(PDF) Sexual Harassment in Organizations: A Decade of Research in Review

25

Sexual

Harassment

in

Organizations:

A

Decade

of

Research

in

Review

Lilia

M.

Cortina

and

Jennifer

L. Berdahl

For 30

years, sexual

harassment

has

been

recognized

as a serious

organizational

prob-

lem and

a violation

of

US

law.

The Navy

Tailhook scandal

and

Clarence

Thomas

hear-

ings

in l99l

launched

sexual

harassment

to

the

forefront

of

public attention.

This was

followed

by a

virtual explosion

ofresearch

on

the topic,

leading

to the

estimate

that

one out

of

every two

women

is

harassed at

some

point

in her

working

life. We

review

this scholarship

in the current

chapter,

concentrating

on the

last

decade

ol

work.

Our

principal locus

is sexual

harassment

in

the

workplace.

Although

sexual

harassment

also

occurs

elsewhere,

other

domains

are

beyond

the

scope

of this

chapter.

This

chapter

also

primarily

covers

research

since

the

mid-1990s

(except

for

brief

historical

overviews).

Sexual

harassment

scholarship

began

in the

late

I

970s,

and several

large-scale

surveys

in the 1980s

(Gutek,

1985;USMSPB,

1981, 1988;

Martindale,

1990)

influenced

work that

followed.

Since

then,

however,

the

workforce

has become

more

educated

about

sexual

harassment,

organizational

methods

of

combating

sexual

harassment

have evolved,

and

sexual-harassment

research

methodolo-

gies have become

increasingly

advanced.

We

therefore

concentrate

on

the

most

recent,

methodologically

sophisticated

work.

Finally,

resea¡ch

on this

topic

largely

addresses

men's

harassment

of

women, so

this

will be the

main

focus

of our

review.

We organize

this chapter

around

the fol-

lowing

questions:

What is sexual

harassment?

Why

does

it

happen?

Who

harasses

whom?

What

are

its effects?

Finally,

how do

and

how should

individuals

and

organizations

respond

to sexual

harassment?

Each of these

sections

provides a

brief

historical

recap

of early

work on

the topic,

followed

by

a

detailed

review

of

recent

scholarship.

Throughout,

we address

¡elevant

issues

in

US

law

but

maintain

a

focus on

theory

and

finclings

tiom social

science

(particularly

psychology).

The chapter

will close

with

a

discussion

of

the

future of

sexual

harassment

scholarship.

47fJ

DEFIN¡NG SEXUAT HARASSMENT

There are two main approaches to defining

sexual harassment: One from a

legal

perspec-

tive and the other from a social-psychological

perspective.

In

general,

social-psychological

definitions are

broader

than legal ones, though

recent

exceptions exist.

A third

perspective

on sexual harassment

-

the

public,

or lay

perspective

-

preceded

legal

and social-

psychological

ones but now lags well behind

each

in

understanding the scope,

nature, and

impact of the

phenomenon.

We review each

in turn

below.

Legal

definitions

According to historical writings, sexually

harassing behavior has long been a

problem

(e.g.,

Segrave, 1994). The term

'sexual

harassment,' however,

only emerged

in the

1970s, when feminists argued that sexual

threats, bribes, and objectification

presented

odious conditions of employment often

faced

by

women,

but

rarely

by

men,

and

therefore constitute unlawful sex discrimina-

tion

(Farley,

1978; MacKinnon, 1979). The

historical

pervasiveness

of this behavior made

it so taken-for-granted that courts initially

balked at the

idea

of calling

it

discrimination,

and early cases were denied or decided

in favor

of defendants. Organizations saw

sexual harassment as a

'private'issue

between

the

harasser

and

victim,

beyond the scope

of organizational responsibility

(MacKinnon,

r979).

This changed in the late 1970s when

US courts finally

decided that

women who

lost

jobs

for failing to comply with their

employers' sexual

demands

were

discrimi-

nated against based on sex

(beginning

with

Williams v. Saxbe, 1976). Courts used

Title VII

of the

1964

Civil

Rights Act to

reason that

quid

pro quo

sexual harassment

(the

loss/denial

of a

job-related

benefit

fbr

refusal to cooperate sexually) was illegal

sex discrimination.

The legal

definition of

sexual harassment was expanded in the I 980s

to include hostile

environment

harassment:

Unwanted sexual attention and requests that

THE

SAGE

HANDBOOK

OF

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

do not necessarily come

from a

supervisor or

result in the loss/denial of aj ob-related benefi t,

but that create a

hostile work

environment

(Bundy

v. Jackson, l98l; Meritor Savings

Bank v. Vinson, 1986).

Unlike

quid pro

quo

harassment, which typically involves

one

perpetrator

and

victim, hostile

envi-

ronment harassment can involve multiple

perpetrators

and

victims.

Some acts

(e.g.,

posting pornography,

telling sexist

jokes)

may

be experienced by

many employees but

create a hostile environment for only a few.

Recognizing hostile

environment

harassment

meant recognizing that sexual behavior

itself

can be

hostile

and

demeaning,

particularly

to women, who constitute the main targets

of sexual objectification, exploitation, and

violence in the world. Sexual behavior at

work

can therefore

remind men and women of their

unequal status

in

society

more

broadly

and

reinforce

their

inequality

at

work.

In 1980 the

US

Equal Employment Oppor-

tunity Commission

(EEOC;

the legal entity

charged with enforcing federal sex discrimi-

nation law)

developed the

ibllowing

defìnition

of sexual harassment, still used today:

Unwelcome sexual advances,

requests for sexual

favors,

and other

verbal

or

physical

conduct of a

sexual

nature

const¡tute sexual

harassment when

this conduct expìicitly or

implicitly affects an

individual's employment, unreasonably

interferes

with

an

individual's work

performance,

or

cre-

ates an

intimidating, hostile,

or offensive

work

environment.

(p.

7 4617)

The EEOC has

since

offered more specific

guidelines

for identifying sexual harassment.

Prompted

by court

rulings,

these

include that

the victim and harasser can be ofthe same sex,

that the

harasser need not

be

employed by the

victim's organization, and that the victim can

be anyone affected

by the conduct

(including

those not directly targeted).

As

awareness of sexual

harassment and

the breadth of behavior

covered by law

have

grown,

so too have the number of

gricvancos

filed.

In 1980,

the

EEOC rcceived

one sexual harassment complaint.

By 1989,

nearly

6,000

new cases had been fìled, and

between 1990 and 1999 this number soared

SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

To 37,725.

The number

of

new complaints

filed

annually

peaked at 5,332

in the

year

2000, and

has declined

slightly

each

year

since

(http://www.eeoc. gov/stats/trarassment.html).

Sociahpsych

ol o

gi

cal d efi

niti o ns

Unlike

legal deûnitions,

social-psychological

perspectives on sexual

harassment

do

not

require

negative

work outcomes

and

therefore

tend to be

broader.

The focus

instead

is on

speciflc

behaviors

and

the victim's

subjective

experience

of those

behaviors.

Illustrating

this

perspective, Fitzgerald

et al.

(1997:

15)

define

sexual harassment

as

'unwanted

sex-

related behavior

at

work that

is appraised

by the

recipient

as offensive,

exceeding

her

resources, or

threatening

her

well-being.'

Psychologists

have concentrated

on

devel-

oping

operational defi

nitions

of

sexual

harass-

ment.

In a

now-classic

study,

Till

(1980)

collected descriptive

anecdotes

and classi-

fied sexually

harassing

conduct

into five

categories:

(1)

generalized sexist remarks

or behavior;

(2)

inappropriate

and

offensive

(but

essentially

sanction-free)

sexual advances;

(3)

solicitation

of sexual activity

orothersex'linked

behavior

by

promise

of rewards;

(4)

coercion

of sexual

act¡vity

by threat

of

punishments; and

(5)

sexual

assaults.

