio et al., 2011, p. 910). The next step in a prospective workplace relationship is deciding whether or not the people even want to embark on one. Pierce et al. (1996) created a model, which helps configure reasons to be involved in a relationship with a fellow coworker. A main aspect is their opinion on being in a romantic companionship at work. It is also necessary for that person to experience the environment of the workplace, to experience how different employees interact and to know the company's ideals and politics (as cited in Salvaggio et al., 2007, p. 911-912). Being able to fit in a workplace relationship is key, but when everyone works and interacts with each other by

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE telling sexual jokes, comments, innuendos, and flirting, it can be difficult to separate what is merely amusement from an advancement (Salvaggio et al., 2007, p. 913).

17

Humans are social creatures, and being able to love someone is paramount in a persons life (Harrison, 2008, p. 2). According to Harrison (2008), his three main reasons why people love are: the need for power, achievement, and affiliation. First, there is a need for people in certain relationships to show power. Another is the desire to achieve, where people who take their work very seriously, think that a relationship will result from being employed in a certain organization. Finally, the need for affiliation, where loving and being loved by others, is crucial in a persons life. In everyones life, people realize that love has the power of healing and that it is literally impossible to live an independent life (Harrison, 2008, p. 2-4). Along with love, people have the natural ability to flirt and each gender has different reasons why they flirt (Henningsen, Braz, & Davies, 2008, p. 483). It is considered to be part of social-sexual communication, and getting this type of attention from the opposite sex can be flattering and amusing, although sometimes, it is not meant to motivate sexual intentions. It can be misunderstood if the party receiving the flirtatious behaviors can misinterpret the motive the sender is trying to give out and could even lead to misinterpreted sexual harassment if it gets too intense (Hemmingsen et al., 2008, p. 484, 499). Hemmingsen (2004) found out that men were more likely to think that flirting motives were for sexual advances (as cited in Hemmingsen et al., 2008, p. 490). A study by Hemmingsen (2004) acknowledged six different motivations as to why people flirt: sexual contact, where the pair might want to engage in sexual contact and have mutual romantic feelings; to begin a romantic relationship, where the intimacy grows; for enjoyment purposes, where people like to be nice and playful and is considered a harmless action; to explore to attempt to find a romantic partner, where the two parties get to know one

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

18

another, flirt, and see if they want to pursue a romantic relationship; a self-esteem booster, where people like to be complimented from the potential partner; and to get someone to do something for you (instrumental), where the majority of the time is for the other person to provide goods and services (as cited in Hemmingsen et al., 2008, p. 487). The difference between social flirtation and flirting in a workplace is that there are boundaries with regard to flirting in the workplace. The difference rests in what is considered appropriate (Hemmingsen et al., 2008, p. 489). Among the mentioned motives, instrumental motives are the most common reasons why people flirt in the workplace. In the study conducted by Hemmingsen et al. (2008), they found that people are less likely to flirt in the workplace for social purposes (p. 494). It has been concluded that flirting for fun is considered the most popular reason why people flirt in the workplace, where sexual and relational purposes are actually considered the least (Hemmingsen et al., 2008, p. 495). In this generation, the Technology Era has all but taken over workplace environments and people who are dating one another in those surroundings can take advantage of the way they can communicate with their significant other. Forms of communications can range from face-to-face to virtual formats. When people see each other less, they will have a higher chance of conversing more often. Therefore, communication makes a huge difference on the steadiness and strength of a relationship (Hovick, Meyers, & Timmerman, 2003, p. 468). Some might think that computer mediated communication (CMC) might not be the greatest way to communicate with someone because it is less socially oriented and less personal than face-to-face communication and lacks the ability to have direct responses (Hovick et al., 2003, 469). However, Hobb (1992) stated that the Uses and Gratifications Model describes that people can choose what kinds of methods are appropriate for them and the Channel Expansion Theory says that the more ways people can

