Rethinking Love Month at Work

Every February, workplaces dust off the same talking points about romance at work—policies, power dynamics, and what happens when things go wrong. But there’s another kind of relationship that can quietly shape a team just as much: close workplace friendships.

Many people don’t stay in their jobs for the mission or the org chart; they stay for their “work family.” As leaders, we want people to feel safe, show up authentically, and build strong connections. The question is: when do workplace friendships stop being a healthy source of support and start becoming a source of risk—for fairness, culture, and performance?

Workplace friendships are not inherently a problem. The trouble starts when the rest of the team begins to wonder whether those relationships change how work gets done, how decisions are made, and whose voice really counts.

 

When fondness becomes dereliction of duty

Many years ago, I had an administrative assistant, of which I was quite fond. I let my guard down…way down and to the point where I wasn’t properly overseeing her work. Shortly after I left the organization, she was arrested for theft by deception. Although I can’t be certain, I believe those actions began while I was still there and that my fondness for her turned into dereliction of duty. I simply didn’t check. 

I trusted that my admin‑turned‑friend needed no such oversight because she wouldn’t do that! Was it a violation of trust? Sure! But I also failed to do part of my job.

That’s the quiet danger of close workplace friendships when power is involved: leaders can convince themselves that “this person would never do that,” and in the process, they stop doing the basic oversight their role requires. The risk isn’t just that someone might commit misconduct; it’s that the leader’s inaction becomes part of the story.

That experience forced me to rethink not just my own blind spots, but the broader impact close workplace friendships can have on a team. And while my situation involved a leader–employee dynamic, the same patterns show up in peer relationships too — especially the “work wives,” “work husbands,” and tightly bonded partnerships that shape how teams function.

 

Work wives, work husbands, and work partners

It is so easy to talk about inappropriate romantic relationships on the job, but what about interpersonal relationships that cross the line from being “just co‑workers” to close friends and work spouses? There are probably throngs of people who go to work more for their work family than they do for the mission of their organization. While it is the goal of every credible leader to build a team where people feel safe, show up authentically, and build great relationships, can there be too much of a good thing in the form of workplace friendships?

When colleagues are aware that there are particularly close peer‑to‑peer relationships on their teams, does it lead to concerns about fairness in the workplace? Often, yes—and not only in the obvious “favoritism” ways.

Fairness issues beyond favoritism

Here are fairness concerns that can arise even when no one is intentionally favoring anyone:

• Information access: Close friends may share informal updates, early heads‑ups, or “unofficial” guidance that others never hear about.
• Influence behind the scenes: Decisions can be shaped in private conversations before the meeting ever happens, leaving others feeling like outcomes are pre‑cooked.
• Social exclusion: When two people are tightly bonded, others may feel like outsiders, even if no one is trying to exclude them.
• Boundary confusion: Personal loyalty can make it harder to give or receive honest feedback, which affects the whole team’s performance.
• Emotional spillover: Conflicts between close friends can spill into team dynamics, forcing others to “pick a side.”

Fairness issues directly tied to favoritism

Then there are fairness issues that are more clearly about favoritism:

• Plum assignments: One person consistently gets the high‑visibility projects or stretch opportunities.
• Performance evaluations: Ratings and narratives seem more generous for one person than for peers with similar results.
• Promotions and pay: Advancement decisions appear to track relationships more than performance.
• Schedule and flexibility: One person gets more leeway on time off, remote work, or deadlines.
• Voice in decisions: The favored person’s preferences routinely win out, even when others raise valid concerns.

Research on organizational justice consistently shows that perceptions of unfairness—especially around how an organization maintains consistent practices and rules and outcomes—are strongly linked to lower engagement and higher turnover intentions. More specifically, perceived unfairness is associated with reduced job satisfaction and increased withdrawal behaviors, including turnover intentions.

 

Do close friendships help or hurt the organization?

Close coworker relationships are not all downside. In fact, many studies suggest that high‑quality coworker relationships can be a net positive—up to a point.

Benefits to the organization

Research on social support at work and high‑quality coworker relationships has found that:

• Higher engagement: Employees who report having a “best friend at work” are more engaged and productive, according to Gallup’s long‑running engagement research.
• Lower turnover intentions: Strong coworker support is associated with lower intentions to quit, especially in high‑stress environments.
• Better collaboration: Trusting relationships can speed up problem‑solving and reduce friction in cross‑functional work.

Benefits that primarily accrue to the individuals

On the individual side, close workplace friendships can:

• Reduce stress: Having someone who “gets it” can buffer the impact of difficult days and challenging stakeholders.
• Increase belonging: People are more likely to feel like they belong when they have at least one close ally at work.
• Provide informal mentoring: Friends often share advice, feedback, and career tips that might not surface in formal channels.

