从网络热议的“酷玩乐队情侣”，到埃隆·马斯克与Neuralink公司高管育有子女的消息，办公室恋情总能激起公众的好奇心——尤其是牵涉上下级关系时。这类关系往往会成为八卦话题，引发关于权力与同意的讨论，有时甚至以丑闻收场。然而，除了这些娱乐化的新闻之外，存在一个更为严肃的问题：当上下级陷入恋情时，从经济与职业的角度会产生哪些影响？
为此，我与同事大卫·麦克唐纳德和杰里·蒙托宁分析了覆盖芬兰全国人口、跨度三十年的行政数据。研究结果显示，与职场上司建立正式的亲密关系，在恋情持续期间确实可能带来一些收益；但一旦关系破裂，弱势一方往往要付出沉重代价。这类关系还会对整个工作环境造成负面影响，导致当事双方周围同事的流动率显著上升。
关系蜜月期
我们的研究是最早针对“跨层级职场恋爱关系”进行的大规模全人口数据分析之一。研究团队追踪了芬兰1988年至2018年间所有同居伴侣的职业轨迹，重点关注在同一组织内工作、且一方担任管理职务的情侣。
结果显示，在恋情持续期间，下属一方的职业发展有显著改善，其收入平均增长6%（相较于与属于不同组织的管理者建立恋爱关系的对照组）。这种涨幅通常在恋情开始后的前两年逐步显现，随着关系的稳定而扩大。
研究中绝大多数案例是“女下属与男上司”的组合。但在极少数“男下属与女上司”的案例中，我们发现男下属的收入增幅，甚至超过女下属与男上司恋爱的情况。
这类“薪资红利”究竟是源自偏袒，还是因为恋情带来了指导与成长机会？研究发现，若下属一方跳槽至新公司，收入增幅会缩减一半；而一旦上司离职，增幅更是会完全消失。由此可见，这种现象更像是管理者对恋人的优待，而非真正的职业能力培养。
分手的代价
办公室恋情虽能带来一些好处，但分手时往往代价高昂。研究发现，职场情侣分手后，下属一方的收入平均下降18%，完全抵消了此前积累的所有收益。分手带来的负面影响至少会持续四年。就业率也会显著下滑：下属一方在分手后第一年内退出劳动力市场的可能性高出13个百分点（相较于与属于不同组织的管理者分手的对照组）。
这种负面影响还会产生溢出效应，波及周围同事。数据显示，一旦办公室恋情开始，组织整体员工留任率下降6个百分点，这意味着人员流动率较可比组织高出14%。企业规模越小，或者办公室恋情期间下属一方薪酬增幅越大，人员流失情况越严重。办公室恋情带来的不公平感会削弱团队信任，导致人才流失。
对企业的启示
我们的研究结果可以解释为什么越来越多公司明令限制或禁止跨层级恋爱关系。以麦当劳（McDonald’s）为例，该公司严禁主管与其直属或间接下属发展恋情。该政策执行极为严格，2019年时任首席执行官斯蒂芬·伊斯特布鲁克就因与员工存在两厢情愿的恋爱关系而被解雇。
当私人关系嵌入职场权力结构时，其影响远不止于当事双方。办公室恋情可能改变薪酬结构，扭曲晋升路径，并削弱整个团队的士气。制定明确的政策，尤其是防止管理者直接督导伴侣的工作或干预其职业发展的政策，可以有效降低这些风险。此类政策的目的并非全面禁止办公室恋情，而是为了保护双方以及整个团队，避免由此带来的职业后果。
办公室恋情的持久魅力
几乎每个人都认识一些“在工作中找到爱情”的人，或许你自己就是其中之一。数据显示，从2000年至2019年，职场是情侣相识的第四大常见场所。全美四分之一的职场人士曾经历过办公室恋情，其中18%的人曾与上司交往。
我们的研究并非断定所有职场恋情注定失败或存在剥削。事实上，研究结果显示，这类关系往往比其他类似关系更为持久。这可能源于伴侣之间拥有共同兴趣、相处时间更多——相比在约会软件上互动，办公室恋情或许更容易发生，也更有趣。但这种“稳定”也反映出分手时在情感和经济上需要付出沉重代价。当结束一段关系意味着不仅失去伴侣，还可能丢掉工作或损害职业声誉时，即便不再幸福，人们也往往会选择继续维持。
因此，我们的结论并非“职场容不下爱情”，而是权力与爱情难以共存。企业无法、也不应试图扼杀情愫，但可以设立保护机制减轻风险。例如，禁止管理者直接督导或评估伴侣的工作绩效，建立透明制度，并明确一点：尽管某些办公室恋情结局美好，但这种关系对当事双方及其同事始终存在可量化的潜在风险。
人们对“上下级恋情”的好奇恐怕永远不会消退。但数据表明，对于大多数个人与企业而言，将爱情与权力混为一谈的代价远高于回报。（*）
Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点，仅代表作者本人的观点，不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。
译者：刘进龙
审校：汪皓
从网络热议的“酷玩乐队情侣”，到埃隆·马斯克与Neuralink公司高管育有子女的消息，办公室恋情总能激起公众的好奇心——尤其是牵涉上下级关系时。这类关系往往会成为八卦话题，引发关于权力与同意的讨论，有时甚至以丑闻收场。然而，除了这些娱乐化的新闻之外，存在一个更为严肃的问题：当上下级陷入恋情时，从经济与职业的角度会产生哪些影响？