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

19

communicate in a certain medium, the richer the relationship is (as cited in Hovick et al., 2003, p. 469-470). Whenever an email is sent, the meaning of it can vary based on the type of relationship the sender has with receiver. It can range from a formal message, where it is more work and task related, to more personal messages, which may be used for social purposes (Hovick et al., 2003, p. 477). When sending messages to a lover, CMC has the power to tell people what the sender is really thinking and it is also an easier way to tell someone something that they would not say in a face-to-face interaction (Hovick et al., 2003, p. 471). When people in the same environment are in a relationship, they want to be able to keep it private yet consistent (Hovick et al., 2003, p. 470). Byrne and Neuman (1992) have indicated the amount of communication is directly related to the rate of attraction (as cited in Hovick et al., 2003, p. 470). In the study conducted by Hovick et al. (2003), their results have shown that people, who are in workplace relationships, send over an average of four email messages daily, or one nearly every two hours (p. 477). Along with that, the longer a couple has been in a relationship; more email messages will be exchanged. With this passage of time, it is more likely that they believe those email messages were a richer form of communicating (Hovick et al., 2003, p. 473, 478). Because they are at work, it gives them a way to show affection toward one another while they maintain professionalism and calmness around other organizational members. When either or both of them might be occupied in the office, receiving an email message will allow them to see that show of affection at their own convenience (Hovick et al., 2003, p. 479). The obvious downfall of this form of communication is, if a workplace relationship does not work out, the different parties are able to keep track of all of the messages if a sexual harassment accusation has been filed (Hovick et al., 2003, p. 479). Being able to communicate electronically can have its drawbacks. Sending email messages can distract either person from their work and other organizational members may

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

20

witness this taking place (Hovick et al., 2003, p. 470). Also, some companies might have more strict regulations on using company email addresses and whether or not they are allowed to be used for personal use (Hovick et al., 2003, p. 476). In conclusion, the study led by Hovick et al. (2003) showed that even though face-to-face communication is more common than CMC, sending emails was still as vital and a great alternative to face-to-face communication in a workplace relationship (p. 473, 474, 478). When two people, who work in the same organization, are mutually attracted to one another, it can be difficult for them or it could even be against the regulations of the company. Since human beings are such emotionally strong creatures, it would be very difficult to completely forbid all dating in a workplace, regardless of whom it is with (Binetti, 2007, p. 165). Some businesses do allow dating within their organization, but they might be required to share this information with management and human resources so they can work around the two parties who are in the relationship, ultimately hoping to preserve the climate of the workplace (Binetti, 2007, p. 167). If something like that does happen, where the workplace is interrupted by their post-break up drama, then both people have a chance of getting fired from the company, especially if retaliation is involved (Binetti, 2007, p. 156). Choosing to be in a relationship in the workplace clearly can have its disadvantages. According to several authors studies, it could result in something as large as being fired from their positions or involved in a lawsuit with the state. At times, the workplace environment can pre-determine how much sexualization there is. Depending on the industry, the male-to-female ratio will help predict the amount of the sexual dynamics (Salvaggio et al., 2011, p. 929). Deciding to be in a romantic relationship in the workplace with either a superior or fellow peer can have advantages and disadvantages.

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

21

However, based on research by several colleagues it has been concluded that people should not engage in romantic relationships at work because it not only can cause problems for the parties careers, but it also creates bad perceptions of those involved. This can result in an overall unhealthy organizational climate (Horan & Chory, 2009, p. 362). It is necessary for people to work together and maintain a cohesive and efficient environment (Malachowski et al., 2012, p. 376). When a failed or attempted relationship occurs with a superior or subordinate, there is a possibility that someone would be accused of sexual harassment, whether it is a misconception or a form of retaliation (Salvaggio et al., 2011, p. 930). Conclusion Creating new relationships and maintaining them are necessary for human beings. This becomes a common occurrence when people are in a workplace for many hours of the day. Being around many people, in close proximity, is what makes most jobs more enjoyable. In platonic relationships, the ways people strengthen relationships with one another is through trust, and how the participants are willing to self-disclose (Raile et al., 2008, pg. 174). However, it has been confirmed in research that if a relationship in a workplace affects the climate of the office, whether the people are not concentrating on work enough or if there are disagreements or deception issues; there is a probability that conflict would arise and the flow of the office would not be as efficient, thus reducing trust within the workplace too (Raile et al., 2008, pg. 170). The difference between having a respectful relationship with a peer and a supervisor is based on communication quality. Obviously, the superiors role is to have more power over their subordinates but creating and maintaining a respectful climate is their main goal. Research has shown that romantic relationships in the office have an overall negative affect on the way people work and the quality of the environment. Like Cann (2004) had already

