Why do so many romantic relationships originate in the workplace? Today’s workers spend more time at work with their colleagues than they do at home with their families, friends, and significant others; the demand for meeting deadlines and handling last minute demands from clients and supervisors often come before personal activities. This growing circumstance calls for some type of system or agreement in place to account for the number of workplace romances that occur. A Consensual Relationship Agreement (CRA) can be described as a written “contract” in which the romantically involved parties acknowledge particular aspects of their relationship and ultimately state that the said relationship is both voluntary and consensual (Hellriegel/Slocum, 2011). Most jobs contain the typical window of a workday that exists from 8 AM to 5 PM five days a week; however, some jobs require their employees to come in earlier, stay later, travel, and immerse themselves in various work-related activities that will best improve the status and success of the company. With that said, these types of instances provide several opportunities for coworkers to work alongside each other for the good of the company for extended periods, as well as get to know one another with all the time spent together during work. Wilson, Filosa, and Fennel’s Privacy Project paper (2003) stated the following:
“A 1998 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management predicted that 55 percent of office romances would likely result in marriage, but that 28 percent of these office romances may result in complaints of favoritism from coworkers, 24 percent in sexual harassment claims, and another 24 percent in the decreased productivity of the employees involved.” (pg. 1).
The very content of this survey shows that workplace romance is highly likely and present in today’s society. The fact that workplace romances are so present brings several topics of discussion including that of why the use of a Consensual Relationship Agreement is effective and necessary, the issues having a CRA can bring to the workplace, the ethical principles involved in the use of CRAs, and another option besides CRAs that would also address workplace romances. Consensual Relationship Agreements can be a great asset to the success and fruitfulness of a company. As stated in the Diversity Competency section of Chapter 2, employees who are in a relationship sign a CRA to decrease sexual harassment litigation risks and most importantly reduce perceptions of favoritism. It is important that the company set specific guidelines and boundaries of what is acceptable by those who choose to date in the workplace. This action will best help the company and both individuals involved should the romance fail, so that the employee cannot claim to have been pressured into the relationship or claim they are being treated unfairly or overlooked for a deserved promotion because of the relationship they once shared. The best way to implement this agreement is to make it a mandatory condition of employment, although some corporations could use it as a voluntary agreement. As an immediate condition of employment, the agreement would ensure that all potential employees are aware of the company sexual harassment policy as well as the consequences ensued by those who breach the agreement. When dealing with the act of favoritism in the workplace based on a romantic relationship, a CRA will work to decrease that likelihood of favoritism as well as prevent a liability to the company in the form of a lawsuit. If an employee feels that a supervisor is favoring a subordinate, especially if that supervisor and subordinate has chosen to become romantically involved with one another, that employee can sue the company and the supervisor personally for sexual harassment. Having a CRA in place ensures guidelines are followed and appropriate and inappropriate workplace behavior is discussed and maintained. Although CRAs are essential and can help protect a company and their assets, there are some drawbacks to using CRAs. A CRA, also known as a “love contract”, can cause several inconveniences for a company just as much as it can protect it. The downside of enforcing love contracts involves human resources being put in an awkward position as well as the CRA failing to protect against more problematic romantic relationships. In the case of Human Resource professionals, it would be tedious enough to deal with the normal clerical workload involved in making sure that company records are intact and as up-to-date as possible, let alone adding the additional workload of keeping track of who is dating whom. The new workload would include the Human Resource professionals’ normal duties, in addition to the responsibility and expectation of managing the documentation of the personal romantic relationships in the workplace. Even though utilizing a CRA helps protect the company, it could potentially take away precious time and effective productivity from Human Resource professionals on a regular basis causing them to be bogged down with additional extensive paperwork. For those companies who use a love contract as a voluntary agreement, romantic relationships will most likely cause problems for the company when there are individuals who refuse to sign a CRA. If two participants are married and engaging in an extramarital affair with one another, they are less likely to request a CRA, let alone sign one. According to Tyler (2008), “A recent case in point: In November 2007, Mark W. Everson was forced to resign as president and CEO of the American Red Cross because of his relationship with a female subordinate. Everson was married at the time. It is unlikely he would have signed a love contract.” (pg. 1). With situations like these, it is very difficult to protect the company from a sexual harassment litigation risk if both participants do not choose to sign the agreement. Given these circumstances, it brings about a very