Fitzgerald and

colleagues

(1988)

developed

a

list of behaviors

to reflect

these five categories

and asked

women

students and

employees

how

often they

experienced

each.

Factor-

analysis

revealed a

three-factor

structure:

(1)

gender

harassment

(Till's

more in

male-dominated

than

female-dominated

work contexts

(Berdahl,

2007a;Fitzgerald

et al.,

1997; Glomb et

al.,

1999; Grubcr,

1998; Mansfield

et al.,

l99l).

It might

be the amount

of contact

a woman

has with

men, rather than

occupational

sex

ratios,

that best

predict

women's

likelihood

to be sexually

harassed

(Gutek

et al.,

1990;

Gruber,

1998).

A second

perspective is that negative

atti-

tudes

toward women

drive sexual

harassment.

SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

Theorists

have long argued

that sexual

harassment

is a

form ofhostility

and

aggres-

sion

toward

women in the

worþlace

(e.g.,

Farley,

1978; Franke,

1997;

MacKinnon,

1979; Schultz,

1998).

In a now-classic

study,

Pryor

(

1987) demonstrated

that

men who

held

negative

attitudes

toward

women,

and who

admitted

to being

likely to

rape a

woman if

they

could

get

away with

it, were

more likely

to sexually

harass a

woman

when

given

the

chance.

A third

perspective offers

a combination

of

the

first two:

Sexual

harassers

are motivated

by sex

roles and

sexist

hostility

(Fiske

and

Glick,

1995).

Based on

their theory

of

ambivalent

sexism,

Fiske

and Glick

(1995)

suggested

that:

(1)

unwanted

sexual attention

is mainly

motivated

by romant¡c

interest and

'benevolent'

sexist

beliefs

(i.e.,

those assuming

heterosexual

interdependence

and

complementarity);

(2)

gender

harassment

is mainly

motivated

by inter-

gender

competition

and hostile

sexist beliefs

(i.e.,

those assuming

female

malevolence

and

inferiority);

and

(3)

mostepisodes

of sexual

harassment

includesome

combination of

these behaviors

and

motives.

The

fact that sexual

coercion,

unwanted

sexual

attention,

and

gender harassment are

highly

correlated

(e.g.,

Fitzgerald

et al.,

1995a;

Schneider

et

al., 1997)

supports

this assertion

as

well as the

possibility that all

forms of

sexual

harassment

share

a common

root.

The

power

perspective:

Structural

design

The

power perspective views

sexual harass-

ment

as the

result of

power inequality

that enables

harassers

to sexually

coerce

and objectify

those

'beneath' them

in a

hierarchy

(e.g.,

Farley,

1978;

MacKinnon,

1979).

Power

inequality

facilitates

sexual

harassment,

and

sexual

harassment

reinforces

power inequality.

Advocates

of this

perspec-

tive

rarely

articulate

the direct

motives

of

harassers,

but

usually assume

that

harassers

are

motivated

by sexual

desire,

a desire

to

dominate

the

victim, orboth.As

Farley

(1978:

207) argued,

[F]emale

oppression

at

work is the

result of

nearly

universal

male

power

to

hire and

fire. Men control

the

means of economic

survival.

This control,

however,

is

also

used to

coerce

working

women

sexually.

Institutionalized

male

power

has thus

created

its

own

means

of

maintain¡ng

its superior

position.

Different types

of

power may enable

sexual

harassment

(Berdahl

et

al., 1996;

Cleveland

and

Kerst,

1993; Farley,

1978; MacKinnon,

1979).

A frequent

argument

is

that harassers

use

their

organizational

power

to

impose

their

sexual

will on

victims, as

in

quid pro

quo

harassment.

This

is a limited

view of

power,

however.

A

broade¡

view considers

power relationships

outside

the organization.

Women are usually

moreeconomically

depen-

dent

on men than

vice-versa.

Thus,

if a woman

does

not

please

her

male boss

(sexually

or

otherwise),

she

is less able

to support

herself

and must

depend

on a

man at

home; if a

woman

does

not

please

a

man at

home,

she is

made more

dependent

on

her male

boss,

and so

on.

This

pervasive economic

power

yields

another

type

that enables

men

to

sexually

harass

women: Social

power,

upheld

by societal

values

and beliels

about

men

and

women's appropriate

status,

roles,

and

inherent

worthiness.

With social

power,

a

man can

act as

a sexual

agent and

treat a

woman as

a sexual object

even

when

he lacks

organizational

or economic

power over

her.

Finally,

physical

power, or the ability

to

physically

intimidate and

dominate

someone,

enables

men to

sexually

harass

women.

Physical

power

often

seems so

obvious

that

it

gets

overlooked,

but

it may be the original

source

of men's

economic

and

social

power

over women

(Engels,

I 884),

and clearly

plays

a

role in sexual

violence.

Nurture

x

power:

Íhe social

identity

perspective

Combining

the

nurture and

power

perspec-

tives,

social

identity theories

of

sexual

harass-

ment emphasize

prescriptive stereotypes

THE SAGE HANDBOOK

OF

ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

(beliefs

about how

men and

women shottld

differ, rather

than how

they do differ)

and

their

motives. According

to this

viewpoint,

sexual

harassment

is a

mechanism

for

punishing

those

who threaten

a harasser's

gender

identity

and the benefits

derived

from

it

(Berdahl,

2007b;

Berdahl et

a1.,

1996;

Dall'Ara and

Maass,

1999; Franke,

1997;

Maass

et al., 2003;

Schultz,

1998).

Berdahl

(2007b)

proposes

that sexual

harassment

is

triggered

by the

harasser's desire

to

protect or

enhance

his

or

her sex-based

social

status in a

system of

gender hierarchy. Sexual

harassers

are more

likely to be

men, because

men

compared

to women

have

more to

gain

lrom

protecting their sex-based

status.

Harassers

can

protect or

define

their status

by derogating

another's

in a variety

of

ways, including

sexual

and non-sexual

harassment

targeted

at

members

of both sexes.

We

have considered

different

explanations

for what motivates

harassment,

from

nature to

nurture

to

power to social

identity. Different

explanations

have different

implications

for

who harasses whom.

WHO

HARASSES

WHOM?

Becausc

the fìrst

coutt c¿tscs

of' sexual

harassment

involved male

bosses

making

sexual cooperation

a condition

of women's

employment,

this became

the

prototype

of

sexual

harassment.

We now

know, howevet

that

this scenario

represents

a small

minor-

ity of

incidents: Co-workers,

subordinates,

customers,

and

clients

are often the

harass-

ment

perpetrators; men are

harassed based

on

sex; and same-sex

harassment

is

surprisingly

common.

Gender

Most sexual

harassment

is targeted

against

women. Only

10-14

per

cent

of sexual

harassment

cases

filed with the

EEOC are

filed

by men.

The 1994 USMSPB

study of

lederal

workers

lound that

more

women

(44

per

cent)

than men

(19

per

cent)

had experienced

any of

seven types

of sexual

behavior

in

the

past

two

years

at

work. Perpetrators

of

these sexual

behaviors

toward

women

were

almost

exclusively

men

(93

per

cent).

In

contrast,

men were

targeted by

both women

(65

per

cent)

and

men

(21

per

cent).

In

more recent

research

assessing

notjust sexual

behavior

but sexual

behavior

that

is offensive,

or unwanted,

a similar

pattern

has emerged.

Women are sexually

harassed

more than

men

(e.g.,

Cortina

et al.,

2OO2; Magley

et

al., I 999), especially

when researchers

only

count

negatively-appraised

behaviors

(e.g.,

Berdahl,

2O07a). Without

such adjustments,

some

studies

have found

men and

women

report similar

amounts

of sexual

experiences

at

work

(e.g.,

Berdahl,

2007a;

Konik and

Cortina,

in

press).

