Nichol M. Hall Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Sexual harassment and the laws protecting us from it are not new. Sexual harassment has been recognized and discussed for decades, however, inappropriate behavior is still commonplace in the business world. Sexual harassment, as defined by Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is �unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct that enters into employment decisions and/or conduct that unreasonably interferes with an individual�s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment� (Rubin, 1995). There are two forms of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile work environment. Quid pro quo is Latin for �something for something�. In order for harassment to be categorized as quid pro quo the harassment must be of a sexual nature and a tangible, economic benefit of the job must have been conditional to the individual�s submission to the unwelcome advances (Rubin, 1995). Quid pro quo harassment is most commonly reported between supervisor and subordinate. There must be some power or authority that the harasser holds over the individual for him or her to believe that a benefit of the job could be jeopardized if he or she does not succumb to the sexual advances. Hostile work environment harassment is characterized by severe, pervasive, unwelcome conduct that is so hostile or offensive as to alter conditions of employment. The conduct must be such that a reasonable person would find it hostile or offensive. Hostile work environment typically involves a series of incidences rather than one incident and usually occurs among co-workers. It can occur even when the comment or conduct was not directed specifically at the individual but still impacts his or her ability to perform the job (Rubin, 1995). In determining hostile work environment harassment, it has been cited that courts use a �reasonable person� standard and that Title VII �does not serve as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the hypersensitive� (Rubin, 1995). Sexual favoritism can also increase complaints of sexual harassment. If other employees are aware that a co-worker was promoted or given a raise because he or she performed sexual favors, the other co-workers can file a sexual harassment complaint by demonstrating that they were denied an equal opportunity for the promotion or raise (The LYCOS Network, 2000).
Sexual harassment is commonly seen as most often affecting women. However, the victim as well as the harasser may be male or female. The harasser can be the victim�s supervisor, an agent of the employer, co-worker, a supervisor in another department or a non-employee. Sexual harassment can also be found when the harasser and the victim are of the same sex (The LYCOS Network, 2000). Something that is often overlooked is that the victim does not have to be the person that was directly harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive behavior (www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html). What businesses and employees need to be aware of are common situations that may lead to sexual harassment complaints. For example, pin-ups containing sexual material can create a hostile work environment. Repeatedly asking a co-worker for a date when the individual continues to refuse can be considered harassment. If an individual is rude to a man or woman, or makes comments regarding inability to perform a job due to gender, this is harassment. Additionally, verbal abuse and jokes as well as offensive e-mails may be considered sexual harassment. Lastly, intentional touching will almost always be found to be sexual harassment. The most important fact to remember is that the advances, jokes, conduct or comments are unwelcome. Unwelcome is defined as not invited or solicited.
With increased workplace use of the Internet and other computer-mediated communication, such as e-mail, more and more employers are establishing policies against creating, forwarding or displaying any offensive or disruptive messages on company computers in hopes of protecting itself from �cyber sexual harassment� (Mcclelland, 1999). Businesses have good reason to be worried about this form of sexual harassment. When off-color e-mail jokes, pictures and X-rated Web sites are circulated, it opens the organization up to harassment lawsuits (Stroh, 2000). According to a news article (Tulenko, 1999) in the Star Tribune, a secretary of company X saved and showed her supervisor outrageous and sexually explicit e-mails that were sent to her from a married executive. She said she�d forget about it and leave the company for $10,000. The attorney advised the supervisor that it will cost $50,000 + to fight this case and suggested paying off the secretary. Kiesler, Siegel and McGuire (1984) conducted a study looking at the impact of computer-mediated communication on group interaction and decisions. The interesting finding was centered more on individual�s behavior and conduct rather than decision making. They found that people in computer-mediated groups were more uninhibited than they were in face to face groups as measured by uninhibited verbal behavior. This was defined as frequency of remarks containing swearing, insults, name calling and hostile comments. Messages were depersonalized, inviting stronger and more uninhibited text and more assertiveness in return. They commented further that without leadership, a group might ignore social norms, standards and precedents, causing both choice shift and uninhibited behavior. Social standards may become less important with computer-mediated communication that may lead to more impersonal and free communication. The absence of norms governing the social interaction takes the focus off the person and toward the message itself. However, there are advantages to computer-mediated communication that tend to outweigh these negatives. Communication between groups may depend on existing relationships. Where there is currently conflict, impersonal behavior may exacerbate the situation. Where there is no conflict, impersonal behavior may encourage joint approaches to decision making.
