The biggest story in the media this past week was Jeff Zucker’s resignation as CEO of CNN because of a romance with CNN’s Executive VP, Chief Market Officer and corporate communications director, Allison Gollust.

In a memo to the CNN staff, Zucker wrote “As part of the investigation into Chris Cuomo’s tenure at CNN, I was asked about a consensual relationship with my closest colleague, someone I have worked with for more than 20 years. I acknowledged the relationship evolved in recent years. I was required to disclose it when it began but I didn’t. I was wrong. As a result, I am resigning today.”

In a New York Times opinion column by Joanne Lipman and Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld titled “Jeff Zucker and the Reckoning Over Office Romances,” wrote:

The headlines about the resignation of CNN’s president, Jeff Zucker, over his romantic relationship with a colleague are electrifying CNN’s defenders and antagonists alike and fueling endless speculation about possible corporate power plays behind the scenes. For those, like us, who have been writing for years about men, women and the workplace, this unfolding scandal also points out how difficult it is to regulate office romance and how unevenly corporate policies around consensual relationships are enforced.

Two paragraphs later they wrote:

What’s so baffling is, why not disclose it? Both are divorced, and the relationship is consensual. Had they been transparent, it’s possible that Mr. Zucker, CNN and its parent company could have dealt with this without precipitating a crisis. What’s more, if rumors were swirling internally that Mr. Zucker and Ms. Gollust were violating company policy, why didn’t the bosses at WarnerMedia investigate earlier? This is an unforced error by CNN, causing confusion and anger among some staff members.

Lipman and Sonnefeld also opine:

Whatever the boardroom drama, this is yet another chapter in the tortured history of companies’ bungled attempts at dealing with office romance. The rules are all over the place. Enforcement is inconsistent. This is an issue not just for chief executives. A 2021 survey for the Society for Human Resource Management found that more than a third of Americans have had or currently have a workplace relationship, and the majority of them did not disclose it to their superiors. Offices romances have turned into enduring partnerships for prominent figures, from Michelle and Barack Obama to Tina Brown and Harry Evans and, on a less happy note, Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates.

In their column the NY Times writers do not address what I believe is a more critical issue than reporting an office romance. That issue is defining what a romance is. I think that, generally, “romance” is a euphemism for having sex. Same for the notion of “dating.” You can have a relationship with a coworker, but if you have sex, it’s a romance or you’re dating–often hinted at by using another euphemism for sex: “intimate.”

Why should having sex make so much difference in a relationship? Why is it that you don’t have to report to HR if you have an exceptionally close work-related relationship with someone, but do have to report it when you have sex? Of course, it’s not the physical act of having sex that makes a difference, it’s the perception of the fairness involved in the relationship that matters.

For 20 years the management of NBC and CNN were OK with the relationship between Zucker and Gollust. They must have believed Gollust got promoted because she was good at her job. However, the moment Gollust and Zucker had sex, Zucker had to go. Think about it: if top management wants its people to work closely together, to like each other, to be productive and innovative, it shouldn’t matter if people are having sex with each other. In fact, if having sex makes them happier and more productive and innovative, why wouldn’t management encourage it?

Management can’t encourage it because of perception, not because of reality. In fact, perception is reality. If a manager is a male and a direct report to him is a female, the manager has to be very cautious, especially in today’s #MeToo environment, that there is no hint of favoritism in the relationship. The critical issue is the perception of fairness. If the majority of employees and management feel that a woman got promoted because of merit, there is often no problem.

But fairness is like beauty, everyone has their own, highly subjective view of it. A person who has a strong self-image and realistic view of themselves and their team’s strengths and shortcomings might look at a high-performing woman’s promotion as fair, meritorious and what’s good for the organization. On the other hand, emotionally needy, unrealistically ambitious people who do not have strong underlying self-esteem might look at that woman’s promotion as unfair and not good for them.

Over the years I have learned at CBS, NBC, the University of Missouri School of Journalism and at AOL that most people in a department know who the best performers are. If they see a good performer getting a promotion or favorable treatment, people will approve–it’s fair. If a male manager promotes an underperforming, undeserving female, the knives of suspicion, resentment and unfairness come out en masse. Also, there will always be the needy, entitled ones who will never consciously admit someone might be more deserving than me, me, me.

On the other hand, male managers will often promote their guy friends–drinking buddies, golf pals, fraternity brothers–based on palship rather than meritocracy, and no one says a word. It’s business as usual. Competent, high-performing women have had to put up with such unfair situations for years.

More from the New York Times opinion piece:

…organizations need to realize that consensual relationships between peers exist and not reflexively demonize them. Employees sometimes don’t report an office romance because they’re afraid they’ll be penalized, even if that’s not the case. Or they cringe at the thought of announcing it to colleagues, when they may be required to disclose it only to a supervisor or human resources representative. Companies need equally specific anti-harassment policies, with definitions and consequences.

What’s more, the rules need to apply to everyone. This may seem like common sense, but in too many cases, companies look the other way for high performers or senior management. High-profile scandals garner the headlines, but less visible pairings are far more common. Office romances have existed ever since offices were invented. It’s about time offices figured out how to deal with them.

I would add to the above advice that organizations, especially fish-bowl media companies, not only need to have clear guidelines about office relationships but also need to define what romance is. In my view, an unacceptable office romance should be defined by fairness, not by having conensual sex.