Recently, conversations have been dominated by workplace romances and acceptable boundaries—including communications with colleagues or acquaintances.
Let’s discuss this.
Recently, conversations have been dominated by workplace romances and acceptable boundaries—including communications with colleagues or acquaintances.
Let’s discuss this.
They violated two taboos at once:
- First, they entered into a relationship while both were married.
- Second, they broke workplace hierarchy: this wasn’t just a romance but a relationship between a manager and subordinate.
By capturing just six seconds of their lives, the camera wordlessly conveyed a range of emotions—confusion, and fear, as their first reaction was to hide. This triggered a wave of reposts and moralizing.
There’s nothing reprehensible about romances, including workplace ones. Statistics show that about 30% of employed people start relationships with colleagues—where else would you meet and form couples if not where you spend a third of your life? And 10% of these relationships end in marriage (I also met my wife at work—we’ve been married for 11 years).
But in the case of Astronomer’s CEO and HRD, we’re talking about a manager-subordinate relationship, which is taboo everywhere—not just in large corporations, but also in government agencies and many other places. Plus, they’re both married to other people and publicly portray themselves as happily married. In other words, they’re seen as hypocritical by outraged observers.
That’s why there was such a social «outcry» based on public shame, echoes of which still reach us. This «outcry» inflicted career trauma on both of them, but especially on Andy Byron, because for any top manager, this is a public blow to their reputation. It knocks down two career foundations at once:
These are the consequences of losing internal authority and investor trust.
Christine is a woman—and also a subordinate, which makes her the «victim» in this story: society always places responsibility on the person who is senior, including in hierarchy. She will easily find work in a company where the HRD position isn’t so public.
But for a CEO who found himself in such a situation, it’s not enviable: his name carries a toxic trail in Google search results. And large corporations, venture funds, and investors don’t tolerate reputational risks. So there’s a high probability that this very rich and successful man will likely only be able to return to the industry or continue his corporate career through his own ventures, niche startups—and without a presence on public boards.
Yes—in international corporations that extend their corporate policies and standards to Belarusian offices. And I know several local companies whose owners or shareholders have bothered to develop ethical codes.
But importantly, you won’t find direct prohibitions on relationships between colleagues in these policies.
And there’s also no mention that married employees should be cautious about romances (although our country is so conservative that we Belarusians hardly need documents to tell us this isn’t the norm). Most often, companies don’t taboo relationships between employees who don’t have direct reporting to each other.
What they fear is abuse of power, that a couple might become a «clique» that, given access to resources, will extract personal benefit and cover for each other. But usually nothing beyond that.
Belarusian companies vary, actually. I’ve encountered companies that had such policies (typically branches of international corporations), and companies where nobody cared. But overall, this approach is more characteristic of Western, especially American companies.
Companies with such policies usually inform employees about them just like any other policy. Typically, there’s a Code of Conduct that every employee signs.
Irina Vishnevskaya: Typically, if there’s a Code of Conduct, it prescribes notifying the company about romantic relationships, but I haven’t seen such requirements for friendships.
Alexey Nemkovich: Well, let’s proceed from general moral and ethical norms: first of all, what’s not OK and toxic is a romance between people who aren’t single, because that’s hypocrisy.
A romance between two single employees, whether they’re juniors or mid-levels, is OK: neither society nor corporations taboo such relationships because there’s nothing reprehensible about them.
However, relationships between two top managers, as well as between a manager and subordinate, already have a reduced reputation coefficient.
Other people in such cases often seem to «re-evaluate» their achievements: «uh-huh, I understand why she got a bonus,» «right, I see why he was promoted,» «another day off—of course…» There will always be those who think that all this is the result of close relationships, not professional merit. That’s the problem.
In the United States and Europe, it’s customary to formally notify your company’s management that you’ve started a relationship with someone—and if you’re in a reporting relationship with your partner, one of you will be transferred to another department/office and so on—to prevent any risk of abuse.
I can’t say if such practice is common here.
Irina Vishnevskaya: There are many variations: some places prohibit any romantic relationships, while others only ban relationships between managers and subordinates, or in cases where there might be grounds for abuse (for example, between a CEO and chief accountant).
I think a reasonable criterion here could be the absence of direct professional or positional dependence of one relationship participant on the other. Where one assigns tasks to the other or can influence promotion or finances.
Two employees of the same level? OK. A team leader and a junior from another team? OK. Department head and their subordinate? Oh, here there might be questions—is it truly voluntary on both sides? Will there definitely be no unfair actions like undeserved promotions, bonuses, etc.?
And these are just the direct risks for the company. There are also indirect ones. We live in a time when unethical actions by employees can lead to company «cancellation.» I think it’s not hard for anyone to recall scandals involving accusations that famous companies fostered an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment and did nothing to address it. And as a result—million-dollar lawsuits.
Irina Vishnevskaya: I can name two:
Alexey Nemkovich: It’s very simple: unacceptable is anything that’s unacceptable to the object of your attention.
Each person establishes their own boundaries: some don’t mind harmless jokes and friendly trolling, light flirting, while others are uncomfortable even with a lingering gaze. The boundaries of what’s allowed are typically established by the ethical norms accepted in a specific cultural environment—but sometimes you might hear from a specific person: «I find this unpleasant,"—and these words should be taken seriously.
Irina Vishnevskaya: The Western approach to unacceptable behavior in a company usually sounds like «including, but not limited to.» We can identify the main types of unacceptable behavior:
But overall, the same actions can be viewed as both acceptable and unacceptable (though there are clearly some that are unequivocally unacceptable).
