Evaluating the Causes and Nature of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

Evaluating the Causes and Nature of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

Sexual harassment is a human rights violation and has severe costs to organisations and employees. Hersch (2015) note that above 75 nations have legislations that prohibit the vice and enact strict measures for the perpetrators. The impacts of sexual harassment at the workplace include reducing the individual and organisational performance, increasing turnover, and absenteeism. Shaw, Hegewisch, and Hess (2018) argue that currently, the MeToo movement has enhanced sexual harassment visibility and social prejudice at the workplace. Also, the movement describes the toll that these challenges have on women’s lives. To women, the effects of harassment are reflected in their dissatisfaction and overall wellbeing, including physical and mental problems. A concern, however, in sexual harassment is the focus on women, yet social prejudice also impacts men. Spencer and Barnett (2011) espouse that there are inadequate approaches to evaluate the harassment among men despite being targets of the assault. This paper critically evaluates the causes and nature of sexual harassment at the workplace for both men and women.

Theoretical Framework

The structure of gender inequality is explained by radical theory. Whetmore (2014) define radical aspect as women subordination due to the biological distinction between the sexes. The theoretical framework is further linked with the feminist and masculinity concepts. The central notion is that women are oppressed due to their biological difference from men. Also, women are oppressed as a group. To radical feminists, the challenges faced by women commence by the assumption that men oppress them and that the prejudice began in the prehistorian period. Other concepts that define the oppression are sexual aggression among men, the definition of sexuality, and the status of the gender. Sexuality, for instance, is characterised strongly by the women’s abilities to control and define their sexuality. Concepts, such as celibacy and the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender are more pronounced when women are concerned. The gap in radical theory is the assumption that only women are oppressed. Men also characterise contemporary society as victims of social prejudice. Women empowerment is also emphasised, and movements, such as MeToo have a rich foundation in protecting women. Besides, as noted by Parpart, Connelly, Connelly, and Barriteau (2000), contemporary society reflects on women in various occupations and owning businesses, thus have high power and ability to assault men. It is, therefore, vital to establish movements that also protect men from sexual harassments among other social prejudices.

Nature of Sexual Harassment

The occurrence process defines sexual harassment. Howald, Walker, Melick, Albert, and Hunag (2018) note that there is no specific definition of sexual harassment. However, the primary construct is the sexual-related behaviour that is unpleasant and considered as offensive by the recipient. Howald et al. (2018) are, however, biased since they believe only women as victims. Other aspects that define prejudice are the harassment exceeding the individual’s resources and threatening one’s physical and mental wellbeing. In the recent definition of the term sexual harassment, the aspect of gender is replaced by hierarchy and power. According to McDonald (2012), harassment is a workplace behaviour that factors the authority and power relations at the core. The introduction of the power differential concept is aimed at eliminating the femininity and masculinity notions. The traditional idea that sexual harassment mainly targets women does not imply that men cannot be affected. Contemporary studies are concerned with how either gender can be the perpetrator of sexual harassment. Organisational policies, cultures, and structures have also eliminated the specification of women as the primary victim. The definition leaves the defining concepts as open to either gender and advocates for strict measures against any individual.

The nature of sexual harassment is reflected in three categories of coercion, unwanted attention, and harassment based on gender. Holland et al. (2016) define the three types by the actors and the conditions. Sexual coercion as a prototypical form involves a situation where the harasser attempts to develop a sexual relationship while using bribes and threats. Termination, for instance, is used to threaten the individual to agree with the sexual-based link. Although it is a rare form, it is still a significant issue that should be considered in developing organisational laws and policies. In unwanted sexual attention, the perpetrator advances sexual or romantic behaviours that are offensive to the other individual. Persistently requesting for dates and touching the other person in a discomfort manner reflect on sexual attention. This form of harassment instigates the romantic and sexual relationships. Holland and Cortina (2013) note that the combination of sexual coercion and unwanted attraction refers to sexual-advance harassment. Gender harassment (GH) is another type of sexual harassment that involve hostile behaviours rather than approaches that reflect sexual interests. GH is described by degrading attitudes and insults that are gendered. Making jokes regarding the individual’s body is an example of GH.