Systematic

research

into the

gender

of

both harassers

and

victims

has been

rare,

however.

Many studies

only

investigate

women's experiences,

and until the

late 1990s,

most surveys

only

asked about

behaviors

instigated by

men.

More research

is needed

to understand

same-sex

sexual

harassment

as

well as

non-sexual

forms

of

gender

harassment.

'Not

man enough'

harassment,

fbr example,

first

identifred

in male samples,

has

recently been

studied

in women as

well.

It appears

that women

too are teased

for being

'not tough enough'or

'overly

sensitive'

in

male-dominated

jobs (Berdahl

and Moore,

2006). Berdahl

(2007b)

predicts that when

different

forms ofharassment

based on sex

are

considered,

the

most common

pattern

should

be men

harassing

women,

followed by

men

harassing

men and

women harassing

women;

women

harassing

men should

be the

least

common.

These and other

questions

require

further

exploration.

Status

Early

research

into sexual

harassment

focused

on

sexual attention

and

coercion

from bosses

and supervisors.

Co-workers

were

included

when hostile

environment

harassment

was

recognized.

The stem

used

in the SEQ

was

limited to

'supervisors

or co-workers'

until

recently,

when

researchers

included subor-

dinates,

customers,

and

anyone

else in the

SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

477

work

environment

(e.g.,

Berdahl, 2003; Konik

and Cortina,

in

press).

In service-oriented

jobs

and

organizations, customers

and clients

are common sources

of sexual

harassment

(Barling

et al., 2001;

Berdahl, 2003; Gettman

and Gelfand,

2007). Research

has demon-

strated that

subordinates sometimes

sexually

harass their superiors,

though

rarely. This

type of

'contrapower'harassment

has mainly

been studied among

female

professors

who

experience

it from their

male students

(e.g.,

DeSouza and

Fansler, 2003). More

research is

needed

on harassment

from subordinates and

those outside

the organization.

Racelethnicity

To

date,

sexual harassment

research

has

paid

only limited attention

to issues of

race

and

ethnicity.

Ethnic

stereotypes,

numeri-

cal minority status,

cultural marginality,

and

economic

vulnerability should

theoretically

increase the

risk of sexual harassment

for

ethnic

minority women

(e.g.,

MacKinnon,

1979;

Murrell, 1996). That said,

most

empirical

research on

sexual harassment

has

focused on White/European

American

women. When ethnic differences

have been

examined,

findings have been

mixed. Earlier

large-scale studies

yielded

no differences

in the

harassment rates of

White and

non-

White women

(Gutek,

1985; USMBSP,

1987).

More recent research

reports higher rates

of

sexual harassment

against ethnic

minority

women compared

to White

women

(Berdahl

and Moore,

2006; Bergman and

Drasgow,

2003; Cortina et al.,

1998; Mansfield

et al.,

1991) and

men

(Berdahl

and

Moore, 2006).

In contrast, some surveys

found

Latina and

Black women to

report

significantly

lower

rates of harassment than their

non-Latina

White counterparts

(Shupe

et

a7., 2002;

Wy att

and Riederle,

1995). Each of these

studies

followed a different approach

to assessing

sexual

harassment, making comparisons

and

conclusions

dil'ficult.

The empirical

literature is virtually

silent

about

the race and

ethnicity of sexual

harassers,

possibly

due to the

intricacy of

this

issue. Perpetrators can

be members of

the

victim's own ethnic

group,

or

numerous

other

groups

of varying social

class and

organizational

power,

which can change

the

victim's subjective

experience

For example,

from the

perspective

of

a Black woman,

the

experience

of

being harassed

likely

'feels'

very different,

depending

on whether it comes

from White

men in

power, Black men

in

power,

Black men of

lower organizational

status,

or male

members of other

low-status

ethnic

groups.

More studies

are warranted

to

disentangle the

complexity of

race, class, and

power in sexual harassment.

OUTCOMES

OF SEXUAI

HARASSMENT

In the early

1990s,

researchers lamented

the

'appalling' lack of

systematic empirical

atten-

tion to sexual

harassment

outcomes

(Gutek

and

Koss, 1993:43).

This situation changed

dramatically

over

the decade that

followed, as

scientists

documented

myriad links between

sexual harassment

and victims'

occupational

functioning,

psychologicaUbehavioral

health,

and

physical health. Such outcome

relation-

ships

remained significant

even

when con-

trolling

for the experience of

other stressors

(e.g.,

general

job

stress,

trauma outside

of the

workplace),

other features

of the

job

(occupa-

tional

level, organizational

tenure,

workload),

personality

(negative

affectivity,

neuroticism,

narcissism), and

other demographic

factors

(age,

education

level,

race). Table

I

summa-

rizes findings of

this scholarship,

reviewed

below.

Occupational

outcomes

Not

surprisingly,

the organizational

psychology literature has

focused

primarily

on associations

between

sexual

ha¡assment

and

victims' occupational

well-being

(see

Table

1). In

particular,

over

20 articles

report

that sexual

harassment is associated

with

job

dissatisfaction

(for

a

meta-analytic

review,

see

Lapierre et al.,

2005). This

finding applies

to not

only White

American civilians,

but

also

US military

personnel,

ethnic

minority

women

in the US, and

women in other

nations

Table I Summary of

research

(from

the

mid-f 990s to the

present)

on outcomes

of sexual harassment.

An'X'indicates

that a sig_nificant

relationship

was f-ound between

sexuat harassment

and thàt outcome.

When the

harassment-outcome

relationship was

indirect

(i'e',

mediated

through

other variables),

th¡s ¡s noted in

parentheses

Key

Job outcomes

A Job satisfaction

E Actual and intended

turnover

C Work withdrawal

or neglect

D organizationalcommitment

E Productivity

or

performance

F Job stress

G other

Psychological outcomes

H Depression, anxiety,

or

general

distress

I

Post

lraumatic

stress disorder

I Other

psychological outcomes

Study

Job outcomes

Psvtholoo ¡ ca I outcom es Health

A

B

c

D E F

G Ht

)

Health

Barling

et al.

(1

996)

Earling et al.

(2001

)

Bergman and

Drasgow

(2003)

Bond et

al.

(2004)

Chan

et al.

(l

999)

Cortina, Fi?gerald

and Drasgow

(2002)

Cortina,

Lonsway

et al.

(2002)

Culbertson and

Rosenfeld

(1

994)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirea)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

justice

perceptions

and cognitive

difficulties

X

(indirea)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirea)

negative mood

fear

(direct)

and

negative

mood

(indirect)

life

satisfaction

(indirect)

ange¡ disgust,

fear,

self-blame,

and low

self-esteem

X

(indirect)

X

Dansky

and

Kilpatrick

(1

997)

Fitzgerald

et al.

(1ee7)

Fitzgerald et

al.

(1

ege)

Fontana and

Rosenheck

(1

998)

Freels

et al.

(2005)

Glomb et al.

(1999)

Harned and

Fiugerald

(2002)

Harned et al

(2002)

Langhout et al.

(200s)

Lim and Cortina

(200s)

Magley et al.

(2005)

Magley

et al.

(1

999)

Monow et al.

(1

ee4)

Munson et al.

(2ooo)

0'Connell and

Korabik

(2000)

Parker and

Griffin

(2002)

Piotrkowski

('1998)

Ragins and

Scandura

(1

995)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirectl

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect)

X

life satisfaction

problem

drinking

life satisfaction

disordered

eating

(indirect),

self-esteem

and

self-blame

(direct)

life satisfaction

life

satisfaction

negative mood

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect

and direct)

X

(indirect)

X

(indirect

and

direct)

X

job

burnout

role ambiguity,

role

conflict

over-performance

demands

X

x

Table I €ont'd

Study

lob outcomes

Psych o I og i cal

o utcom

es

Health

A

B

c D

E

F

G H

Health

Raver

and Gelfand

(200s)

Richman et al.

