Perceptions of Harassment - Example

Perceptions of Harassment Introduction In 1981 the Harvard Business Review published the results of in 1981 the Harvard Business Review published the results of a survey it conducted with Redbook magazine that was designed to elicit perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace (Eliza & Blodgett, 1981). The study found that men and women generally agreed about what constitutes sexual harassment in egregious cases. In close cases, however, women were more likely than men to call the behavior sexual harassment. Furthermore, there was a significant disagreement between the sexes about the prevalence of sexual harassment and about whether complaints of sexual harassment are taken seriously by the employer. Women, more than men, believed that sexual harassment was common and believed it to be less likely that management would do anything about it. Not surprisingly, respondents to the survey agree about which extreme situations constitute sexual harassment but differ over the more ambiguous cases. For instance, 87% think that the following statement definitely indicates abuse: "I have been having an affair with the head of my division. Now I've told him I want to break it off, but he says I will lose out on the promotion I've been expecting." . . . ;'' Opinions on these extreme cases differ little between men and women and between top and lower level management. For example, 89% of the men and 92% of the women think the first statement in Exhibit I is harassment ("I can't seem to go in and out of my boss's office without being patted or pinched"). Nearly 87% of top management and 91% of lower-level management also think it is. In other, less extreme situations, however, people are less certain about the interpretation but still consider the behavior quite offensive. . . . An average of 40% say the situation where a man starts each day with a sexual remark and insists it's an innocent social comment is harassment; an average of 48% say it is possibly; 8% say it is not; and 4% don't know. According to many readers, a situation where a man often puts his hand on a woman's arm when making a point is even more innocent. . . . The perceived seriousness of the harassment seems to depend on who is making the advance, the degree of interpreted intent, and the victim's perception of the consequences. The amount the victim appears to suffer, however, does not necessarily vary with the perceived seriousness. In many comments, for instance, the writers seemed more vexed by persistent low-level misbehavior, which, although covered by EEOC guidelines, is impractical to do something about and is often harder to prove than more extreme forms. . . . Many people commented on how power influences perceptions of harassment. As one reader put it, "The indebtedness increases the harassment's potency." Some of the male readers were very aware of the implications of power differences: "There is a male code of silence regarding harassment of females that has to be broken, particularly in the area of male 'power' figures and females without power," said the 38year-old male vice president of marketing in a large insurance company. "Either too many men never recover from being high school jocks or they understand that corporate power can be a new way to be attractive. Having suffered through both lessons, I feel free to comment." The power phenomenon is not necessarily restricted to men, either. "The more power people have, the more able they are to let go of their inhibitions and act on their desires," testified a 36-year-old government administrator. "As a woman manager, I must admit to temptation! It is when the overtures are unwanted, persistent, and power based that they are unhealthy organizationally.". . . Throughout the survey we found answers that could be explained only by a "that's the way men are" assessment on the part of both men and women--resignation or acceptance bred of recurring experience. Perhaps the more one sees behavior like that we described, the less one is stirred to call it misconduct (Eliza & Blodgett, 1981). The most striking finding on the question of how much abuse actually takes place is the difference in perception between men and women and between high-level and lower-level management. (Because most high-level managers in the survey were men and more lower-level managers were women, the two sets of responses often parallel each other.) The answers to the statement, "The amount of sexual harassment at work is greatly exaggerated," are: Agree or partly agree Disagree or partly disagree Top management 63% 22% Middle management 62 30 Lower-level management 44 40 Women 32% 52% Men 66 17 In most instances substantial differences appear in men's and women's perceptions of how frequently sexual harassment occurs. For example, one-third of the men, but a full half of the women, have witnessed or heard of a case where the man starts each day with a sexual remark that he insists is an innocent social comment. . . . How can we explain the differences in viewpoint? Sexual harassment may not take place when male managers are around to observe it; and even if it does, they may not "see" it as women do. . . . Even though men generally agree in the abstract with women about what harassment is, the gap in perception of what actually happens is real and significant. . . . One factor that may help explain the difference in perception is social conditioning. For example, 44% of the women view the statement about the man who starts each day with a sexual remark . . . as only "possibly" misconduct. . . . Perhaps some women, accustomed to accept such incidents as a price of survival in the business world, have lost sensitivity. . . . In extreme cases, higher-level executives report that they are generally unaware of what's going on. Perhaps one of the worst examples of abuse in the survey is epitomized by [the situation] . . . where the man gives the woman a poor evaluation because she refuses to have sex with him. Ten percent of all respondents have heard of or observed this situation. The response by management level breaks down this way: top management, 5%; middle management, 9%; lower-level management, 13%; persons other than managers (a small number), 19%. As in other situations, more women than men testify to knowledge of this situation . . . 