Molly Burns

Interpersonal 200-1
Mary Coleman Walsh
9 December 2014
Relationships in the Workplace
Relationships in the workplace are influenced by culture through each workplaces
rituals, norms, and rules which involve communication. Every workplace has different types of
relationships which vary from mentoring to romantic relationships. Romantic relationships are
known for bringing negative success to the work environment. Mentoring is a shared
relationship in which an experienced individual guides someone who is less experienced, and the
mentor helps the individual achieve his or her goals.
There are four major types of workplace communication which are lateral
communication, upward communication, downward communication and grapevine messages
(DeVito, 2013, p. 277). Lateral communication involves the interaction of messages between
equals, for example executive to executive or worker to worker. Messages within lateral
communication can move to a subdivision or department of the organization or across several
divisions. Lateral communication refers to having equal communication with someone of
similar status within the hierarchy. Upward communication consists of messages sent from
unequal levels of hierarchy by lower levels of the hierarchy initiating messages. For example,
from a teacher to a principle, upward communication focuses on job-related activities and
problems such as ideas for change, suggestions for improvement and feelings about organization,
work or other issues.

Upward communication sends messages to the higher hierarchy of people while

downward communication sends messages to the lower levels of hierarchy. One example that
can be clearly noticed, is how a message can be sent down from a District Manager at Ralph
Lauren to a General Manager of a store at the same company. Grapevine messages do not follow
any of these lines of communications mentioned because they have their own goal which leads
these messages to go into different directions (scattered). These messages are known to be found
in an interpersonal setting where issues are addressed but not in public (Devito, 2013 p. 277).
I first examined, Do you take this man to be your co-worker? by Stephanie Thompson
(2007). This journal article focuses on two couples who own or work for the same company.
Rob Reilly and his wife Laura Bowles both work together at Crispin VP Group, while Gay and
Lee Gaddis are the owners of the T-3- The Think Tank. In the article, the Society for Human
Resource Managements 2006 Workplace Romance Poll found that 70% of employers do not
have policies with workplace relationships. Only 18% of employers have written policies
prohibiting relationships while 7% of other employers have verbal informal policies with regard
to romantic relationships. The poll did find though that over the last four years employers have
become more open with relationships between their colleagues. Therefore they see romantic
relationships as a helpful resource to both parties because everyone is sympathetic to the
concerns and anxieties of each others work life. Both couples emphasize how they do not let
competition or business tasks get in the way of their love for each other. Ms. Gaddis explains
that the key to success between her work life and marriage is the consistency to focus on
different parts of the business. We are left side and right side of the brain, no overlap, Mrs.
Gaddis said, and that makes a strong team. Mrs. Gaddis added He loves the strategic and

operational, and Im more outgoing, selling and recruiting people and business (p. Thompson,
2007, p. 32).
The next article is Understanding Work life/ Blending: Credibility implications for those
Who Date at Work by Sean M. Horan and Rebecca M. Chory (2011). They studied the
credibility implications of employees who date colleagues in the workplace. For example, work
and family border theory are viewed from two domains that can transition or cross over each
other (Horan & Chory, 2011, p. 239). Flexibility and permeability contribute to these domain
borders from crossing each other. Flexibility is considered the extent to which a border may
expand or contract depending on the demands of each domain (Horan & Chory, 2011 p. 249).
Permeability is seen as the degree to which elements from other domains enter a different
domain. Work/life border theory shows that communication about one domain will follow into
the opposite domain when domains are similar to each other. Therefore, workplace relationships
can turn into dating relationships because colleagues find similar interests that affect their work
life or personal life situation or issues (Horan & Chory, 2011 p. 249). An example includes a
colleague explaining his or her own personal issues with a co-worker at work or even explaining
a personal family event occurring in his or her life. This example refers to blending, which
occurs when the domain border no longer remains to be exclusive (hiding) now it blends with
both family and work life.
Horan & Chory (2011) identify present day romantic workplace relationships as nonplatonic relationship between two members of an organization in which sexual attraction is
present, affection is established with communication, and both parties recognize the relationship
to be more than just professional and platonic (Horan & Chory, 2011 p. 239). They also add that
the Wall Street Journal claimed in 2004 that 47% of employees were involved in a workplace

