Next Article in Journal
Psychometric Validation of the Adult Prosocialness Behavior Scale in a Professional Teaching Context
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Sustainable Exercise on Self-Efficacy and Life Satisfaction in Women before and after Menopause
Previous Article in Special Issue
Instrumental Flirting: An Exploration of Charm in Decision-Making Groups
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/bs13090760
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Personal Workplace Relationships: Unifying an Understudied Area of Organizational and Personal Life

by
Rebecca M. Chory
1,* and
Sean M. Horan
2,*
1
Department of Management, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 21532, USA
2
Department of Communication, Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT 06824, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13(9), 760; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090760
Submission received: 31 August 2023 / Accepted: 4 September 2023 / Published: 13 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Personal Workplace Relationships: Implications for Work and Life in a Rapidly Changing Society)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Relationships that cross the work–life domain have long been of interest to scholars in multiple disciplines, including Communication, Management, and Psychology. Close relationships that span work–life borders are called personal workplace relationships. Personal workplace relationships are voluntary informal relationships between two members of the same organization. These relationships are mutual and consensual and have a relatively strong emotional component. They involve the partners knowing and communicating with each other as unique individuals. The goal of this Special Issue (“Personal Workplace Relationships: Implications for Work and Life in a Rapidly Changing Society”) is to explore this specific form of work–life intersection. To that end, we present the scholarly work of researchers from diverse backgrounds who share the goal of better understanding workplace relationships. In this opening essay, we describe how we began to study this area, we preview the articles in this Special Issue, and we conclude with recommendations for future research on personal workplace relationships.

For decades, researchers across disciplines have studied work–life boundary management and work–life balance. We are no different in this regard. Chory, with her training in Organizational Communication and Industrial/Organizational Psychology, and Horan, with his work–life coursework from Patrice Buzzanell and Mary Hoffman, merged their interests in 2007 to begin a career-long collaboration examining work–life boundaries, blending, and management in the context of workplace romance. Throughout our careers, we have also taught this content, with Chory creating and teaching undergraduate Management and MBA “Sex, Gender, and Workplace Relationships” courses, as well as undergraduate and graduate courses in Leadership and Organizational Communication, and Horan through his undergraduate “Dark Side of Communication” course and his MA level “Work–Life Intersections”.
Throughout our teaching, we have clearly stated that balance is a problematic metaphor—if we all attained work–life balance, we would spend 50% of our time in the work domain and 50% in the life domain. Instead, we believe that employees seek satisfaction with their distribution of time and effort in work and life. From the outside, someone’s life could be totally imbalanced by working 90 hours a week, but that person is satisfied because (s)he wants to work this much. Rather than seeking balance and studying that concept specifically, we instead examine how the work and life domains overlap (i.e., intersect) and the related spillover/blending. Similar to Horan’s graduate course, we use the terminology “work–life intersections” to describe how work and life overlap and how individuals cross domains, manage boundaries between the two domains, and deal with spillover/blending. In line with this interest and expertise, our Special Issue, “Personal Workplace Relationships: Implications for Work and Life in a Rapidly Changing Society”, explores a specific form of work–life intersection and spillover/blending: personal workplace relationships.
Personal workplace relationships are relationships between organizational members that span both the “work” and “life” domains and are marked by communication that crosses the work–life border [1,2]. These relationships involve both task (e.g., supervisors training new hires) and relational (e.g., coworkers discussing parenting challenges) communication. Formally, personal workplace relationships (PWRs) are defined as “voluntary, informal, mutual, and consensual relationships between two members of the same organization that are marked by a strong emotional component and the partners’ knowing and communicating with each other as whole, unique persons” [2] (p. 47). PWRs may take various forms, including friendships or romances that developed in the workplace or existed prior to employment in the shared organization; married couples, in laws, and family friends in family businesses; casual sexual relationships between co-workers; extramarital affairs; and “work spouses”. (Although popularized by the media, we find the academic treatment of “work spouses” less clear [2]; e.g., what distinguishes a work spouse from a best friend at work? Some work spouses have had sexual relations [3], what role does physical attraction play?)
To better understand the orientation of this Special Issue, please allow us to describe our backgrounds and the history of our collaboration on PWRs.

1. Background

We both hold BA, MA, and PhD degrees in Communication. As a PhD student at Michigan State University, Chory studied Organizational and Mass Communication, Management, and Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Over the last 20 years, she has attained tenured Full Professor status in both the Communication Studies and Management disciplines. Horan earned his PhD from West Virginia University, focusing primarily on communication in relationships. Horan earned tenured Full Professor status in Communication and, throughout his career, collaborated with Chory on research. Chory was Horan’s professor and a member of his dissertation committee.