16% against 5%. Whether conditioning, denial, or lack of awareness explains these disparities, the gap in perception between different levels of management and between men and women poses a serious problem for policymakers (Eliza & Blodgett, 1981). Reactions and Grievance Filing The problem of disparities in perception appears throughout the survey. To probe differing attitudes, we sent two different versions of four vignettes in the split-sample questionnaire. In one we asked readers to say what they would do as managers in these situations; in the other, what typical managers would do. . . . One can draw many conclusions from the answers, but three disparities in perception stand out: (1) the differential treatment men and women employees receive after an unwanted advance, (2) how women should handle themselves, and (3) how responsible managers ought to act in the workplace (Eliza & Blodgett, 1981). Perceived differential treatment The responses to the vignettes show that men and women hold very different opinions on how top managers will act in an ambiguous situation. Their opinions also differ depending on whether the victim is a female or male executive, a female executive or secretary, and on who is making the advance. For example, in the first vignette a company president walks into his sales manager's office and finds him standing near his secretary, who looks upset and flustered. . . . On the colored questionnaire we asked what the typical president would do, and on the white form we asked what "you" would do. Nearly two-thirds of the women who filled out the colored form believed that the typical president would do nothing-being unaware of what happened or unwilling to confront the sales manager on a personal matter--while fewer than half the men voted this way. In thinking that the typical president would do nothing, most of the women chose avoidance of confrontation as the motivation, while most men selected ignorance as the reason for inactivity. Women, it seems, tend to think that male executives take an uninvolved stance even when they know what is happening (and even when it is addressed in the guidelines). . . . This assumption by women of how male executives will behave reveals itself in [other] vignette[s]. . . . . . . [When asked how a male executive would react if another male executive made a remark to him about a female's body], "share the joke," received more votes from women than any other choice. . . . The responses to [another] vignette also reveal perceived differential treatment of executive women and secretaries. Women disapprove of [a boss's unwanted sexual advances] slightly more when the victim is a secretary (40%) than when she is an executive (36%). One-quarter of all the respondents would express their disapproval to the secretary's boss, while one-fifth would do so on behalf of the executive. If secretaries are unprotected, executive women are even more so, although more respondents say they would give advice on how to deal with the behavior to executives than to secretaries (11% to 6%). . . . If we look at the order of options that the female respondents think a typical division manager would choose in the case of [sexual harassment of] a woman executive [by a client], we see a discouraging picture of how much support women think management will give them in the face of sexual harassment. Rather than buttress them with a team (their next to-last choice), back them regardless of the consequences, or encourage them to parry the advance, women assume that the division managers would want to transfer them. Whether women fear this most as the outcome or base their opinions on personal experience, their perceptions of how management would act should ring alarms for top officers (Eliza & Blodgett, 1981). What can a woman handle? Do men and women hold different views on how women should or can deal with sexual advances? Women disagree among themselves here. Some think that women, to survive in the business world, have to handle whatever comes their way. . . . Other women think that harassment within organizations is too much for any person to handle alone. . . . We asked the readers whether "a smart woman employee ought to have no trouble handling an unwanted sexual approach." Fifty-nine percent of the women disagree or partly disagree and the same proportion of men agree or partly agree. Men seem to think that women can overcome sexual overtures through tact. . . . Most women are less sure that they can deal with an unwanted sexual approach and, in fact, they wonder whether anything they do would make them safe from such behavior in the workplace. A full 78% of them disagree with the statement, "If a woman dresses and behaves properly, she will not be the target of unwanted sexual approaches at work." The same proportion of women, however, agree or partly agree with the statement, "Women can and often do use their sexual attractiveness to their own advantage" (compared with 86% of the men). . . . Although we cannot assume that the opposite of the statement--"If a women dresses and behaves properly, she will not be the target of unwanted sexual approaches at work"--is true, the strong female disagreement with it indicates that women feel vulnerable on the issue (Welsh, 1999). Sexual Harassment. Basically, sexual