University of the Philippines

School of Labor and Industrial Relations

Diliman, Quezon City

ROMANCE IN THE WORKPLACE:

Beneficial or Disastrous?

By

Valerin Gale S. Robles

2017-90783
Diploma in Industrial Relations
School of Labor and Industrial Relations
University of the Philippines

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the course

IR 202 – Organizations and Work
First Semester, Academic School Year 2018 - 2019

Under the supervision of

Dr. Virgel Binghay, PhD.

University of the Philippines

School of Labor and Industrial Relations
Diliman, Quezon City

November 2018
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is the product of only a month’s worth of research, but during that span of
time, I have learned a lot. I made friends with the people I have met in doing this paper. It
also made me see things in different perspectives when it comes to love and career.

First and foremost, I want to thank my family and friends for being supportive and
taking the time to help me conduct surveys in their respective organizations and for
motivating me during my stressful moments while making this paper.

Second, to my officemates who willingly participated in this study without hesitation

and for being in their good behavior while I am finishing this semester – making it easier for
me to do work and school requirements at the same time.

Also, I want to thank my classmates for the never-ending support whilst stressing out
with their own individual stresses – so far, they are the best classmates I have been with here
in UP SOLAIR.

And last but not the least, I want to thank my Professor, Dr. Virgel Binghay, PhD, for
approving this topic of mine. I also appreciate his teachings in our course because he has the
firsthand experience in working in the corporate and academic world.

To all of you, thank you.

Valerin Gale S. Robles

DipIR Student
2017-90783
UP School of Labor and Industrial Relations

2
 ABSTRACT

Workplace romance is defined as a relationship of two consenting adults with

mutually desired attraction with one another having it known to management or authority in
the workplace. The purpose of this study is to explore the advantages and disadvantages of
its effects and to know whether there are differences between the said effects in the straight
and LGBT couples. To do so, surveys and interviews were answered by 42 respondents,
comprised of 1) straight and LGBT couples, 2) their HR Personnel and Supervisors, and 3) co-
workers of the said couples. The main findings were 1) majority of organizations tolerate
workplace romance but doesn't have formal interventions or policies to control such
relationships; 2) employees, themselves, control their behaviors with their significant other
based on their principles of maturity and professionalism; 3) in this study, the disadvantages
outweighs the advantages of workplace romance; 4) unavailability of formal interventions
and policies regarding workplace romance might be the cause of high number of
disadvantages of workplace romance compared to its positive effects; and lastly, 5) this paper
is insufficient in exploring the differences in effects of workplace romance between straight
and LGBT couples.

Keywords: Workplace, Romance, Relationship, Effects, Advantages, Disadvantages

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page 1

Acknowledgement 2
Abstract 3
Keywords 3
Table of Contents 4
I Introduction
Background of the Study
Research questions
Research objectives 5
Scope and limitation of the Study
Significance of the Study

II Review of Related Literature

Local studies
Foreign studies 8
Synthesis

III Research Framework

Conceptual framework
Operational framework 11
Hypotheses/Assumptions

IV Methodology
Research design
Sampling/Selection of informants or respondents
Data gathering techniques 14
Data processing and analysis
Data presentation

V Findings, Analysis, and Discussions

27
VI Summary and Conclusion
29
VII Recommendations
32
Bibliography
34
Appendix 36

4
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
The workplace is the perfect location for an individual to learn, grow, and experience
different things. And currently, employees are staying longer than usual due to economic
challenges1, which in return provides a shorter time for them to practice their socializations
outside work. The proximity offered by the workplace makes it easier for an individual to
mingle or socialize with other people.

The age range of a working Filipino is between 15 - 64 years old2, and according to Erik
Erikson’s Psychosexual Stages3, an individual during the adulthood stage (ages 19-40) needs
to develop intimacy and loving relationships with and to other people; this is also the stage
where an individual seeks his/her potential mate. Concurrently, in the workplace, forming
groups is inevitable, hence the Stages of Group Formation of Bruce Tuckman4 enters the
picture. These stages offer an individual the chance to get to know the people around his/her
circle better and provide a better chance at selecting a potential mate. Significantly, in the
workplace, an individual is expected to provide outputs and contribute to the success of the
company. Management expects their employees to be focused at work, but how will that be
if there is what we call Selective Attention 5, wherein you only give your focus depending on
many factors and the others are just background noise? However, we also have Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs6 which provides us a guide on how an individual would attain his/her best
potential; this includes the level of belonginess and love needs, which talks about how an
individual will be one step higher in attaining self-actualization if he/she receives love and
intimacy he/she needs from other people.

If you would connect all of these information, we can conclude that an average
employee is at the stage where he/she meets his/her significant other but also has the

1
Cepeda, M. (2016). ‘Filipinos are working hard but remain poor’ – World Bank. Rappler. Retrieved from:
https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=apa+article+citation&oq=apa+article&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.3520j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UT
F-8
2
Demographics and Social Statistics. (2017), Working Age Population. Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/content/working-age-population
3
Cherry, K. (2018). ‘Intimacy vs. Isolation: Psychosocial Stage 6: Forming intimate relationships with others’ Very Well Mind. Retrieved
from: https://www.verywellmind.com/intimacy-versus-isolation-2795739
4
Baron, R., et al. (1992) Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. p 14.
5
Sincero, S. (n.d.), Selective Attention. Explorable. Retrieved from: https://explorable.com/selective-attention
6
McLeod, S. (2018). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

5
potential to be either motivated or inattentive at work, especially if that significant other is
with him/her in the workplace. This is what this paper is all about: exploring the advantages
and disadvantages of having romances at work.

