Sexual Harassment and Levels of Incidence - Research Paper Example

Sexual Harassment Contents INTRODUCTION 3 METHODOLOGY 3 SEXUAL HARRASMENT AND LEVELS OF INCIDENCE 4 Sexual harassment and bullying4 Power and organizational violations 5 Forms of Sexual harassment 7 Internet and Telephone-based harassment 8 The Problems Caused by Sexual Harassment at the Workplace 8 CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF SEXUAL HARRASMENT 9 The individual factors of the Harassed and the harassers 11 The victims of sexual harassment 11 The Harassers 12 Race and Sexual Harassment 13 Sexual harassment and sexual orientation 13 Sexual harassment and disability 14 The Experiences of Sexual Harassment 14 CONCLUSION 15 References 17 INTRODUCTION The EEOC defines sexual harassment as the unlawful harassment of a person – whether an employee or an applicant – based on the person’s sex. Harassment can refer to sexually-related abuse, sexual advances that are not welcomed, compulsion for sexual favors, and also other forms of physical and verbal harassment that assume a sexual nature (Bimrose, 2004). The behaviors that can be explained under the scope of harassment do not necessarily have to be of a sexual nature, but can also include remarks that are offensive, and targeted at the sex of the victim (EEOC 2014). For example, it is unlawful to harass a female employee, through making remarks that are offensive to the nature of women in general. Different from the traditional conception of sexual harassment, the harassing party and the victim can either be a man or a woman, and in other cases they can also be of the same sex. Despite the fact that the law does not prohibit offhand comments, teasing, or the isolated cases that are relatively subtle, harassment is illegal (Lawoko et al., 2004). This is, especially, the case when it is severe and frequent, to the extent that it makes the work environment offensive or hostile; it is considered illegal when it can lead to adverse decision-making relating to the employment of either parties (Bimrose, 2004). The adverse effects of sexual harassment include the demotion of the victim or the loss of employment, and the harasser can be a supervisor to the victim, a supervisor in another line of work, a co-worker or an external party, including a customer (EEOC 2014). This paper will explore the nature of sexual harassment, its characteristics and the experiences of sexual harassment. METHODOLOGY The main source of information for this report was the wide variety of databases for articles and publications about the area of sexual harassment: these databases include Emerald, Proquest, BIDS Ingenta, SpringerLINK, ScienceDirect, Business Source Premier and Inform Global. To offer focus to the search, different search terms were used, including sexual harassment, gender harassment, workplace violence and sexual harassment training. A majority of the sources related to the key terms were from Australia and the US – the focus of many of the sources was healthcare workers, particularly among nursing staffs (Privitera et al., 2005). Mott and Condor (1997) reported that during the 1990s, 85 percent of the studies done on sexual harassment had been carried out in the US, and that more than 70 percent of the total had used students or academics as the subjects. The outlook of these studies provided a relatively limited perspective about the issue of sexual harassment, therefore a lot of caution will be exercised, when generalizing the findings of previous research studies. However, it is important to note that the available sources, particularly those of the 2000s offer sufficient understanding and clarity about the issue, which will help in arriving at factual conclusions. SEXUAL HARRASMENT AND LEVELS OF INCIDENCE Sexual harassment and bullying From the wide exploration of the sources covering sexual harassment, it became imperative that many of the resources placed emphasis on the broader subject of workplace bullying. For this reason, before focusing on sexual harassment, it became important to explore the scope of workplace bullying, as well as the relationship that exists between the two areas. The attention offered to the subject of workplace bullying has increased considerably, since the phrase was conceived and introduced during the 1990s in Britain (Adams, 1992). Despite the fact that workplace bullying was, first developed in Scandinavia a decade before it receive major attention during the 1990s, it had not became a globally acknowledged issue featured in the agendas of International Institutions like WHO and ILO (Di Martino et al., 2003). The efforts of victims, trade unions and support groups, together with the outcomes of national surveys have shed more light on the issue and also helped in attracting an increasing interest from academics (Rayner et al., 2002). Workplace bullying has also been widened by the literature developed about sexual harassment, particularly due to the significance of power relations within organizational settings. The available literature shows that there are strong links between sexual harassment and workplace bullying, mainly because sexual harassment falls within the wider scope of workplace bullying. However, it is important to note that the subject of sexual harassment has developed more established theoretical underpinning, mainly due to its relation to feminist theories, and its firm placement within the wider framework of power relations (Cockburn, 1991). Power and organizational violations Collinson and Collinson (1989, 107) expressed the abuse of power, which leads to sexual harassment using this statement: “men’s sexuality and organizational power are