1. It has been studied previously that men and women pursue
workplace relationships differently and their pursuits result in
different outcomes. There are three main types of workplace
relationships that both men and women partake in: love
motivated, ego motivated, and job motivated. Love-motivated
relationships are those where both partners have genuine
feelings for one another, ego-motivated relationships have a
primary purpose of excitement, adventure, and entertainment,
and job-motivated relationships are those that are viewed as
helping to advance one or both of the partners careers (Cowan &
Horan, 2014). Dillard et al. (1994) proposed that workplace
relationships were “motivationally complex,” meaning that
either one of both partners in the relationship have multiple
reasons for being involved with the other. It has been previously
argued and studied that “it is possible that persons consider and
act on multiple motives simultaneously in developing romantic
relationships with co-workers” (p. 232). Cowan and Horan
(2014) found that similar positions in the workplace and safe
environments at work are the first motivations for workplace
relationships. It makes sense that relationships would flourish in
a work environment where the employees feel safe and have
similar roles in the workplace.
Pierce, Byrne, and Aguinis (1996) found that employees that
work in close proximities of each other then “this [repeated]
exposure tends to elicit positive affect and interpersonal
attraction” (p. 13). Furthermore, they have noted that attraction
is even more likely to occur if the co-workers spend more time
together outside of work, whether it be business dinners,
business travel, or other work related endeavors. Research
proves that proximity plays an important role in workplace

2. relationships. Quinn and Lees (1984) found that “74% of the
romantic relationships that occur at work, the male is in a higher
position than the female. In nearly half these cases, the female is
the males secretary” (p. 3). This information poses an interesting
thought about proximity and workplace romance. If nearly half
of workplace romances are direct subordinate to superior, it is
likely that they work in a close proximity to one another.
Byrne and Neuman (1992) stated that “without the opportunity
for interaction there can be no opportunity for attraction” (pg.
32). This means that propinquity, or spatial proximity, influences
attraction which then leads to liking or other affective responses.
It is important to distinguish between the two types of
propinquity: physical proximity and functional proximity.
Physical proximity is the actual distance or space between two
individuals and functional proximity refers to the ease in which
two individuals interactions occur. It has been found that both
types of propinquity influence romantic relationships. “The
smaller the physical and functional distance between two
people, the more likely they are to be attracted to each other”
(Segal p. 654). Specifically related to workplace romance,
research has found that propinquity is a factor that influences
task-oriented and work-related attraction (Dixit, 1985). There
are three types of proximity found by Quinn (1977) that directly
relate to romance in the workplace, including (a) on-going
geographical proximity, (b) proximity as the result of on-going
work requirements, and (c) occasional proximity. His data
indicated that on-going geographical proximity, based on the
physical positioning of employees’ work stations, “fostered the
initiation of 63% of the reported workplace romances” (p. 10).
Additionally he found that work related meetings such as

3. training, consulting, business trips, etc… were a factor in
developing 77% of reported romances. Occasional proximity
refers to other settings in which employees find themselves
interacting, such as elevator rides or break room lunches also led
to workplace romances. Byrne and Neuman (1992) concluded
that “such close physical proximity and longer working hours
can lead to an increase in the frequency of social interactions
between co-workers who are engaged in similar work tasks,
thereby increasing the likelihood of interpersonal attraction” (p.
10). Additional evidence includes that propinquity helps remove
social boundaries (Pietropinto, 1986) and stimulates sexual
feelings (Quinn and Lees, 1984). All of the evidence provided
proves that proximity plays a role in the formation of workplace
romances and relationships because it stimulates exposure and
allows for frequent, intimate contact between two people.