romance, while 19% would engage in one in the workplace. From the research study, they
discovered that many workplace relationships have motives to why colleagues engage in
workplace relationships. Many people engage in workplace relationships to seek genuine love,
help self-confidence thrive with adventure, and for job advancement or financial security.
Besides motives to workplace relationships, we begin to see credibility lack with communication
between both sides. Co-workers begin to lack the ability to communicate because they only rely
on specific credible sources who may not necessarily have all the information (Horan & Chory,
2011 p. 249). Therefore, this means that coworkers attitudes may change depending on who
they rely on for credible information. This journal helps describe how work and personal life can
affect our behaviors through permeability and flexibility.
Mixing Pleasure with Work: Employee perceptions of and responses to workplace
Romance by Colleen C. Malachowski, Rebecca M. Chory, & Christopher J. Claus (2012)
explains the study of organizational members perceptions of and responses to workplace
romance. In this journal article, they identify sexuality and emotion as problematic, and sexual
pleasure as threatening to the existing social order. Empirical research shows that third parties
are normally prone to view work relationships as a negative action because they can affect the
work environment. These unfair advantages could be affective through privileged treatment,
imbalance or even adding negative energy on to employees. The most important part that is
identified in this article is self-disclosure, which is confidential information, revealed about you
to another person (Malachowski & Chory, 2012, p. 361). The authors found that co-workers
were less likely to tell truthful disclosed information about their co-workers to others.
Love at the Office? Understanding Workplace Romance Disclosures and Reactions
from the Coworker Perspective by Renee. L Cowan and Sean M. Horan (2014) examines the

positive and negative outcomes of a romantic relationship in the workplace. Cowan & Horan
identify many points, but the three that stand out the most to me are personal disclosures,
impersonal revelations, and non-verbal behaviors. Personal disclosures usually occur when
coworkers are friends of one of the people in the relationship, and due to this, the one in the
romantic relationship will disclose information to his or her friend. An example relevant to this
would be the one in the romance confiding to the closest co-worker where they disclose
information to. The person who receives the news could be surprised or could have had a feeling
something was going on (Cowan & Horan, 2014, p. 244). Impersonal revelations consist of nonpersonal behaviors usually considered to be indirect learning about a workplace relationship.
Several impersonal revelations can occur such as non- behaviors which are both overt and
covert, gossiping and getting caught in the act. Nonverbal behaviors can be shown as suggestive
looks or simply through intimate touching. Covert nonverbal behaviors involve physical
behaviors such as sitting close, talking often and eye contact. Overt nonverbal behaviors involve
more perceptions of personal behavior such as kissing, caresses and suggestive flirtation
(Cowan& Horan, 2014, p. 245).
As an employee at Ralph Lauren Childrens Polo, I have witnessed a romantic
relationship between my manager Jen and a fellow colleague of the Womens Ralph Lauren
store. I was aware of their personal relationship through other colleagues that my boss selfdisclosed information to about her relationship with the other manager named Jason. Since I
could not approach my boss about her relationship with Jason, I kept any information that I heard
about their relationship to myself. The disadvantages of experiencing a romantic relationship is
the gossip, non-verbal behaviors, and imbalance of support from employees. For example,
everyone at my store took Jens side because she is our boss and always tries to support all of us

through what we experience in our personal lives. And everyone at the adult store took Jasons
side because they looked at the interests of their boss and he has contributed similar support to
his colleagues in the past. The positive advantages to their workplace relationship was their
ability to enjoy their time at work together and with the other employees. Ever since they had
become a couple you could tell that both managers would add longer hours to their days. The
work environment at polo was much more enjoyable and friendly for employees because of the
happiness that both of them brought to the stores. Jen and Jason were together for over 2 years
and are unfortunately not together anymore but are able to maintain a professional relationship as
employees for Ralph Lauren.
Romance in the workplace is an interpersonal relationship that is witnessed everywhere,
but mentoring is another interpersonal relationship that is growing in the business world. Leslie
Gordon, in Law firms add coaches to their staffs (2014) informs us how important it is to have
mentors. These mentors are not providing professional growth as a staff member to these law
firms; they are assisting them with organization skills. Jennifer Rakstad a coach at Mayer Brown
in Chicago stated My job is to help our attorneys have the careers they want to have, (as cited
in Gordon, 2014, p. 1). This includes assisting them with time management and organization,
transitioning to or from a leave or a reduced schedule, focuses on special areas in the practice or
coping with a bad review. Mentors focus more on relationship-building, leading a team,
delegating or getting along with other colleagues. In addition, mentors have the ability to
provide an individuals basic needs (Gordon, 2014, p. 1).
Research Escalator Session published an article titled Who is your mentor? Applying
self-determination theory to developmental relationships at work (2012). In this research,
insight in the difference between informal mentorships and other relationships of ones

