Affection, esteem and self-realization are three of the five needs proposed by Maslow in his famous theory, which has remained in force since its appearance in 1943 regardless of the criticisms that it has experienced over the years. When the pyramid that the author proposes is studied, it is possible to notice them in ascending order, which has become an eminently didactic characteristic since they have the position that each individual gives them according to their own criteria.
If observed carefully, the three needs mentioned above have a predominant emotional link, which in turn gives them an important subjective valence since it is impossible to measure exactly how much affection or esteem can be offered to a person and how they are quantifies self-actualization in real terms.
It is a popular belief that a person has self-realized when he has job stability, a good income, has allowed himself to be seduced by marriage and, therefore, has dedicated himself to exercising fatherhood; all this coupled with the new economic and academic demands demanded by contemporary reality. If so, how can an individual achieve such fulfillment, balancing affection and esteem, in the modern world? Do organizations have any responsibility for this? How to face a relationship when the need for affection and esteem outweigh the work aspect?
If viewed objectively, the individual spends more than eight hours a day at work, in some cases for five, six and even seven days a week; Obviously, even if it is not desired, social life is seriously limited by this reality: recreation becomes difficult, exchange is reduced, and informal groups emerge in the organization that try to compensate for the aforementioned deficiencies.
As is logical to suppose, and it is a common consequence in all groups, the appearance of couples in each one of them usually appears spontaneously - and even in a planned way, since camaraderie and constant exchange generate enough trust to publicly express preference for a member of the opposite sex.
The above is totally normal, it happens since the world is world and it has nothing in particular, does it?
That one person falls in love with another is not at all strange, one of the divine laws attributable to almost all religions and present in the natural development of living beings precisely demands that man is born, grows and reproduces, usually for the latter case it requires the presence of a partner and everyone, at some time, has experienced attraction to another person. But when this happens on the edge of a company, what seems completely obvious and natural becomes a delicate and even clandestine situation, depending on the policies, written or not, that the organizations have.
Some organizations view the presence of couples in their environment with some suspicion, mainly because there are negative experiences that support the doubt of their relevance in work operations. For example, complicity, concealment, patronage and other expressions of a similar nature manifested by couples who have cheated or scammed a company in a significant way are enough allegations to suppose that an organization should not allow the presence of couples.
Another important element at the moment of sentencing the incompatibility of the company with the couples are the sentimental relationships of the superiors with their subordinates, as this creates some discomfort when generating corrections and even dismissals within the couple. Likewise, the inability to separate conjugal or marital life from work responsibility that some people present, which impacts the climate of the organization and therefore affects a group outside of the couple's own experiences.
In a practical and objective sense, the few examples mentioned seem sufficient for some companies to assume that it is not productive to have formal sentimental relationships in their staff or not, that involve team members, reaching the point of requesting the withdrawal of any of the parties when such an undesirable event occurs. But that's how it is?
When observing organizations as rigid entities and alien to human behavior, the previous thought fits perfectly, because in it the emotional principle that characterizes man is denied and therefore a love that is not directed to work does not fit in the concept that is have of the company. But the reality is different, the human being is 100% emotional, to the point that his intelligence is affected by his emotions and vice versa, and assuming that he cannot rationally express his feelings is an irrational denial of his human condition. By assuming that the existence of partners in a company is an unacceptable situation, it is irresponsibly forgotten that many of the successful organizations were formed from family groups.
It is easy to arrive at that statement. People spend most of their lives working, the time dedicated to work usually exceeds the minimum recommended for social recreation, when will the individual be able to satisfy their needs for affection, esteem and self-fulfillment? During the rest period? The answer to this last question is no.
Those intrinsic needs in the human being make their way in whatever conditions prevail and, even against the policies, they will appear in companies naturally and spontaneously, claiming their space. So why should it be judged negative for organizations if they are a natural fact?
In most cases where complicity on the part of existing couples in a particular area has been discovered or fraud has been discovered, beyond the obvious responsibility of the intellectual and / or material authors, the absence of controls, Policies and regulations has been the main cause, since the absence of ethical and moral values in those who dare to scam the company also seems to be a striking feature. The question is what step in the selection process? Were such deviations not detected?
Therefore, it does not seem entirely serious to assign all the responsibility to the couples regarding the possibilities of fraud, fraud or fraud in a company.
Relationships in organizations are a normal consequence of work activity, the individual shares and coexists more in the company than in any other place and therefore it is more feasible for them to find sentimental coincidences in that environment than in another practically alien.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to observe the generation of couples from the point of view of the identification and selection process of the individual. If companies have a certain profile, where they have established the level of expectations, intellectual development, skills and talents of high invoice and ideal conditions for their employees, are not these people attractive enough to form a couple?
Therefore, instead of observing the formation of couples as a calamity within organizations, companies should worry about generating policies that do not intend to prevent their existence or regulate the emotions they generate, but if the ideal working conditions to maintain the balance within the company, thereby providing the clear rules of the game. Likewise, they must devise controls and sub-controls that guarantee that, regardless of who performs it, the transparency of the processes and their correct flow.
Now, regarding the sentimental relationship between bosses and subordinates, it seems that the panorama changes significantly. As a boss, it is difficult to maintain objectivity with a subordinate with whom you share your love life, the same happens with a subordinate who experiences a relationship with his superior, and that is obvious, no matter how professional the individual is, feelings tend to impose itself, it is worth remembering what was stated above when it was said that the human being was predominantly emotional. In these cases it is not necessary to observe the sentimental expression as a horrendous fact worthy of censure, of course, as long as there is interest on both sides in the relationship; It is also a natural and spontaneous fact that a person, regardless of their status in a company,falls in love with another of lower or higher rank. In situations like these it is prudent to move the subordinate, or the supervisor, to a different area, all to ensure objectivity.
Finally, it is necessary to comment that the attitude of one of the parties can be classified as irresponsible because it generates in the other the same feeling of attraction that it possesses, as well as the use of influence or power to achieve such objectives, in Situations like these where the feeling is not shared and what is intended is to force the relationship, companies need to have planned the necessary corrections in their partner policies, but they also need to be responsible enough to differentiate the unilateral but not malicious attempt to conquer a partner in the work environment of sexual harassment provided for in the legislation.
People have the right to unite as couples, this may or may not occur within the limits of a company, obviously they must maintain a conduct adjusted to morals and good customs, avoiding lewd acts and improper expressions within the work environment and maintaining their professional approach, as it is obvious to assume that their status as a couple does not prevent them from a dignified and high-quality exercise. And for their part, companies should not ignore the characteristics of the individual and the conditions that they themselves generate and that somehow activate the search for substitutes that compensate for the absence of social life that their employees experience.