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE mentioned that not forming relationships with people in close proximity is literally unheard of, and finding mutual attractions with a fellow coworker is just as easy. However, developing an

22

emotional relationship with someone of a different rank in the company has been shown to have even more negative aspects. It has been concluded that it affects the relationships of other organizational members, creates conflict with the companys policies and human resources department, and could even interfere with the law. Having an emotional relationship with a peer is not as severe or immoral to the companys standards, but there is still a high probability that this too will have a negative appearance. When someone successfully finds a job, they not only find satisfaction with that success, but also the opportunity to interact with people who have the same qualifications and goals as they do. It is obvious that we should be around people who make our lives enjoyable and who help create a sense of success (Cann, 2004, p. 322). Particularly in the office, those positive aspects result in job satisfaction. This satisfaction makes it easier to perform tasks and complete ones personal goals (Raile et al., 2008, pg. 169). Also, being able to interact with other organizational members makes each person feel like they are part of an exclusive culture with explicit values (Sias, 2005, p. 381). Deciding to be in a certain type of relationship in the workplace, whether it is in a romantic or platonic way, can affect us directly and indirectly (Cann, 2004, p. 330).

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE References Binetti, M. S. (2007). Romance in the Workplace: When Love Becomes Litigation. Hofstra Lab. & Emp. LJ, 25, 153. Bryant, E. M., & Sias, P. M. (2011). Sensemaking and relational consequences of peer coworker deception. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 115-137. Cann, A. (2004). Rated importance of personal qualities across four relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 322-334. Cheney, G., & Barnett, G. A. (2005). International and multicultural organizational communication. Cresskill: Hampton Press, Inc. Fitzpatrick-Timm, S. (2011). Mixing business with pleasure: The impact of blended relationships on emotion work in organizations. University of Minnesota. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 116. Harrison, R. (2008). Accessing the Power of Love in the Workplace. Henningsen, D. D., Braz, M., & Davies, E. (2008). Why do we flirt? flirting motivations and

23

sex differences in working and social contexts. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 483-502. Horan, S. M., & Chory, R. M. (2009). When work and love mix: Perceptions of peers in workplace romances. Western Journal of Communication , 73(4), 349-369. Hovick, S. R. A., Meyers, R. A., & Timmerman, C. E. (2003). E-mail communication in workplace romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 54(4), 468-482. Malachowski, C. C., Chory, R. M., & Claus, C. J. (2012). Mixing pleasure with work: Employee perceptions of and responses to workplace romance. Western Journal of Communication , 76(4), 358-379.

PLATONIC AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE Raile, A. N. W., Kim, R. K., Choi, J., Serota, K. B., Sun Park, H., & Wook Lee, D. (2008).

24

Connections at work: How friendship networks relate to job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 25(2), 168-178. Salvaggio, A. N., Hopper, J. E., Streich, M., & Pierce, C. A. (2011). Why do fools fall in love (at work)? factors associated with the incidence of workplace romance. Journal of Applies Social Psychology, 41(4), 906-937. Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information experiences. Communication Studies, 56(4), 375-395. Sias, P. M., & Perry, T. (2004). Disengaging from workplace relationships. Human Communication Research, 30(4), 589-602. Walter, H. L., Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (2005). How subordinates' machiavellianism and motives relate to satisfaction with superiors. Communication Quarterly, 53(1), 57-70. Wilson, S. M., & Ferch, S. R. (2005). Enhancing resilience in the workplace through the practice of caring relationships. Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 45-60.