inextricably linked”. Sexual harassment, in many cases, is a depiction of power abuse (Brewis, 2001) and the situation perpetuates a case where one class of people becomes systematically disempowered. Wilson and Thompson (2001) stated that sexual harassment is mainly, about the situation where men exercise power over women; this point out that harassment is linked to women’s disadvantaged status within the workplace and their subordinate nature within the society in general. For that reason, Wilson and Thompson (2001) conclude that sexual harassment is relatively very complicated; therefore it is relatively difficult to explore and explain it using theories of organizational power, like the three-dimensional model. Hearn and Parkin (2005) noted that sexual harassment has a number of distinctive features, which qualify it to be regarded a violation of the individual and the ethics of the organization, similar to workplace bullying. It is important to examine sexuality and gender, when exploring the characteristics of organizations, and the fact that sexuality and organizations nurture one another over the years (Hearn and Parkin, 2005, 94). However, the policies of many organizations tend to address the issues of bullying, harassment and violence like separate issues – and do little or nothing to recognize the relationship and the links between the three. For example, the violation of bullying is often viewed like one to be ashamed about, while harassment is regarded a relatively friendly violation. In a similar manner, reports of a victim of physical violence attract high levels of sympathy, and it is often followed by links to criminal behavior – but the other two are not treated in such a manner. Hearn and Parkin (2005) point out that using a non-gendered outlook when studying the culture of abuse and disrespect within an organization presents many limitations, where the most central one is the hierarchical nature of power. The first limitation is that the major group which is harassed sexually is women. The second limitation is that the violence perpetuated by men towards other men is often inclined towards the social construction of male masculinity. For example, aggression is linked to the behavior of males and violent or criminal activities are viewed like the vehicles they use to act-out these behaviors (Messerschmitt, 1993). The third limitation is that, despite the fact that an institution may seem like it is male-dominated; organizations with equitable gender representation among executive staffs, still depict masculine norms, which override other values. This situation can be evidenced using the case of midwifery, which is a highly female-inclined profession, where women are the main caregivers to other women. However, irrespective of the female domination of the profession, it is still administrated using a male-inclined medical perspective (Hearn and Parkin, 2005). There are also the issues related to the assumptions developed in the past, regarding effective management; historically, masculine and strong work environments were regarded more desirable and positive. Despite the fact that this outlook has changed to a considerable extent, over the past years, the gender of the managerial team may be less significant, when compared to the managerial style of the team. Forms of Sexual harassment Sexual harassment can assume a wide variety of forms. Many of the forms can be drawn from the case decisions made after the victims of harassment report the violations to employment tribunals, over the years. The behaviors that fall under the classification of sexual harassment include the following: leering, making sexual remarks, rude remarks, personal insults and sexual assault. Another group comprises showing sexually obscene images or pictures over different media, displaying pictures of naked people. It is universally agreeable that sexual harassment covers two types of behaviors. The first is often defined as ‘quid pro quo” and is related to the case where the party in power, will make implicit or explicit sexual advances or requests. In exchange to their advances, they may promise some desired outcomes, for example a promotion or a salary increment. The second type of behavior is that which leads to the creation of a hostile environment; these behaviors refer to the sex-oriented behaviors that make the victim of the harassment to feel uncomfortable, which makes them feel a sense of intimidation at the workplace. This form of sexual harassment is the main source of debate, mainly because it is relatively subtle and is often considered a grey area – when sexual harassment is being explored (Smolensky and Kleiner, 2003, 60). Smolensky and Kleiner (2003) offer examples of court cases that demonstrate the nature of the hostile environment created by sexual harassment. These examples include the case of female office employees working at AT & T technologies, which were being rated by male employees, while they passed by their desks; the rating was followed by lascivious remarks about their breasts and hips. The second example given was that of women, who were required to adhere to a dress code covering the ban of trousers at the workplace. The ban had been offered by their supervisor, and the ban was made with the intent of compelling them from wearing trousers, so that he could get the opportunity to view and admire their legs as they work. There was also the example of a female student at the New York City police training center, who had to face the case of an instructor who was fondling her breasts from behind, as she was firing her gun (Smolensky and Kleiner, 2003). Internet and Telephone-based harassment Sexual