B. Research questions
This paper aims to study the implications of having romantic relationships in the
workplace, more specifically this paper seeks of answering the following questions:

1. What are the advantages of romantic relationships in the workplace?

2. What are the disadvantages of romantic relationships in the workplace?
3. What are the different effects of workplace romance between straight and lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) couples?

C. Research objectives
This paper’s objectives are:
a. To explore how being in a romantic relationship with a co-worker affects work;
b. To provide and explain advantages and disadvantages of having romantic
relationships in the office; and
c. To be able to understand if there are different effects of workplace romance
between straight and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) couples.

D. Scope and limitations of the study

This paper was delimited as follows:
1. This paper involved official couples working in the same company, such as exclusively
dating straight, lesbians, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees and married
employees.
2. This paper was conducted in different establishments.
a) No specific company was affiliated in this paper.
3. Surveys and interviews were used and conducted, respectively, in order to acquire the
data needed for this paper.
4. This paper focused on the advantages and disadvantages of having romantic
relationship in the workplace.

6
5. This paper focused on the different effects of workplace romance between straight
and LGBT couples in the workplace.

E. Significance of the study

The results of this paper will be of great benefit to the following:
 Employer/HR/Industry
- This paper will provide results or findings that can be of great help to
employers, HR professionals, and the different industries in the Philippines
in creating policies and programs within the company, with regards to
romantic relationships. Approaches in dealing with the disadvantages can
also be improved, and on the other hand, advantages can be promoted or
be used as a motivation for the employees.
 Employees/Union
- This paper can be beneficial to employees or their representatives in
knowing the advantages and disadvantages of having romantic
relationships in the workplace, and thus can be used as negotiations
strategies between them and the company’s management, especially if the
findings of this paper leans more on the advantageous side. Another
benefit of this paper would be, it can be a basis for sensitivity of employees
in the workplace.
 Government
- Same with the benefits discussed with Employer, HR, and Industry, this
paper can help the government create programs, policies, and laws in
promoting and protecting the advantages of having romantic relationships
in the workplace, and/or imposing limitations if disadvantageous.
 Academe
- This paper can be used as a basis for further research and improvement in
the academe, in relation to sensitivity of romantic relationships and in
additional knowledge towards the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
(LGBT) community.

7
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This review of related literature and studies sought to be informative source of materials
organized with respect to romantic relationships in the workplace.

A. Local study
Attraction
In a study made by Astudillo (2007) 7 she defined attraction, specifically interpersonal
attraction, to be a “powerful magnet that can pull, if not bind people together”, and
if an individual has been attracted to another individual, the force of that attraction
may make him or her chase or pursue the other. Same goes with employees within
the organization, they are human beings vulnerable to attraction to another
individual.

B. Foreign studies
Definition of Office Romance and Relationship
Lickey et al. (2009)8, described workplace romance as “mutually desired
relationship that includes physical attraction between two members of the same
organization; feelings of emotion, physical attraction, sharing of personal information,
mutual caring, and respect”.
As for Riach and Wilson (2007)9 romantic relationships, in the workplace, are
of two people who publicized their mutual attractedness with each other and is
working together, with the outcome of changed behavior.

7
Astudillo, L. (2007). General Self-Presentation Strategies Used by College Students in Establishing Romantic Relationships and
Friendships. Interpersona 2007, 1 (2). pp. 117. Retrieve from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5216117.pdf
8
Lickey, et al. (2009). Responding to Workplace Romance: A Proactive and Pragmatic Approach. The Journal of Business Inquiry 2009, 8 (1).
pp. 102. Retrieve from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c7c1/e277e27c94d310ae5563548a755881afe697.pdf
9
Riach, K. and Wilson, F. (2007) Dpn’t Screw the Crew: Exploring the Rules of Engagement in Organizational Romance. British Journal of
Management 2007, 18, 79-92. pp. 80. Retrieved from:
http://www.academia.edu/555220/Dont_screw_the_crew_exploring_the_rules_of_engagement_in_organizational_romance

8
 Romantic Relationships in the Workplace
An early research of romantic relationships were made by Quinn (1977)10, he
found the following three main motivations of individuals entering into a romantic
relationship with a coworker: 1) love, 2) job motivation (promotions, advancement,
etc.), and 3) ego (personal excitement, satisfaction, adventure, sex). Further
researches were made, like Cowan and Horan’s (2014)11 study – they found additional
motivations: “time spent with coworkers, ease of opportunity due to proximity, and
similarity due to a shared occupation.”

Management’s Concern
In Grassman’s study of workplace romance policies (2015)12, she explained
that the approach of Management to workplace romance depends on many reasons,
including the type of relationship an employee has. She also cited the studies of
Barrett & Nordstrom (2011), Karl & Sutton (2000), and Pierce & Aguinis (1997) which
provided three types of workplace romances – hierarchical, lateral, and extramarital.
She expounded that these types can have different effects on the organization and
can even be disruptive.

