Faculty affairs

[facultyfinder]

Has anyone had any experience of a manager having an affair with one of their junior members of staff (Lecturer level)?

Manager is well-known as a flirt and favours particular people in the department already. It’s an uncomfortable combination as it creates divisions and cliques, especially when it comes to handing out tasks that need doing, etc. Manager also has form for playing power games.

It’s now come to light that they are in a relationship (both have broken up with their existing partners). HR have already been informed apparently.

The problem is though that they have decided to selectively disclose to various dept members but not others. Those disclosed to (‘in the know’) feel compromised as others don’t know and they’ve been told not to say anything. Those not disclosed to (but of course some of these know anyway through the gossip mill) are wondering why they’ve not been told.

I know such relationships are not a new thing but the management of disclosure seems to have been poorly handled here. I also know that some people might say ‘it’s up to them’ whom they tell. But this neglects the backdrop of game playing, and manipulative strategising on the part of the manager to date. It ignores the context of unequal power relations between the manager and their staff and that they have shown themselves to have favourites in the past. It also doesn’t take into account that the junior member of staff is not being honest interactionally with their colleagues who may not know that they have a direct line to the manager. I DO know and as such am now very wary of what I say to that lecturer. Others don’t necessarily know and it all seems disingenuous and unnecessary. If they’d told everyone around the same time, it would have been today’s fish n chip paper by now. As it is, it’s created division, cliques and distrust.

If there’s nothing in their contracts prohibiting relationships between different levels of staff there isn’t anything you can do. What do you want to happen? They might only need to tell certain members of staff who have seniority and not others. You also don’t know for sure if they were having an affair. Did they disclose it to you as you didn’t say? I seems the main issue is that you feel left out of the gossip train if not.

So inappropriate and very wrong for faculty who don't know especially if it's not obvious they are, at least, close friends. I don't think it's correct to say it's no-one else's business given the power dynamics and I'd be surprised if HR didn't have any guidelines on this.

I’ve heard it from two people who were told and have felt uncomfortable they knew and their colleagues didn’t. These people weren’t disclosing it for gossiping sake but because they didn’t agree with the divisive impact incremental disclosure was having on the team. I’m not one for departmental gossip as it’s tedious and boring but the selective disclosure by those in the relationship has only served to heighten the gossip. Their disclosure was not linked to senior staff only, no.

Well it seems like yes you are very much apart of departmental gossip. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t listen to it.

You’re missing the point. I do care about the department becoming split as I don’t think that is productive for anybody. I don’t care who shags who unless it has a detrimental impact on team cohesion, trust and effective working relations.

I’m not missing the point. I just don’t agree with you. If you’re posting a thread not everyone is going to agree with you, which you have to accept. Otherwise, don’t post on a public forum where people are going to give their opinion.

Sounds to me that the manager more generally is the problem, not the specific relationship.

If it's not a coerced sexually abusive relationship (eg sleep with me & you'll be promoted) then I don't think there's anything you can - or more importantly - should do. People are allowed to have their private lives, and sometimes always universities are gossip cauldrons.

I work at a university where, because of its location, there are a lot of couples employed. They've either moved for one or other's job, or they've met at the university. Many many people meet their spouse/partner in their workplace. Usually the women don't change their names so you don't automatically know that X is married to Y. Doesn't bother me - I worked closely with people who's spouse is also someone I also work with. It's to do with the person, not the relationship.

I think you just have to keep your nose out of other people's private lives (we get little enough of that sort of privacy at a university), unless there are unfair or corrupt practices for which you have documentary evidence.

My university prohibits personal relationships where one person has supervision of or power over the other.

So if the junior were now managed by someone else, it would be less serious than relationships where this manager retains the power to indulge his (or her) favouritism. The solution would be to maintain strictly correct relations with the junior partner and to think of the relationship as just one more piece of a badly functioning workplace.

If the junior partner is still being managed by the senior, that would be a huge breach of good practice. Not sure what’s to be done, however, unless there is serious evidence of favouritism and a large number of senior colleagues are willing to attest to it.

Just tell everybody? You haven't been told/asked not to. It would just be normal chitchat amongst any group of colleagues. Nothing judgmental, nothing anxious. Just "isn't it nice that X and Y are so sweet on each other, just adorable". Nobody's going to get hurt if the 3rd parties (a) don't work there and (b) have already been told their relationship is over. If anyone asks are you sure/how do you know, the answer is always "it looks that way to me. Much nicer than meeting someone online, isn't it?". It is completely normal to know stuff about colleagues' private lives when it intersects with the workplace. You have no duty to collude in keeping a rather silly "secret" when it's not a secret because some people have been informed.