developmental network is offered. M.C Higgins from the Academy of Management Review
offers his insight between informal mentorships and other relationships in an individuals
developmental network. This research study examines 18 full-time employees from 17 different
organizations. Each participant represented different career stages, the average mean age was
38.8 years old. Throughout each interview, each individual explained his or her career history,
developmental network and any other informal mentorships experienced. This study showed that
informal mentorships contribute more to the psychological needs than other developers do.
Informal mentors often serve as role models to an individual who seeks similar interests as his or
her mentor. Mentors are known for helping an individual protg with fulfilling future career
goals. They also help with stimulating behavior with the protg by encouraging selfconfidence and motivation. Mentors are known for putting their protg in a job situation similar
to what they experience on a daily basis, and they may walk him or her through a situation by
giving advice. On a competence level, mentors serve as teachers by giving specific feedback and
working together to solve problems in order to help the protgs confidence. Self-disclosure
between the mentor and protg are one of the most important characteristics because of the
friendship, quality of time spent, and beliefs shared together (Research Escalator Session p. 1).
Although I have experienced a romantic relationship at Ralph Lauren, I have also
experienced a mentoring relationship with my boss Jen in retail display merchandising. Over the
last year, I have spent extra time observing how she creates window displays, setting up
collections and by helping with store inventory. For example, Jen has allowed me to style the
outfits for various mannequins throughout the store. After I have styled the mannequins, Jen
critiques me on my performance and explains what I can improve on. My boss and I are able to
share self-disclosed information between each other because of our friendship, trust and beliefs

that we both share. Throughout my mentoring experience with Jen, I believe that my basic needs
have been met because she guides and motivates me to be the best that I can be in the retail
world. Romantic and mentoring relationships have made me realize that workplace relationships
must have consist communication with colleagues and remain professional.
Through my research and experience workplace romantic communication shares the
ability to self-disclose information as well as with mentoring communication. Both of these
interpersonal relationships involve interacting through sharing personal information in order to
establish a relationship with a co-worker. They both share a challenge of having disadvantages
with how relationships can develop such as romance, confrontation and even gossip between
workers. I think overall mentoring communication is the most appropriate, useful and necessary
type of workplace communication because it helps a future individual develop success. Also
both the mentor and protg learn about each others weaknesses and strengths in the mentoring
process. Mentors give individuals the sense of guidance while romance relationships only
develop love and chemistry between two people. Hopefully I can experience more insight from
my boss through her mentoring me and I can become a mentor one day for a future protg.

Works Cited
1.

Cowan, Renee L, Horan Sean. M. Love at the Office? Understanding Workplace

Romance Disclosures and Reactions from the Coworker Perspective. Western

Journal of Communication. Article. Mar/Apr2014, Vol. 78 Issue 2, p238-253.

2. Cowan, Renee L, Horan, and Sean M. Why Are You Dating Him? Contemporary
Motives for Workplace Romances. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication.
2014. Article. Vol. 15 Issue 1, p9-16. 8p.
3. DeVito, Joseph A. Workplace Communication. The interpersonal communication
Book Chapter 10. Pearson Education Copyright 2013. Pg. 277-281.
4. Gordon, Leslie. Law firms add coaches to their staffs. Article. ABA Journal.
May2014, Vol. 100 Issue 5, p1-1. 1p. 1
5. Horan, Sean M, Chory, Rebecca M. Understanding Work/Life Blending: Credibility
Implications for Those Who Date at Work. Communication Studies. Article
Nov/Dec2011, Vol. 62 Issue 5, p563-580. 18p
6. Malachowski, Colleen C, Chory, Rebecca M. Mixing Pleasure with Work: Employee
Perceptions of and Responses to Workplace Romance. Western Journal of
Communication. Article. Jul-Sep2012, Vol. 76 Issue 4, p358-379. 22p.
7. Research Escalator Session, Who is your mentor? Applying self-determination theory
to developmental relationships at work. -- International Communication Association.
2012 Annual Meeting, p1-2. 2p