Impacts of Romantic Relationships

A study made by Pierce, Byrne, and Aguinis (1996) 13 about workplace
romances studies found out that 1) “romantically involved employees exhibit a
decrease in job productivity during the early stages of their workplace romance and
an increase in job productivity during the later stages of their workplace romance”; 2)
“employees entering a workplace romance with a love motive increase their job
productivity in order to impress management, whereas employees entering with an
ego or job-related motive show little or no change in their productivity levels”; and 3)

10
Quinn, R. (1977). Coping with Cupid: The Formation, Impact, and Management of Romantic Relationships in Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 22 (1). pp. 30-45. Retreived from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2391744?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
11
Cowan, R. and Horan, S. (2014). Why Are You Dating Him? Contemporary Motives for Workplace Romance. Qualitative Research Reports
in Communication 2014, 15 (1). pp. 9-16. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17459435.2014.955587
12
Grassman, K.N. (May 2015). Single and Working: A Content Analysis of Workplace Romance Polices. University of Dayton. Dayton, Ohio.
Retrieved from: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=dayton1430489925&disposition=inline
13
Pierce et al. (1996). Attraction in organizations; a model of workplace romance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17 (1). pp. 19-20.
Retrieve from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246871221_Attraction_in_Organizations_A_Model_of_Workplace_Romance

9
 “hierarchical romance negatively affect participant and coworker job productivity
more than do lateral romances.”

C. Synthesis
The abovementioned related literature and studies dealt with the connection of
workplace romances with the work performed by employees and how it changes the behavior
of individuals involved.

With the integration of the different definition for workplace romance, this paper
defined it as a relationship of two consenting adults with mutually desired attraction with one
another and having it known to management or authority in the workplace. On the other
hand, scholars and authors offered explanations to workplace romance impacts – that is,
impacts can either have positive (increase in productivity and motivation) and negative
(decreased productivity) effects in the workplace. Management should also have a role in the
relationship in order to control the negative effects brought by workplace romance that will
affect the business.

10
 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
A. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Stages of Group Development

Stages of Formation of Group, as seen in Figure 1, explains the process how a group
or a team forms14. In the words of Bruce Tuckman (1965), “the path that most teams follow
on their way to high performance” 15. This process is also used as a guide in forming an
efficient group or team for achieving the common goal.

In the figure, you can see the first step would be Forming16, this is where individuals
or the members of the groups’ main concern is being accepted by their peers and if said peers
are compatible with their own qualities, personalities, etc. For the second stage, the
Storming17, or the period of conflict, is the stage where differences are shown and conflict
arises. The team must overcome this stage to reach the next stage which is the Norming18
stage – where the group accepts differences, appreciates qualities, and respects authority.
The next stage of group formation, is the Performing19 stage. This stage is the most productive
stage of all, the group has now a group identity and the group members are familiar with their
roles and are efficient in it. The last stage would be the Adjourning20 stage, this is where the
group has reached their common goal and has disbanded.

In relation to this study and as observed in Figure 1, within the Norming stage, group
members get to be closer with other group members and may result to romance. Which can

14
Baron, R., et al. (1992) Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. p 14.
15
Mind Tool Content Team. (n. d.) Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing: Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. Mind
Tools. Retrieved from: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm
16
Baron, R., op. cit.. Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.

11
either positively or negatively affect the Performing stage. But then and according to various
researches, articles, and journals21, it seems to be a case to case basis for attraction is a basic
instinct of humans that can hit anytime22 which means there is always the possibility that the
romance might enter as early as the Forming stage, and as late as Adjourning stage.

B. Operational Framework

Figure 2. Operational Framework

Figure 2 shows the operational framework used in this study. The couples with diverse
sexual orientation, together with the Human Resources (and Supervisors), which represents
the employer, and the Co-workers in connection to their Work with the possibility of having
the said relationship in an advantage or disadvantage position.

The positioning in the paradigm is with value as well, the “Couples” is between the
“Human Resources” and “Co-workers” because the two are witnesses of the situation and can
also be affected in the relationship at hand, hence the connection of arrows towards the word
Work in the figure. The perspectives of all the participants in this study is considered as the
independent variable, whereas the result or the consolidation of said perspectives which will
result to the advantages and disadvantages at work will be the dependent variable. In
addition, this is also the guide to which the study will gain answers to its question, which will
be discussed in Chapter 4 of this study.

21
Various researches, articles, and journals relating to Attraction and Instincts
22
LaMeaux, E.C. (n.d.) 4 Things You Need To Know About Attraction. Gaiam. Retrieved from: https://www.gaiam.com/blogs/discover/4-
things-you-need-to-know-about-attraction

12
 C. Hypotheses/Assumptions
Based on the aforementioned research questions, this study has formulated the
enumerated hypotheses:

1. Romantic relationship within the workplace is advantageous.

2. Romantic relationship within the workplace is disadvantageous.
3. There are no differences in workplace romance effects between straight and
LGBT employees involved.

13
 CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methods of research employed, the respondents of the study, the
sources of data, the instruments, procedures, and the statistical techniques and methods
used in the analysis of data.

A. Research design
Descriptive method was used in this study to gather specific information from the
participants. As for the survey used, there are 2 versions of the said survey, 1) Human
Resource Version, and 2) Employee Version. The survey questions23 answered were in relation
to the impacts of the relationship within the organization from the perspective of the
employer and employee and what measures should the employer take in order to control it,
if such control is indeed needed.

B. Sampling/Selection of informants or respondents

The study involved forty-two (42) individuals from different organizations together
with their co-workers, supervisors, and human resource personnel. To be specific, the
involved individuals are as follows:
1) twenty (22) employees involved in romantic relationship in the workplace,
with which half of this number is part of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender (LGBT) community;
2) ten (10) co-workers of said employees involved in romantic relationship in
the workplace, same with the former, half of this number includes LGBT
individuals; and
3) ten (10) of their human resource personnel (included supervisors, as well).

Reason for having three (3) types of respondents is to ensure that all people affected
in the relationship and their points of view are covered in this study.

