The Ethics of Romantic Relationships in the Workplace. The Case of Boeing CEO Harry C. Stonecipher

Chapter 6: „The Debate Over the Prohibition of Romance in the Workplace" and the case „Boeing Chief is Ousted after Admitting Affair"

Ethical research question: Should romantic relationships be allowed in theworkplace?

Relationships in the workplace are a sensitive subject in many organizations. Often, affairs in the executive suite eventually result in a resignation. However, the general perception of this topic has changed continuously over the past decades. This has been influenced by a general change in values regarding the increase of professional women (feminism), as well as the emergence and permanent progress of labour laws in this area. Companies are thus faced with ethical challenges when it comes to accommodating all parties and areas of interest.

Research methodology and hypothesis

The case "Boeing Chief is Ousted after Admitting Affair" will be used as the framework for this thesis, based on Professor Boyd's assumption in the report "The Debate Over the Prohibition of Romance in the Workplace" that romantic relationships should be allowed in the workplace. Other secondary sources are also contrasted. Hence, this paper weights and discusses the ethical research question "should romantic relationships be allowed in the workplace?".

Labour laws vary from country to country; thus, this paper will address the fundamental ethical issue of workplace relationships but will focus particularly on the US-American labour law.

Initial problematic situation in the case: "Boeing Chief is Ousted afterAdmitting Affair"

The case of Harry C. Stoneciphere, president and CEO of Boeing, who was forced to resign because of an "inappropriate relationship" with a female Boeing executive, provides the problematic initial situation, which will be the basis for discussing the ethical research question, "Should romantic relationships be allowed in the workplace?"

Boeing is the world's second-largest aerospace company and the Pentagon's second-largest supplier. In 2004, under the leadership of former Boeing chief executive Philip M. Condit, the company struggled with multiple scandals and missteps, due to the suspension from tenders on Air Force "missile launch contracts after Boeing employees were found to have stolen thousands of proprietary documents from" a competitor (Wayne, 2005). Additionally, under Condit's leadership, the former Boeing CFO conducted illegal hiring interviews with a former Air Force official, resulting in jail time for both, as well as a failed $20 million contract between the two organizations. Finally, maintaining multiple relationships with Boeing employees during Condit's marriages set the negative record.

For this reason, in 2005 Harry C. Stoneciphere was brought back from retirement to work in the US-headquarters and to clean up Boeings tarnished image and restore its credibility. During his tenure, Stonecipher managed to restore the credibility of the company, which was on the upswing performance­wise, the company's stock also rose by more than 50 percent. However, the new CEO was asked to resign after only 15 months because of an affair with a female Boing-executive which consequently was seen as "actions inconsistent with Boeing's code of conduct that reflect poorly on his judgment and ability to lead in the future". The Code of Conduct does not explicitly prohibit affairs between employees, yet it states that employees "shall not engage in conduct or activities" that could embarrass the company or raise questions about its honesty, impartiality, and reputation. The female executive was identified later and did not report directly to Stonecipher. She did not have to worry about repercussions to her career or salary (Wayne, 2005). Nevertheless, other sources reported that the Boeing employee resigned shortly thereafter (businessinsider, 2013). Accordingly, the hypothesis love affairs should not be banned from the workplace is proposed, which will be examined and finally validated or rejected.

Relationships in the workplace

51% of employees have fallen in love with their work colleagues (Statista, 2018), while the workplace ranks number forth of places where couples have met their partner (Karten Macherei, 2021). Whether and to what extent relationships should be regulated in the workplace is a highly debated business ethics question, which will be evaluated below.

Overview of the labour laws in Germany for romances at the workplace

When two people in a relationship work closely together, the boundaries between work and private life are often blurred. Some employers therefore view relationships in the work environment rather critically. In the USA, internal company "ethics guidelines", as described in the Boeing case above, are common, with which, among otherthings, relationships between employees can be prohibited. Some companies go to the extent of prohibiting romances between colleagues as a matter of principle. Others ban this across hierarchies or require relationships to be reported (WSJ.de, 2017). Recognizing that a complete prohibition on romantic relationships is not enforceable, a number of companies have resorted to a legal approach to protect themselves from sexual harassment lawsuits: They have instituted a consensual dating agreement, which is known as "the love contract" (Nejat-Bina, 1999)(Economist, 2005).