There’s one main rule—for these actions to be considered harassment and unacceptable behavior, they must be repeated after a direct request not to continue them. That is, for example, if your colleague asked you not to tell her crude jokes or not to put your arm around her shoulders, and you still do it—that’s harassment.
Alexey Nemkovich: Well, because such content can only be exchanged between people who are in a close relationship, and then anything both consider normal is possible. If you don’t have a close relationship with a colleague or business partner, then nudes in DMs are completely unacceptable.
And yes, there’s criminal liability for producing and distributing pornography—worth considering that a colleague or business partner might view unsolicited photos and videos in private messages this way, since they didn’t ask for them.
(And I’d like to add a footnote: I’ve long limited my social media presence, only remaining on LinkedIn—so I’m not completely up to date with the news. I’ve only heard echoes.)
Irina Vishnevskaya: To clarify, what’s not OK is unsolicited erotic content. People generally exchange erotic content and enjoy it, but as with any other erotic/romantic actions, consent is important. If both parties (of legal age) consciously agreed to receive and send such content, in my view, that’s fine.
In short, if you want to send the most attractive parts of your anatomy (or someone else’s)—make sure you and the other person are on the same page and share the same understanding. And if you have doubts—ask: «would you mind?»
This applies to any other actions of a sexual nature. This way you’ll minimize the risks of criminal prosecution and public condemnation.
Alexey Nemkovich: During my career, I’ve been involved in personnel security at two large companies. There, women approached me several times—asking me to have preventive conversations with colleagues who were too openly expressing their attraction.
My intervention was usually limited to a conversation—a sort of talk between an older and younger comrade. But afterward, the person clearly understood that they weren’t playing a game where «no» means «maybe later» or «probably, but not today.» «No» means «no,» a refusal.
Now I consult many top managers. And sometimes they ask for advice on how to properly respond to advances from a business owner (or someone higher in the hierarchy)—while maintaining good relationships. We discuss how to clearly, unambiguously, but amicably establish boundaries so that the person making the advances can adjust their behavior and preserve their reputation.
People always fear publicity. So in some cases, a direct conversation or a tactful letter might be the solution. Also, a good option is to approach someone with whom you have friendly relations on the team (and you’re sure they won’t reveal your secret), so they can talk to the person you can’t—and clarify things.
And yes—you can go to the HR department, as this is their direct responsibility.
Irina Vishnevskaya: Unfortunately, in the post-Soviet space, there are practically no practices for investigating such violations.
And most often, such complaints can actually harm the person who became the victim of such a violation. And management and even HR professionals tend to find such complaints irritating and annoying, because the person has made public something that shouldn’t have been publicized.
As for consequences… Honestly, the maximum I’ve heard about is quiet termination, when the situation really couldn’t be ignored.
In American culture, there are entire protocols for how HR departments respond to such situations.
Often, the investigation of such incidents isn’t handled by internal specialists, but by external companies whose business is specifically related to this. That is, unbiased external specialists come in and conduct an investigation—interviewing parties and witnesses, reviewing camera footage, examining whether the parties were involved in such incidents in the past. And here, the spectrum of consequences can range from demotion or termination to legal proceedings and huge compensations.
Here are a few stories from IT professionals about how they acted when colleagues showed them too much attention—and grossly violated boundaries.
—In one of the companies where I worked, romantic relationships between colleagues weren’t prohibited. But once, our team lead—responding to an intern’s comment that the company’s men were «all handsome,» noted that he personally didn’t approve of workplace romances: saying that during work, «the mind should be clear.»
And then we went on a business trip with him—and he started banging on my hotel room door at 1:30 AM. When I opened, he barged in and tried to kiss me. I protested (I regret not slapping him), and he replied that this was «non-working time.»
The next day, he made an unconvincing attempt to justify himself (but not apologize). According to him, I was «sending signals,» and he «might have misinterpreted them.» He offered to transfer me to another team because «it would be difficult for us to work together—you’re clearly negatively disposed.» But then I was given to understand that my contract was ending soon—and I should look for another job. I told him exactly what I thought about this. And he replied that he had acted «normally»: he had warned me in advance and given me time to search.
I didn’t complain to HR. I once overheard them «gossiping» about someone and decided I didn’t want them discussing me. I found a job in 3 weeks (and even got a 1,5x salary increase) and left before my contract expired.
If you ask how I feel about bans on workplace relationships, I’ll say they don’t prevent building strong families when single people fall in love. I’ve observed such cases—and typically, one of the lovers would transfer to another department/division or change jobs. But I hope they do prevent married «wanderers» (like my team lead) from hitting on colleagues and seeing invitations where there are none.
—I worked at a large IT company, a High-Tech Park resident (Belarus staff at that time was 100+ people). We had no official ban on workplace romances—but colleagues shared informally that «relationships between employees are not encouraged.»
Why? They said that management was prejudiced against workplace romances because, statistically, when relationships end, one of the pair leaves for another job—they can’t work with their ex. And we had great developers—and management didn’t want to lose highly valuable talent.
Does this mean there were no romances in the workplace? Not at all, colleagues just hid and were secretive. Sometimes not very successfully.
What’s funny: it was mainly married, not single guys who showed attention to colleagues. I was hit on twice—very unceremoniously, which annoyed me, and I complained about these colleagues' behavior to HR: I just went to the HR department and told it like it was. I don’t know what they did, but those two stopped harassing me.
Of course, I would have liked an apology too, but no—there was none.
* Names of speakers changed at their request.
Do you have anything to say on this topic?