C. Data gathering techniques

The survey was handed out to willing and qualified individuals, with diverse sexual
orientation, from different organizations. The answers gathered from the survey were
tabulated and processed.

23
Survey questions were consolidated and aligned to the workplace romance survey questions from Society for Human Resource
Management, Survey Monkey, Career Builder, and University of Gloucestershire.

14
 D. Data processing and analysis
This study used qualitative approach, specifically with the use of survey, in gathering
information from the participants. The survey has 2 versions, the Human Resource Version
and the Employee Version, which will be processed separately, with respect to the type of
participants involved:

 Couples: Straight and LGBT;

 Coworkers: Straight and LGBT; and
 Human Resource.

In addition, percentage rate of answers from each question will be computed to assess
its commonality among the respondents. The formula used:

𝐹𝐴
%= 𝑥 100
𝑁𝑅

% − 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟

𝐹 𝐴 − 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟
𝑁 𝑅 − 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
100 − 100%
Formula 1. Percentage Rate of Answers

E. Data presentation
This section presents the gathered data which were tabulated and analyzed for the
purpose of presenting data in clearer form, for finding solution and understanding the
problem that is presented.

15
 HR Version
Participants: 5 Human Resource Personnel and 5 Supervisors

1) Does your organization have a policy addressing workplace romance?

Figure 3. Workplace romance policy – HR

As shown in Figure 3, majority or 50% of the participants do not have any

workplace romance policy in their organization. On the other hand, 20% and
30% have verbal policy and written policy, respectively.

16
2) Description of workplace romance policy.

Figure 4. Description of workplace romance policy. –HR

Data presented in Figure 4, 50% of the workplace romance policy allows

employees, whereas, 30% of the organization tolerates workplace policy but
discourages to have it.

3) Restrictions of the workplace romance policy.

Figure 5. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. - HR

Workplace romance policy restrictions are comprised of 60% relationship

between Supervisor and Subordinate; 30% relationship between Employee

17
 and Customer; 10% each for Relationship between Employee and Competitor,
Employee and Supplier, Relationship within the same Department, Projects,
Supervisor; another 10% for the need to inform the Supervisor of the
relationship; and lastly, 40% for the Prohibition of Public Displays of Affections
(PDA).

4) What happened in the organization as a result of workplace romances?

Figure 6. Results of workplace romance in the organization.- HR

Data shows the result of workplace romance in the organization. The respondents,
or the HR Personnel and Supervisors, answered that in an organization results are
as follows: 60% of the couples got married; 40% of the consequence resulted in
decreased productivity of those involved; reports of sexual harassment,
favoritism, and decreased morale of the people involved in the relationship got
30% each. For the 20%, increased productivity was reported; and lastly, 10%
resulted to broken marriages and workplace violence.

18
 Employee Version
Participants: 11 Straight Couples and 11 LGBT Couples
1) Does your organization have a policy addressing workplace romance?

Figure 7. Workplace romance policy - Couples

The data above shows that majority or 63% of straight employees involved in
workplace romances claimed that they do not have any policy in their organization
regarding workplace romance. As for the LGBT employees, 36% of them also
claimed that their organization doesn’t have any policy. Another 36% doesn’t
know whether their organization has it, whereas for the straight individuals, only
18% were not sure. For the written policy, LGBT employees claimed that they do
have a written policy for office romances. And lastly, 9% of the straight employees
claimed they have verbal policy and another 9% for written policy.

19
2) Description of workplace romance policy.

Figure 8. Description of workplace romance policy. - Couples

Since majority of LGBT and straight employees do not know or doesn’t have any
policy in their organization regarding workplace romance, majority again are
unsure of whether their organization allows such relationships or 63% for the
straight employees and 54% for the LGBT employees. The second highest
percentage goes to LGBT employees who claimed that their organization allows
workplace romance, whereas, for the straight employees, only 18% stated that
their organization allows it. Some organization allows it but discourages it as
seen on the answers of the 18% of straight employees and 9% of the LGBT
employees.

20
3) Restrictions of the workplace romance policy.

Figure 9. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. - Couples

The data above shows the segregation of straight and LGBT employees’ answers
on the restrictions imposed to them by the organization. Below is the summary:

Restrictions Straight LGBT

Public Display of Affection 54% 63%
Should inform Supervisor 36% 27%
Should not affect work 18% 0
Relationship between Superior and Subordinate 0% 45%
Relationship between Employee and Competitor 18% 18%
Relationship between Employee and Supplier 9% 9%
Relationship between Employee and Client 0% 36%
Same Department 36% 27%
Same Projects 36% 18%
Same Supervisor 18% 18%

Table 1. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. - Couples

21
 4) What happened in the organization as a result of workplace romances?

Figure 10. Results of workplace romance in the organization. - Couples

The data above shows the rate of answers from straight and LGBT employees with
regards to the results of workplace romance in their organization. Below is the
summary:

Restrictions Straight LGBT

Complaints of retaliation when the romance ended 18% 36%
Marriage 36% 36%
Increased productivity from couples 36% 63%
Decreased productivity from couples 45% 54%
Complaints of favoritism from coworkers 9% 9%
Complaints of stalking when the romance ended 9% 9%
Increased morale of coworkers 18% 45%
Decreased morale of coworkers 0% 36%
Separation of married couples 0% 18%
Increased workplace violence 0% 9%
Decreased workplace violence 0% 9%

Table 2. Results of workplace romance in the organization. – Couples

22
 Employee Version
Participants: 5 Straight Co-workers and 5 LGBT Co-workers
1) Does your organization have a policy addressing workplace romance?

