 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
inclusion: Accommodating spouses/partners
:
Spouse/partner working relationships
1 There are some long-accepted practices governing the employment of spouses (note: the term partner” has been deliberately excluded from this part of the discussion). One of these is that staff members shall not supervise or be supervised by a related staff member. One consequence of this is that, in the event of staff members marrying while in Center employment, neither shall supervise the other. There are several good reasons for this practice.
2 First, it avoids the risk of one spouse being seen by teammates as receiving privileged treatment (e.g. in work assignments, evaluation, recognition, rewards and/or career development opportunities) from the other spouse. Thus the professional reputations of both spouses are protected.
3 Second, it avoids the risk of the more senior spouse being seen by his/her team to be applying bias in favor of the other spouse. Thus the leadership, authority and professional reputation of the more senior spouse is protected.
4 Third is a potential consequence of the second point above: it avoids the risk of the more senior spouse feeling obliged to treat his/her spouse less favorably than the latter might justify in the opinion of an independent supervisor.
Is a rigid practice necessarily a good one?
5 Despite the very good reasons above for avoiding a supervisory relationship,
we need to recognize that some married couples (and, for that matter,
unmarried partners) may already have developed a very productive, professional
working relationship prior to applying for a Center position. Consequently
rigid application of the “non-supervisory relationship” rule
may bar us from recruiting a talented team (unless they are to be of
equal status in their workgroup).
6 Consider also the case where two people may have worked together professionally and very productively within a Center prior to forming their personal relationship. It does not make sense to break up a productive, professional team just because they decide to marry.
7 Consider also the parallel situation where the two people in a supervisory relationship form a strong personal relationship but decide to remain partners rather than marry. Provided that:
- they remain productive individually,
- they do not demonstrate counterproductive behavior in the team, and
- they do not transgress the rules of impartiality in relation to evaluation, rewards, etc.,
then most people would regard their formal relationship as quite secondary to their value to the team. In this case, the issue of requiring one or the other to move to a different team probably would not arise, particularly as they were not married. Consequently, they would be treated more favorably than if they married, which further undermines the logic of arbitrarily banning married people from reporting to each other.
Beware the QUAGMIRE
8 The more one considers this issue, the more it resembles a quagmire.
To overcome the differential treatment of unmarried versus married
couples outlined above, management might require a declaration from
staff members who form a serious personal relationship. If they decline
to provide one, management might be forced to say “we are aware
that you two are in a (serious) relationship; since there is a supervisory
relationship between the two of you, one of you must now elect to move
to a different program.”
9 However there may not be a suitable alternative program. Both might refuse. Management usually has the option to compulsorily transfer one to a different work area, but this could lead to a very unpleasant grievance from the disadvantaged partner and, quite possibly, ultimately the resignation of the other.
10 Consequently there are potentially some very negative consequences of the long accepted practice of barring spouses being in a supervisory relationship. The practice does not sit comfortably in a world where an increasing proportion of couples are not formally married.
An even bigger quagmire
11 Spouses in a supervisory relationship are simply one example of how
inappropriate influence might be brought to bear either within the
couple or in the broader team. There are others: extended family relationships,
community-based relationships, even the “old boy” network!
12 We tend not to have arbitrary rules to cover these possible situations, simply because it is too hard to define every conceivable relationship, let alone readily identify it in the workplace. At what point does a set of sound professional relationships between peers become an “old boy network”, with all that implies about behavior that promotes favoritism and excludes non-members? Using the same principles outlined above, we tend not to worry about these relationships or their potential impact, provided that:
- the people remain productive individually,
- they do not demonstrate counterproductive behavior in the team, and
- they do not transgress the rules of impartiality in relation to evaluation, rewards, etc.
13 Spouses and, to a lesser extent, partners are an easily identified group for focusing concern about potential inappropriate behavior, simply because we know that the relationship exists. However in organizations where widespread potential exists for other, similarly influential relationships, it does not seem sensible to have an arbitrary ban applying only to the most easily identifiable group among many.
RECOMMENDATION
14 G&D recommends that Centers:
- review the appropriateness of arbitrary bans on spouses/partners working in a supervisory relationship, and
- treat each situation on its own merits, identifying potential risks and options for managing those risks appropriately.
© CGIAR Gender & Diversity
Program 2006