In 2007, Chory taught an Advanced Organizational Communication course, in which second-semester doctoral student Horan was enrolled. Chory required all doctoral students in the course to design and execute an original empirical research project pertaining to the course content. Horan held interests in relational communication, which he applied in Chory’s course. Marrying related interests, we began studying interpersonal relationships that operated both within and outside of the workplace, beginning with workplace romances.
Since our initial workplace romance study, we have continued to research relationships that vary in closeness and cross work–life borders. We have collaborated on further studies of workplace romance [4,5,6,7] and developed the topic area through work with our graduate students [8,9,10,11] and colleagues [10,12,13,14]. Our collaborative workplace romance research continues at the time of this writing. Chory has also conducted research on workplace friendships [15], particularly cross-sex workplace friendships [16].
At the time our collaborative research began, we took note of several things. First, the research and theorizing on blended relationships, i.e., those that span work and personal lives, were underdeveloped. Despite the fact that such relationships are common and impact both internal and external stakeholders, the research was relatively sparse across disciplines. We were not the first to note this [17], yet it continues today.
Second, not only was the scholarly work on blended relationships underdeveloped but it tended to be siloed across disciplines. Early on, Management scholars focused on workplace romances. They primarily concentrated on formal organizational policies [18,19], managerial interventions [20,21,22,23,24], and the legal aspects of workplace romances, including their effects on sexual harassment [17,25,26,27,28]. Both Management and Communication researchers addressed gender and status dynamics in workplace romances [22,23,24,29,30,31,32], as well as third-party attributions of motives for workplace romance [33,34], sometimes in combination [23,24,35,36].
On the other hand, Communication and Psychology scholars were leading the way in the study of workplace friendships during this time (pre-2005). Communication scholars researched peer coworker communication and relationships [37,38,39], the development of workplace friendships [40], and the dialectical tensions experienced by workplace friends [41]. Likewise, in Psychology, workplace friendships and gender differences in PWRs [29,42,43,44] were early and popular topics.
Even within our home disciplines, the work was (and is) somewhat siloed [45]. Interpersonal and Organizational Communication researchers tend to focus on their own sub-areas of research, at times failing to integrate the perspectives of one another. In Management, scholars using a social network approach are predominant in the published research on workplace friendships [46,47,48,49], whereas human resources researchers continue to address workplace romance and sexual harassment policy development [50,51,52,53,54].
Third, PWR scholarship appeals to a broad audience due to its interdisciplinary nature. However, because the study of PWRs does not fit exclusively in one, or even two, disciplines, research on the topic is often left in the margins. Locating suitable peer-reviewed academic journals open to publishing such work can also be challenging. We applaud and remain grateful to the scholars who, early on, saw the importance of studying PWRs and persevered in getting their research published in high-quality journals. In particular, we acknowledge the efforts of Mainiero [19,21], Dillard [30,34,35], Powell [32,55], Pierce and Aguinis [25,26], Sias [39,40], Bridge and Baxter [41], and Quinn [24], to name a few.
Given our professional backgrounds and scholarly interests, our approach to research and theory building on PWRs has always been interdisciplinary. After all, how can one understand a workplace friendship or romance without relying on both Relational and Organizational Communication perspectives and Organizational Behavior, Business Ethics, and Human Resources frameworks? So, when conducting this research, we have tended to reach across disciplines by incorporating perspectives from our colleagues in Management and Communication, as well as those in Psychology, Personal Relationships, Organizational Behavior, Sociology, and Gender Studies. Although we have always aimed to draw from varied disciplines in our research, we have likely overlooked important pieces of scholarship, due, in part, to the limited interdisciplinary synthesizing work in this area.

2. Special Issue

In 2021, after 15 years of researching and teaching the subject, we co-authored a comprehensive review of the extant theory and research on PWRs [2]. We named, claimed, and organized the scholarly work on blended relationships that vary in closeness: workplace friendships, workplace romance, and the colloquial “work spouse.” We conceptualized these unique relationships as personal workplace relationships. That review, along with our careers’ worth of research on the topic, motivated this Special Issue. In this Special Issue, we present the work of researchers from diverse backgrounds who share the goal of better understanding workplace relationships. This Special Issue represents important contributions from authors. All articles included in our Special Issue were double-blind peer reviewed by at least two reviewers.
