One of the issues that have raised concerns in concern presents is the relationship between senior employees. and the junior employees of the opposite sex. For old ages. senior employees such as directors and managers have been accused of sexually or emotionally mistreating the junior employees working under them. Some are even accused of endangering to disregard the employees who decline their petition for sexual favours from them. Though this may be seen as sexual torment. the instance might be something different from that. Simply because the relationship is between senior and a junior employee. it may non be right to hotfoot to a decision that the foreman is sexually or emotionally working their topic. It may be a relationship that has developed of course due to the degree of familiarity of the two employees of the opposite gender.
The controversial nature of this issue is clearly portrayed in the mail online article of November 13th. 2013. The article explains that the study of a survey carried out by concern hebdomad has shown that most of these relationships between employees have nil to make with torment. During the study. it was found out that most of the people working in the offices would be up to a sexual relationship with person from their office if they got the opportunity. Of the 2500 respondents interviewed during the study. 85 per centum said it was right for employees within the company to be allowed to hold sexual relationships. Some even confessed of sexually look up toing their coworkers. After all this. why does the Human Resource section discourage intimate relationships between their employees of opposite gender? The reply is that they conclude that one of the parties in the relationship is sexually harassed. particularly if one of the parties is the foreman of the other.
Some people may impeach me of back uping the behaviour of the foremans to prosecute in sexual relationships with their co-workers. But if we consider some working conditions in some organisations. we see that the dealingss originate perfectly from familiarity and non torment. See the instance of a male director. who works with a lady as the personal secretary. It is really possible for the two to prosecute in an matter due to the familiarity created by the on the job conditions. The two attend meetings together. travel for tiffin together. pass clip together in the office. sometimes they go together to go to meetings far from their topographic point of work. and many other closely exhausted times. From all these close relation. is it non against the Torahs of nature for something more than boss-secretary relationship to go on? Ironically. when a relationship develops between the director and his secretary. the director will be accused of sexually hassling the secretary! In my sentiment. the foreman would be emotionally hassling the secretary if he chose to disregard the feelings that develop after been together about all the clip.
It may besides be arguable that boss-subject relationships may adversely impact the public presentation of the employees. Employees may be loath in their work merely because the foreman. who is supposed to oversee their work. can non reprobate them because of the bing bond. This may be the thought behind the battle by the human resource section against sexual relationships at the workplace. However. this may non ever be the instance. This relationship may hike the public presentation of an employee who will ever be seeking to be the best to affect the foreman. The article workplace relationships on Wikipedia explain of a theory. Workplace Relationship Quality and information Experiences. which originated from a survey conducted by Patricia Sias. The theory states the most productive employees are the 1s with high entree to information about their workplace. It is obvious that the employees with a relationship more than the ordinary workplace relationship have a higher entree to concern information. I may. therefore. be right to state that the boss-subject relationships can play an of import portion in hiking the productiveness of the employees. The article further describes relationships at the workplace as “workplace romance” . It explains that though these relationships may non do the workplace so comfy for other employees ; it plays a really of import portion in the working of the parties involved in the matter. It increases public presentation due to high motive and overall occupation satisfaction.
Even though some senior employees in some concern organisation sexually exploit their junior co-workers. allow us non misidentify every relationship for sexual development or torment. It is good to appreciate that these foremans and their topics are merely ordinary people and what makes their difference is merely the on the job place and rubrics. When there is a relationship between two junior employees of opposite gender. this is taken to be an ordinary love relationship. Why so do we hold to handle the seniors otherwise? Aren’t they the same as the juniors? What marks the difference is merely occupation degree. It is. hence. necessary to analyse the state of affairs before reasoning that a foreman is sexually hassling a junior workmate.
Sias. P. M. ( 2009 ) . Forming relationships traditional and emerging positions on workplace relationships. Los Angeles: Sage.
( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. goodreads. com/user/new? remember=true )
Sias. P. M. ( 2008 ) . Forming Relationships Traditional and Emerging Positions on Workplace Relationships. . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. virago. com/Organizing-Relationships-Traditional-Perspectives-Workplace/dp/1412957974 )