Image reportedly of Lord Sewel in a bra and leather jacket published by British media outlet The Sun. Photo: The Sun
I'm almost certainly in the minority, but I felt a little sorry for Lord Sewel last week. He was the British parliamentarian allegedly caught on camera taking drugs, cavorting with prostitutes, and wearing an orange bra and female jacket. He subsequently resigned from his prestigious political post.
That he was forced to do so seems somewhat unfair. Sure, there was the illegal act of drug consumption (which even 100,000 law enforcement professionals declare should actually be legal). That aside, even if illicit substances weren't involved, it's fair to assume the lewd pictures of Lord Sewel would have been made public regardless, thereby destroying his illustrious career.
I couldn't care less if an employee wears an orange bra and a female jacket in a hotel room.
It raises an important question that extends beyond politics and into the workplace: to what extent should an individual's personal life remain private? Put another way, what right does an employer have to know what employees do in their spare time and to then judge them harshly for it?
There seem to be two sides to this argument. The pro-employee position suggests only one thing matters and that is how people perform on the job. Whether they see sex workers or cross-dress or take party drugs or worship Satan should be irrelevant. Performance appraisals, in other words, are about what happens within the confines of the workplace rather than outside of it.
The alternative argument is the pro-employer one. This suggests that what people get up to in their own time is a reflection of the person they are – and the person they are influences their ethics, values, reputation and other factors that may affect their work. This explains why religious institutions are still allowed to discriminate against employees they suspect may be gay or divorced.
Which leads me to an incident I experienced late last year. I'd had several meetings with a potential client, the culmination of which resulted in a decision to proceed with a series of engagements. All that was left was payment of the invoice. Except, at the end of the third meeting, the executive asked if I had a wife or a girlfriend. "No, a boyfriend," I replied in a friendly and relaxed manner.
Suddenly, emails and phone calls went unreturned. And when I arrived for another planning session, which had been scheduled in advance, the executive didn't turn up. Almost nine months later, I'm yet to hear from him. Of course, his non-responsiveness may be totally unrelated to the earlier conversation, but still … It's a curious coincidence.
So let's look at what the research has to say. Two years ago, a quartet of professors led by the University of Washington identified, for the first time, two types of negative behaviours employees engage in outside of work. Published in the Organizational Psychology Review, an academic journal, these behaviours are perceived to have a deleterious effect on an organisation's image.
The first is referred to as 'destructive' behaviour. One of the most prominent examples can be seen in the employee who posts critical comments about their employer on social media. Another is when a member of a high-profile institution, such as a footy player whose conduct is constantly on display, decides to urinate here and there, thereby pissing all over the club's reputation.
The second is referred to as 'compromising'. Unlike the aforementioned destructive behaviour, which is associated with one's job, compromising behaviour is not. It has nothing to do with an employee's work. It includes stuff like extramarital affairs, drug use, smoking, pornographic modelling, moonlighting, salacious predilections and hanging out with known criminals.
Some of it might be morally questionable or downright disgusting. But its impact on the employer has less to do with any tangible impact and more to do with the ever-creeping invasion of work into life. It's a blurring of the lines that demands employees be model citizens 24/7, which may be neither realistic nor fair.
I couldn't care less if an employee wears an orange bra and a female jacket in a hotel room. Heck, I wouldn't even care if he wore them at work. What matters most of all, surely, is his performance on the job.
What do you think? Should personal lives remain private?
Follow James Adonis on Twitter: @jamesadonis
18 comments so far
More comments
New user? Sign up
Make a comment
You are logged in as [Logout]
All information entered below may be published.
Thank you
Your comment has been submitted for approval.
Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.