At Workplace Fairness, we believe in a number of principles that we think make workplaces better: ensuring workers have adequate pay, benefits and health care, for example. But every once in a while, an idea comes along that is so basic that we wish we had thought of it first. Sometimes it’s just a matter of terminology. In a book released this month, author Robert I. Sutton articulates a principle we all believe in, even if it’s not a word we have typically used (at least not publicly, anyway) to describe that principle. We think that most workers, and an increasing number of employers (at whom Sutton’s work is directed), will agree that workplaces should have a “No-Asshole Rule.”

I can’t wait to read Dr. Sutton’s new book, The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. But in listening to his shorter description of the principle, it’s clear that it gives everyone, whether an employee or a manager, something to think about. As one blog commenter notes, “Those of us who enjoy healthy work environments tend to forget that others don’t have the same luxury, and spend most of their lives surrounded by bullies, creeps, jerks, weasels, tormentors, tyrants — assholes, in other words, who should be fired without second thought.” (See The Busybody.)

If you’re offended by the language Sutton uses, here’s what he has to say about it: “other words are simply inferior for describing how persistently demeaning people act and, especially, the feelings they unleash in their victims.” (See Robert Sutton’s blog: Work Matters.) Simply put, when Sutton uses the word “asshole,” everyone knows what (and who) he’s talking about. If you look at the list quoted in the previous paragraph, you’ll most likely conclude that no other word packs the same punch. (Sutton had to change publishers when he got ready to publish this book, since the Harvard Business School Press, who publishes his other books, wanted him to change the title. To his credit, he refused and found another publisher.)

A summary of the book’s principles includes seven lessons about the no-asshole rule. (See American Lawyer article.)

1. A few demeaning creeps can overwhelm the warm feelings generated by hordes of civilized people.

Basically, it doesn’t matter if most people involved with an organization are well-meaning or that a strong organizational structure is already in place. Sutton argues that even one or a handful of jerks can poison the experience for everyone else: that negative interactions have five times the effect on mood as positive interactions. So, he argues, “the first things that you need to do are screen out, reform, and expel all the assholes in your workplace.”

2. Talking about the rule is nice, but following up on it is what really matters.

If you’re going to have the rule, you have to enforce it. Sutton says, “Announcing a ‘no jerks allowed’ rule, talking about being ‘warm and friendly,’ or displaying a ‘no bozos’ poster is nice. But all those words are meaningless or worse if they don’t truly guide people in changing their behavior.” Even worse, the rule can be used against those who fail to rid themselves of the jerks in their midst — Sutton cites the example of a law firm who purported to have such a rule, then faced bad press when an attorney accused of sexual harassment was promoted to a senior position. Perhaps the rule should be expanded to exclude hypocrites as well.

3. The rule lives-or dies-in the little moments.

The devil’s in the details, as Sutton reminds us: “Having all the right business philosophies and management practices to support the no-asshole rule is useless unless you treat the person right in front of you, right now, in the right way.” It’s important to have what Sutton calls “asshole management intervention,” which teaches people how to reflect on and to change the little nasty things that they do, like glaring at people and treating them as if they were invisible. Here’s a list of those little nasty things, courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle:

• Personal insults
• Invading one’s personal territory
• Uninvited personal contact
• Threats and intimidation, both verbal and nonverbal
• Sarcastic jokes and teasing used as insult delivery systems
• Withering e-mail flames
• Status slaps intended to humiliate their victims
• Public shaming or status-degradation rituals
• Rude interruptions
• Two-faced attacks
• Dirty looks
• Treating people as if they are invisible

4. Should you keep a few assholes around?

With Valentine’s Day upon us, it’s the time of year where those of us who follow workplace trends are faced with reading a plethora of articles about workplace romance. To save you some time, here’s how most of these articles can be summed up: 1) Workplace romance: it happens, but it can be a bad idea; 2) Don’t let it end badly or try to date someone you supervise; 3) Having a “work spouse” can be a good idea; 4) There are actually articles which rate a job’s “sexiness;” and 5) What are those people “doing it” at work thinking?

In case you don’t believe me, here are some of the articles that reach these conclusions.