important question: what ethical principles are involved in CRAs and how can a supervisor best manage the balance between the good of the company and the good of his or her employees? The use of CRAs in the workplace best fits the organizational interests principle subset under self-serving principles, which justifies self-serving decisions to those that require careful consideration of others’ rights and costs. The organization interests principle refers to the act on the basis of what is good for the organization, which directly relates to the use of CRAs. As previously stated during the argument for the use of these agreements in the workplace, it is in the best interest of the company/organization to implement the practice of using a CRA to make sure the company does not suffer because of the possibility of lawsuits due to the likelihood of workplace romance and the dissolution of such. Decisions should always be made in the best interest of the company as the employer because without the company, the employer would not have a job or a source of income. A useful way to make sure the organization thrives as well as the employees is to implement an annual ethics training class identifying ethical problems and the efforts to solve them as a group. Although CRAs are effective and useful, sometimes there are other options available to address workplace romances. A non-fraternization policy serves as an adequate policy and alternate option to a CRA. A non-fraternization policy works the same as a CRA except it limits workplace romance and states explicit consequences and repercussions for those who consciously choose to become romantically involved with a coworker or supervisor. There are advantages to maintaining a strict policy for employees in the workplace. Amaral (2006) lists the advantage of having a strict policy in place and the purpose of such being to “warn [employees] of the danger of romance at the workplace in attempt to justify its prohibition.” She also explains the ramifications one can face if they enter into a workplace romance. “Some policies also detail steps the employees should take if they find themselves entering into a relationship and list the appropriate sanctions it will impose on the employee. These sanctions can range from a verbal warning to suspension and termination.” (pg. 13). Although workplace romances are inevitable, it should not exist. The office is a place for diverse individuals to come together and work towards a common goal to get things accomplished for the good of the company; it is not a place for love and relationships. Therefore, when a non-fraternization policy is in place, it completely prohibits any relationships between two coworkers or a coworker and a manager. If romances are limited, it allows a safe and productive work environment for everyone employed in that workspace. In conclusion, the growing origination of romance in the workplace warrants the immediate need for a specific guidelines and policies, which leads to both advantages and disadvantages for the employees and the company as a whole. An active agreement can ensure that all employees are aware of their expectations when it comes to romance in the workplace and explains both appropriate and inappropriate behavior. From the viewpoint of the employee, the agreement may come across as intrusive. As an employee who finds interest in a coworker or subordinate, it may be in the best interest of your work performance and productivity to keep the relationship quiet and separate the relationship from work. However, in a company who uses a CRA, it is imperative to report such interaction with a Human Resource professional so that both participants in that relationship can sign a CRA. This can lead to both employees being watched more closely by personnel and other coworkers because they are all aware of that relationship. From the viewpoint of the employer, it is in the best interest of the company to make sure that the CRA is used and signed by both participants, as it will cover the company from and possible liabilities in the event of the demise of that relationship. If both employees decide that they cannot balance the progression of the relationship and the demands of productivity from the job and go their separate ways, it keeps either one of the two from claiming they were coerced into that relationship against their will. Though a CRA has its advantages and drawbacks, it can sometimes be better to eliminate relationships in the workplace altogether. Of course, it may be inevitable to keep a workplace romance from taking place, but it would limit the amount of developing relationships if the workplace prohibits them. The non-fraternization policy poses as an option to prohibit workplace romances and offers extensive consequences for those who do not follow the rules of the policy including that of suspension and ultimately termination. The decision of whether to choose to use a CRA or not is completely up to each individual company and should be addressed according to the needs of that particular company.

References
Amaral, H. P. (2006). Workplace romance and fraternization policies. Retrieved from http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/research/papers/Amaral_Fraternization.pdf
Carello, J. A., & Shinaman, T. R. (2008, Feb. 13). Love Contracts in the Workplace: What's Love Got to Do with It?. Retrieved from http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publications_detail3.asp?ID=2181.
Hellriegel D. & Slocum J. W. (2011). Organizational behavior (Ch. 2, pp. 65). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Tyler, K. (2008, Feb.1). Can 'love contracts' decrease an employer's litigation risks and keep office romances in check?. HR Magazine, 53(2), 1.
Wilson, R. J., Filosa, C., & Fennel, A. (2003). Romantic relationships at work: Does privacy trump the dating police. The privacy project (pp. 1). Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/defcon70&div=15&id=&page=