With behavior like this occurring in businesses all over the world, it is a wonder that the courts are not filled with harassment cases. One main reason this is not the case is that what is offensive and considered to be sexual harassment to one individual may not be to another (Henry & Meltzoff, 1998). Very few individuals report their experiences or lodge an official complaint. It is important for organizations to understand why individuals do not report incidents and what will increase individual�s willingness to report these incidents. Brooks and Perot (1991), conducted a study and hypothesized that age, marital status, feminist ideology and frequency of the behavior would have a direct influence on perceived offensiveness of the incident and that perceived offensiveness would have a direct influence on reporting. As shown in figure 1, they did find that perceived offensiveness of the incident showed a direct influence on reporting. Additionally, feminist ideology and frequency of the behavior were significant predictors of perceived offensiveness. Significant relationships were also found between age, feminist ideology, frequency of behavior and perceived offensiveness. According to Brooks & Perot (1991), only the most serious forms of harassment (such as intentional touching or sexual propositions) are likely to receive labels and a victim will not report an experience unless it is first perceived and labeled as sexual harassment. Brooks and Perot (1991) cited Schneider (1982) as having found that despite the fact that individuals dislike a behavior, they are not willing to apply the label of sexual harassment to it. Prior research (Adams et al., 1983) has found that the victim�s perception of the outcome of reporting the incident may discourage them from reporting. They reported outcomes such as fear of not being believed, of retaliation, of being blamed for the incident, and of being labeled a trouble maker. Brooks and Perot intended to look at these variables and their impact on reporting behavior. As modeled in figure 2, Brooks and Perot (1991) also hypothesized that perceived offensiveness of the behavior as well as normative expectations for reporting and perceived outcomes of reporting would show a direct influence on reporting behavior. This second dimension of the model has been supported by studies looking at intentions and actual reporting of rape. Unfortunately, they were unable to adapt the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) to include the variables of normative expectations and perceived outcomes of reporting. Thus, this study only tested half of the proposed model. The reported findings only explained 15% of the variance in women�s reporting behavior. This research, while important, only touches on some predictors of reporting incidents of sexual harassment. Unfortunately, the silence helps maintain the existence of sexual harassment and the illusion that there is no problem within the organization.
Organizations need to understand the importance of establishing an effective complaint or grievance procedure and convey the message that silence is not acceptable. When complaints are made, employers need to take action immediately. A delay in taking action may be viewed as approval of the behavior. Employers need to document and keep accurate records of all incidents and the investigations of them. It is imperative that employers make sure they do not take action that may seem as harming the person making the complaint and if any job benefits were lost due to the harassment, to restore them (Rubin, 1995). Prevention of sexual harassment is key to any organization�s success in truly minimizing this type of behavior. The first step is establishing a policy outlining specifically what is and is not acceptable. The second step is training, then supervision and lastly, discipline. The policy must clearly state that the organization does not tolerate sexual harassment. This policy must clearly be communicated to the employees via an employee handbook, formal training and various postings. Employees must know that all claims will be taken seriously and state what the consequences are. Training must also include different examples of sexual harassment and the situations discussed at length. Supervisors must be taught how to build and maintain a professional work environment. According to Lobel (1993), workers should be encouraged to relate to each other as professionals, rather than sexual beings. It has even been suggested that co-workers ought to relate to each other as occupants of positions, not as individuals. Lastly, proper disciplinary action should be communicated and strictly followed. Discipline varies based on the severity of the incident. An incident may be cause for dismissal or in cases where harassment has been alleged but cannot be determined, counseling may be the necessary action to take (Rubin, 1995; Personnel Policy Service, 2000).
Every organization should make sure that their employees know what to do if they are being sexually harassed. First and foremost, the victim must say �No� clearly. It needs to be made clear to the harasser that the behavior is unwanted. Suggestions have been made to write a memo to the individual if necessary and keep a copy of it. To help support an individual�s claim, documentation of dates, times, places and witnesses is essential. If an individual can find another victim, two accusations are much harder to ignore. The employee must explore company channels for reporting sexual harassment incidents and lastly, file a formal complaint if the harassment does not stop (www.cs.utk.edu/~bartley/other/9to5.html).
References
Adams, J.W., Kottke, J.L., & Padgitt, J.S. (1983). Sexual harassment of university students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 484-490.
Brooks, L. & Perot, A.R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment: Exploring a predictive model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 31-47.
Henry, J & Meltzoff, J. (1998). Perceptions of sexual harassment as a function of target�s response type and observer�s sex. Sex Roles, 39, 253-271.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
Lobel, S.A. (1993). Sexuality at work: where do we go from here? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 136-152.
Lycos, Inc. (2000). Preventing and handling harassment. http://www.lycos.com.business/cch/guidebook.html.
Lycos, Inc. (2000). What is Sexual Harassment? http://www.lycos.com.business/cch/guidebook.html.
Mcclelland, A. (1999). If you don�t want to lose your job, think twice before hitting the button. The Scotsman Publications Ltd.
Rubin, P.N. (1995). Civil Rights and Criminal Justice: Primer on Sexual Harassment. NIJ Research in Action. http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/harass.txt.
Stroh, M. (2000). Watch what you do at work; the boss is. Chicago Sun-Times.
Facts about sexual harassment. (1997). http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html. Sample Policy.
http://www.ppspublishers.com/samplesexualharassment.html. Sexual Harassment: what every working woman needs to know. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~bartley/other/9to5.html.
