Sexual Harassment in Organizations - Case Study Example

Employee Hostile Working Environment

Introduction

In the past decade reports of sexual harassment has relieved growing attention in organizations. There has been alarming reported findings about the negative consequences associated with bullying, both individual and the organization concerned. As for the effects on organization, bullying has been shown to be associated with higher turnover and intent to leave the organization, higher absenteeism and decreased commitment and productivity (Hoel and Cooper 2000, p 45). For victim bullying has been reported to result in both lower levels of job satisfaction, psychosomatic symptoms and physical illness and possible expulsion from the labour market (Hoel and Cooper 2000 p. 77). Thus bullying is the most costly in an organization and society as whole (Leyman 1996 177). More so substantive task conflict has been shown to increase performance under certain circumstances, effective relationship conflict, which is harassment usually, does not have such positive effects (Jehn 1995, p. 270). Adverse negative outcomes have made workplace bullying and other forms of hostile interpersonal behaviors issues of great public interests and have led a growing study on them (Leyman 1995, p. 180). More details have been discussed on what leads to this condition and process may contribute to it and how to deal with it.

What is Hostile Working Environment

It is the repeated and persistent negative acts towards one or more individual which perceive power balance and create hostile work environment. Harassment is thus a form of interpersonal aggression or hostile, antisocial behavior in the work place. Harassment has been given different names in various areas in the US it is termed as employee abuse, in Australia, UK is called bullying etc (Aquino et a 1999 p. 26l). All of these have been used to describe forms of interpersonal aggression and hostile workplace behavior and do to varying extends do overlap. Bullying may consist of and encompass a number of different negative behaviors such as social isolation or silent treatment, rumors, attacking the victim’s private life or attitudes exercise, excessive criticism or monitoring of work, withholding information or depriving responsibility and verbal aggression (Einarsen 1996, p. 190). The difference between normal conflict and bullying is not necessary what and how is done but the longevity of what is done. The emphasis has been on the target own perception. It can be assumed that many of the reported consequences of bullying such as ill-health, reduced commitment and decreased productivity are strongly associated with the targets own evaluation of the situation.

Harassment is typically targeted towards one or a few selected victims, rather than being a form of more generalized work place activity. What is more not all acts that can be used as bullying tactics are necessary perceived as negative per se. Example isolated occasion of being given tasks below ones level of competence, tight deadline or not asked to join your colleagues for lunch or social events. Bullying has been seen as involvement of power imbalance thus the targeted individual is subjected to negative behavior on such scale that he she feels inferiority in defending himself (Einarsen and Skogstad 1996, p. 196). Power differences are a possible source of such imbalance in power but in contrast example bullying is not limited to vertical aggression from supervisors towards subordinates. Power imbalance can also be consequences of other individual, situation or societal characteristics (Cleveland and Kerst 1993, p. 60). In some cases even subordinates especially in a group may master enough power to bully a supervisor.

Factors that Contribute to Harassment in Workplace

Factors connected with job design and work organization have also been suggested as possible factors behind harassment. Examples include the absence of clear goals, organizational constraints, lack of control over one’s own job, and role conflict or ambiguity (Salim 2001, p. 430). Another factor that affects the prevalence of harassment is connected with organizational culture and social climate in an organization. Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) and Collinson (1998) have demonstrated the impact of role models and the kind of culture that celebrate toughness and encourages humiliating ‘jokes’ while failing to discourage ‘inappropriate treatment’. A poor social climate, marked by envy, competition and clique-building has also been shown to be a risk factor (Salin 2001, p. 50). Harassment can be analyzed applying a danger effect ratio thus perpetrator is likely to assess the potential risk associated with engagement in bullying and the potential benefit to be gained from it. It is important to both raise the cost and reduce the incentive in order to prevent harassment.

Prevention Of Harassment In Workplace

Organizational factors play an important part in either allowing or disallowing bullying to take place. To reduce bullying it is necessary to address the factors that might enable bullying and try to disenable it. Failure and weak to assume of responsibility in case of interpersonal conflict have both been identified as major risk factors. The action taken to increase leader competence in dealing with bullying is very important. Inclusion of skills in identifying and dealing with bullying and interpersonal conflict in management training is thus generally recommended as a way of reducing bullying. Awareness and knowledge of bullying at all levels is important so that situations that can lead to bullying can be quickly identified. Increase in awareness may also encourage employees to combat it. Getting prompt information about unacceptable behavior also helps (Salin 2001, p. 39). Checking the environment and monitoring the staff is also another prevention strategy. Informal or formal appraisal discussion with staff and regular employee surveys can provide useful information thus ensuring early intervention.

Grievance Procedure Model

Grievance should be presented to the immediate officer in either writing or orally. Such officer will give him decision within a period of 48n hours. If the officer does not give them any decision they should report to the head of department though this officer or by himself. Another aspect is when you report to the department head. He should give his feedback after three days. If this fails it should be forwarded to grievance committee. In the case when grievances are reported to committee the feedback should be given after one week (Salin 2001, p. 40). If the grievance committee does not give solution they are supposed to present to the management. If the employee is not satisfied by the decision given by the management they can forward it to the arbitrators. Both parties are given opportunity to explain their arguments after careful examination they give their decision. Decision of the arbitrators is binding upon both the parties. If the aggrieved employee has presented his grievances to the officer under the grievances handling procedures no formal agreement can be entered into the employee and management unless and until the proceeding of the grievances handling procedures are completed. A grievance becomes a dispute when the decision of department manager also is not satisfactory to the aggrieved party (Salin 2001, p. 45).

Question To Be Asked To Victim

Do you feel fairly treated by your boss? Yes/No

To what extend to you trust management to look after your interests?

How secure do you feel in your present job?

Do you feel under excessive pressure at work?

Do you look forward to going to work?

Can you explain what really happened?

Question To Be Asked To Perpetrator

Do you feel under excessive pressure at work?

Do you look forward to going to work?

To what extend to you trust management to look after your interests?

Can you explain what really happened?

In conclusion measures against work places bullying has provide fresh insight.HR department need to take part in dealing with bullying beyond formulating policies and initiating training and information. Aspects of prevention and monitoring of harassment are surveys, written policies, training, information and statistical reporting of cases found. Aspects connected to job design and internal communications are also important. Action is better than not doing anything. Badly planned program can have a detrimental or counterproductive effect on the attitude of anyone who feels their position is threatened by such initiative. Some factors may affect the adoption of preventive measures in organization or factors that may affect willingness of organization to take action in this area. The general conflict- management climate or safety climate itself may affect the way managers approach the question of bullying or other inappropriate treatment.

Work cited

HOEL, H., EINARSEN, S., & COOPER, C. (2003). Organizational effects of bullying. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (Eds) Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis,

LEYMANN, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), 165-184,

JEHN, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits & detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.

AQUINO, K., GROVER, S., BRADFIELD, M., & ALLEN, D. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (3), 260-272.

EINARSEN, S. (1996). Bullying and harassment at work: epidemiological and psychosocial aspects. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Psychosocial Science. Faculty of Psychology. University of Bergen.

EINARSEN, S., & SKOGSTAD, A. (1996). Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), 185-201.

CLEVELAND, J. N., & KERST, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of power: an under-articulated relationship.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42 (1), 49-67.

Salin, D. (2007). The effects of target gender and respondent gender on labeling and explaining workplace bullying, in Proceedings from the 19th Nordic Academy of Management Conference, Bergen, Norway, August 9-11th, paper available (November 26th, 2007) at http://www.nhh.no/conferences/nff/papers/salin.pdf.

Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees, Academy of Management Journal, 41 (6), 658-672.