harassment is also committed over the telephone, and is a major problem at the workplace, especially among the workers of call centers. According to a 2000 report of the outcomes of a study at a German telephone company, it was imperative that men were the major group that harassed women; 10 percent of the subjects of the study reported that the incidences of sexual harassment contained sexually violent threats (Sczesny and Stahlberg, 2000). The victims of the harassment reported that the incidences were stressful, and many of the victims reported that the harassment made them to feel disrespected and disgusted (Sczesny and Stahlberg, 2000, 133). Sexual harassment over electronic platforms has escalated at the level that email and internet usage has increased. Over the decade between 1995 and 2005; the number of female internet users has increased from 5 to 66 percent (Leclaire, 2005). Khoo and Senn (2004) reported that women were much likely to report that email content was offensive and could be classified as sexual propositions. These messages that were regarded to be sexual propositions were regarded extremely offensive by women, but men were more likely to find them enjoyable and bearable. These different studies related to sexual harassment over electronic platforms shows that the internet and the telephone have offered newer platforms for harassers to perpetuate sexual harassment. The Problems Caused by Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Available statistics show that sex discrimination charges are very common; in 2005, the IRS reported that 34 out of 189 cases awarded fines involved some form of sexual harassment (IRS, 2006). These statistics show that women as well as men, across different industries and occupations have been victims of sexual harassment. However, estimated numbers of the incidence of sexual harassment varies widely; the wide differences in the numbers reported can be – partly – ascribed to the various definitions of sexual harassment, which are used in different papers, reports and studies. The disparities in the estimated numbers can also be attributed to the differences in the ways, in which the research about sexual harassment has been administered. For example, a 1999 survey administered in the UK, at a TUC women’s conference showed that 27 percent of the women covered by the survey had experienced some form of sexual harassment at the workplace (TUC, 1999). At the international level, many national surveys point out that sexual harassment is a problem at the workplace in many countries, including Germany, Austria, and Luxemburg – as well as in branch studies in Germany, Austria, Norway and the UK. The global review of national statistics showed that the frequency of sexual harassment falls between 70 and 90 percent. A medium incidence level of between 25 and 60 percent was reported from the National studies of UK, Dutch and Finnish studies. Lower incidence levels of between 2 and 25 percent were reported from the national branch studies of Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Netherlands. Among all the sexual harassment cases reported through the different studies, more than two-thirds had been perpetuated at the workplace. Further, it was reported that the harassers and the victims of sexual harassment vary from one case to another: 86 percent of harassers were men, and their victims were women, and the other 14 percent comprised of the men harassed by women or their fellow men. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF SEXUAL HARRASMENT In order to fully explore the problem of sexual harassment and the wide array of risk factors, it is important to comprehend to explore the causes and its patterns of incidence. Characteristics of organizations and workplace environments Traditionally, studies about sexual harassment have focused on the victims of harassment and the harassers; commonly, variables like the psychological nature of the perpetuators is explored (Jansma, 2000). A more holistic study of sexual harassment is necessary, despite the fact that a majority of past studied did not explore the social contexts surrounding the perpetuation of sexual harassment (Dellinger and Williams, 2002). Organizational culture plays an important role in determining the levels of sexual harassment that takes place within the organization. In support of this standpoint, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported in 2003 that prevention offers the best tool for the abolishment of sexual harassment at the workplace. The EEOC’s line of thought is that organizations should make it known – among all employees and managerial staffs – that sexual harassment is intolerable, and that the organization is responsible for the establishment of an organizational culture that discourages sexual harassment (Dougherty and Smythe, 2004). Despite the fact that sexual harassment can be viewed as isolated incidents, sexual harassments can also permeate the entire culture of an organization, depending on the intrinsic values of the organization’s culture. For example, the response offered to an organization, during the incidence of sexual harassment can influence – positively or negatively – the overall outlook of the organization as a whole (Clair, 1993). For instance, in the case that the members of an organization feel that sexual harassment is tolerated by the organization, it is very likely that a culture of sexual harassment will persist. Workplace situations can also influence the frequency of sexual harassment taking place within an organization. Kohlman (2004) stated that a blend of situational and personal factors contribute to the repetition of sexual