Sexual harassment (SH) is a complex combination of legal and psychological issues that have received unparalleled attention in the last ten to fifteen years, alongside workplace bullying and other organisational concerns (Wellness, Steel, & Lee, 2007). As an organisational issue, research studies have continually stressed the importance of a cohesive workplace system involving an acute understanding between co-workers. As part of the complex dynamics and inter-relations connecting employees with their co-workers, such relations must not be taken lightly due to the onset of possible employee volatility. Although a strictly monitored environment is not the best solution, a guiding facet of strong employee-employer relations must come from enforcing a professional environment. While recent statistics on the prevalence of SH are currently unavailable, Statistics Canada (1993) reported that 87% of women experience workplace SH, and only 8% of those report harassment (Sexual Assault Centre, 2002). To contextualise the devastating impact of SH on the organisation, it will be beneficial to review the following:

1. The legal and psychological definitions of SH
2. The sources of SH in the organisation
3. The consequences of SH on an organisation
4. How can an organisation deal with SH

A brief yet detailed account of SH will be analysed based on the collective interviews of experts in the organisational consultation Erica Pinsky, the expert legal perspective of specialist civil litigator James Kerr, and the organisational insight provided by Michels Canada’s support ombudsman.

There are currently four definitions concerning SH. While each definition has an interesting perspective on the issue, the legal and psychological terms will be discussed. Legally, an individual has experienced SH if one of the following two scenarios occur: 1) quid pro quo (QPQ) scenario involving an ultimatum to make employment-related decisions (i.e. hiring, termination, advancement) because a victim complies with demands for sexual favours; 2) hostile work environment (HWE) which entails an employee’s unjustified interference with work performance due to an unprecedented amount of intimidation and hostility in a working environment (Wilkerson, 1999). Psychologically, an employee has experienced SH if they feel harassed. Executive authorities and legal counsellors alike have reacted to an experience of SH feeling very sceptical (Wellness, Steel, & Lee, 2007). However, for the legal position to remain valid and valuable in testimony, an employee would have had to experience SH for a prolonged period—such lengthy exposure to SH will have a tremendously devastating impact on the target. According to civil litigator James Kerr (2009), who has presided over several SH cases, “the legal system in Canada reviews cases of sexual harassment with much scepticism, for they have an impact on the organisation as well in the form of lawsuits.” CBC News (2009) reported that the legal system dragged a case of SH of an RCMP official for 3½ and was dismissed because of the lengthy period it took for the legal system to react to a proven case of SH in the workforce. According to Kerr (2009), such legal behaviour is not only expected but disturbing.

There are several sources of SH in an organisation, which can be separated based on the internal construct of the target as well as the external environment that produces SH. Based on a target’s internal construct, an individual’s susceptibility or feeling of sexual harassment may be more acute than another. The target may have had a previous experience and, therefore, is much more able to see and define unwelcome sexual advances as SH. Externally, the workplace may have a hostile work environment (HWE). Often, an organisation with cases of SH has a work environment with little policy and procedural enforcement, needs more structure, and produces a climate of incivility. According to the personal support ombudsman of Michels Canada, Jack Melange (2009), “lenient work policies such as uniform wear is perhaps one of the most distressing aspects of organisations today. With lenient dress codes and the current appealing trends that insist on revealing excessive skin may contribute to the onset of SH in the workforce.” Another source of SH can come from clients/customers simply because they feel privileged and respond pleasantly or viciously if their services are not met (Gettman & Gelfand, 2007). In addition, without proper screening, the harasser may become a prolonged part of the workforce and cause mayhem.

The consequences of SH for an organisation are tremendous. According to Malamut and Offermann (2001), a victim of SH become avoidant and experience denial, persistently seeking avoidance rather than confrontation as part of their coping strategies. Willness et al. (2007) found that SH consequences include minimal job satisfaction as well as with co-workers and supervisors, and victims develop hostile relations with clients, co-workers and employers, which may lead victims to jeopardise the success of an organisation. Victims of SH may respond with increased absenteeism and work distraction and may threaten to leave the workplace spontaneously (Wellness et al., 2007). Glomb et al. (1997) reported that observers of SH experience similar psychological disturbances as those experienced by the victim. According to organisational consultant Erica Pinsky (2009), “the organisation becomes an unsettling place for the victim, it may even spur the development of a hostile work environment.” Likewise, Jack Melange insists that the “consequences of SH for an organisation are to be deterred at all costs, literally and figuratively.”

An organisation can use several strategies to prevent the development of SH and its consequences. The beginning of the process concerns the development of rigorous SH awareness training to ensure that employees understand the limits of acceptable behaviour (Wilkerson, 1999; Cobb-Clark, 2003). Furthermore, SH training allows co-workers to label acts of SH accurately and are more likely to report such transgressions (Cobb-Clark, 2003). According to Mueller, Decoster, and Estes (2001), general work environments lowered the onset of SH because co-workers encouraged cooperation, protected one another, and felt that professional courtesy was integral for the organisation’s survival, empowering one another for success. At the onset of SH, co-workers must be encouraged to aid each other to reduce avoidant co-workers since they are the most costly to organisations (Meuller, Decoster, Estes, 2001). Pinsky (2009) notes, “when an employee reports an incident of SH, it must be followed through in a respectful manner.” Similarly, Berman et al. (2002) reported that the conditions of reporting specific incidents of SH must be held constant so that conditions do not change—the policy remains firm. Furthermore, James Kerr (2009) suggests that organisations can exercise preventative (training) and corrective (disciplining or counselling) procedures to ensure compliance with their regulations and policies.