为此，我与同事大卫·麦克唐纳德和杰里·蒙托宁分析了覆盖芬兰全国人口、跨度三十年的行政数据。研究结果显示，与职场上司建立正式的亲密关系，在恋情持续期间确实可能带来一些收益；但一旦关系破裂，弱势一方往往要付出沉重代价。这类关系还会对整个工作环境造成负面影响，导致当事双方周围同事的流动率显著上升。
关系蜜月期
我们的研究是最早针对“跨层级职场恋爱关系”进行的大规模全人口数据分析之一。研究团队追踪了芬兰1988年至2018年间所有同居伴侣的职业轨迹，重点关注在同一组织内工作、且一方担任管理职务的情侣。
结果显示，在恋情持续期间，下属一方的职业发展有显著改善，其收入平均增长6%（相较于与属于不同组织的管理者建立恋爱关系的对照组）。这种涨幅通常在恋情开始后的前两年逐步显现，随着关系的稳定而扩大。
研究中绝大多数案例是“女下属与男上司”的组合。但在极少数“男下属与女上司”的案例中，我们发现男下属的收入增幅，甚至超过女下属与男上司恋爱的情况。
这类“薪资红利”究竟是源自偏袒，还是因为恋情带来了指导与成长机会？研究发现，若下属一方跳槽至新公司，收入增幅会缩减一半；而一旦上司离职，增幅更是会完全消失。由此可见，这种现象更像是管理者对恋人的优待，而非真正的职业能力培养。
分手的代价
办公室恋情虽能带来一些好处，但分手时往往代价高昂。研究发现，职场情侣分手后，下属一方的收入平均下降18%，完全抵消了此前积累的所有收益。分手带来的负面影响至少会持续四年。就业率也会显著下滑：下属一方在分手后第一年内退出劳动力市场的可能性高出13个百分点（相较于与属于不同组织的管理者分手的对照组）。
这种负面影响还会产生溢出效应，波及周围同事。数据显示，一旦办公室恋情开始，组织整体员工留任率下降6个百分点，这意味着人员流动率较可比组织高出14%。企业规模越小，或者办公室恋情期间下属一方薪酬增幅越大，人员流失情况越严重。办公室恋情带来的不公平感会削弱团队信任，导致人才流失。
对企业的启示
我们的研究结果可以解释为什么越来越多公司明令限制或禁止跨层级恋爱关系。以麦当劳（McDonald’s）为例，该公司严禁主管与其直属或间接下属发展恋情。该政策执行极为严格，2019年时任首席执行官斯蒂芬·伊斯特布鲁克就因与员工存在两厢情愿的恋爱关系而被解雇。
当私人关系嵌入职场权力结构时，其影响远不止于当事双方。办公室恋情可能改变薪酬结构，扭曲晋升路径，并削弱整个团队的士气。制定明确的政策，尤其是防止管理者直接督导伴侣的工作或干预其职业发展的政策，可以有效降低这些风险。此类政策的目的并非全面禁止办公室恋情，而是为了保护双方以及整个团队，避免由此带来的职业后果。
办公室恋情的持久魅力
几乎每个人都认识一些“在工作中找到爱情”的人，或许你自己就是其中之一。数据显示，从2000年至2019年，职场是情侣相识的第四大常见场所。全美四分之一的职场人士曾经历过办公室恋情，其中18%的人曾与上司交往。
我们的研究并非断定所有职场恋情注定失败或存在剥削。事实上，研究结果显示，这类关系往往比其他类似关系更为持久。这可能源于伴侣之间拥有共同兴趣、相处时间更多——相比在约会软件上互动，办公室恋情或许更容易发生，也更有趣。但这种“稳定”也反映出分手时在情感和经济上需要付出沉重代价。当结束一段关系意味着不仅失去伴侣，还可能丢掉工作或损害职业声誉时，即便不再幸福，人们也往往会选择继续维持。
因此，我们的结论并非“职场容不下爱情”，而是权力与爱情难以共存。企业无法、也不应试图扼杀情愫，但可以设立保护机制减轻风险。例如，禁止管理者直接督导或评估伴侣的工作绩效，建立透明制度，并明确一点：尽管某些办公室恋情结局美好，但这种关系对当事双方及其同事始终存在可量化的潜在风险。
人们对“上下级恋情”的好奇恐怕永远不会消退。但数据表明，对于大多数个人与企业而言，将爱情与权力混为一谈的代价远高于回报。（*）
Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点，仅代表作者本人的观点，不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。
译者：刘进龙
审校：汪皓
From the viral “Coldplay couple” to Elon Musk’s children with a Neuralink executive, we’re fascinated by office romances — especially when the boss is involved. They inspire gossip, spark debates about power and consent, and occasionally end in scandal. But beyond the headlines lies a serious question: What happens, economically and professionally, when a manager and a subordinate become involved?