Romance at Work: Because we all spend so much time at work, and are often attracted to people who share common interests or experiences, it only makes sense that work is one of the best places to meet someone. According to the recently released 2007 Office Romance Survey by Vault.com, 47% of workers have been involved in an office romance. Another expert says that 22% of office romances have led to marriage. (See CNN Money article.) That’s a lot of people — too many for HR staff and managers to duck their heads in the sand and wish the potential problems from workplace romances would just go away. Companies that try to prevent workplace romances entirely are going to find themselves in much the same position as the parents of teenagers who try to control who their kids date: in most cases, it’s going to happen anyway, and trying to forbid it makes the temptation all the more stronger.

When It’s a Bad Idea: One pessimistic expert says, “It’s been rare that I’ve seen something good come out of” an office romance (see Huntsville Times article), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen. Instead of trying to prevent workplace romances, which according to Vault survey participants, only a small number of employers (16%) are trying to do, it’s best to focus on what are most likely to be the disruptive elements of office relationships, and to craft policies that attempt to head off the most serious concerns. The most serious concern that companies have is facing sexual harassment charges as a result of a workplace romance gone bad, either because of the relative status of the parties, or because one party seeks to continue the relationship after the other party wishes to end it. (See Newswise article.) Some companies are even asking their employees who date to sign “love contracts,” or “consensual relationship agreements,” in the hopes that documenting the consensual nature of the relationship will help if there are future problems. (See Los Angeles Times article.)

Other concerns are the effect on morale if someone is playing favorites to protect his or her paramour, and addressing the moral concerns of fellow employees when someone is having an extramarital affair. (See Newswise article.) One article has a few basic rules to live by: 1) Don’t mix business and pleasure; 2) Know your company’s policy on office romance; and 3) Keep cuddling out of the copy room. (See CNN Money article.) While the rules sound pretty basic, not violating them will go a long way towards preserving your ability to pursue a workplace romance until it’s clear whether it’s something that could potentially mean more to you than your career.

Work Spouses: While not everyone meets their real-life spouse or romantic partner at work, there are an increasing number of people who have what is termed a “work spouse,” or as reporter Amy Joyce calls them, “your strictly platonic, cubicle-sharing, sentence-finishing colleague.” (See Washington Post article.) As Tom Rath of the Gallup Organization has found, “Having a work spouse is not only a good thing, but it might be a prerequisite for good work.” Rath’s research shows that “work spouses (the platonic kind) increase productivity and heighten morale.” You’re seven times more likely to be engaged at work, more excited to show up to work, and more likely to get work done. Your work relationship increases speed in communication, as you don’t have to take so long to explain something. (See Washington Post article.) As Joyce’s article points out, “It’s a natural thing, mostly,” but something that more workplaces should be trying to foster, not forbid.

“Sexy Jobs”: From the relatively serious to mostly frivolous: my Yahoo! home page greeted me recently with an article on which jobs were considered the sexiest. They say that sex sells, so I thought I would throw it in here. In case you were wondering, here’s the top 10 list:

• fireman (I would change the language to firefighter, but are only firemen considered sexy by survey respondents?)
• chief executive
• interior designer
• doctor
• flight attendant
• police officer
• nurse
• teacher
• lawyer
• bartender and reporter (tie).

Sex at Work: And while we’re on the topic of sex, another very interesting finding in this year’s Vault.com survey: 17% of employees confess to being caught trysting at work, up from just 2% last year. Employees reported being discovered in the board room, engineering lab, stairwell, and office kitchen during their workplace rendezvous. Okay, what were they thinking? (Well, we probably know what they were thinking, or at least what they were thinking with, but that still doesn’t make it a good idea.) One thing the survey didn’t report was how many employees were fired after having been caught in flagrante delicto, but I would imagine that number is probably pretty close to 17%. While employees can count on the Workplace Fairness website for all kinds of assistance when terminated unfairly, in this case, you may be on your own.

How about just taking a nap? I hear it’s good for you. (See Sun-Sentinel article.)

