I used to work for a company that had that policy in place because of one couple who abused it many years before. It came up again when another couple met there and decided to get married. When the company looked at the old policy, they realized that because no one had questioned it up to this point, it had fallen into the "just because that's the way we've always done it" barrel, and didn't make much sense anymore.
The policy was rewritten to allow co-workers to marry if neither supervised the other.
I don't have a judgment on any companies who have this policy - I just think it's an invitation to have a heart-felt conversation (as is nearly every situation which concerns us). If we can create a true dialogue opportunity (suspending assumptions for the purpose of learning something), I think both parties can benefit greatly.
I think it comes down to intention in the communication. Is the intention to make the company wrong? Or is the intention to create a dialogue? Depending upon intention, I can't see how this can be anything but a win/win situation!
Best wishes!
I think a blanket policy against married couples working for the same company is often a mistake.
It potentially deprives the company of two great contributors, and I think it fails to follow the principles of servant-leadership (specifically: empathy, listening carefully, helping others grow, creating a community within the organization).
I have had several married couples in my organizations and suffered no ill effects. Indeed, since many of my businesses have been large industrial operations in rural areas, a prohibition on married folks working in the same company would have made it much harder to attract and retain good people. And my wife and I were fortunate enough to meet while working for a company that did not discourage married co-workers.
Although I would not have a rule against married couples working in the same company, I would use common sense. It might not be too smart, for example, to have a married couple in positions that might allow them to circumvent normal financial controls. But I would deal with each case on its own merits, not promulgate a blanket rule.
Commenting by HaloScan
