What would you do if an employee claimed that their colleague received a promotion purely because they were in a relationship with someone more senior to them?

In part four of HRM’s ethical dilemma series, where we ask AHRI members to respond to made-up ethical dilemmas, we explore what HR should do when an office romance sparks claims of favouritism.

The ethical dilemma: an office romance

You recently discovered that two long-standing employees are in a romantic relationship together. One of them is more senior than the other, but they work in different teams and generally manage their relationship well; not many employees are aware of it. You decide not to say anything about it, as you don’t think it’s affecting anyone in the workplace.

However, after a social work event, some of their colleagues see the pair sharing a taxi home together and rumours of their relationship start spreading. 

A few weeks later, the more junior employee in the relationship is awarded a promotion – one that many people would have thought was a few years away for her, based on her current experience level. A different employee, who was originally in line for the promotion, complains to you and says that he believes the only reason the employee got the promotion was because her partner was advocating for her with the rest of the senior team. He also asked if you, the HR Manager, were aware of the relationship beforehand. What do you do?

Sonali’s response:

Firstly I would ensure that my information about the two employees’ romantic involvement is correct. The next step would be to look into the organisation’s workplace relationships policy. If the policy specifically forbids any kind of romantic relationships between colleagues, as the HR Manager I would have to speak to the persons concerned and make them aware that they are in breach of an official policy. 

The organisation’s processes for this kind of breach would have to be followed. Considering they are both long-standing employees, they are expected to be aware of this. Not saying anything, irrespective of the fact that they work in different departments or have been managing their relationship well, is not the correct action. As the HR Manager, I would have to own up to this lapse in judgement if asked about it by another employee.

It would also help to have a discussion with the junior employee’s manager and look at their performance evaluation of the employee to ascertain whether the promotion was strictly based

on merit. If that is the case, it would address the concern of the disgruntled employee (the one who missed his promotion). If there aren’t sufficient and justified grounds for the promotion then the situation would have to be investigated to find out if there was any influence on part of the senior employee.

Both issues would need to be handled independently but with equal thoroughness. I would follow up with an organisation-wide refresher/reminder to all employees to familiarise themselves with all workplace policies and the conditions they place on their employment agreements.

Sarah’s response:

While this type of scenario is not uncommon, having robust policies and procedures in place helps ensure all parties remain professional at work, including at work social events. 

As both parties work in different teams, I would be monitoring the situation to ensure that all actions/decisions remain fair and equitable. It is up to them if they wish to make their relationship public or not.

In response to the complainant, I would firstly acknowledge the person’s concerns and listen. I’d then explain that the relationship status of two employees is private and, in line with company policies and procedures, it would need to be disclosed accordingly.

I would suggest that the employee take a step back and assess the situation objectively and advise them to consider what facts they have. What evidence do they have that the individual was promoted on grounds of favouritism? Are there any other credible reasons for the outcome? 

After speaking to the employee (the complainant), I would circle back with the decision-makers in the hiring team to see if all processes were followed and, if not, I’d highlight the concerns (confidentially) to the managers/decision-makers to avoid any future conflict or disengagement of employees.

If it was clear that correct procedures had been followed, I would outline the promotion and approval process that must be undertaken for all promotional decisions to the complainant.

If they’re not satisfied with this response, I would suggest they remain professional, (to demonstrate commitment to the job despite the current set back) and encourage the employee to seek feedback from the hiring team on areas for development to give them the best chance of success in the future.

I would also suggest they document all their accomplishments and contributions to ensure they receive ongoing recognition and set themselves up for future promotion opportunities.

AHRI’s short course, Building Ethical Workplace Cultures, will help you define the professional and ethical principles which guide your organisation, and unpack HR’s role in building an ethical culture.

Les’s response:

I would meet with the complainant and confirm that, like many others in the office, I was aware that the relationship existed and that they had been very discreet about it.

 I would then explain that relationships are personal matters and it is not appropriate for any company to intervene unless there are behaviours that reflect on the business in a negative way. Many successful long-term relationships and marriages started from an initial meeting in the workplace. I would also state that office rumours based on fact or fiction exist in every enterprise, including ours.

As he has raised his concern about the promotion, I would explain that this was based on current performance, future potential and availability for release from her current role in accordance with the company’s policy. I would also assure him that this appointment should not be regarded as an impediment to his future prospects with the company.

I would then meet with the senior employee in the relationship to get a low-key briefing on the general situation. The couple may be targets in the rumour line and acknowledging this now might minimise negative fallout in the future. 

Leah’s response:

We seek organisations that align with our values and career aspirations, which can naturally lead to the formation of deeper connections and sometimes romantic relationships with our workmates. 

I am always wary of the blurred lines between personal relationships at work, so it is important to support employees to understand the expectations and navigate those potential conflicts of interest.

In this case, open, honest and transparent communication is key. It is important to validate the

employee’s disappointment and provide space for them to express their concerns. I would openly acknowledge my awareness of the relationship and initiate an investigation into the decision-making process behind the promotion to ascertain whether it was solely based on merit and qualifications or if the relationship had influenced the outcome. I would then clearly communicate the findings to the employee.

Conducting a review of current policies and procedures is also imperative to ensure that they explicitly address potential conflicts of interest, favouritism and nepotism. It is likely that other

employees harbour these same concerns, so staff training and communication may be beneficial in supporting the entire organisation to understand guidelines and expectations around disclosing and maintaining workplace relationships.

It may also be important to advocate to work with the employee’s supervisor for further discussion, support and guidance around their own professional development in the case that they’re still dissatisfied and encourage them to reach out to the EAP for further support.

Michael’s response:

In my experience, it’s been important to recognise how someone may feel about the outcome and ensure that we have demonstrated transparency with clear, objective recruitment processes. This includes who is on the interview panel and ensuring there is no conflict of interest.

My initial response would be to confirm that I was aware of the relationship, followed by providing reassurance about the recruitment and appointment process being fair, objective and free of any conflicts of interest. 

For transparency, I would discuss the general recruitment and appointment process in detail, such as behavioural based questions approach, and include other things that are taken into consideration. This can include the assessment of experience in similar roles, qualifications and applicant responses to behavioural-based interview questions. 

Appointments are either agreed on by the panel as a group (dependent on how applicants scored in the process), or preferred applicants can be recommended to the panel chair, or the CEO if there are significant concerns surrounding the recommended appointee.

What would you do? Let us know in the comment section or catch up on the other articles in this series.