Research highlighting the benefits of close coworker relationships also warns about the risks of cliques and perceived exclusion. When support is concentrated in a tight dyad or small group, others may feel marginalized, which can erode the broader team climate. This matters because many employee engagement and exit‑survey studies consistently cite “unfair treatment,” “lack of recognition,” and “poor management” as top reasons for voluntary turnover—concerns that often bundle perceptions of favoritism and exclusion, even when they aren’t labeled that way explicitly.

 

Peer friendships vs. leader–direct report closeness

Do the dynamics change when the close relationship is peer‑to‑peer versus leader‑to‑direct‑report? Absolutely.

Peer‑to‑peer closeness

When workplace friendships are peer‑to‑peer, the main risks are:

• perceived cliques
• uneven access to information
• informal influence

These can still be damaging, but the formal power is (at least on paper) more evenly distributed.

Leader–direct report closeness

When the close relationship is between a leader and a direct report, the stakes are higher:

• Perceived bias: Peers may assume the favored direct report has an inside track on decisions, evaluations, and opportunities.
• Increased conflict: Other team members may engage in more overt conflict with the favored colleague, either directly or through passive resistance.
• Chilled feedback: People may hesitate to give honest feedback about the favored employee, fearing retaliation or futility.

Research shows that leaders naturally form higher‑quality relationships with some direct reports than others, and that these “in‑group” relationships are associated with better outcomes for those individuals. However, when the gap between in‑group and out‑group is too wide, overall team cohesion and perceptions of fairness suffer.

 

Performance management, trust, and liability

When workplace friendships—especially leader–direct report relationships—are very close, performance management is one of the first areas where people start to question fairness:

• Are expectations really the same for everyone?
• Are mistakes handled consistently?
• Are ratings and narratives inflated for one person?

Even if the leader believes they are being fair, the perception of bias can erode trust in the entire performance management system. Over time, this can lead to disengagement, quiet quitting, and turnover among those who feel they are on the outside looking in. 

Does favoritism create a legal liability or is it “just” a culture problem?

Since favoritism is not a protected class, favoritism alone is usually more of a culture and morale issue than a direct legal liability. However, patterns of favoritism can become a legal risk if:

• the favored group consistently overlaps with a protected class (e.g., race, gender, age), or
• adverse actions disproportionately affect another protected group.

Even outside of sexual harassment, close leader–direct report relationships can increase employer liability when:

• oversight is clearly weaker for one person than for others
• financial or compliance responsibilities are involved
• others have raised concerns and been ignored

In other words, favoritism can become evidence in a broader discrimination claim, even if it’s not illegal by itself. That’s one more reason leaders need to be thoughtful about how workplace friendships intersect with formal power.

 

Do leaders admit they have favorites?

What is the data regarding how often leaders admit they have a favorite direct report?

Surveys on this topic vary, but several management polls suggest that many managers privately acknowledge having a “go‑to” or “favorite” employee, even if they don’t use that language publicly. The more important question is not whether favorites exist (they do), but whether leaders:

• are aware of the impact on the rest of the team
• allow that preference to shape decisions in ways that are unfair

 

Guardrails for leaders navigating close relationships

What guardrails should a leader take to manage close leader–direct report relationships? 

Do they need to be treated like romantic relationships, where people can no longer work together? In most cases, close workplace friendships don’t require a hard separation, but they do require intentional guardrails:

• Transparent criteria: Make decision criteria for assignments, promotions, and recognition explicit and visible to the whole team.
• Shared opportunities: Rotate high‑visibility projects and development opportunities so they don’t always land with the same person.
• Documented processes: Keep clear records of performance feedback, goals, and decisions to reduce the perception of “secret deals.”
• Multiple perspectives: Involve more than one leader in key decisions about the favored employee (e.g., calibration sessions, panel interviews).
• Open door for others: Ensure other team members have access to you—not just the person you’re closest to.

While it may seem extreme to reassign roles because of workplace friendships, there are situations where that’s the right call—especially when the rest of the team has lost trust in the leader’s ability to be fair. When team members who perceive themselves as “we aren’t the favorite” feel they must give undue deference to the colleague who is “the boss’ pet,” you don’t just have a relationship issue; you have a culture issue.

Workplace friendships are inevitable. The question is whether leaders are willing to put guardrails in place so that those relationships strengthen the team instead of quietly undermining it.

 

Bringing it back to love month

In a month when everyone is talking about romantic love, it’s worth remembering that the relationships most likely to shape your culture aren’t always romantic. They’re the quiet, everyday workplace friendships—the work wives, work husbands, and trusted partners who share jokes, secrets, and sometimes power.

Workplace friendships can be a powerful force for engagement, belonging, and resilience. They can also, without guardrails, become a source of perceived unfairness, conflict, and even dereliction of duty. As a leader, your job isn’t to police who likes whom; it’s to make sure that trust, accountability, and fairness don’t get lost in the shadows of those relationships.

If you’re serious about culture, don’t just ask whether people feel safe to be themselves. Ask whether they trust that performance, opportunity, and accountability are handled fairly—no matter who is friends with whom.