(1

ege)

Richman et al.

(2002)

Richman et al.

(2006)

Rospenda

et al.

(2oos)

Schneider et

al.

(1

ee7)

Schneider

et al.

(2001

)

Shaffer et al.

(2000)

5hupe

et al.

(2002)

sims et al.

(2005)

usMsPB

f994)

Vogt

et

al.

(2005)

Wasti

et

al.

(2000)

Wislar

et al.

(2002)

Wolfe

et al.

(1998)

Woodzicka

and

LaFrance

(2005)

impaired team

relationships

and

cohesion; increased

team conflict

X

(indirect)

X

(indirea)

prescription

drug

use;

problem

drinking

problem

drinking

problem

drinking

XX

X

life satisfaction

XX

X

life satisfaction

problem

drinking

X

(indirect)

SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

(e.g.,

Canada,

Mainland

China,

Hong

Kong,

Turkey).

Over

15 studies

have addressed

orga-

nizational

withdrawal

as

an

outcome

of

sexual

harassment.

Some

harassed

person-

nel engage

in work

withdrawal,

remaining

in

the organization

but

disengaging

from

work

(e.g.,

through

absenteeism,

tardiness,

work

neglect).

Others

manifest

more

com-

plete forms of

withdrawal,

through

turnover

thoughts

and

intentions

or actual

tumover.

Organizational

withdrawal

is often

conceptu-

alized

as

a way

of avoiding

further

exposure

to sexual

harassment

at

work.

Sexual

harassment

is also

associated

with

decrements

in employees'

organizational

commitment,

performance,

and

productivity.

Other

job-related

corelates

include

impaired

team

relationships,

incrcascd

tcam conflicts,

lowered

team

financial

performance,

lowercd

.iustice

perceptions, cognitive

di

Í'fìculties

(c.g',

distraction),

and over-perforrnance

demands

(i.e.,

the'need

to overperform

to

gain

accep-

tance

and

recognition

within the

workplace';

Parker

and

Grif'fìn,

2002).

These

studies

often

include

job

stress

as a covariate;

when

researchers

instead

conceptualize

job

stress

as

an outcome

in

its own

right, they

invariably

uncover

significant

direct

relationships

with

sexual

harassment.

Organizations

pay

a

price

for

these

out-

comes.

The USMSPB

used

a

'behavioral

costing

approach'

to attach

a

dollar

value

to sexual

harassment,

based

on

its large-

scale

surveys

of

federal

employees.

The

most recent

figures,

extrapolated

to

the entire

federal

workforce,

estimated

the

annual

cost

of

sexual

harassment

for the

US

government

to be

$327

million

(in

1994

dollars).

This

includes

costs

tumover,

employees'

self-reported

use of

sick

leave

due

to

harassment,

self-reported

individual

productivity

losses,

and estimated

workgroup

productivity

losses

(USMSPB, 1994). Costs

the

harasser's

lost

time

or

pro-

ductivity,

complaint

processing,

litigation,

or medical

and counseling

services

for the

victim are

excluded

fiom this

figure,

thereby

underestimating

the

cost of

sexual

harassment

to

the federal

government.

Psychological

and

physical

health

outcomes

Many

studies

(detailed

in

Table

1) of sexual

harassment

outcomes

have appeared

in

the

clinical

and

psychiatric literatures.

The more

thatemployees

experience

sexual

harassment,

the

more

that they

report

symptoms

of depres-

sion,

general stress

and anxiety,

posttraumatic

stress

disorder,

and overall

impaired

psycho-

logical

well-being.

In a series

ofarticles

based

on a4-wave

longitudinal

survey,

Richman

and

colleagues

documented

associations

between

ea¡lier

sexual

harassment

and

later alcohol

use

and

misuse.

Other

psychological

and

behavioral

correlates

include

negative

mood,

disordered

eating,

self-blame,

lowered

self-

esteem,

increased

prescription

drug

use,

anger,

disgust,

and

lowered satisfaction

with

life in

general.

Less

research

has

addressed

relationships

between

sexual

harassment

and

physical

health.

Such

effects

are

often

indirect,

mediated

through

mental

health.

Some

research

has

documented

links

to

overall

health

perceptions or

satisfaction.

Others

have

identified

specific

somatic

complaints

(headaches,

exhaustion,

sleep

problems,

gas-

tric

problems, nausea,

respiratory

complaints,

musculoskeletal

pain, and

weight

loss/gain)

associated

with experiencing

harassment.

In

the only

experiment

of its

kind,

Schneider

et

al.

(2001)

showed

that

exposure

to

mild

gender

harassment

leads to

increased

cardiovascular

reactivitY.

What

mitigates

or exacerhates

the

harm?

Employees

report

considerable

variability

in

the

outcomes

they

experience

from

sexual

harassment,

prompting

research

on

person

and

situation

factors

that

moderate

these

outcomes.

Searching

for

moderators

of this

relationship

has both

theoretical

and

applied

signifìcance,

isolating

which

populations

arc

most

at

risk for

harm,

under

which

circum-

stances,

and

what

might

be done

to

reduce

that

harm.

THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

Victim

gender

The moderator

that

has received the most

empirical attention

is

gender:

when sexually

harassed, do women and

men experience

comparable consequences? Male targets of

unwanted sex-related behaviors

often report

that

these experiences were not anxiety-

provoking

(Berdahl,

Magley, and Waldo,

1996),'bothersome,''stressful'

(Berdahl,

z00ib), or

'upsetting'(Cochran et al., 1997).

In fact, some men describe these behaviors

as

'welcomed'

and even

'tun

and flattering'

(Berdahl,

2007b; Gutek, 1985). Moreover,

studies

find harassed women vs. men to report

worse outcomes, in terms of

negative mood

and turnover

intentions

(Barling

et al., 1996),

disordered eating

(Harned

and

Fitzgerald,

2002),

over-performance

demands

(Parker

and Griffin, 2OO2), and

longitudinal efl-ects

on anxiety,

problem

drinking,

job

stress,

job

burnout,

and

tumover intentions

(Freels

et al.,

2005, Magley, Cortina and

Kath, 2005). In

stark contrast with this

prior

work,

Vogt

et

al.

(2005)

reported

sexual

harassment to be

a stronger depression and anxiety

risk factor

for

men compared

to women.

Other research

reports

that,

when women

and

men

experience

similar rates of sexual

harassment, the impact

is

comparable.

For

instance, no sex differences were found

in

the relationship between sexual

harassment

and

various

job

outcomes

(Cortina

et a1.,

2002; Monow et al.,

1994),

psychological

and

physical

health outcomes

(Magley

et al.,

1999), and longitudinal

links to depression,

anxiety, hostility,

prescription

drug use, and

problem

drinking

(Richman

et a1., 1999,

2002, 2006). Morrow et al.

(1994)

also

described sex similarities

in relationships

between

supervisor harassment and

victims'

occupational stress and satisfaction.

Despite these mixed findings, the

weight

of the research evidence suggests

that women

face

greater

harm from sexual harassment than

men. Even studies that

report sex similarities

acknowledge

that women are far more

likely

than men to be sexually

harassed,

'thus

making

sexual

harassment a bigger and

more

harmful

problem

for women as a

group'

(Magley

et

al., 1999: 299). Other research

(e.g.,

Berdahl et al., 1996; Waldo et

al., 1998)

shows sexual

harassment to be a

qualitatively

different

phenomenon

for women and

men,

questioning

whether sex

comparisons in

outcomes should be conducted at all.

Victim race, ethnicity, and culture

Various writers

have

suggested

that minority

ethnicity

should amplify the negative

impact

of sexual harassment

(e.g.,

Fitzgerald et al.,

1995b; Munell, 1996; Shupe et a1.,2002).