harassment within an organization. For example, the men or the women that are likely to harass their victims are more likely to perpetuate harassment, in the case that the social norms or the circumstances permit that kind of behavior (Pryor et al., 1995). Sexual harassment is more likely to be committed in explicit ways, in the case that the workplace is highly sexualized; in organizations where sexually-oriented behaviors are more common, it is more likely that the cases of sexual harassment will also be more common. In the case that the norms of the given organization are more liberal about sexual behaviors, harassment is likely to occur more frequently (Pryor et al., 1995). Sexual harassment is much common in workplaces or occupations, where there is an unequal representation of the different genders and this is much common in male dominated occupations (Kohlman, 2004). For example, about half of the sexual harassment cases reported by women were from those working in occupations, which are female dominated, as compared to others. Also, the men employed in workplaces where there were more female employees were more likely to report sexual harassment, when compared to the men in other occupations. These inferences show that the gendered composition of a workplace or occupation is an important factor in determining levels of sexual harassment and the members of the gender that report harassment. Statistics on sexual harassment also show that it is more prevalent in occupations and workplaces, where there are wider power differences between women and men (Kohlman, 2004). This implies that, in workplaces where the men occupy managerial roles but the women hold lower status positions, sexual harassment is likely to be more common. The individual factors of the Harassed and the harassers The victims of sexual harassment Sexual harassment is widespread; therefore the groups that are harassed cannot fit into one group. However, some patterns can be seen from the groups that face sexual harassment and physical violence, and many of the characteristics of the groups are related to the following: marital status, age, behavior and personal appearance, personal attitudes and personality and wearing a uniform. For example, wearing a uniform can influence the likelihood of becoming a victim of sexual harassment, either as an antecedent or a deterrent. In many cases, wearing uniform can deter violence and harassment, but that is not always the case (Chappell and Di Martino, 2000). The studies of sexual harassment among organizations within the European Union have depicted that the people that fall victims of sexual harassment at the workplace are more likely to have common characteristics (EC, 1999). These characteristics include, being female, divorced or single, young (between the ages of 20 and 40), with lower education levels and those serving a short-term contract (they are more likely to have fewer employment rights) (EC, 1999). Further studies show that the age, race, education and the marital status of the victims are more significant in increasing their vulnerability to the harasser, as compared to their occupational level in the given organization. The Harassers On the other hand, the perpetrators of sexual harassment are often those in a position of power, when compared to their victims; the victims are often the inferiors of the harasser (Gruber and Morgan, 2005). Line managers are more likely to perpetrate sexual harassment, mainly because the complaint lodging system for the victims will require their participation; therefore many of the incidences are not reported. Many scholars hold reservations regarding the profiling of the personal characteristics of the harassers, but many studies of sexual harassment and violence show that some individual factors are common among the perpetrators (Mitchell et al., 2004). These individual factors include the traits of being hard-driving, competitive and lower levels of self-monitoring. Further exploration of the personal profiles of harassers has shown that many of them are likely to be young, to hold a history of violent behavior, male and likely to have been brought up in troubled families (Mitchell et al., 2004). For example, the people that have a lower level of self-monitoring behavior are more likely to make sexually offensive statements; these people are less likely to consider the impact of their behavior on others. Particularly, the men with lower levels of self-control are more likely to harass others sexually, as compared to those with inherently, higher levels of self-control. Race and Sexual Harassment Race is also a determinant in sexual harassment, because the adverse nature of racial dominance and male dominance within the workplace is likely to place some groups at a higher risk than others (Buchanan and Ormerod, 2002). For this reason, the women from ethnic minority groups are more likely to experience a totally different experience of sexual harassment, as compared to those from majorly racial groups. Buchanan and Ormerod (2002) stated that the sexual harassment reported among African American female workers is distinctive in its form and perception; they suggest that it is better referred as racial-guided sexual harassment. For example, from the reports of sexual harassment among African American female workers, sexual harassment is fully intertwined with racism (Mecca and Rubin, 1999, 877). Different studies have indicated that there is a close connection between sexual and racial dominance. Many organizations are administrated by white men, and these men receive the most benefits due to their racial and masculine privileges that are inherent within the fabric