Figure 11. Workplace romance policy – Co-workers

The data presents the knowledge of employees, not involved in workplace

romances, to their organization’s policy regarding workplace romances. Majority
of straight employees or 63% claimed that they do not know if their organization
have any policy regarding workplace romance. As for the LGBT employees, a lower
rate of 18% also claimed that their organization doesn’t have any policy. Another
9% and 18% of straight and LGBT employees, respectively, claimed that their
organization doesn’t have it. And only, 9% of the LGBT employees claimed they a
written policy about it.

23
2) Description of workplace romance policy.

Figure 12. Description of workplace romance policy. – Co-workers

The same with the earlier data regarding employees involved in workplace
romances, majority, or 36% of LGBT and, 36% of straight employees do not know
if their organization allows or prohibits workplace romance. Only 9% of straight
employees are allowed by their organization and another 9% of LGBT employees
are allowed but are discouraged to enter into this kind of relationship in the
workplace.

24
3) Restrictions of the workplace romance policy.

Figure 13. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. – Co-workers

The data above shows the segregation of straight and LGBT employees’
answers on the restrictions imposed to them by the organization. Below is the
summary:

Restrictions Straight LGBT

Public Display of Affection 9% 9%
Should inform Supervisor 18% 0%
Relationship between Superior and Subordinate 27% 18%
Relationship between Employee and Competitor 27% 9%
Relationship between Employee and Supplier 18% 9%
Relationship between Employee and Client 18% 9%
Same Department 18% 0%
Same Projects 9% 0%
Same Supervisor 9% 0%

Table 3. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. – Co-workers

25
 4) What happened in the organization as a result of workplace romances?

Figure 14. Results of workplace romance in the organization. Co-workers

The data above shows the rate of answers from straight and LGBT employees’ with
regards to the results of workplace romance in their organization. Below is the
summary:

Restrictions Straight LGBT

Complaints of retaliation when the romance ended 9% 9%
Marriage 18% 9%
Increased productivity from couples 18% 18%
Decreased productivity from couples 9% 18%
Complaints of favoritism from coworkers 27% 18%
Complaints of stalking when the romance ended 9% 18%
Increased morale of coworkers 9% 0%
Decreased morale of coworkers 9% 18%
Separation of married couples 0% 9%

Table 4. Results of workplace romance in the organization. – Couples

26
 CHAPTER V
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents the findings of gathered data through administering surveys to straight
and LGBT couples, coworkers of said couples, and their Human Resources Personnel; all of
which are connected to different organizations.

A. Workplace Romance Policy

1. Almost all of the respondents are in an organization where there is no
workplace policy present.
2. Some employee respondents are unsure whether their organization have a
workplace romance policy.
3. Restrictions to be imposed and/or prioritized if there would be a workplace
romance policy are, but is not limited to:
o Romance between a supervisor and a subordinate.
o Romance between an employee and a client/customer.
o Romance between an employee and an employee from a competitor.
o Romance between an employee and a supplier.
o Romance between employees under the same department.
o Romance between employees under the same projects.
o Romance between employees under the same supervisor.
o Employees must inform their supervisors of the relationship.
o Public displays of affection.
o Work should not be affected by the relationship

B. Results of workplace romance in the organization

1. The following are obtained from the answers of the respondents on what have
occurred in their organization as a result of workplace romance. However,
differences in the percentage rate of the following should be noted (See
Chapter 4)
o Complaints of retaliation when the romance ended.
o Those involved in the romance got married.
o Claims of sexual harassment

27
 o Increased productivity by those involved in the romance.
o Decreased productivity by those involved in the romance.
o Complaints of favoritism from coworkers of those involved in the
romance.
o Complaints of stalking when the romance ended.
o Increased morale of coworkers of those involved in the romance.
o Decreased morale of coworkers of those involved in the romance.
o Separation of married employees
o Increase in workplace violence
o Decrease in workplace violence
o Increase in same day leaves

With these data, the following specific questions were answered:

1. What are the advantages of romantic relationships in the workplace?

The advantages of having romantic relationships in the workplace includes, but
is not limited to, increase in productivity, increased motivation, ease of
proximity of the relationship, increased morale of coworkers and couples alike,
promotion of professionalism, and freedom of expression.

2. What are the disadvantages of romantic relationships in the workplace?

The disadvantages of having romantic relationships in the workplace includes,
but is not limited to, decrease in productivity, increase in team complaints of
coworkers working with employees involved in a romantic relationship in the
workplace, and decreased morale of coworkers and couples alike.

3. What are the different effects of workplace romance between straight and lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender couples?
As per data, there are differences between straight employees and LGBT
employees, but it doesn’t immediately mean that there are significant
differences to be noted.

28
 CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This chapter summarizes the study and reports the conclusions drawn from the findings. This
study aims to know the advantages and disadvantages of having romance in the workplace.

The findings of this study are summarized and concluded as follows:

1. Some Management do not have the formal intervention of controlling
workplace romance which implies that they allow their employees to choose,
within and outside their organization, whomever they want to choose as a
partner.

2. However, it should also be noted that even if some allows such relationship to
happen, it doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be restrictions and/or limitations
to be imposed. Proper communication of limitations and intervention,
respectively, should be done once the employees admit to having relationships
with each other and if there is an evidence of negative effect of said
relationship in the workplace.

3. Unawareness of policies within the organization can mean two (2) things:
 the organization doesn’t have any policy regarding workplace romance;
or
 the organization has a workplace romance policy but it was not
effectively communicated within their organization.