The rationale

for

this

expectation is that

minorities face additional stressors beyond

sexual

harassment, such as racism and

racial

harassment, economic

hardship, and

(for

recent

immigrants) lack of adequate support

networks.

To

date,

however, little research

has

directly

compared outcomes

for minority and non-

minority women, and ûndings

have

been

mixed.

In

comparing the

experiences of Latina

and

non-Latina White women, Shupe et

al.

(2002)

reported that Latinas fared worse

in terms of work and coworker

satisfac-

tion,

whereas

ellects

on turnover intentions

were stronger for

Whites;

culture

did not

moderate relationship between harassment

and supervisor satisfaction,

psychological

dis-

tress, or

psychological

well-being.

Bergman

and Drasgow

(2@3)

compared

harassment

outcomes across memhers

of five

ditïerent

ethnic

groups in

the

US Armed Forces,

finding no evidencc that ethnicity

moderates

relationships between sexual

harassment and

occupational,

psychological,

or health-related

outcomes.

Likewise,

Piotrkowski

(1998)

reportetl no

moderating influence ol minority

status

on

effects of

gender

harassment on

job

satislaction and

'di.stress.'It

is di{ficult to draw

definitive

conclusions

fiom

these

limited,

divergent

findings

on

ethnic difïerences

in

sexual harassment outcomes.

Even

less is known about cross-national

differences

(or

similarities)

in

the

experi-

ence of

sexual harassment outcomes.

Wasti

and colleagues

(2000)

compared

employed

women in

Turkey and the US, reporting

a similar

pattern

of

harassment outcomes

in both

populations.

Shaffer et 41.

(2000)

found no differences among US,

Chinese

SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

443

Mainland, and Hong

Kong Chinese

women

in

the impact

of harassment

on

job

satisfaction

and

tumover

intentions, but culture

did

moderate

relationships with

organizational

commitment.

Beyond these two studies,

we

could locate

no

other

recent,

rigorous research

that directly

compares

harassment-outcome

relationships

across nations,

so this remains

an area

ripe for further

research.

Victim selflabeling

Among

women who report

unwanted sex-

related behavior

in

the

workplace,

fewer than

20

per

cent

typically

label their experiences

as

'sexual

harassment'

per

se

(Magley

et al.,

1999).

Nevertheless,

regardless of

whether

victims self-label or

not, they

report a similar

pattern

of

negative occupational,

psycholog-

ical, and

physical

outcomes

(Magley

et a1.,

1999; Munson et al.,

200 I

).

In an experimental

study, Woodzicka

and

LaFrance

(2005)

demonstrated

that even brief,

subtly sexually

harassing behaviors

lead to

impaired

perfor-

mance in victims,

irrespective of

what they

call these behaviors.

These studies

suggest

that

labeling does

not moderate

the link

between sexual

harassment

and outcomes.

Perpetrator

power

Although sexual

harassment

has adverse

effects

whether

perpetrated

by

peers

or

superiors

(e.g.

Morrow etal.,1994),

research

suggests that

harassment

'from

above'is

more

harmful. Cortina

eL al.

(2002)

and

Langh-

out

and colleagucs

(2005)

fbund signifìcant

correlations

between

perpetrator

power/status

and victim

perceptions

that the

harassment

was severe,

upsetting,

and frightening.

In

addition, O'Connell

and

Korabik

(2000)

and

Morrow et al.

(1994)

analyzed outcomes

of harassment

from higher- and

equal-level

perpetrators

separately;

they reported

more

numerous

negative effects of

the former.

O'Connell

and Korabik

(2000)

also

investi-

gated

women's

experiences of sexual

harass-

ment

from lower-status

men

('contrapower

harassment'),

finding no negative outcomes

at

all.

Explanations

for

the

greater

consequences

associated with

top-down sexual

harassment

emphasize

the victim's

heightened experience

ol helplessness

and fear

(e.g.,

Cortina et

al.,

2002; Langhout et al.,

2005).

Support

of the victim

To

generate

practical

recommendations

for

organizations,

some studies

have

investigated

whether social and

organizational

supports

mitigate

the impact of

sexual

harassment.

Several

studies

have found

that military

women's

perceptions of leaders

as fair,

supportive, trustworthy,

and

intolerant of

sexual

harassment

were related to

higherjob

satisfaction

and

organizational

commitment

and

lower tumover

intentions

(Muny

et al.,

2001

;

Offerman

and Malamut,

2002; Williams

et al.,

1999). Likewise,

Bond and

colleagues

(2004)

and

Cortina

(2004)

reported that

pos-

itive social support

from leaders,

co-workers,

friends, and

family attenuates

effects ofsexual

harassment on

women's

job

satisfaction.

Mixed

results

have emerged

regarding

the

benefits

of social support

for victims'

mental

health. Cortina

(2004)

found no

moderating

impact of

positive

support

on

victims'

anxiety and

depression,

whereas

Bond

and colleagucs

(2004)

did

find such

¿rn cffect.

Thc divergent

flndings could

result

from disparate

methodologies

(e.g.,

sample

composition,

measurement

of harassment,

operationalization

of support).

More research

is clearly

needed to understand

what types

of

suppoi-.t

can benefit

which harassment

vicLims,

and under

what conditions.

COPING

WITH SEXUAT

HARASSMENT

Compared

to

the 1980s, studies

ol coping

with sexual

harassment

have been

relatively

scarce

in the

past

decade.

We summarize

this research

below and

in Table

2. Excluded

from this

review are

'analogue'

studies,

in

which

participants

(often

college

students

with

limited

work experience)

read brief

harassing

scenarios

and report

how they

would

respond

r/ confronted

with such a

situation.

This method

is known to be

highly

flawed:

how

individuals say

they would think,

feel or behave

in

response to

hypothetical

sexual

harassment

fhils to

reflect the reality

THE SAGE

HANDBOOK

OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

of

how sexually

harassed

individuals

actu-

ally

respond in

real life.

In

particular, the

analogue

method

yields inflated estimates

of assertive

or confrontational

coping

(e.g.,

Fitzgerald et al.,

1995c;

Gutek and

Koss,

1993;

Woodzicka and

LaFrance,

2001).

The nature and

antecedents

of

harassment

coping

Reporting

Of

all

potential

responses

to

sexual

harassment,

intra-organizational

reporting

has

received

most research

attention,

reflecting

increasing

emphases

by American

employers

and courts on

organizationalreportingas

the

key mechanism

for eliminating

workplace

sexual harassment

(Burlington

Industries

v.

Ellereth,

1998; Faragher

v. City

of Boca

Raton,

1998). Some

social scientists

allege

that

reporting

is the most

appropriate

or

effective

means of

coping

with sexual

harassment

(e.g.,

Knapp

et al.,

1997; Reese

and

Lindenberg,199'l).

This claim,

however,

has little empirical

basis.

On the

contrary,

various

studies

(described

below)

have

revealed that

harassment

reporting can

give

rise

to additional

problems that exacerbate

the situation

for the

victim.

According to

victims'accounts

of how

they

responded

to

previous experiences

of sexual

harassment,

fewer than one-third

of

victims

inlormally

discuss sexual

harassment

with

supcrvisors,

and less than

25

per

ccnt

fìlc

tbr-

mal sexual

harassment complaints

with their

employers

(see

Table

2). Moreover,

only a tiny

minority of

victims take

their complaints

to

court.

Victims typically

only

turn to

formal

reporting

(internal

or external

to the organi-

zation)

after they

have exhausted

all other

response options.

Employees'

reluctance

to

report experiences

of sexual

harassment

is

primarily

attributed

to

fear

-

fear of blame,

disbeliel

inaction,

retaliation,

humiliation,

ostracism,

and

damage to

one's career

and

reputation

(e.g.,

Cortina,

2004;

Fitzgetald

et

al.,

1995c; Wasti

and Cortina,

2003).