This past week, the DC Court of Appeals upheld the ability of workers to fraternize. It’s a rather quaint word — fraternize — and you might even be forgiven for thinking it has something to do with the rowdy behavior in which some college-age men engage. But actually, it’s something that can — and should — be engaged in by everyone old enough to work: talking to your fellow employees about your workplace conditions, and how they can be made better. Some employers might be threatened by that, but perhaps they should be, if the possibility of employees sharing information has the potential to scare them so much. And the ability to have a tasty beverage and develop stronger social relationships with your coworkers while you’re doing it isn’t half bad either.

When this case last made news, in August 2005, the National Labor Relations Board had just ruled that a policy which made it against the rules for Guardsmark‘s security guards to “fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client’s employees or with co-employees,” was legal. See Not Even On Your Own Time. The decision meant that employee Daniel Higgins, could be fired for “leaving his post unattended and becoming too friendly with some of the other employees.” The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), had challenged Higgins’ termination, arguing that Guardmark’s provision discouraged workers from exercising their right to “self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations…and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection…” as guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Although a 2-1 majority (guess which way this Administration’s appointees voted?) ruled in Guardsmark’s favor, the dissent actually foreshadowed the most recent ruling. Board member Wilma B. Liebman, pointed out:

Here, a reasonable employee certainly could understand the Respondent’ rule to sweep much more broadly than prohibiting only personal entanglements with clients and coworkers. The rule already bars dating and becoming “overly friendly” with those individuals, so a reasonable employee might well conclude that the prohibition on fraternizing must apply to something else….The primary meaning of the term “fraternize,” in turn, is “to associate in a brotherly manner,” Webster’s New World Dictionary 555 (2d ed. 1984), and that kind of association is the essence of workplace solidarity.

Now it was the DC Circuit (the court to which the NLRB decision could be appealed) who would tackle the meaning of “fraternization.” (See Guardsmark v. NLRB.) First, the Court cited the dissent language mentioned above, making clear that it agreed with Board Member Liebman. Then it consulted no less than seven dictionaries to see if the definitions of fraternization used would shed any more light on the subject. Although the dictionary definitions varied slightly from one another, there was enough of a consensus on the definition for employees to reasonably conclude that a rule prohibiting “fraternization” would prevent them from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment with each other. That would violate the National Labor Relations Act.

The upshot is that while Guardsmark could prevent its guards from engaging in purely social activity, such as dating, it could not prevent “fraternizing,” since that could reasonably be understood to prevent talking about work during social events. If, for example, Guardsmark could prove that employees were engaged in purely social activities, they might have a chance to restrict that (although there’s a slim change of doing that: at most gatherings of coworkers I’ve been to, it takes quite a bit of time and/or alcohol consumption before people unwind enough to stop talking about work, and some people can’t seem to talk about anything else.)

This case also serves as an important reminder that the rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act are not just for union members. While the cases often arise in the context of union organizing efforts, even if you’re not a member of a union, you have the right to fraternize; i.e., to “to associate or sympathize with as a brother or as brothers (or sisters, to keep it gender-balanced)” (Oxford English Dictionary); “be on friendly terms” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary); or my personal favorite: “engage in comradely social discourse” (American Heritage Dictionary).

And if you’re not doing that already, you’re probably missing out — and so is your employer. One workplace commentator notes:

Statistics show that many of us spend more of our waking hours at work than at home, so it makes sense that our work relationships sometimes morph into those resembling familial ones….Familial relationships are inevitable in any workplace. Fortunately, having a diverse mix of characters in your work family can be beneficial-it can bring depth and color to your organization.

(See Boston Globe article.) A recent Gallup poll found the following:

People who have a best friend at work are seven times more likely to be engaged in their job. They get more done in less time. They also have fewer accidents, have more engaged customers and are more likely to innovate and share new ideas.

(See USA Today article.) That’s the kind of employee everyone should want to be — and what employer wouldn’t want employees who are more engaged, productive and innovative? Obviously, friendships can’t be forced, and it’s perfectly possible to do a stellar job at work without fraternizing with your coworkers. But if you’re resisting making friendships at work just because you think it’s not a good idea or will interfere with your work, then perhaps it’s time to rethink that. And if it’s the result of a policy your employer has against it, then it’s certainly time for your employer to rethink that, based upon the Guardsmark decision.