The individual factor as a sexual harassment predictor focuses on the demographic elements of the workers, including age, gender, role, and the serotypes. As described by Jahya (2014), the perpetrators are usually referred to as males, while the victims are mostly females. This reflects on the radical theory where the biological differences are the foundations of gender variation and the perception that women are the most oppressed. Men, on the other hand, conduct these sexual prejudices since they consider it as appropriate to their gender. Other previous arguments are that men are more sexually attracted compared to women, which explains the differences in sexual prejudice and women as the majority of victims. Women as individual factors can be described by the feminist and masculinity concepts. Masculinity theory, as defined by Jewkes et al. (2015) explains the differences between men and women and the foundation of male dominance. However, hegemonic masculinity is an idealised form of culture. Traditionally, men are considered the initiators of sexual activities and women are objectified based on sex. This demonstrates the reason for most perpetrators being men and women as victims.

The socio-economic outcomes describe the role of power relations and hierarchy in sexual harassment. Da Silva Fonseca, Portela, de Assis Freire, and Negreiros (2018) note that the position of an individual may influence sexual harassment. Organisational managers and leaders have staffing powers. Employees at lower ranks in the hierarchy are, therefore, prompted to compromise their values for social and economic benefits from the people in power positions. Performance management, for instance, involves evaluating the employees’ strengths and weaknesses and rewarding them according to the feedback. Notably, the rewards may be monetary, recognition, and benefits. Individuals at the position of influence can, therefore, use their power for a sexual favour in return of remarkable performance review. Mohamad and Suhaimi (2019) provide another example of how power and influence determine sexual harassment. Sexual coercion entails threatening actions to an individual, such as dismissal to force the individual to a sexual relationship. Notably, sexual bribes, both directly and indirectly define sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment impacts the victim and organisation in significant measures. Da Silva Fonseca et al. (2018) outline the diverse effects of sexual harassment, such as the socio-economic and the individual’s health. Sexually harassed individuals are likely to have mental and psychological issues, including stress and depression. These issues are associated with the individual’s thought processes. The social image stresses both women and men that been harassed sexually. Also, those harassed based on the position of authority are in a dilemma of reporting due to the consequences. This results in job dissatisfaction and may result in an individual leaving the organisation. As noted by Bohle et al. (2017), sexual harassment is a form of bullying, which impacts the individual’s satisfaction and retention. It also promotes a person’s intention to leave. Drawing from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, harassments impairs the individual’s perception of safety and results in psychological dissatisfaction.

Sexual harassment in contemporary society involves both men and women as victims or perpetrators. Berdahl, Magley and Waldo (1996) note that most studies previously focused on sexual harassment by men. Presently, men are considered as victims due to factors, such as power. Women, for instance, form a significant majority in executive positions due to gender equality. Therefore, a woman in a leadership position coercing a male subordinate is sexual harassment against men and requires attention, similar to that given to women as victims. Although men facing harassment is recognized in the current community, the cases remain few, due to the masculinity and stigma associated with men reporting such issues. Also, the role of the masculinity hegemony in defining such scenarios expects men as powerful against women. The point of women harassing men further reflects on the impacts of power at the workplace, which should inform the mitigation strategies. It is, therefore, essential to consider the psychological effects of sexual harassment against men as similar to that of women. This is based on other factors, such as labelling and the social expectations that men are strong.

Sexual harassment awareness has increased globally. Keplinger, Johnson, Kirk, and Barnes (2019) note that the social and political dimensions of sexual harassment are essential in developing knowledge on social prejudice. In the US, for instance, the 2016 elections that resulted in Donald Trump winning over Hilary Clinton resulted in protests throughout the country. The MeToo movement in 2018 January influenced women to unite and fight sexual harassment and assault. The campaign provides sufficient evidence regarding harassment and is characterised by 12 million posts on Facebook and 15 million impressions. Notably, impressions refer to the period and times the content has been displayed within the initial two days of its start. Hersch (2015) key findings include the international condemnation of sexual harassment and at least 75 countries enacting legislation that prohibits the social prejudice against women. These findings are clear indicators of awareness and efforts to mitigate the challenge.