Victims'

fears of

reporting

are

well-

founded. Cortina

and Magley

(2003)

learned

that two-thirds

of employees

who spoke

out

against

workplace mistreatment

then

faced

some form

of retaliation.

Others

have

found

that

sexual

harassment

reporting

is often

followed

by organizational

indifference

or

trivialization

of

the harassment

complaint

as

well as

hostility and

reprisals

against

the

victim

(Bergman

et al.,2002;Lee

et

al., 2004).

Perhaps

it comes as

no surprise,

then,

that

victims

often

leave the complaint

process

with

a

greater

perception

of

organizational

injustice

(Adams-Roy

and

Barling,

1998).

Confrontation

Confronting

the

harasser

is less common

that

popular wisdom suggests.

Woodzicka

and

LaFrance

(2001)

conducted

an experiment

in

which 50job

applicants

were asked

questions

by a

male

interviewe¡ that

were

mildly

harassing

and clearly

inappropriate

in

a

job

interview

(e.g., 'Do

you have a boyfriend?',

'Do

pcople find

you

desirablc?').

Not tr single

woman

challenged

the

interviewer

about the

inappropriate

questions

or

refused to answer

them.

Among the

harassed

women

in

civilian

organizations

described

in Table2,

an average

of39

per

cent

had confronted

their harassers

in

some

way.

This coping

strategy

may be

more

prevalent

in

the

military,

where Culbertson

and

Rosenfeld

(1994)

found

72

per

cent

of

enlisted

women

and 54

per

cent of

lemale

offi cers confronting

their

perpetrators.

S oci a

I

-s

upport

seeki

n

g

A

more typical

response

to sexual

harassment

is to

rely on

informal social

support

from

colleagues,

friends, and

family

members.

In

the research

detailed

in Table

2, an avenge

of

one-third

ol victims

had discussed

the

harassing

situation

with family

members,

and

approximately

5G-70

per

cent

had sought

support

from friends

or trusted

others.

Avoidance,

denial,

and endurance

Illustrating

what might

be the

most

prevalent

response

to sexual

harassment

in the

work-

place

(e.g.,

Fitzgerald et

al.,1995; Gutek

and

Koss,

1993), harassed

employees

frequently

try

to avoid

the

perpetrator or the

harassing

context,

deny or downplay

the seriousness

Table

2 Summary

of research

(from

the mid-l990s

to the

present)

on the

prevalence

of

specific harassment

coping

strategies

Key

Coping

strategy

Filed

formal complaint

or

grievance

Talked w¡th supervisor,

manager

or union representative

'Reported'

the harassment

Confronted

the harasser in

some way

5 Tâlked with friend or trusted other

6 Talked

with family

7

Avoided harasser

I Denied

or downplayed

gravily

of situation

9

Attempted to ignore,

forget or endure

Note on

populat¡on

of study

Cochran

et al.

(1997)

-

University staff

and students

(male

and female)

Cortina

(2004)

-

Working Latinas

(different

companies)

Culbertson

and Rosenfield

(1

994)

-

Navy women

Schneider

et al.

(1

997)

-

Working women

(different

companies)

USMSPB

(1

994)

-

Federal workers

(male

and female)

1

3

Coping strategY

r

---l---t

2

61718e

Cochran

et al.

(1

ee7)

Cortina

(2004)

Culbertson

and

Rosenfeld

(1994)

Schneider et al.

(1ee7)

usMsPB

(1994)

2o/o

17-200/o

260/o

210/o

6-8%

24Yo ofenlisted,

1 9% of officers

6-130/0

17160/0

l3%

ofwomen,

8% of men

25%

72% of enlisted,

54%

of officers

33-57o/o

41

%

of

women,

23% of men

49-640/0

2717o/o

53-700/o

45o/o

75% of enlisted,

54% of officers

54-l

4o/o

33%

of women,

20% of men

49-1\Yo

45% ofwomen,

44% of men

THE SACE

HANDBOOK

OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

of

the situation,

or

simply

ignore or endure

it

if

possible

(see

Table

2). Women

in these

circumstances

often

hope that

ifthey evade

the

harasser

or fail to

show any

reaction,

he will

lose interest and leave

them

alone. Note

that

this

research only

represents

individuals

who

remain in their

jobs

despite

being

harassed,

typically

excluding

those

who

quit

or retire

due

to the

harassment.

Some

writers

have criticized

avoidance,

denial, and endurance

as

passive, unassertive,

or otherwise

undesirable

reactions

to sexual

harassment

(e.g.,

Knapp et al.,

1997; Gruber

and Smith,

1995). Judges,

juries,

and

the

media and

lay

public often

interpret the

lack of

vocal

protest

(preferably,

a formal

complaint)

as evidence

that

the woman

consented

to,

'welcomed,'

or fabricated

the

inappropriate

conduct.

This was

clear in the

case of

Anita

Hill, whose

credibility

was assailed

because

she had

not formally

complained

about

Clarence

Thomas

at the time

of the

alleged

harassment.

If the

harassment

had

really

happened,

Senators

reasoned,

she

would

have

reported

it.

However,

avoidance,

denial

and

'doing

nothing'

often

reflect deliberate

attempts

to

extinguish

the

harasser's

behavior

by refusing

to reinforce

it. Such

reactions

appear

quite

reasonable

when a

woman

fears for

hersell

or her

job,

has

no other effective

response

options

available,

or

seeks to bring

an

end

to the

harassment

without

'rocking

the boat'

(Fitzgerald

et

al., 1995c;

Magley,

2002).

Thus,

these behaviors

represent

a common,

albeit

quiet

method

of resisting

sexual

harassment;

they are

the only

coping

responses

available

to some women in some

situations.

Antecedenß

of coping

Generally

speaking,

as

sexual

harassment

becomes

more severe

(i.e.,

upsetting,

disrup-

tive,

enduring,

frequent),

attempts

to ignore

it decrease

while efforts

to avoid,

confront,

report,

and seek

social

support

increase

(Bergman

et a1.,2002;

Cochran

et al.,

1997:'

Cortina,

2004;

Malamut

and Offermann,

2001; Wasti

and Cortina,

2003). Victims

are

also

more likely

to report

the situation

and

seek social

support

when being

harassed

by

an authority

frgure

(Bergman

et

al., 2002',

Cochran

etal.,

1997;

Conina,

2004;

Malamut

and Offermann,

2001).

Reporting

and con-

lrontation

are

more common

among

victims

who are

lower

in occupational

status,

female,

or

WhiteÆuropean

American

(Malamut

and

Offermann,

2001;

Rudman et

al., 1995;

Wasti

and Cortina,

2003),

whereas avoidance

and

denial

are

more

frequent among

women

from

traditional,

patriarchal, collectivist

cultures

(Wasti

and

Cortina,

2003).

ETIMINATING

SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

IN ORGANIZATIONS

Given

the negative

consequences

-

personal,

legal, antl

financial

-

that

accompany

scxual

harassment,

many organizations

have

taken

steps

to eliminate

harassment

where

possible,

and

correct

it

where necessary.

We now

review

and critique

harassment

policies,

pro-

cedures, and

training

programs implemented

by organizations.

Sexual

harassment

policies

Today,

most

large US organizations

and

many smaller

ones

have

policies

prohibiting

sexual

harassment

and specifying

reporting

procedures.

The

policies

vary

with

respect

to content,

but

often include

language

from

thc EEOC's

(1980)

definition

of scxual

harassment,

quoted

earlier.

This dcflnition,

however,

has been

criticized

as overly

vague

(Gutek,

1991), and

it

privileges

sexualizecl

actions

while

neglecting

the more

common,

s¿*isr

forms

of hostility

(Schultz,

1998;

2003).