of many organizations (Buchanan, 2005). In many cases, the status of superiors – within the organization – is maintained through the harassment of those that occupy lower positions, due to the relative power imbalance. In many cases, the women of minority races and ethnic groups occupy low status work positions, therefore are likely to be more vulnerable to the violence and the harassment of their superiors. Sexual harassment and sexual orientation Despite the fact that sexual harassment at the workplace has been explored extensively, the effect of sexual orientation on harassment and the behavior of harassing others have not been explored sufficiently. Many of the studies done in the past have focused on harassment, where the harasser is a man and the victim is a woman, more studies have explored other types of harassment, including that by peers and same sex harassment (Fineran and Bennet, 1999). These types of harassment tend to move outside of the boundaries explored before, and are more likely to have distinctive characteristics. One of these studies, by Stonewall (1993) reported that more than half of gays and lesbians are harassed at the workplace, due to their sexual orientation. The most common forms of harassment for this class include homophobic abuse, jokes or teasing, aggressive questioning and threats. These statistics were confirmed by a study that covered 450 gay and lesbian unionized workers; 66.6 percent of the subjects reported that they had been discriminated or harassed sexually, due to their sexual orientation (TUC, 2007). Stockdale (2005) reported that 21 percent of the men that reported sexual harassment were harassed by other men, and that shows a huge contrast from the case of women, where only 2 percent of the women that reported sexual harassment were victimized by other women. Sexual harassment and disability Feminist scholars have reported that the people living with disabilities, particularly the women, are more likely to suffer from sexual, physical and emotional abuse, harassment and humiliation (Howe, 2000). The employees living with disabilities or those suffering from long-term illnesses are five times more likely to suffer from sexual harassment, when compared to those without such conditions (Grainger and Fitzer, 2006). The Experiences of Sexual Harassment Women are likely to be reluctant in reporting sexual harassment, mainly because they define it in terms of the level of seriousness; in many cases, they will report that their experiences are not serious enough, to warrant any action. This outlook affects the study of workplace harassment, because the statistics of harassment do not give the full picture of the problem. Sexual harassment can trigger negative effects on the victims, both in the short and the long term (Howe, 2000). The effects include humiliation, loss of self confidence, anger, psychological shock and illnesses. In other cases, it is likely to cause problems at the workplace: these problems include decreased job satisfaction and performance, resignation and absenteeism. Witnessing sexual harassment can also affect other employees, which can lead to the development of a negative outlook towards work. CONCLUSION There are many definitions of sexual harassment, but that of the EEOC is all-encompassing and states that it is the unlawful harassment of an individual due to their sex. This study will explore different literatures, to gather information about the scope of sexual harassment, the characteristics of the behaviors and the nature of the parties involved. Sexual harassment is related to workplace bullying, mainly because it falls under the scope of bullying. The power structure of an organization influences the incidence of sexual harassment, because some organization’s power structures favor harassment while others deter it. There are many forms of sexual harassment, but all of them fall under two wider groups, including the quid pro quo and the one that leads to the creation of a hostile workplace. The increased usage of the telephone and the internet has offered a new platform, over which sexual harassment can be perpetuated – whether within an organization or from outside. The nature of different organizations either increases the incidence of sexual harassment or reduces the levels of incidence. Studies covering sexual harassment show that the victims of harassment are more likely to be female, single and young. Race is more likely to increase the incidence of sexual harassment, because racial domination and power dominance play key roles in influencing the behavior. The experiences of sexual harassment vary from one person to another, but its effects include humiliation, a reduction in confidence levels, and psychological difficulties – which are likely to cause problems like decreased performance at the workplace. References Adams, J. (1992). Bullying at work. How to confront and overcome it. London: Virago Press. Bimrose, J. (2004). Sexual harassment in the workplace: an ethical dilemma for career guidance practice? British Journal of Guidance and Counseling. 32 (1), 109-121. Buchanan, N. T. (2005). The nexus of race and gender domination: racialized sexual harassment of African American women. In J. E. Gruber and P. Morgan (eds.) In the company of men: male dominance and sexual harassment. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Buchanan, N. T., & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American women. Women and Therapy. 25: 107-124. Co-published simultaneously in C. M. West (ed.) Violence in the lives of black women: battered black and blue. New York: Haworth Press. Chappel, D., & Di Martino, V. (2000). Violence at work, 2nd edition. Geneva: ILO. Clair, R. P. (1993). The bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse: a study of the big ten universities. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 123-157. Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women: men’s resistance to sex equality in organizations. London: Macmillan. Collinson, D. L., & Collinson, M. (1989). Sexuality in the workplace: the domination of men’s sexuality. In J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff and G. Burrell (eds.) The sexuality of organization. Sage: London. Dellinger, K., & Williams, C. L. (2002). The locker room and the dorm room: workplace norms and the boundaries of sexual harassment in magazine editing’. Social Problems, 49 (2), 242-257. Di Martino, V., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Preventing violence and harassment in the workplace. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities. Dougherty, D. S., & Smythe, M. J. (2004). Sensemaking, organizational culture, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32 (4), 293-317. EEOC. (2014). Sexual Harassment. U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm European Commission (EC). (1999). Sexual harassment at the workplace in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1999). Gender and power issues of peer sexual harassment among teenagers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 626-641. Grainger, H., & Fitzner, G. (2006). Fair treatment at work survey 2005. Employment Relations Research Series No.63. London: Department of Trade and Industry. Gruber, J. E. and Morgan, P. (2005). In the company of men: male dominance and sexual harassment. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Hearn J., & Parkin, W. (2005). Recognition processes in sexual harassment, bullying and violence at work: the move to organizational violations’. In J. E. Gruber and P. Morgan (eds.) in the company of men: male dominance and sexual harassment. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Howe, K. (2000). Violence against women with disabilities - an overview of the literature. Women with Disabilities Australia (WWDA). Retrieved from: http://www.wwda.org.au/contents.htm IRS. (2006). Compensation awards 2005. Equal Opportunities Review, 155, 5-26. Jansma, L. L. (2000). Sexual harassment research: integration, reformulation, and implications for mitigation efforts. In M. E. Roloff (ed.) Communication yearbook 23. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cited in D. S. Dougherty and M. J. Smythe (2004) Sensemaking, organizational culture, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 32 (4), 293-317. Khoo, P. N., & Senn, C. Y. (2004). Not wanted in the inbox! Evaluations of unsolicited and harassing emails. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 204-214. Kohlman, M. H. (2004). Person or position? The demographics of sexual harassment in the workplace’. Equal Opportunities International, 23 (3-5), 143-162. Lawoko, S., Soares, J., & Nolan, P. (2004). Violence towards psychiatric staff: a comparison of gender, job and environmental characteristics in England and Sweden. Work and Stress, 18 (1), 39-55. LeClaire, J. (2005). Study: men and women use internet differently. TechNewsWorld, 29 December. Retrieved from: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48048.html Mecca, S. J., & Rubin, L. J. (1999). Definitional research on African American students and sexual harassment’. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 813-817. Mecca, S. J., & Rubin, L. J. (1999). Definitional research on African American students and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 813-817. Mitchell, D., Hirschman, R., Angelone, D. J., & Lilly, R. S. (2004). A laboratory analogue for the study of peer sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28 (3), 194- 203. Mott, H. and Condor, S. (1997). Sexual harassment and the working lives of secretaries. In A. Thomas and C. Kitzinger (eds.) Sexual harassment: contemporary feminist perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press. Privitera, M., Weisman, R., Cerulli, C., Xin, T., & Groman, A. (2005). Violence toward mental health staff and safety in the work environment’. Occupational Medicine, 55 (6), 480-486. Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. (1995). A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issue, 51, 69-84. Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying: what we know, who is to blame, and what can we do? London: Taylor and Francis. Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2000). Sexual harassment over the telephone: occupational risk at call centres. Work and Stress,14 (2), 121-136. Smolensky, E., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). How to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Equal Opportunities International, 22(2), 59- 66. Stockdale, M. S. (2005). The sexual harassment of men: articulating the approach-rejection theory of sexual harassment. In J. E. Gruber and P. Morgan (eds.) in the company of men: male dominance and sexual harassment. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Stonewall. (1993). Less equal than others: a survey of lesbians and gay men at work. London: Stonewall. Trades Union Congress (TUC). (2000). Straight up! Why the law should protect lesbian and gay workers. London: TUC. Trades Union Congress (TUC). (2007). Union report highlights high levels of harassment for lesbian, gay and bisexual workers. Press release 23 May: http://www.tuc.org.uk/equality/tuc-13342-f0.cfm Wilson, F., & Thompson, P. (2001). Sexual harassment as an exercise of power. Gender Work and Organization, 8, (1), 61-83. Read More