3. Individuals have different set of principles to be followed, especially those

involved in workplace romances in the organizations, for they have answered
the question about the restrictions of a workplace romance policy even though
their respective organizations do not have one. Participants are mature people
who know how to set limits to themselves regarding their work and personal
life.

29
4. As per participants, the content of the workplace romance policy should
prioritize the following, but is not limited to:
 Romance between a supervisor and a subordinate.
 Romance between an employee and a client/customer.
 Romance between an employee and an employee from a competitor.
 Romance between an employee and a supplier.
 Romance between employees under the same department.
 Romance between employees under the same projects.
 Romance between employees under the same supervisor.
 Employees must inform their supervisors of the relationship.
 Public displays of affection.
 Work should not be affected by the relationship

5. As per participants, the following has occurred in their organization as a result

of workplace romance:
 Complaints of retaliation when the romance ended.
 Those involved in the romance got married.
 Claims of sexual harassment
 Increased productivity by those involved in the romance.
 Decreased productivity by those involved in the romance.
 Complaints of favoritism from coworkers of those involved in the
romance.
 Complaints of stalking when the romance ended.
 Increased morale of coworkers of those involved in the romance.
 Decreased morale of coworkers of those involved in the romance.
 Separation of married employees
 Increase in workplace violence
 Decrease in workplace violence
 Increase in same day leaves

30
6. There are a number of advantages of having workplace romance but it has
been outnumbered by the disadvantages as seen in this study. But we can say
that the disadvantages can be controlled not just by the organization to protect
the business, but for the employees as well (see #3).

7. Having no workplace romance policy of the organizations, involved in this

study, to control the relationship may have attributed to the rise of its
disadvantages.

8. As per data, there are differences between straight employees and LGBT
employees, but it doesn’t immediately mean that there are significant
differences to be noted. All of the respondents provided diverse answers to
the survey questions, especially to the experiences they had with workplace
romances. This paper and the survey used is not enough to study the
differences of effects of workplace romance between straight employees and
LGBT employees.

9. LGBT employees in this study came from BPO industry whereas, straight
employees came from other industries; this shows that BPOs are more
welcoming in terms of diversity compared to others. They allow their
employees to not just have the freedom to be outspoken in their sexual
orientation but also to express their love with other employees as well.

31
 CHAPTER VII
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusion, the following recommendations are
advanced:
 Employer/HR/Industry
- This paper recommends employers, HR professionals, and the different
industries in the Philippines to create policies and programs within their
respective establishments that would enhance the positive effects of
workplace relationships and controls and limits the negative effects. Also,
proper communication of said policies within the organization should be
given priority as well.

 Employees/Union
- This paper recommends to employees and their representatives to take
advantage of the positive effects the workplace romance offers for it will
be a gain in their career and or in Collective Bargaining Agreement, e.g.
promotions due to increased/improved work performance. As for the
negative effects, it is recommended for employees and unions to be more
sensitive when doing work and expressing love at the same time and at the
same place.

 Government
- Same with Employer, HR, and Industry, this paper recommends to the
government to create programs, policies, and laws promoting and
protecting the advantages of having romantic relationships in the
workplace, and imposing limitations for the disadvantages. Likewise, the
government should also be able to protect not just the straight couples,
but also for the LGBT community as well.

32
 Academe/Future Research
- Since this paper was done in a span of one (1) month only, it is
recommended for further research and improvement. This topic needs to
dwell more on the difference between straight and LGBT community with
regards to discrimination in the workplace and the differences of industries
in recognizing the workplace romance for both straight and LGBT couples.
Also, further gathering of data with regards to performance and/or output
of employee is needed for accurate results of effects of workplace romance
in the effectivity of the employee at work.

33
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles
 Cherry, K. (2018). Intimacy vs. Isolation: Psychosocial Stage 6: Forming intimate
relationships with others. Very Well Mind. Retrieved from:
https://www.verywellmind.com/intimacy-versus-isolation-2795739
 McLeod, S. (2018). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology. Retrieved
from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
 Mind Tool Content Team. (n. d.) Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing:
Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. Mind Tools. Retrieved from:
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm
 LaMeaux, E.C. (n.d.) 4 Things You Need To Know About Attraction. Gaiam. Retrieved
from: https://www.gaiam.com/blogs/discover/4-things-you-need-to-know-about-
attraction
 Sincero, S. (n.d.), Selective Attention. Explorable. Retrieved from:
https://explorable.com/selective-attention

Books
 Baron, R., et al. (1992). Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action. Philadelphia,
PA: Open University Press. p 14.

Dissertations/Thesis
 Astudillo, L. (2007). General Self-Presentation Strategies Used by College Students
in Establishing Romantic Relationships and Friendships. Interpersona 2007, 1 (2).
pp. 117. Retrieve from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5216117.pdf
 Grassman, K.N. (May 2015). Single and Working: A Content Analysis of Workplace
Romance Polices. University of Dayton. Dayton, Ohio. Retrieved from:
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=dayton1430489925&disposition=i
nline