Our Special Issue features empirical studies conducted in Italy, South Korea, China, and the United States of America, with samples comprising employees in various fields, including schoolteachers, salespeople, service industry workers, and university professors, among others. The articles in this Special Issue broadly center around the Communication Processes and Preferences involved in PWRs and the Inherent Ethical Implications of these relationships.
In terms of Communication Processes and Preferences in PWRs, topics, such as disclosure, privacy, and social support, are addressed in four empirical survey studies. Building on her prior research on health disclosures at work [56,57], Westerman and colleagues [58] investigated health disclosures and social support among workplace friends. In addition, LaFrance [59] expanded her research program on communication in sexual relationships [60,61] to explore changes in employees’ beliefs about workplace romance’s organizational value and privacy and how these beliefs relate to contemporary workplace romance advice. Veksler and Boren [62] examined the ties among communicatively restricted organizational stress—a construct they introduced [63,64] —and PWRs and social support among university faculty. Likewise, Landolfi and colleagues [65] studied the links among social support, work-family balance, and employee life satisfaction, further developing their prior research on these topics [66,67].
The Ethical Implications Inherent in PWRs are considered in terms of instrumentality and antisocial behavior. Our Special Issue features Duck’s [68] theoretical examination of the contextual factors influencing judgments of PWR appropriateness, incorporating issues he has described for decades [69,70,71]. We also feature Fritz’s [72] theoretical analysis of PWRs from a communication ethics perspective, an expansion of her work on professional civility, virtue, and workplace relationships [73,74,75,76,77].
Instrumentality underlies two empirical studies. It is the focus of Henningsen and Henningsen’s [78] experimental investigation of flirting in task groups, research that extends their prior work on attraction and flirting in the group context [79,80]. Instrumentality is also implicit in Yi et al.’s [81] survey study on interpersonal attention and communication in sales settings, complementing their prior research on sales personnel and organizational performance [82].
In terms of antisocial organizational behavior, Eger et al. [83] delved into the consequences of “organizations as family” [84] by introducing “familial” PWRs. They examined how these types of PWRs may be used to enact organizational violence. Likewise, He and Yun [85] studied how superior–subordinate PWRs may lead to unethical behavior on the part of subordinates, furthering their work on leadership in China [86].
We remain grateful to these authors, whose contributions address PWRs and associated communication and organizational behavior. Though we present a forum here, much remains to be learned about how PWRs “come together and come apart” [87], the communicative processes that facilitate, impede, and complicate PWRs, and the impact PWRs have on organizations, their members, and other stakeholders. Therefore, we conclude with some suggestions for future research.

3. Future Research Directions

First, we see great promise in exploring PWRs of various types, namely in mentoring, family businesses, entrepreneurial/start-up ventures, and executive coaching. Mentoring relationships may begin with parties’ assignments to the relationship (formal mentorships) or they may develop organically through workplace interactions (informal mentorships) [88]. Regardless of how mentorships are initiated, they may develop into personal (workplace) relationships [89,90,91]. Given the continuing concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace, informal mentoring in relationships in which sexual orientations align (e.g., a bisexual male and heterosexual female employee, two heterosexual cross-sex employees) is an especially complex type of PWR to unpack [92,93].
Second, we recommend investigating PWRs in the context of family businesses. The dynamics among organizational members characterized by blood relations, marriage, cohabitation, romance, and/or friendships are underexplored, as are non-familial employees’ roles, perceptions, and responses involved in these dynamics. For instance, how are perceptions of organizational justice affected by one’s familial (or non-familial) status? How do former spouses and romantic partners continue to work together after relationship dissolution [10]? What do shareholders do in reaction to businesses marked by changes in familial relationships (e.g., divorce)? The critically acclaimed and popular HBO television series “Succession” testifies to the public appeal of relationships within such contexts.
Third, the personal and professional relationships present in the initiation and success of start-ups, small businesses, and other entrepreneurial activities offer several avenues to be explored in future research. Many small businesses begin with friends or family members collaborating on an idea, financially investing in the venture, and/or helping to launch or manage the business [94]. What happens when the friendship dissolves or the friends disagree on whether to bring a spouse or one’s children into the business? Furthermore, how may the PWRs influence creativity, innovation, the development of ideas, and professionalism [95,96,97], as well as the long-term success of the organization and the personal relationships among the members?