To find out, my colleagues David Macdonald, Jerry Montonen, and I analyzed administrative data covering the entire population of Finland over 30 years. Our research revealed that starting a serious relationship with a manager at your workplace can have benefits — while it lasts. But when it ends, the costs are steep for the less powerful person in the relationship. These relationships also have a negative impact on the broader workplace environment, increasing turnover among the couple’s coworkers.
The honeymoon period
Our research is one of the first large-scale, population-level studies of workplace relationships that cross organizational hierarchies. We looked at the career paths of every cohabiting couple in Finland from 1988 to 2018, focusing on those who worked in the same organization and where one partner was in a managerial position.
We found that while these office romances last, the subordinate’s career flourishes. On average, their earnings rise by 6% (compared to people who start a relationship with a manager who is not in the same workplace). This increase happens gradually over the first two years of the relationship as the couple gets more serious.
The vast majority of relationships in our study involve a female subordinate and a male manager. But when we look at the small pool of men who date female managers, we find they experience even larger earnings gains than women who date male managers.
Is the pay bump a result of favoritism? Or could a relationship with a higher-up lead to mentorship and professional growth? We find that if the subordinate moves to a new firm, the earning gains shrink by half. If the manager leaves, they disappear entirely. These results look less like talent development and more like a manager giving preferential treatment to someone they’re dating.
The break-up penalty
Starting an office romance has its perks, but breaking up brings a steep price. The subordinate’s earnings fall by an average of 18%, more than undoing any previous benefits. And the negative effects last at least four years. Employment rates drop sharply as well. Subordinates are 13 percentage points more likely to leave the labor force in the year after the breakup (compared to people who break up with a manager from a different workplace).
The consequences extend beyond the couple, with clear spillovers onto coworkers. After an office romance begins, employee retention at the organization drops by six percentage points, meaning turnover is 14% greater than in comparable firms. The exodus is higher the smaller the firm or the greater the subordinate’s pay bump during the relationship. The perceived unfairness that results from office relationships erodes trust, leading talent to walk.
Why it matters for business
Our findings help explain why a growing number of companies have rules restricting or banning relationships across reporting lines. For example, McDonald’s prohibits romantic involvement between supervisors and direct or indirect reports. They take the policy so seriously that it contributed to the 2019 dismissal of CEO Stephen Easterbrook for a consensual relationship with an employee.
When personal relationships unfold within professional power structures, the consequences extend far beyond the couple involved. These relationships can reshape pay structures, distort promotion paths, and harm the morale of everyone in the office. Clear policies can help mitigate these risks, particularly if they prevent managers from directly overseeing their partner’s work or influencing their career trajectory. These policies aren’t about forbidding all office liaisons but protecting both parties and the broader team from the professional fallout.
The lasting allure of the office romance
We all know people who found love at work. You might even be one of them. The workplace was the fourth most common place couples met from 2000 to 2019. A quarter of American workers have been part of an office romance and 18% of these people have dated a supervisor.
Our findings don’t suggest that every workplace romance is doomed or exploitative. In fact, we found that these relationships tend to last longer than other similar relationships. This could be due to shared interests and additional time spent together – it may be easier (and more fun) to engage in an office romance than interact on a dating app. But it could also reflect the high personal and financial costs of breaking up. When ending a relationship means losing not only a partner but also your job or professional standing, the incentive to stay, even in an unhappy situation, is strong.
The takeaway isn’t that love has no place at work. It’s that power does not mix well with it. Companies can’t (and shouldn’t) legislate attraction out of existence, but they can create safeguards that limit the damage when it occurs. Policies that prevent managers from supervising or evaluating their partners are a start. So are transparency and an acknowledgment that while these relationships can turn out well, they also carry real, measurable risks for the parties involved and for their colleagues.
The fascination with boss-employee relationships will probably never fade. But the data suggest that, for most people and most companies, the costs of mixing love and leadership are stark, and may exceed the rewards.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.