Sexual Harassment as a Communication Phenomenon

1. Sexual Harassment as a Communication Phenomenon Creating Understanding as a Basis for Prevention

2. Sexual Harrassment • EEOC definition--unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature if 1) submission is made a condition of employment, 2) submission to or rejection of conduct is the basis for an employment decision, or 3) the conduct seriously affects an employee’s work performance or creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

3. Sources for Sexual Harassment Law • Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Title IX of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1972 • Fair Employment and Housing Act (California) • AB 1825 effective 1/1/05—all supervisors in companies w/ 50 or more employees must be given interactive SH training at least once every 2 yrs and within 6 months of a promotion Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

4. Types of Sexual Harassment • Quid Pro Quo--offering a reward or threatening punishment in return for sexual favors • Hostile environment--sexually suggestive, intimidating, or offensive conditions • Typical targets--college educated women under 35 working in predominantly male work areas Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

5. Sexual Harassment as Communication • Can be verbal or nonverbal • May result from differing communication styles (Tannen) • May result from an expression of power in relationships • May result from attempts at intimate interpersonal relationships in the workplace Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

6. Dealing with Sexual Harassment: Victim Strategies • If you believe the conduct is wrong, say so. Tell the perpetrator in clear terms that the conduct is inappropriate • Report the incident following workplace procedures • Document incidents in written form • If witnesses are present, have them verify the details of the incident Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

7. Organizational Responses to Sexual Harassment Charges • Take the complaint seriously, listen carefully • Conduct an investigation (outsourcing?) • Maintain objectivity, be sympathetic but don’t make promises of action prior to investigation • Suspend judgment--perpetrators have rights too • Have a policy in place and follow it Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

8. Beware of retaliation! • Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway v. White (2006) 9-0 decision • Retaliation exists if a reasonable person would have been deterred from reporting the offense • Designed to broaden protection for workers and dramatically decreases the flexibility of organizations to respond to workers who file harassment complaints Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

9. Sexual Harassment Policies for Organizations • Zero tolerance--commitment from the top • Make punishment consistent with the behavior--don’t specify first offense penalty • Consistent enforcement, same rules for all • Multiple reporting options • Can’t cover it just once, need updates • Organizations with a cultural of accepting upward communication will be more successful at preventing SH Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

10. Solomon and Williams Sexual Harassment Study • Vast majority of SH is hostile environment type--social-sexual communication often the key (sexual and relational advances) • 1/3 of all relations people have are initiated in the workplace • Highlights the importance of third party observations in cases of SH…but, what factors influence third party observations? Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

11. Solomon and Williams cont. • Distinguishing romantic interest and sexual harassment • perception of constrained behavior • perceived desirability of sexual advances • Study results • Explicit advances seen as more constraining than implicit (ambiguous) ones • Supervisor’s behavior is more likely to be seen as harassing than peer or subordinates Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

12. Solomon and Williams Study • Perceived severity of SH increases with the position power of the message initiator • Attractiveness related to perceived SH • unattractive men are more likely than attractive men to be perceived as harassers • individuals charged with sexually harassing attractive targets are more likely to be found guilty with harassing than when targets are less attractive persons Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

13. Solomon and Williams cont. Gender differences in harassment: • social-sexual communication initiated by males is seen as more constraining than females • Males are more likely to welcome social-sexual communication. Women view it as more explicit and harassing • Females initiating social sexual communication were seen as less harassing than if the same messages were initiated by males Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07

14. Solomon and Williams, conclude • Observer sex as key to perceptions of SH • women: are more negative on org. romances, view SH as more of a problem, show less tolerance for harassing behavior • males: more likely to view women as complicit • “Sexual harassment should be understood in terms of the power structures and gendered positions of males and females, which shape the meaning of social-sexual communication at work.” Prof. Nick Burnett, ComS 103, Sec. 11-18, F07