Is dating a coworker still a career risk? Match Group’s HR chief has a new answer ⁠40%

By Kristin Stoller⁠56%

7/13/2026, 12:35:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, with Begging the Question as the most egregious example at 9.6% saturation with 29 hits. Analysis detected 49 faulty-reasoning hits from 303 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠40% (9,233 of 15,232 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.60% of the article peer group.

Good morning! 
The conventional wisdom on office romances has long been straightforward: Just don’t. 
But just last week, a New York Times opinion piece , titled “Go On, Date Your Coworkers,” encouraged it, and begs the question: Is workplace dating no longer taboo? 
That’s the question we posed to D.V. 
Williams, chief people officer at Match Group, in the debut episode of Fortune Office Hours , a new series appearing in this newsletter and on video. 
As I mentioned this spring, we’re sourcing real workplace scenarios and asking top HR leaders to weigh in. 
Transparency is key when it comes to office relationships, Williams says. 
Employees who wish to enter into one should understand their company’s policy and speak with HR about any disclosure requirements. 
Just as important, he says, is keeping any resulting “relationship drama” out of the office. 
Would Williams’ advice be different if he didn’t work at Match, where relationships are core to its DNA? 
“I’ve had this philosophy for many years, and I’ve worked across a lot of different industries,” he says. 
“[A workplace relationship] only gets messy when things are hidden or you haven’t had the right conversations to understand that company’s policy. 
Other than that, it should be fun.” 
Going forward, you’ll find Fortune Office Hours as a regular feature in this newsletter. 
If you have a workplace situation that you’re unsure how to navigate or a scenario worth unpacking, send it our way via this form . 
And if you’re a people leader or workplace expert interested in sharing their perspective, I’d also like to hear from you. 
Reach out at my email address below. 
Kristin Stoller 
Editorial Director, Fortune Live Media 
kristin.stoller@fortune.com 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
9.6%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
6.6%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

303 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers33%attributed speech202writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice

D.V. Williams

22%flagged-word coverage
93 attributed words92% of attributed speech14% writer coverage
Indoctrination+21.5 pts
Writer 0%D.V. Williams 22%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.