Fourth, we encourage further exploration of formal organization-based relationships that may develop into personal relationships (e.g., friendships) or result from them but do not involve the partners being employed by the same organization. Student–instructor [98], pastor–parishioner [99], and doctor–patient [100] relationships fall into this category. Although these relationships may never develop into PWRs, they are, nonetheless, characterized by the regular crossing of the border between the public and private lives of one or both of the relational partners. For example, students and their professors may socialize outside the classroom (e.g., go to bars together) or engage in romantic relationships. Additionally, church members often disclose intimate and personal details (life domain) to spiritual leaders (their work domain). Future research should continue to examine how these multiple role relationships and border crossings impact the personal and professional domains of the relational partners.
Fifth, an important understudied area involves people who live where they work. Examples of these situations include priests and nuns who live with other priests and nuns, deployed military members living in shared spaces, building superintendents, resident assistants in college dormitories, and various other occupations. In these specific situations, individuals are physically crossing from the work domain into their life domain, which is shared with other members of their work domain. Naturally, discussions of work likely take place at home. Problematically, issues of privacy arise in trying to maintain a personal life separate from a colleague with whom one lives. Future research should examine these unique careers with physically and psychologically blended work and life domains.
Sixth, we recommend the investigation of PWRs within the context of executive coach–client/protégé relationships [101,102]. Executive coach–client/protégé relationships are related to multiple role relationships (e.g., pastor–parishioner) but are distinct from them in that executive coaches are usually contracted by the given organization for a fixed period of time; clients/protégés are full-time, relatively long-term employees in the same organization. In this context, executive coaches and clients/protégés interact in their professional capacities under the auspices of the same organization, yet their goals and relationships to the organization are quite different. How these complex circumstances and the potentially competing motives and goals of the relational partners impact the development, maintenance, and disengagement of coach–client PWRs are prime topics for PWR theory building and research.
Seventh, we recommend the exploration and interrogation of the ways in which organizations attempt to control and use members’ sexuality, emotion, and personal connections for their benefit [103,104]. Excellent work has been conducted in this regard as it pertains to aesthetic labor [105]. We argue that it also occurs in organizational efforts to build strong, close, and supportive teams that willingly work long hours together, all while these same organizations maintain policies that prohibit workplace romance. Furthermore, as scholars [106] and consultants [107] have pointed out, a problematizing approach to studying popular organizational discourses of “employee engagement”, “passion”, “play”, and “loving what you do” is called for. Concepts, such as Eisenberg’s [108] (p. 139) “jamming,” i.e., “instances of fluid behavioral coordination that occur without detailed knowledge of personality”, and Csikszentmihalyi’s [109] “flow,” i.e., an optimal psychological state in which one becomes so involved in an enjoyable activity that nothing else seems to matter, may be particularly relevant to this work.
Finally, we continue to share concerns about an organization’s ability to legislate employees’ personal relationships [2,110]. The implications of the contradictory messages sent by organizations that encourage some types of PWRs (e.g., friendships) but prohibit others (e.g., workplace romances) should be examined. That is, if an organization encourages closeness among employees to serve the organization’s best interest (employee retention, productivity, etc.), how can it also seek to limit the closeness that serves the employees’ personal interests? In this way, organizations are encouraging and restricting employees by saying “get close, but not too close.”
Such PWR policies may also be viewed as offending the dignity and respect to which human beings are entitled. Fiori-Khayat [111] invokes Kantian duty-based ethics in arguing that restrictive PWR policies reject the inherent dignity of employees by treating them only as a means to an (organization’s) end and by denying their ability to engage in rational thought, moral discernment, and responsible behavior. We previously articulated similar concerns [2] and offered recommendations for practice. Note that we do not suggest that organizations have no policy about close relationships; instead, we recognize that close relationships among employees are probable, and organizations should have fair and realistic practices in place that protect the dignity of the relationship partners [111], the rights of third-party employees, and the legal and financial standing of the organization. For instance, companies may wish to consider having a voluntary formal online disclosure process that treats this relationship information as private.