The nature of sexual harassment in various countries is demonstrated by social norms, practices, and structures. Campbell and Chinnery (2018) uses a socio-ecological model to describe sexual harassment and notes that the individuals’ beliefs and attitudes are central in this form of social prejudice. Some of the views that influence violence include justification of violence against women, attributing the harassment to external elements, trivialising the effects, such as not taking the reports seriously, and shifting the blame to the victim. The radical model of social harassment reflects on these beliefs and attitudes that are held mainly against women. In the United Kingdom, sexual harassment is covered under the Equality Act of 2010. According to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), sexual harassment can occur to any individual regardless of the gender or age. Some of the aspects that define sexual harassment are sexual remarks, asking an individual about sex life, sharing sexual content, rape, and touching the other person without consent (ACAS, 2019). Notably, the Equality Act of 2010 protects employees against sexual violence.

Causes of Sexual Harassment

Organisational climate is a significant antecedent to sexual harassment at the workplace. As espoused by Quick and McFadyen (2017), sexual harassment is influenced by under-representation at the workplace and may include both women and men. Although there are tremendous improvements in representation in firms, there are still drawbacks, such as the reporting structure and actions against the perpetrators, especially those in the position of power. Organisation climate involves the tolerance for sexual harassment, demonstrating a lack of seriousness in acknowledging the social prejudice and its impacts. Another element that describes the organisational environment is the imbalance at the workplace. Firms that have more men than women are likely to have sexual harassment cases. In a workgroup that has the supervisors as a specific gender predominantly, it is apparent that the other gender is at risk of facing sexual harassment. Another aspect that describes organisation culture is the acceptance and failure to condemn the issues when they occur during the first instance. Notably, the role of organisational leadership and management is to enforce the sexual harassment laws and establish a culture of respect and diversity regardless of gender affiliation.

The causes of sexual harassment are described by intersectionality approach, which entails the differences among the workers. Cassino and Besen-Cassino (2019) note that individual differences have a significant relationship with sexual harassment. Single women have a higher probability of experiencing sexual harassment. Another factor that influences sexual harassment is the individual’s race or ethnicity. According to Raj, Johns, and Jose (2019), in an online survey regarding victimisation and ethnic difference, highlighted the ubiquity in sexual assault and harassment, particularly among Hispanics compared to the whites. Cassino and Besen-Cassino (2019) relate colour to power. Since individuals of colour are likely to be the minority in the workplace, there is a high probability of these individuals being victims in sexual harassment incidences. It is, therefore, imperative to evaluate the impacts of class, gender, race, and ethnicity in sexual harassment and how these factors relate. Demographic factors also have a relationship with sexual harassment at the workplace. Gender and race are, therefore, intertwined in sexual harassment against women of colour in organisations. However, the influence of demographic factors is based on the dominance behaviours.

Sexual harassment is related to the leadership and management of the organisation. Notably, there are three core forms of sexual harassment. These include verbal, physical, and non-verbal. In the oral form, it entails the suggestive comments, jokes, and sexual threats. Non-verbal involve sexual pictures and objects, insulting sounds, and obscene gestures. Physical harassment comprises brushing the body, touching, physical contact without the individual’s consent, and forced sexual intercourse (Hejase, 2015). The three forms of sexual harassment are described in two dimensions of a hostile work environment and Quid Pro Quo. In the Quid Pro Quo harassment, it entails a situation where the harasser coerces the victim for sexual favours in return for job, promotion, raise, and opportunities at the workplace. The victim, in this regard, accepts the request or threat to mitigate the consequences, including dismissal or demotion. The hostile working environment happens, when an individual faces sexual harassment due to an offensive culture and structure and one’s sex (Jones and George, 2011). The role of the leadership and management in these two forms of sexual harassment is centred on the failure to establish a supportive culture, that prohibits the sexual behaviours.

One’s gender and age influences sexual harassment. McDonald and Charlesworth (2019) identify vulnerable groups to sexual harassment at the workplace and note that both women and men are exposed to the risk of sexual prejudice. Women are, however, the majority of victims of sexual harassment. In the 2018 Australian Human Rights Commission, the percentage of women and men that reported experiencing sexual harassment at the workplace were 39% and 26% respectively. Another core finding is that four out of every five perpetrators were men. The aspect of age is demonstrated by young women, between 15 and 17 years’ susceptibility to sexual assault. Men are also potential victims of sexual harassment. The concept of LGBTQ is reflected in men that do not behave or act according to the conventional stereotype (Sheridan, Zolobczuk, Huynh, and Lee, 2017). 89% of men harassers are men. The influencing factors to men harassing men are based on the lack of masculine conduct and insinuations that one is gay. The concept of masculinity is, therefore, demonstrated in two ways. These include muscular men harassing women and assault of un-masculine individuals.