Research has shown that an observer of an SH incident will have similar psychological disturbances as the victim. Glomb et al.’s (1997) research would provide a highly contributive analysis for Jack Melange regarding the complexity of the effect concerning SH. Furthermore, to prevent SH from falling “on deaf ears” (Pierce, Smolinski, & Rosen, 1998), Jack Melange of Michels Canada needs to ensure that his respective authorities follow closely with SH complaints. Research shows that decisive regulatory practices can substantially influence the overall health of a workplace (Pierce, Smolinski, & Rosen, 1998). Based on the recommendations provided by Pierce, Smolinski, & Rosen (1998), effectively addressing SH is a step-by-step process involving educational support for management, vigilance, immediacy, and establishment of regulatory policies which would significantly aid Michels Canada.

Despite the allure provided by surveillance equipment to regulate behaviour, organisations must utilise them to ensure that transgressors are never left unknown or their circumstances. In large organisations, employees feel a sense of anonymity, taking for granted that the bureaucratic order may or may not notice their transgressors—thus, the appeal of surveillance equipment. Organisations often utilise surveillance cameras to monitor workplace theft and other aspects; however, monitoring sexual harassment will be fruitful for the employee and the organisation—a controversial issue that researchers must study to guide organisations, particularly individuals like Jack Melange. A second recommendation is an open-door policy, empowering employees to see the manager without going through the chain of command and other corporate formalities. Lastly, researchers have focused too much on the benefits of policy documents and management responses. Researchers must study the workforce in their independent industries because each industrial circumstance may reveal more complex human behaviour relative to the industry.

Sexual harassment is incredibly complicated—psychologically and legally. The intricacies involved in preventing unwanted behaviour and assuring positive employee relations are significant tasks that may burden an organisation enormously; however, in creating such an atmosphere, the organisation is set up for decisive success and strong employee commitment. While SH can be defined in perhaps a hundred different ways based on the researcher’s perspectives, the most frequently referred to are the legal (QPQ & HWE) and the psychological definitions (harassment based on a feeling). The legal process can be a strenuous endeavour (e.g. RCMP case), and its prerequisite of prolonged SH can have a terrifying impact on the victim; they may even develop post-traumatic stress disorder. Within an organisation, sources of SH are the client/customer, procedural lenience, HSE, and the victim’s susceptibility, which can have a severe impact on the organisation in the form of victim avoidance, workplace distraction, absenteeism, and turnover (Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007; Wilkerson, 1999). Furthermore, observers of an SH incident may react similarly. An organisation must exercise strict policies and ensure that all employees undergo SH training; organisations must also provide a strong foundation for co-worker unity and encourage these policies as integral to the organisation’s overall foundation.

Mr Kerr (2009) must continue to aid organisations by preparing them for any legal repercussions without the SH policies to bind employees and management securely. Ms Pinsky (2009) must encourage employees to speak with their superiors, reduce avoidance as much as possible, and consult with organisations to ensure SH does not occur in the workplace. Mr Melange (2009) must appeal to his superiors to ensure that the voices of those who suffered workplace abuse are known throughout the organisation’s grievance process.

‍

Bibliography

Antecol, H., & Cobb-Clark, D. (2003). Does sexual harassment training change attitudes? A view from the federal level. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 826-842.

Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P. A., Cortina, L. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The (un)reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 230-242.

Canadian Broadcast Corporation. (2009, March 18). RCMP’s sexual harassment case was dismissed because the inquiry took too long. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from CBC.ca: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/03/18/harassment-complaint.html

Gettman, H. J., & Gelfand, M. J. (2007). When the customer shouldn’t be king: Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment by clients and customers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 757-770.

Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71 (3), 309-328.

Kerr, J. D. (2009, November 5). Discussion about Sexual Harassment and Policy Procedures. (S. Abbaspour, Interviewer)

MacQuarrie, B. (Director). (2002). The way forward: Rethinking the problem of workplace sexual harassment [Motion Picture].

Melange, J. (2009, November 13). Workplace policy and its effectiveness. Michels Canada. (S. Abbaspour, Interviewer)

Mueller, C., De Coster, S., & Estes, B. S. (2001). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Unanticipated consequences of modern social control in organisations. Work and Occupations, 411-446.

Offerman, L. R., & Malamut, A. B. (2002). When leaders harass: The impact of target perceptions of organisational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 885-893.

Pierce, E., Smolinski, C. A., & Rosen, B. (1998, August). Why sexual harassment complaints fall on deaf ears. Academy of Management Executive, 41-54.

Pinsky, E. J. (2009, November 1). Discussion about sexual harassment. (S. Abbaspour, Interviewer)

Wilkerson, J. (1999). The impact of job level and prior training on sexual harassment labelling and remedy choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 (8), 1605-1623.

Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60 (1), 127-162.