We also recognize that the organizational regulation of employees’ PWRs is not a universal practice. For instance, French law prohibits limiting employees’ rights “to have personal relationships (whether friendly, amorous, sexual, extramarital, or otherwise) with each other” [111] (p. 212). Future research and practice should consider cultural/national differences, both norm-based and legal, that may impact PWR expectations, behaviors, and policies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.M.C. and S.M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, R.M.C. and S.M.H.; writing—review and editing, R.M.C. and S.M.H.; visualization, R.M.C. and S.M.H.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Clark, S.C. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Hum. Relat. 2000, 53, 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Horan, S.M.; Chory, R.M.; Craw, E.S.; Jones, H.E. Blended work/life relationships: Organizational communication involving workplace peers, friends, and lovers. Commun. Res. Trends 2021, 40, 3–47. [Google Scholar]
  3. McBride, M.C.; Bergen, K.M. Work spouses: Defining and understanding a “new” relationship. Commun. Stud. 2015, 66, 487–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chory, R.M.; Mainiero, L.A.; Horan, S.M. Workplace romance and career reputation effects across industries. Advance Online Publication. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Horan, S.M.; Chory, R.M. When work and love mix: Perceptions of organizational peer dating. West. J. Commun. 2009, 73, 349–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Horan, S.; Chory, R.M. Understanding work/life blending: Credibility implications for those who date at work. Commun. Stud. 2011, 62, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Horan, S.M.; Chory, R.M. Relational implications of gay and lesbian workplace romances: Understanding trust, deception, and credibility. J. Bus. Commun. 2013, 50, 170–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chory, R.M.; Gillen Hoke, H.G. Young love at work: Perceived effects of workplace romance among millennial generation organizational members. J. Psychol. Interdiscip. Appl. 2019, 153, 575–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chory, R.M.; Gillen Hoke, H. Coworkers’ perceptions of, and communication with, workplace romance participants: Proposing and testing a model. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2023, 60, 1290–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Horan, S.M.; Cowan, R.L.; Carberry, E. Spillover effects: Communication involved with dissolved workplace romances. Commun. Stud. 2019, 70, 564–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Malachowski, C.C.; Chory, R.M.; Claus, C.J. Mixing pleasure with work: Employee perceptions of and responses to workplace romance. West. J. Commun. 2012, 76, 358–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cowan, R.L.; Horan, S.M. Love at the office: Understanding workplace romance disclosures and reactions from the coworker perspective. West. J. Commun. 2014, 78, 238–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cowan, R.L.; Horan, S.M. Why are you dating him? Contemporary motives for workplace romance. Qual. Res. Rep. Commun. 2014, 15, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cowan, R.L.; Horan, S.M. Understanding information and communication technology (ICT) use in workplace romance escalation and de-escalation. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2021, 58, 55–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lancaster, A.; Chory, R.M. Friends with [workplace] benefits: Peer coworkers’ perceptions of supervisor-subordinate friendships. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, Washington, DC, USA, 21–24 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gillen Hoke, H.G.; Chory, R.M. Throwing stones at the glass partition: Responses to coworkers’ cross-sex workplace friendships. Eur. J. Manag. 2015, 15, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Powell, G.N.; Foley, S. Something to talk about: Romantic relationships in organizational settings. J. Manag. 1998, 24, 421–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Karl, K.A.; Sutton, C.L. An examination of the perceived fairness of workplace romance policies. J. Bus. Psychol. 2000, 14, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mainiero, L.A. Office Romance: Love, Power, and Sex in the Workplace; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  20. Foley, S.; Powell, G.N. Not all is fair in love and work: Coworkers’ preferences for and responses to managerial interventions regarding workplace romances. J. Organ. Behav. 1999, 20, 1043–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mainiero, L.A. A review and analysis of power dynamics in organizational romances. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1986, 11, 750–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pierce, C.A.; Byrne, D.; Aguinis, H. Attraction in organizations: A model of workplace romance. J. Organ. Behav. 1996, 17, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Powell, G.N. Workplace romances between senior level executives and lower-level employees: An issue of work disruption and gender. Hum. Relat. 2001, 54, 1519–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Quinn, R.E. Coping with cupid: The formation, impact, and management of romantic relationships in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1977, 22, 30–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pierce, C.A.; Aguinis, H. Bridging the gap between romantic relationships and sexual harassment in organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 1997, 18, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pierce, C.A.; Aguinis, H. A framework for investigating the link between workplace romance and sexual harassment. Group Organ. Manag. 2001, 26, 206–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pierce, C.A.; Aguinis, H.; Adams, S.K. Effects of dissolved workplace romance and rater characteristics on responses to a sexual harassment accusation. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pierce, C.A.; Broberg, B.J.; McClure, J.R.; Aguinis, H. Responding to sexual harassment complaints: Effects of a dissolved romance on decision-making standards. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 2004, 95, 66–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Devine, I.; Markiewicz, D. Cross-sex relationships at work and the impact of gender stereotypes. J. Bus. Ethics 1990, 9, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dillard, J.P.; Witteman, H. Romantic relationships at work: Organizational and personal influences. Hum. Commun. Res. 1985, 12, 99–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jones, G.E. Hierarchical workplace romance: An experimental investigation of team members. J. Organ. Behav. 1999, 20, 1057–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Powell, G.N. Definition of sexual harassment and sexual attention experienced. J. Psychol. 1983, 113, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Anderson, C.J.; Fisher, C. Male-female relationships in the workplace: Perceived motivations in office romance. Sex Roles 1991, 25, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dillard, J.P. Close relationships at work: Perceptions of the motives and performance of relational participants. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1987, 4, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dillard, J.P.; Broetzmann, S. Romantic relationships at work: Perceived changes in job-related behavior as a function of participants’ motive, partners’ motive, and gender. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 19, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dillard, J.P.; Hale, J.L.; Segrin, C. Close relationships in task environments: Perceptions of relational types, illicitness, and power. Manag. Commun. Q. 1994, 7, 227–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kramer, M.W. A longitudinal study of peer communication during job transfers: The impact of frequency, quality, and network multiplexity on adjustment. Hum. Commun. Res. 1996, 23, 59–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Odden, C.M.; Sias, P.M. Peer communication relationships and psychological climate. Commun. Q. 1997, 45, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sias, P.M.; Jablin, F.M. Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Hum. Commun. Res. 1995, 22, 5–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sias, P.M.; Cahill, D.J. From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships in the workplace. West. J. Commun. 1998, 62, 273–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bridge, K.; Baxter, L.A. Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. West. J. Commun. 1992, 56, 200–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Markiewicz, D.; Devine, I.; Kausilas, D. Friendships of women and men at work: Job satisfaction and resource implications. J. Manag. Psychol. 2000, 15, 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sapadin, L.A. Friendship and gender: Perspectives of professional men and women. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1988, 5, 387–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Winstead, B.A.; Derlega, V.J.; Montgomery, M.J.; Pilkington, C. The quality of friendships at work and job satisfaction. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1995, 12, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fritz, J.H. Researching workplace relationships: What can we learn from qualitative organizational studies. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2014, 31, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hood, A.C.; Cruz, K.S.; Bachrach, D.G. Conflicts with friends: A multiplex view of friendship and conflict and its association with performance in teams. J. Bus. Psychol. 2017, 32, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Methot, J.R.; Lepine, J.A.; Podsakoff, N.P.; Christian, J.S. Are workplace friendships a mixed blessing? Exploring tradeoffs of multiplex relationships and their associations with job performance. Pers. Psychol. 2016, 69, 311–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tasselli, S.; Kilduff, M. When brokerage between friendship cliques endangers trust: A personality–network fit perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 2018, 61, 802–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tröster, C.; Parker, A.; van Knippenberg, D.; Sahlmüller, B. The coevolution of social networks and thoughts of quitting. Acad. Manag. J. 2019, 62, 22–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mainiero, L.A.; Jones, K.J. Sexual harassment versus workplace romance: Social media spillover and textual harassment in the workplace. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 27, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mainiero, L.A.; Jones, K.J. Workplace romance 2.0: Developing a communication ethics model to address potential sexual harassment from inappropriate social media contacts between coworkers. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mainiero, L. Workplace romance versus sexual harassment: A call to action regarding sexual hubris and sexploitation in the #MeToo era. Gend. Manag. 2020, 35, 329–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pierce, C.A.; Aguinis, H. Moving beyond a legal centric approach to managing workplace romances: Organizationally sensible recommendations for HR leaders. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009, 48, 447–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pierce, C.A.; Karl, K.A.; Brey, E.T. Role of workplace romance policies and procedures on job pursuit intentions. J. Manag. Psychol. 2012, 27, 237–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Powell, G.N. What do tomorrow’s managers think about sexual intimacy in the workplace? Bus. Horiz. 1986, 29, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Westerman, C.Y.K.; Currie-Mueller, J.L.; Motto, J.S.; Curti, L.C. How supervisor relationships and protection rules affect employees’ attempts to manage health information at work. Health Commun. 