Experts agree

that sexual

harassment

poli-

cies

should

clearly delineate

grievance

proce-

dures.

Some add

that

policies

should

explain

disciplinary

actions

that harassers

might face;

prohibit

retaliation

against

complainants;

and

provide

safeguards

for the

confidentiality

of all

parties. Several

scholars

emphasize

that

supervisors

and

top

management

must

be committed

to and

well-trained

on these

policies for them to

be effective

(Gutek,

1997;

Gruber,

1998;

Reese and

Lindenberg,1997;

Riger, 1991

;

Rowe,

1996; Stokes

et al.,

2000).

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

4a7

Few empirical

studies

have

evaluated

the

impact of

such

policy-making. One notable

exception

is Gruber

(1998),

who

found

that

employees

reported

the

lowest

rates

of sexual

harassment

when

they

worked

for

organizations

that

proactively

developed,

disseminated,

and enforced

the sexual

harass-

ment

policy

(e.g.,

by training

all employees,

creating official

complaint

procedures, des-

ignating

a specialist

to

receive complaints).

Significantly

more

harassment

was

reported

by

personnel whose companies

only used

informational

approaches

to

policy

dissem-

ination

(e.g.,

posting it in the

workplace

or employee

handbook), and

individuals

in

workplaces

with no

policy

at all

described

the

most sexual

harassment.

In

a

unique

study of

factors related

to men's

reports

of

harassment

perpetration, Dekker and

Barling

(1998)

found that

men who

perceived

strong

sanctions

against sexual

harassment

in their

organization

reported engaging

in less fre-

quent harassment of

others.

S exual

h arassm

e nt

co m

pl

ai

nt

procedures

In some

workplaces,

the only

procedures

available

for reporting sexual

harassment

are

formal,

requiring

victims

to lodge

written,

signed complaints

against

their

harassers;

thc

organization

then typically

notifies the

harasser

of the complaint

and

conducts

an

investigation.

Some

companies

have spe-

cialized

personnel for these

investigations;

many do

not. Organizations

also

differ

in the

standard

of

proof

used to determine

whether

sexual

harassment

has taken

place.

Some

rely on the civil

standard

of

'preponderance

of evidence'

(i.e.,

is it

'more likely

than

not'that

harassment

occurred),

the

standard

used by the

courts

in Title

VII cases.

Other

companies

use

the more

stringent criminal

standard of

'beyond

a

reasonable

doubt,'

the

highest level

of

proof required to

win a case

in court;

because sexual

harassment

is not

considered

a criminal

offense

under

US law,

it is

peculiar

to apply

this criminal

standard

to

these investigations.

Penalties

imposed on

employees

lound

guilty

of sexual

harassment

also vary

widely

across organizations.

Some

grievance

procedures offer

the

possibility of

appeal,

others do

not. Companies

typically

maintain

formal

records of the

complaint

and outcome,

including

names of

all

parties

involved

(Gutek,

1997;

Riger,

1991;

Rowe,

r996).

Formal

grievance mechanisms

have

dis-

tinct advantages,

allowing

for otficial

sanc-

tions

to be

imposed,

repeat offenders

to

be

tracked,

and managers

to be

held accountable

(Rowe,

1996).

However,

these

procedures

are often

adversarial,

with

the complainant's

perspective

potentially competing

against

that

of the accused,

his union

representatives,

and

management.

Such

procedures frequently

fail

to end

the harassment,

sometimes

worsen

the

situation,

and rarely

protect the complainant's

privacy

(e.g.,

Cortina

and Magle¡

2003;

Gutek,

1997; Rieer,

1991).

Because

of these

drawbacks,

some

experts

recommend

that informal

dispute

resolution

also be available

to sexually

harassed

employ-

ees

(Gutek,

1997;

Rigea l99l;

Rowe,

1996).

Many

victims do

not want

to lodge

a formal

complaint,

set

an

investigation

into

motion, or

see their

harasser

punished; they simply

want

the

offensive

behavior

to end

(Fitzgerald

et

al.,

1995c).

Informal dispute

resolution

could

involve,

for example,

someone

speaking

with

the offender

on

behalf of

the complainant

or

a

neutral

third

party

mediating

discussions

between

them.

The

goal

is

generally not

to

determine

guilt

or impose

punishment,

but

rather to

restore

peaceful co-existence

between

the

parties.

Often

no formal

records

are

kept, and

participation is

purely

voluntary

(Riger,

l99l; Rowe,

1996).

Outcomes

can

include an agreement

to change

behavior,

an

apology,

a voluntary

transfer

or resignation

of

either

party,

or

nothing

at all

(Gutek,

1997).

Opinions

of

informal

methods

for handling

sexual

harassment

have

been

mixed.

Informal

processes

provide a more

accessible

and

realistic

option

for

harassment

victims

who

wish to

avoid

formal

investigation

and

adjudication

(Riger,

l99l; Rowe,

1996),

and

they tend

to be

less

public,

confrontational,

and

litigious

(Gutek,

1997).

However,

if the

aim of

informal

procedures is not to

establish

THE SAGE

HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

guilt

or

punish

the offender, this

process

will

not necessarily

deter would-be

harassers. If a

third

party

mediator

is involved, that

person

typically

must remain neutral, lacks authority

over

the harasser, and cannot

protect

the

victim from

retaliation

(Riger,

1991).

A

general

recommendation about

harass-

ment complaint

procedures

is that choices

be

available

to complainants,

including a choice

among multiple

procedures

(both

informal

and formal), and choices

among multiple

'complaint

handlers' with different ethnici-

ties,

sexes, and

positions in

the

organization

(Gutek,

1997; Reese and Lindenberg,2004;

Rigea l99l; Rowe,

1996; Stokes et al., 2000).

Sexual

harassment training

As with reporting

procedures,

sexual harass-

ment

training

initiatives also

vary tremen-

dously. Some organizations

mandate training

for

all employees;

others train only

man-

agers, supervisors,

complaint handlers, or

employees

found

guilty

ofsexual

harassment;

still others offer

no training at all.

The

trainer may be a manager,

HR employee,

compliance

officer,

EEO specialist,

sexual

harassment expert, or attorney.

Different

training

programs

use different

formats,

including lectures, speeches

from organiza-

tional

leaders, skits or

plays

with

professional

actors, behavioral

modeling, role-plays and

other experiential

exercises, computer-based

programs,

fllms, readings, and casc-studies.

The length of these diffe¡ent

programs ranges

from minutes to hours to days

(e.g.,

Bingham

and Scherer,

2001;

Gutek,

1997). In a

recent

survey

of 1,277 working adults

in

the

US,

Magley and colleagues

(2004)

found that only

46

per

cent of respondents

had received any

training at all on sexual

harassment, which

was more common in larger organizations

and

lasted an average of

1.5 hours.

Content

also differs across

sexual

harassment training

programs. Many

experts

agree that training should

include

education about what constitutes

harassing

conduct

and how employees can

report such

conduct. Some

programs

are oriented around

awareness-raising

or sensitivity+raining,

whereas others

focus more on legal issues

and

penalties

for harassers

(Bingham

and

Scherer,

2001; Gutek,

1997; Magley et al.,

1997; Reese and

Lindenberg,

1997). Some

training uses'rational-empirical'

techniques

(assuming

that

people

are more

likely to

change

behavior when

given

a rational

justifrcation),

while others use

'power-

coercive'

strategies

(assuming

that a threat

from a legitimate

authority will

promote

behavior

change).