34
 Journals
 Cowan, R. and Horan, S. (2014). Why Are You Dating Him? Contemporary Motives
for Workplace Romance. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 2014, 15
(1). pp. 9-16. Retrieved from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17459435.2014.955587Lickey, et al.
(2009). Responding to Workplace Romance: A Proactive and Pragmatic Approach.
The Journal of Business Inquiry 2009, 8 (1). pp. 102. Retrieved from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c7c1/e277e27c94d310ae5563548a755881afe697.
pdf
 Pierce et al. (1996). Attraction in organizations; a model of workplace romance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17 (1). pp. 19. Retrieve from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246871221_Attraction_in_Organizations
_A_Model_of_Workplace_Romance
 Quinn, R. (1977). Coping with Cupid: The Formation, Impact, and Management of
Romantic Relationships in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 22 (1).
pp. 30-45. Retreived from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2391744?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont
ents
 Riach, K. and Wilson, F. (2007) Dpn’t Screw the Crew: Exploring the Rules of
Engagement in Organizational Romance. British Journal of Management 2007, 18,
79-92. pp. 80. Retrieved from:
http://www.academia.edu/555220/Dont_screw_the_crew_exploring_the_rules_of_
engagement_in_organizational_romance

Reports
 Demographics and Social Statistics. (2017), Working Age Population. Retrieved from
https://psa.gov.ph/content/working-age-population

35
 APPENDIX
Survey
 Human Resources Department Version
Workplace romance is defined as mutually desired relationships between two members
of the same organization which involves physical attraction and occurs in the form of sexual
intimacy or dating (Biggs et al., 2012).

Does your organization tolerate romantic

relationships in the workplace? YES NO
Kindy encircle your answer.

If yes, approximately and based on your

_____________
knowledge, how many romantic
relationships does your organization have?

1. Does your organization have a policy addressing workplace romance?

a. Yes, a written policy.
b. Yes, a verbal policy.
c. None.

2. (If your answer is: a or b) What best describes your policy on workplace romances?
a. Workplace romances are allowed.
b. Workplace romances are allowed but discouraged.
c. Workplace romances are not allowed.

3. (If your answer is: b or c) Why is it discouraged or not allowed? (Check all that
apply)
___ Potential for retaliation if the romance ends.
___ Potential claims of sexual harassment.
___ Concerns about lowered productivity by those involved in the romance.
___ Concerns about lowered morale of coworkers of those involved in the
romance.
___ Workplace romances are viewed as unprofessional.
___ Others (please specify): ___________________________________________

4. Are there any restrictions imposed on workplace romance at your organization?

(Check all that apply)
___ Workplace romances are not permitted in our organization.
___ No, there are no restrictions.
___ Romance is not allowed between a supervisor and a subordinate.
___ Romance is not allowed between an employee and a client/customer.
___ Romance is not allowed between an employee and an employee from a
competitor.
___ Romance is not allowed between an employee and a supplier.
___ Those involved in the romance may not be in the same department.
___ Those involved in the romance may not work in the same projects.
___ Those involved in the romance may not report to the same supervisor.

36
 ___ Those involved in the romance must inform their supervisors of the
relationship.
___ Public displays of affection are prohibited.
___ Others (please specify): ___________________________________________

5. What consequences do employees who break your organization’s policy on workplace

romance face? (Check all that apply)
___ There are no official consequences.
___ A formal reprimand.
___ A transfer within the organization.
___ Termination
___ Counselling
___ Suspension
___ Others (please specify): ___________________________________________

6. In the past five years, have any of the following occurred at your organization as a
result of a romance between employees? (Check all that apply)
___ Complaints of retaliation when the romance ended.
___ Those involved in the romance got married.
___ Claims of sexual harassment
___ Increased productivity by those involved in the romance.
___ Decreased productivity by those involved in the romance.
___ Complaints of favoritism from coworkers of those involved in the romance.
___ Complaints of stalking when the romance ended.
___ Increased morale of coworkers of those involved in the romance.
___ Decreased morale of coworkers of those involved in the romance.
___ Divorce of married employees
___ Increase in workplace violence
___ Decrease in workplace violence
___ Others (please specify): _________________________________________

7. In the past five years, has the number of workplace romances in your organization:
a. Increased
b. Stayed the same
c. Decreased

8. In your opinion, should employers prohibit workplace romances between employees?

a. Yes
b. No
c. Depends on the situation

9. Based on your answer on # 8: Why?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

10. In your opinion, what steps should an employer take once there is a hint about a
workplace romance?

37
 ___ Monitor correspondence between suspected employees (i.e., communication
– verbal/non-verbal)
___ Monitor productivity of employees
___ Keep an eye on the situation
___ Monitor conflict among coworkers
___ Talk to employees involved
___ Look for problematic behavior
___ Make employees sign a consensual agreement statement
___ Support the relationship (e.g., allow common vacation leaves)
___ Nothing
___ Others (please specify): ________________________________________

 Employee Version
Workplace romance is defined as mutually desired relationships between two members
of the same organization which involves physical attraction and occurs in the form of sexual
intimacy or dating (Biggs et al., 2012).

Have you ever participated in a workplace

YES NO
romance?
Kindy encircle your answer.

If yes, when was the last workplace _____________

romance you had? (Optional)

1. Does your organization have a policy addressing workplace romance?

a. Yes, a written policy.
b. Yes, a verbal policy.
c. None.
d. I don’t know.

2. (If your answer is: a or b) What best describes your policy on workplace romances?
a. Workplace romances are allowed.
b. Workplace romances are allowed but discouraged.
c. Workplace romances are not allowed.
d. I don’t know.