To contrast this: German labour laws are considered rather progressive and liberal, and the employer cannot prohibit relationships at the workplace, and they do not have to be reported to the employer, because private relationships between co-workers are protected by the right to free development ofthe personality.¹

Protected parties

The prohibition or restriction of relationships in the workplace is intended to help three prevailing parties:

1. the employer
2. female employees
3. ex-partners

Employers benefit primarily in terms of financial losses and administrative costs associated with enforcing the prohibition of workplace romances. Thus, organizations reduce costs of harassment lawsuits and save on monetary expenses and effort related expenditures by replacing employees. Finally, employers argue that employee productivity would increase on average (Boyd, 2010), but this is a rather controversial assumption.

Female employees are protected by prohibiting relationships in the workplace, and to that extent any interaction that may be perceived accordingly, that they are not subjected to harassment, offensive sexuality, abuse of power, humiliation, or the like.

Ultimately, such regulations are put in place to protect ex-partners in the event of harassment (Boyd, 2010) (see "Preventing harassment").

Arguments for no prohibition of romance in the workplace

In an average week, most full-time employees spend around 40 hours at work (igmetall, 2022). That's more time spent in the office than with friends or family. Accordingly, employees are spending increasingly more time together. So, it may eventually come to employees engaging in a (sexual) relationship with each other. The arguments why romantic relationships should not be restricted or prohibited in the workplace are briefly explained below.

Restriction offreedom ofemployees

Imposing an abstinence requirement raises the question of how much freedom should be restricted to accommodate the weak (Abraham, 2006). Sexual and/or romantic activities are principally private matters for the individual. However, if love contracts must be signed or romances reported or even restricted/prohibited, this means that the organization massively interferes with the privacy as well as freedom of the employee and restricts it accordingly.² This is an enormous invasion of privacy, regardless of the reasons: protection of other parties or the overall goal of maintaining an organization's peaceful and productive work environment (see "Prevention of loss of productivity"). In practice, however, jurisdiction rejects employee claims of wrongful termination related to dating bans, while prevailing over the employer's legitimate business interests (Wilson et al., 2003).

Dominance strategy self-serving farce or sincerely protection?

Literature places corporate dating bans under criticism, in the sense that this may "be a self­serving farce for some companies, benefiting the employer rather than protecting the employee" (Boyd, 2010). Here, the literature indicates that employers are not necessarily concerned with reducing sexual harassment or similar, to their employees, but rather with reducing the costs of litigation that could result from sexual harassment in the workplace due to failed relationships (Waldmeir, 2006).³ Accordingly, business ethicist C. Boyd, raises the relevant ethical question "about the ethical value of corporate policies that ostensibly protect employees from harm but primarily protect the employer and whether they are less ethical than other ethical policies" that sincerely protect their employees from harm (Boyd, 2010).

Long term relationship or marriage as a result of an office affair

According to Pierce and Aguinis (2009), there are 10 million new workplace romances in the United States each year, compared to 14,200 sexual harassment claims every year, which otherwise means that one harassment case equals 704 resulting relationships (Pierce and Aguinis, 2009). A survey of the American Management Association claims that two/thirds of rendezvous at work lead to a long­term relationship. While supporting sources state that the workplace is the most important place to get to know one's future partner because relationships "develop gradually over months and years, allowing people to get to know each other rather than making snap judgments based on first impressions" (Losee and Olen, 2007).

[...]

¹ There are, however, limits to the extent to which relationships can be pursued during the working day, such as no private messages, show of affection, etc. (Glöckner, 2019). There are also circumstances in which the employer in Germany is allowed to intervene on a professional level: if the love affair is linked to workplace conflicts and tensions that severely affect the workplace welfare, or if it has a demonstrable negative impact on job performance. However, even then, termination for behavioural grounds would not be the immediate result, because the employee in question would first receive a formal warning (Merkel, 2021).

² One example of such major intrusion into employee privacy was when the supermarket chain Lidl used private detectives and hidden cameras to investigate employee behavior, including their romantic relationships (Boyes, 2008).

³ To protect themselves from such allegations, and hence from court and compensation, U.S. employers require regular mandatory