harassment means bothering someone in a sexual way. In the context of this instruction, it is behavior that is unwelcome, is sexual in nature, and is connected in some way with a person's job or work environment. A wide range of behaviors can meet these criteria, and therefore, constitute sexual harassment. Even with this rather simplistic way of explaining it, trying to determine exactly what kinds of behavior constitute sexual harassment often is not easy. The policy established by this instruction is not intended to prevent the types of behavior which are appropriate in normal work settings and which contribute to camaraderie. Discussion For a person's behavior to be considered sexual harassment, it must meet three criteria: it must be unwelcome, be sexual in nature, and occur in or impact on the work environment (Yanai, 1998). Unwelcome behavior is behavior that a person does not ask for and which that person considers undesirable or offensive. Not everyone has the same perception of "undesirable or offensive." What is acceptable for some people is not acceptable for others. So whose perception should be used? Since the person being subjected to the behavior--the recipient--is the one being affected, it is the recipient's perception that courts use. As long as the recipient is a reasonable person and not overly sensitive, behavior which the recipient finds unwelcome should be stopped. Using this "reasonable person standard," from the perspective of the recipient, is really no more than using common sense. To make it easier to understand, it is helpful to think of the entire range of possible behavior in terms of a traffic light. The traffic light has three colors, and behavior may be divided into three zones. Green on the traffic light means "go"; Red on the traffic light means "stop"; the red behavior zone means "don't do it." It is sexual harassment. The third color on the traffic light, yellow, means "use caution." The yellow behavior zone may be sexual harassment. Just as with a traffic light, if the yellow zone is long enough, the light will turn red. If yellow zone behavior is repeated enough, especially after having been told it is unwelcome, it becomes red zone behavior--sexual harassment. The following examples illustrate these three types of behavior, but they are certainly not all-inclusive. a. Green zone. These behaviors are not sexual harassment: performance counseling, touching which could not reasonably be perceived in a sexual way (such as touching someone on the elbow), counseling on military appearance, social interaction, showing concern, encouragement, a polite compliment, or friendly conversation. b. Yellow zone. Many people would find these behaviors unacceptable, and they could be sexual harassment: violating personal "space" whistling, questions about personal life, lewd or sexually suggestive comments, suggestive posters or calendars, off-color jokes, leering, staring, repeated requests for dates, foul language, unwanted letters or poems, sexually suggestive touching, or sitting or gesturing sexually. c. Red zone. These behaviors are always considered sexual harassment: sexual favors in return for employment rewards, threats if sexual favors are not provided, sexually explicit pictures (including calendars or posters) or remarks, using status to request dates, or obscene letters or comments. The most severe forms of sexual harassment constitute criminal conduct, e.g. sexual assault (ranging from forcefully grabbing to fondling, forced kissing, or rape). Conclusion Keep in mind that the above examples are used as guidance only that individuals believe they are being sexually harassed based on their perceptions, that each incident is judged on the totality of facts in that particular case, and that individuals' judgment may vary on the same facts. Therefore, caution in this area is advised. Any time sexual behavior is introduced into the work environment or among coworkers, the individuals involved are on notice that the behavior may constitute sexual harassment. Someone may try to argue that, when this requirement is taken into account, the law about sexual harassment turns out to be much less absurd. In order to see why the severe-or-pervasive test does not, in fact, detract from the argument we need to fully appreciate the implications of one important feature of the sexual harassment law that is often misunderstood by the general public. It is that the mechanism by means of which the harassment law is intended to prevent harassment has two levels. Unlike, say, the criminal prohibitions of rape, assault, and similar acts, that directly require individual potential rapists, assaulters, and so on to abstain from such acts, the law about sexual harassment, in general, does not operate primarily through requiring individual potential harassers to abstain from harassment. Resources 1. Collins, Eliza G. C. and Blodgett, Timothy B.; Harvard Business Review. Excerpt from "Sexual Harassment . . . Some See It . . . Some Won't", March/April 1981. 2. Cleveland, J. N., & Kerst, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of power: An under articulated relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 49–67. 3. Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000).Women and men in organizations: Sex and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 4. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. 5. Welsh, S. (1999). Gender and sexual harassment. Annual Review Sociology, 25, 169–190. 6. Yanai, D. (1998). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Women battery. Unpublished master's thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel. 7. York, K. M. (1989). Defining sexual harassment in workplaces: A policy-capturing approach. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 830–850. Read More