Modulator

Office Relationships

The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is taking the rather typical easy out approach to solving problems: when one or a few folks do something that turns out 'bad' make a rule/law that prohibits anyone else from the same action without regard to how it turns out. In the DSHS case:

A new policy in the works at the state's largest agency requires employees who have intimate relationships with a supervisor or direct subordinate to report the consensual sexual relationship or risk being punished.

"Basically, it just says that if there is a relationship between a manager and one of their employees who reports to them, that needs to be reported to their management," said Liz Dunbar, deputy secretary for the 18,000-person agency. "Then we will figure out how to separate the two, because we're not going to allow those kinds of relationships when they are supervisor and subordinate."

Amitai Etzioni looks at this same issue in academia in an excellent piece entitled Keep the relationship in the classroom. He provides many examples that suggest that one rule does not fit all and closes with:

These kinds of rules are too fungible, and undermine any notion of due process and fairness that should be extended even to old, white males.

Maybe it is impossible to have a close personal relationship with one�s staff or students--without fearing that it might be misunderstood, mischaracterized, or exploited. It is a crying shame.

Etzioni's examples look primarily at professor-student relationships. Daniel Davies, though, asks this interesting question that applies directly to the opening DSHS example:

It�s all very easy to get all moralistic and say that this, that or the other kind of relationship is �off limits�, but to be frank, with working culture going the way it�s going, where the hell else are we going to meet people our own age?

If current trends continue folks of any combination may not even be able to talk to each other without a fair witness standing by or on their lapels (neither would help with Etzioni's goggles in the swimming pool example).

Posted by Steve on October 8, 2003