2017, 32, 1520–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Westerman, C.Y.K.; Miller, L.E.; Reno, K.M.; Spates, S.A. Sharing personal health information at work: What is appropriate and expected in organizations? Commun. Stud. 2015, 66, 378–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Westerman, C.Y.K.; Haverkamp, E.M.; Zeng, C. Understanding disclosure of health information to workplace friends. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. La France, B.H. “Don’t get your meat where you get your bread”: Beliefs and advice about workplace romance. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. La France, B.H. The impact of sexual self-disclosure, sexual compatibility, and sexual conflict on predicted outcome values in sexual relationships. Can. J. Hum. Sex. 2019, 28, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. La France, B.H. Sexual interactions (un)scripted: An exploration of consequential unscripted sexual interactions. Commun. Q. 2020, 68, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Veksler, A.E.; Boren, J.P. Communicatively restricted organizational stress (CROS) on campus: An exploratory investigation of stress and support among predominantly white university faculty. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Boren, J.P.; Veksler, A.E. Communicatively restricted organizational stress (CROS) I: Conceptualization and overview. Manag. Commun. Q. 2015, 29, 28–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Veksler, A.E.; Boren, J.P. Communicatively restricted organizational stress (CROS) II: Development and validation of the CROS-14. Commun. Methods Meas. 2017, 11, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Landolfi, A.; Barattucci, M.; De Rosa, A.; Lo Presti, A. The association of job and family resources and demands with life satisfaction through work–family balance: A longitudinal study among Italian schoolteachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Landolfi, A.; Barattucci, M.; Lo Presti, A. A time-lagged examination of the Greenhaus and Allen work-family balance model. Behav. Sci. 2020, 10, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lo Presti, A.; van der Heijden, B.; Landolfi, A. Spillover and crossover effects of social support through work-family balance: A time-lagged analysis in Italian dyads. Career Dev. Int. 2022, 27, 450–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Duck, S. “First catch your hare”: Some difficulties with, and contextual factors in, understanding (in)appropriate workplace relationships. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Duck, S.; Kirkpatrick, C.D.; Foley, M.K. Difficulty in relating: Some conceptual problems with “problematic relationships” and difficulties with “difficult people”. In Relating Difficulty: Processes of Constructing and Managing Difficult Interaction; Kirkpatrick, C.D., Duck, S., Foley, M.K., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  70. Duck, S.; Sants, H. On the origin of the specious: Are personal relationships really interpersonal states? J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1983, 1, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Duck, S.; VanderVoort, L. Scarlet letters and whited sepulchers: The social marking of relationships as inappropriate. In Inappropriate Relationships: The Unconventional, the Disapproved and the Forbidden; Goodwin, R., Cramer, D., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  72. Fritz, J.M.H. Work/life relationships and communication ethics: An exploratory examination. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fritz, J.M.H. Protecting and promoting workplace relationships: Professional civility. In Problematic Relationships in the Workplace: Volume 2; Omdahl, B.L., Fritz, J.M.H., Eds.; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 257–266. [Google Scholar]
  74. Fritz, J.M.H. Professional Civility: Communicative Virtue at Work; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  75. Fritz, J.M.H. Organization as other: Professional civility as communicative care for institutions. In Philosophy of Communication Ethics: Alterity and the Other; Arnett, R.C., Arneson, P., Eds.; Fairleigh Dickinson University Press: Madison, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 215–231. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fritz, J.M.H. Communication ethics. In Oxford Handbook of Virtue; Snow, N., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 700–721. [Google Scholar]
  77. Fritz, J.M.H.; Omdahl, B.L. (Eds.) Problematic Relationships in the Workplace; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  78. Henningsen, D.; Henningsen, M.L.M. Instrumental flirting: An exploration of charm in decision-making groups. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Henningsen, D.D.; Henningsen, M.L.M. A preliminary examination of perceptions of social influence in group decision making in the workplace. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2015, 52, 188–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Henningsen, D.D.; Henningsen, M.L.M.; Booth, P. Predicting social and personal attraction in task groups. Groupwork 2013, 23, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yi, H.; Lee, M.; Park, K. Service orientation and customer performance: Triad perspectives of sales managers, sales employees, and customers. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yi, H.; Song, C.; Park, K. Antecedents and consequences of sales personnel dispatch on manufacturer-retailer relationship. Korean Mark. Rev. 2015, 30, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Eger, E.K.; Pollard, E.; Jones, H.E.; Van Meter, R. Creating and sustaining service industry relationships and families: Theorizing how personal workplace relationships both build community and perpetuate organizational violence. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Eger, E.K. Co-constructing organizational identity and culture with those we serve: An ethnography of a transgender nonprofit organization communicating family identity and identification. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2021, 58, 254–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. He, S.; Yun, X. Research on the influencing mechanism of paradoxical leadership on unethical pro-supervisor behavior. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. He, S.; Zhao, W.; Li, J.; Liu, J.; Wei, Y. How environmental leadership shapes green innovation performance: A resource-based view. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Knapp, M.L. Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye. Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA,, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  88. Winstead, B.A.; Morganson, V. Gender and relationships at work. In Friends and Enemies in Organizations: A Work Psychology Perspective; Morrison, R.L., Wright, S.L., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2009; pp. 139–167. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kram, K.E.; Isabella, L.A. Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Acad. Manag. J. 1985, 28, 110–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rumens, N. Working at intimacy: Gay men’s workplace friendships. Gend. Work Organ. 2008, 15, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rumens, N. Minority support: Friendship and the development of gay and lesbian managerial careers and identities. Equal. Divers. Incl. Int. J. 2011, 30, 444–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Clawson, J.G.; Kram, K.E. Managing cross-gender mentoring. Bus. Horiz. 1984, 27, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Morgan, L.M.; Davidson, M.J. Sexual dynamics in mentoring relationships—A critical review. Br. J. Manag. 2008, 19, S120–S129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bose, S. 83 percent of entrepreneurs get support from family, Bank of America study says. Small Business Trends, 28 November 2016. Available online: https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/11/family-support-for-entrepreneurs.html (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  95. Kárpáti, Z. Professionalization of family firms: Striking a balance between personal and non-personal factors. In New Horizons in Business and Management Studies; Conference Proceedings; Corvinus University of Budapest: Budapest, Hungary, 2021; pp. 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Griskevicius, V.; Cialdini, R.B.; Kenrick, D.T. Peacocks, Picasso and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 91, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mannucci, P.V.; Perry-Smith, J.E. “Who are you going to call?” Network activation in creative idea generation and elaboration. Acad. Manag. J. 2022, 65, 1192–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Chory, R.M.; Offstein, E.H. Too close for comfort? Faculty-student multiple relationships and their impact on student classroom conduct. Ethics Behav. 2018, 28, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Horan, S.M.; Chory, R.M.; Raposo, P. Aggressive superior-subordinate communication as predictors of occupational outcomes among Roman Catholic sisters and priests in India. Commun. Q. 2022, 70, 270–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hines, H.G.; Avila, C.J.; Rudakevych, T.M.; Curlin, F.A.; Yoon, J.D. Physician perspectives on long-term relationships and friendships with patients: A national assessment. South. Med. J. 2017, 110, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Offstein, E.H.; Dufresne, R.L.; Childers, J.S., Jr. Executive coaching explained: The beginnings of a contingency approach. J. Manag. Dev. 2020, 39, 1041–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Offstein, E.; Kentrus, R.; Dufresne, R.; Wassell, S. Managing metaphors—Executive coaching and the role and power of analogy. J. Workplace Learn. 2023, 35, 325–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Pizam, A. Workplace romance in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 56, 136–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Riach, K.; Wilson, F. Don’t screw the crew: Exploring the rules of engagement in organizational romance. Br. J. Manag. 2007, 18, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Warhurst, C.; Nickson, D. “Who’s got the look?” Emotional, aesthetic and sexualized labour in interactive services. Gend. Work Organ. 2009, 16, 385–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Weeks, K. Down with love: Feminist critique and the new ideologies of work. Women’s Stud. Q. 2017, 45, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jordyn, B. Employee Engagement is Unethical. 3 February 2021. Available online: https://www.betsyjordyn.com/blog/employee-engagement-is-unethical (accessed on 1 August 2023).
  108. Eisenberg, E. Jamming: Transcendence through organizing. Commun. Res. 1990, 17, 139–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Harper & Row: Manhattan, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  110. Boyd, C. The debate over the prohibition of romance in the workplace. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fiori-Khayat, C. Socio-emotional resources and the principle of human dignity in the workplace—The case of workplace romance. In Love and Organization: Lessons of Love for Human Dignity, Leadership and Motivation; Pirson, M., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 210–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chory, R.M.; Horan, S.M. Personal Workplace Relationships: Unifying an Understudied Area of Organizational and Personal Life. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 760. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090760

AMA Style

Chory RM, Horan SM. Personal Workplace Relationships: Unifying an Understudied Area of Organizational and Personal Life. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(9):760. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090760

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chory, Rebecca M., and Sean M. Horan. 2023. "Personal Workplace Relationships: Unifying an Understudied Area of Organizational and Personal Life" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 9: 760. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090760

APA Style

Chory, R. M., & Horan, S. M. (2023). Personal Workplace Relationships: Unifying an Understudied Area of Organizational and Personal Life. Behavioral Sciences, 13(9), 760. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090760

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop