Representative image of co-workers in an office.
Credit: iStock Photo
While working in a company, Naresh (Name changed) was highly adored for his business excellence. Having earned new feathers in his crown, he intended to make good friends in the office but did not know the importance of a healthy space between the relationships.
As the pursuit of socialisation continued in the office, Naresh started revealing his vulnerabilities without thinking about the repercussions. Meanwhile, his colleagues started unfurling their expectations and transferred their office obligations to him. Some expected him to provide business leads and complete their responsibilities during their absence.
Delegated responsibilities started mounting on Naresh, obstructing him from focusing on his job. Meanwhile, Naresh’s spatial communication (physical space between people during face-to-face communication) with his female colleagues was problematic. He never realised that he breached their personal space during the workplace conversations. This added fuel to the dilapidating interpersonal relationships at the workplace.
Once, Naresh had a medical exigency that coincided with an appointment with a high-networth customer. He approached his presumed close colleagues for help. However, his colleagues refused to help, citing their work commitments. A disappointed Naresh started becoming judgmental about his colleagues.
The insights from this example are intricately linked to the prudence of workplace relationships.
Do people expose their fragilities if they become intimate in the workplace?
Is it crucial to maintain a healthy space between workplace relationships?
Do expectations germinate if there is no space between the relationships at the workplace?
Do intimate relationships at work germinate obsessive behaviours?
The workplace is a nexus of sophisticated interpersonal relationships, and these relationships have their sanctity, complexity and perimeter. Interpersonal conflicts arise when there is a conscious or unconscious breach. Besides, people at the workplace sometimes ignore the subtle dynamics of interpersonal relationships, which results in serious future consequences.
Psychology of proxemics
The term proxemics was coined by Edward T Hall (1969) to study people’s general spatial behaviours while interacting with others. According to personality psychology, proxemics is classified into four types based on the space people maintain when interacting. The intimate perimeter (less than 18 inches), personal perimeter (1.5 feet to 4 feet), social perimeter (4 feet to 12 feet), and public/stranger perimeter (more than 12 feet).
It is inferred that these spatial behaviours are unconsciously hardwired into the brain based on the nature of the relationship, and these spatial behaviours differ in various communities or nationalities (Robert E. Rakel, 2012). As contemporary workplaces are characterised by a diversified workforce belonging to various generations, nationalities, and creeds, it becomes very critical to understand the preferred perimeters.
Besides, defining the emotional perimeter among the relationships is imperative as it may interfere with physical proxemics at the workplace. The example here reflects that the individuals may have their own defined emotional/physical perimeters, the breach of which may not be appreciated.
Social exchange theory
A socio-psychological theory elaborates on relational exchange behaviours between people when they enter a relationship. In general, interpersonal relationships in the workplace are based on the perspective of reward-cost and people have an unspoken matrix of cost-benefit from each relationship. Regarding workplace relationships, psychologists believe it is a healthy sign if the workplace relationship is based on reciprocal benefits with a defined perimeter or space between them.
However, building personal affairs or intimacy in workplace relationships may disturb the ecosystem and give rise to quixotic expectations. Usually, these quixotic expectations may not meet the standards of the cost-benefit formula.
Relationships and possessiveness
Interpersonal dynamics at the workplace work on the peripheral levels with no serious liabilities. Positive relationships add value to the work life, while possessive relationships become suffocating.
According to a recent study by an HR consultant company (DavidsonMorris, 2021), people spend approximately 90,000 working hours in their lifetime, and they tend to develop intimate relationships at the workplace, which leads to many psychological concerns. The study implies that the ‘work spouse’ mindset has been widely cultivated due to this intimacy.
According to the American Psychological Association (APA), people who are in intimate relationships (sometimes romantic) may display the symptoms of R-OCD (Relationship–obsessive compulsive disorder) wherein people experience feelings of insecurity, jealousy, and anxiety. These can contaminate the workplace ecosystem.
Besides, the people engaged in intimate relationships are susceptible to revealing their vulnerabilities to the other party. However, the other party may not be mentally equipped to accept the weakness. Consequently, the relationship may be damaged or cease to exist.
Based on the study's comprehensive analysis, the following insights may help cultivate rewarding and long-term workplace relationships.
Respecting each other personal space (proxemics) in the relationship.
Positive workplace relationships are more rewarding than intimate relationships.
Identify the emotional proxemics of the people during the behavioural transactions.
Avoiding personal expectations from the relationship.
Accepting the behavioural differences or preferences in the workplace.
The workplace relationship may be based on reciprocal benefits for the people involved.
Relationships at work thrive when they are mindfully nurtured.