Failure by employers to take actions and organisations lacking complaint mechanisms propagate sexual harassment. Despite the implementation of equality policies, there are still firms and employers that are yet to integrate these strategies. McDonald and Charlesworth (2019) note that preventive approaches are framed in circumventing violence, removing the determinants and causes of the violence, and mitigating the risk factors. Failure by organisations to consider preventive action undermines the firms’ achievement of sexual harassment prevention. Crain and Matheny (2019), on the other hand, attributes the sexual assault against women to inadequate reporting mechanisms. The victims are influenced by aspects, such as fear, job loss, stigma, and discrimination. Both women and men are concerned with the perception of their social environment. Failure to establish supportive mechanisms continues to hinder the prevention measures to sexual harassment.

Sexual aggression and power structures are the foundations of sexual harassment. As noted by Williams, Gruenfeld, and Guillory (2017), there is a significant relationship between power forms, including powerlessness and high power and aggressive behaviours. Influential individuals at the workplace sexually objectify others based on the operant of the relevant goals (Civile and Obhi, 2016). However, Williams et al. (2017) argue that other factors exist alongside power structures, including the sex goals and power-sex relationship. Individuals at the position of power assault the subordinates due to their objectives and attitudes towards the person.

Powerlessness may also influence aggressive sexual behaviours. Both men and women that report insecurity and sexual harassment are likely in need of high social status and power. The causal relationship between powerlessness and sexually aggressive behaviours is described by Krings and Facchin (2009), who established that men that report unfair treatment outline a hypothetical situation of power that results in sexual exploitation. Individuals at high position of power or those with diverse feminist views are likely to face sexual harassment, such as insults and public display of their images. Notably, organisations should ensure equality in the power structure, and during investigations of sexual harassment, it should be established whether individuals have used their position of power.

In summary, sexual harassment in the workplace is a global concern. More than 75 countries have enacted sexual harassment laws. In the UK, for instance, the Equality Act of 2010 covers various harassments at the workplace, including sexual. The nature of sexual harassment is described by three core forms of verbal, non-verbal, and physical. Organisations such as MeToo have, therefore, advocated for sexual harassment measures. Notably, the impacts of sexual harassment are diverse, including high turnover and low satisfaction of the individual. Also, sexual harassment is associated with low motivation in the workplace and poor performance. Various models describe sexual harassment, including radical and masculinity, which focus on the biological differences among genders and sexes. The majority of sexual harassment victims are women, although men can also be affected. Men, as sexual assault victims, are characterised by lack of masculinity and behaviours that differ with the traditional stereotypes. Several aspects influence sexual harassment at the workplace, including weak reporting structures, ineffective leadership and management, power structures, and offensive organisational climate. Power impacts sexual harassment in two core forms of an individual’s position in the hierarchy and powerlessness. Further research should, therefore, focus on how these factors can be averted, including ensuring equality, enforcing sexual harassment laws, and establishing reporting mechanisms.

References

ACAS, 2019. Sexual harassment. Available [online] at: https://www.acas.org.uk/sexual-harassment (Accessed March 30, 2020).

Berdahl, J.L., Magley, V.J. and Waldo, C.R., 1996. The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(4), pp.527-547.

Bohle, P., Knox, A., Noone, J., Mc Namara, M., Rafalski, J. and Quinlan, M., 2017. Work organisation, bullying and intention to leave in the hospitality industry. Employee Relations.

Campbell, H. and Chinnery, S., 2018. What Works? Preventing & Responding to Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Available [online] at: https://www.care.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STOP-Rapid-Review.pdf (Accessed March 30, 2020).

Cassino, D. and Besen‐Cassino, Y., 2019. Race, threat and workplace sexual harassment: The dynamics of harassment in the United States, 1997–2016. Gender, Work & Organisation, 26(9), pp.1221-1240.

Civile, C. and Obhi, S.S., 2016. Power, objectification, and recognition of sexualized women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), pp.199-212.

Crain, M. and Matheny, K., 2019. Sexual Harassment and Solidarity. Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 87, p.56.

Da Silva Fonseca, T., Portela, A.V.M., de Assis Freire, S.E. and Negreiros, F., 2018. Assédio Sexual no Trabalho: Uma Revisão Sistemática de Literatura. Ciencias psicológicas, 12(1), pp.25-34.

Hejase, H.J., 2015. Sexual harassment in the workplace: An exploratory study from Lebanon. Journal of Management Research, 7(1), pp.107-121.

Hersch, J., 2015. Sexual harassment in the workplace. IZA World of Labor. Available [online] at: https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/188/pdfs/sexual-harassment-in-workplace.pdf (Accessed March 23, 2020).

Holland, K.J. and Cortina, L.M., 2013. When sexism and feminism collide: The sexual harassment of feminist working women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), pp.192-208.

Holland, K.J., Rabelo, V.C., Gustafson, A.M., Seabrook, R.C. and Cortina, L.M., 2016. Sexual harassment against men: Examining the roles of feminist activism, sexuality, and organisational context. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(1), p.17.

Howald, N., Walker, J., Melick, S., Albert, M. and Huang, S., 2018. Addressing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Available [online] at: http://www.infocoponline.es/pdf/ACOSOSEXUALLABORAL.pdf (Accessed March 23, 2020).

Jahya, A., 2014. Understanding sexual harassment: Predictors and consequences. Journal of Human Resources Management and Labor Studies, 2(2), pp.25-33.

Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D., Lindegger, G., Quayle, M., Sikweyiya, Y. and Gottzén, L., 2015. Hegemonic masculinity: combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(sup2), pp.112-127.

Jones, G.M., & George, M. J., 2011. Contemporary Management (seventh ed.). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Keplinger, K., Johnson, S.K., Kirk, J.F. and Barnes, L.Y., 2019. Women at work: Changes in sexual harassment between September 2016 and September 2018. PloS one, 14(7).

Krings, F. and Facchin, S., 2009. Organisational justice and men’s likelihood to sexually harass: The moderating role of sexism and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), p.501.

McDonald, P. and Charlesworth, S., 2019. Academic evidence on the causes, manifestations and responses to workplace sexual harassment: Initial submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. Available [online] at: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/Submission%20170%20-%20Prof%20P%20McDonald%20and%20Prof%20S%20Charlesworth.pdf (Accessed March 30, 2020).

McDonald, P., 2012. Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), pp.1-17.

Mohamad, M. and Suhaimi, S.A., 2019. Measuring an Interaction of Sexual Harassment and Employee Job Satisfaction. Asian Social Science and Humanities Research Journal (ASHREJ), 1(1), pp.19-26.

Parpart, J.L., Connelly, P., Connelly, M.P. and Barriteau, E. eds., 2000. Theoretical Perspectives On Gender and Development. IDRC.

Quick, J.C. and McFadyen, M., 2017. Sexual harassment: Have we made any progress? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), p.286.

Raj, A., Johns, N. and Jose, R., 2019. Racial/ethnic disparities in sexual harassment in the United States, 2018. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, p.0886260519842171.

Shaw, E., Hegewisch, A. and Hess, C., 2018. Sexual harassment and assault at work: Understanding the costs. Institute for Women’s Policy Research Publication, IWPR B, 376.

Sheridan, D., Zolobczuk, J., Huynh, K. and Lee, D.L., 2017. Workplace harassment and attitudes towards LGBT people: Differences across human service occupations in South Florida. Florida Public Health Review, 14(1), p.1.

Spencer, L. and Barnett, J.T., 2011. When men are sexually harassed: A foundation for studying men’s experiences as targets of sexual harassment. Speaker & Gavel, 48(2), p.5.

Whetmore, E.A.W., 2014. Empowering Women—A Series of Articles About the Surge in and Fragmentation of Mid-20th-Century American Feminist Theory: Article 1: Radical Notions. SAGE Open, 4(3), p.2158244014543784.

Williams, M.J., Gruenfeld, D.H. and Guillory, L.E., 2017. Sexual aggression when power is new: Effects of acute high power on chronically low-power individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), p.201.