3. (If your answer is: b or c) Why is it discouraged or not allowed? (Check all that
apply)
___ Potential for retaliation if the romance ends.
___ Potential claims of sexual harassment.
___ Concerns about lowered productivity by those involved in the romance.
___ Concerns about lowered morale of coworkers of those involved in the
romance.
___ Workplace romances are viewed as unprofessional.
___ Others (please specify): ___________________________________________

4. What is your perception of workplace romance? (Check all that apply)

___ Workplace romances are not permitted in our organization.

38
 ___ No, there are no restrictions.
___ Romance is not allowed between a supervisor and a subordinate.
___ Romance is not allowed between an employee and a client/customer.
___ Romance is not allowed between an employee and an employee from a
competitor.
___ Romance is not allowed between an employee and a supplier.
___ Those involved in the romance may not be in the same department.
___ Those involved in the romance may not work in the same projects.
___ Those involved in the romance may not report to the same supervisor.
___ Those involved in the romance must inform their supervisors of the
relationship.
___ Public displays of affection are prohibited.
___ Others (please specify): ___________________________________________

11. What consequences should an employee face if he/she breaks the policy on workplace
romance? (Check all that apply)
___ There are no consequences.
___ A formal reprimand.
___ A transfer within the organization.
___ Termination
___ Counselling
___ Suspension
___ Others (please specify): ___________________________________________

12. In the past five years, have you known any of the following occurrences at your
organization as a result of a romance between employees? (Check all that apply)
___ Complaints of retaliation when the romance ended.
___ Those involved in the romance got married.
___ Claims of sexual harassment
___ Increased productivity by those involved in the romance.
___ Decreased productivity by those involved in the romance.
___ Complaints of favoritism from coworkers of those involved in the romance.
___ Complaints of stalking when the romance ended.
___ Increased morale of coworkers of those involved in the romance.
___ Decreased morale of coworkers of those involved in the romance.
___ Divorce of married employees
___ Increase in workplace violence
___ Decrease in workplace violence
___ Others (please specify):
____________________________________________

13. In the past five years, has the number of workplace romances in your organization:
a. Increased
b. Stayed the same
c. Decreased
d. I don’t know.

14. In your opinion, what means should an employer take once there is a hint of a
workplace romance?
___ Monitor correspondence between suspected employees

39
 ___ Monitor productivity of employees
___ Keep an eye on the situation
___ Monitor conflict among coworkers
___ Talk to employees involved
___ Look for problematic behavior
___ Make employees sign a consensual agreement statement
___ Support the relationship (e.g., allow common vacation leaves)
___ Nothing
___ Others (please specify): ________________________________________

15. Have you ever been positively affected by your own romantic relationship in the
workplace?
a. Yes
b. No

16. Based on your answer on #9: Why? / How?

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

17. Have you ever been negatively affected by your own romantic relationship in the
workplace?
a. Yes
b. No

18. Based on your answer on #11: Why? / How?

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Figures

Figure 1. Stages of Group Development

40
Figure 2. Operational Framework

Figure 3. Workplace romance policy – HR

41
 Figure 4. Description of workplace romance policy.- HR

Figure 5. Restrictions of workplace romance policy.- HR

Figure 6. Results of workplace romance in the organization.- HR

42
Figure 7. Workplace romance policy – Couples

Figure 8. Description of workplace romance policy. – Couples

Figure 9. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. – Couples

43
Figure 10. Results of workplace romance in the organization. – Couples

Figure 11. Workplace romance policy – Co-workers

Figure 12. Description of workplace romance policy. – Co-workers

44
 Figure 13. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. – Co-workers

Figure 14. Results of workplace romance in the organization. Co-workers

Tables
Restrictions Straight LGBT
Public Display of Affection 54% 63%
Should inform Supervisor 36% 27%
Should not affect work 18% 0
Relationship between Superior and Subordinate 0% 45%
Relationship between Employee and Competitor 18% 18%
Relationship between Employee and Supplier 9% 9%
Relationship between Employee and Client 0% 36%
Same Department 36% 27%
Same Projects 36% 18%

45
Same Supervisor 18% 18%

Table 1. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. – Couples

Restrictions Straight LGBT

Complaints of retaliation when the romance ended 18% 36%
Marriage 36% 36%
Increased productivity from couples 36% 63%
Decreased productivity from couples 45% 54%
Complaints of favoritism from coworkers 9% 9%
Complaints of stalking when the romance ended 9% 9%
Increased morale of coworkers 18% 45%
Decreased morale of coworkers 0% 36%
Separation of married couples 0% 18%
Increased workplace violence 0% 9%
Decreased workplace violence 0% 9%

Table 2. Results of workplace romance in the organization. – Couples

Restrictions Straight LGBT

Public Display of Affection 9% 9%
Should inform Supervisor 18% 0%
Relationship between Superior and Subordinate 27% 18%
Relationship between Employee and Competitor 27% 9%
Relationship between Employee and Supplier 18% 9%
Relationship between Employee and Client 18% 9%
Same Department 18% 0%
Same Projects 9% 0%
Same Supervisor 9% 0%

46
 Table 3. Restrictions of workplace romance policy. – Co-workers

Restrictions Straight LGBT

Complaints of retaliation when the romance ended 9% 9%
Marriage 18% 9%
Increased productivity from couples 18% 18%
Decreased productivity from couples 9% 18%
Complaints of favoritism from coworkers 27% 18%
Complaints of stalking when the romance ended 9% 18%
Increased morale of coworkers 9% 0%
Decreased morale of coworkers 9% 18%
Separation of married couples 0% 9%

Table 4. Results of workplace romance in the organization. – Couples

Formula

𝐹𝐴
%= 𝑥 100
𝑁𝑅

% − 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟

𝐹 𝐴 − 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟
𝑁 𝑅 − 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
100 − 100%
Formula 1. Percentage Rate of Answers

47