Yet another approach

is

'normative

re-educative,' the assumption

being

that substantive

change requires

the development

of

new norms, shared

meanings, and transformations

in attitudes,

values, skills,

and relational styles

(Bingham

and Scherer,

2001). The

primary

goal

of

such

training is

generally prevention,

but

little empirical evidence

shows that training

actually

deters would-be

harassers

from

abusing

others. Another

goal

of training is to

encourage

employees

to come forward

with

intemal complaints of

sexual harassment,

but as

noted earlier, such complaints

are

rare. One longitudinal

study, however, did

document

an increase

in internal sexual

harassment complaints

following company-

wide training

(Magley

et al.,

1997). What

else do sexual

harassment training

programs

accomplish?

Researchers

have found that recipients

of sexual

harassment training

(particularly

men) report

increased knowledge of

sex-

ual

harassment definitions,

legal regulations,

and

organizational

policies

(Antecol

and

Cobb-Clark,

2003;

Bingham and Scherer,

2001). Other outcomes

include satisfaction

with

the organization's

harassment

policy

or

complaint

procedures

(Magley

et

al., 2004;

Reese

and

Lindenberg,

2004), lowered victim-

blaming or

harassment{rivializing

attitudes

(Lonsway

et a1.,

2008; Magley et al.,2004),

and

greater

belief

that sexual behavior

is

inappropriate

in the

worþlace

(Bingham

and Scherer,

2001). The USMSPB

(1994)

found that employees

working in lederal

agencies

providing

sexual harassment training

described

less

'uninvited

and unwanted sexual

attention.'

This effect was strongest

lor

agencies that

trained ø/l employees.

SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

We could

locate

only one

study

providing

direct

evidence

that sexual

harassment

train-

ing affects

men's behavior

toward

women,

at

least in the

short run.

Perry et al.

(1998)

showed

male

participants

a training

video on

either

sexual

harassment

or sign

language,

followed by

a

golftraining video.

Participants

then

trained

a female confederate

on how to

putt.

The

researchers

found that

harassment

training

increased

knowledge

and

reduced

inappropriate

touching

for

men with a

prior

propensity

to sexually

harass women.

Some

research,

however,

has lound

sexual

harassment

training

programs

to

have either

null effects

(e.g.,

Magley

et al.,

1997,

2004) or adverse

effects

on employees.

Magley

and colleagues

(1997)

and

Antecol

and

Cobb-Clark

(2003)

reported

that

some

trained employees

became

more cynical

about

their

organization's

ability or

commitment

to

prevent sexual

harassment,

and

Bingham

and Scherer

(2001)

found male

trainees

to report

greater victim-blaming

attitudes

and

/¿ss willingness

to

file a complaint

of

sexual

harassment, compared

to women

and

non-trained

men. Moreover,

the

short-term

attitudinal

changes

reported

by Perry

et al.

(

1998) did

not

persist

over

the long

term.

It is

important to

note,

however, that

each

of

these studies

evaluated

different

sexual

harassment

training

programs. Moreover,

the

methodological

quality

of

this

research

varied

(Magley

et al.,

1997), often

lacking

control

groups,

utilizing

small samples,

failing to take

into account

pre-training

assessment

effects,

or

lacking

pre-training assessment

altogether.

Most

post-training assessments

were con-

ducted

immediately

after

the training,

making

it

impossible to

know whether

the training

has

any

lasting effects.

More research

is clearly

warranted

to demonstrate

empirically

the

effectiveness

of sexual

harassment

training

interventions.

THE

FUTURE OF

SEXUAT

HARASSMENT

RESEARCH

As this

chapter

makes clear, sexual

harassment

remains a serious

problem

that takes

a toll

on

employees,

workgroups,

and their

organiza-

tions.

Notabl¡

the bulk of

research

on this

topic

has appeared

outside

of the

mainstream

organizational

literature. Conducting

searches

on

the keyword

'sexual

harassment'

in all

issues

published through

2006

of the

top five

OB and

VO

journals,

we

found only

31 sexual

harassment

articles:

.

Journal

of Applied

Psychology

(l

8 articles);

.

Organizat¡onal

Behavior

and Human

Decision

Processes

(3

articles);

.

Acadeny

of Management

tournal

(6

articles);

.

Acadenyof

Management

Revíew

(3

articles);

and

c

Administrative

Sciences

Quarterly

(l

article).

By contrast,

I 83 articles

on

workplace

sexual

harassment

havc appearcd

in

fivc social

science

journals

that do

not specialize

in

organizational

behavior:

.

Sex Roles

(100

articles);

.

Psychology

of Women

Quarterly

(31

articles);

o

lournal of

Social lssues

(24

articles);

.

Gender

and Society

(19

articles);

and

.

Signs:

The lournal

of Women

in

Culture and

Society

(9

articles).

The

topic of

workplace

sexual

harassment

clearly

deserves

greater

attention

from orga-

nizational

scientists.

Below, we

propose three

questions that warrant

further

research,

and

conclude

with methodological

suggestions

to

enrich this

literature.

What constitutes'sexual

harassment'7

After

three

decades

of legal

decisions

and

social science

on sexual

harassment,

an

explicit

definition

remains elusive.

We con-

tinue to

discover

'new'

forms of

harassment,

which

have

long occurred

but

seldom

been

studied.

One such

form is extra-organizational

sexual

harassment,

i.e.,

harassment

lrom

customers,

clients,

or members

of

the

public.

These

organizational

outsiders

can

easily

target an employee

with sex-based

disparage-

ment

and unwanted

sexual

advances,

interfer-

ing with

that

person's work and

well-being

490

(Barling

et al.,

2001; Gettman

and Gelfand,

2007).

With the

recent expansion

of the ser-

vice

prolessions,'outsider

sexual

harassment'

deserves

more empirical

attention.

Non-sexual

forms of

harassment

are

also

being

increasingly

recognized.

Sexist

behav-

iors directed

at

women,

such as

jokes

about

women's

intelligence

and

comments

about

women

'not

belonging'

in certain

jobs,

represent

the

most common

manifestations

of sex-based

harassment;

these

behaviors,

however, are

often

overlooked

in

research,

the

law, and organizational

policy.

Likewise,

sexist

conduct

directed

against

men

(e.9.,

'not

man enough'

harassment)

is

rarely studied.

Not

only

should

science

focus

more

on

these

sexist but

non-sexualized

behaviors,

it

should also examine

sex-based

harassment

that

makes

no explicit

reference

to

gender,

such as

incivility,

sabotage,

and

th¡eats

directed

disproportionately

at

women

(and

some

men)

in the workplace

(Berdahl,2007b;

Berdahl,

2007c;

Cortina,

2008).

More sexual

harassment

research

should

also consider

how

gender intersects

with

other

social

identities.

Having

a

low-status

identity,

such

as being

ethnic

minority,

poor,

or

gay, may increase

an

individual's

risk

for sex-based

harassment

(e.g.,

Berdahl

and

Moore,

2006;

Konik and

Cortina,

in

press).

These

identities

may

also aflect

the

type

of

harassment

experienced,

because

sex-

based

disparagements

can take

different

forms

and

meanings

specific

to one's

ethnicity,

sexual

orientation,

or other

social

dimension.

Research

addressing

these

intersections

can

further

our

understanding

of

sexual

harass-

ment as

a tool that

reinforces

social

hierarchies

in the

workplace.

What

motivates

(or

inhihits)

sexual

harassment?

Sexual

harassers

were originally

assumed

to

be driven

by

a desire

for sexual

expression

or

gratification.

Men's

wish to dominate

or

control

women

was

later

proposed to

motivate

sexual

harassment.

Research

now considers

a

more basic

motive:

The desire

to

retain a

valued social

identity

and

attendant

benefits

in

THE SAGE

HANDBOOK

OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

a system

of

gender hierarchy.

Given

that this

theorizing

has continued

for several

decades,

it

is striking

to see

how

little

empirical

research

has focused

explicitly

on

harassers

(exceptions

include

Bargh et

al., 1995;

Dekker

and

Barling,

1998;

Perry

et al.,

1998;

Pryor,

1987;

Pryor et

al., 1993).

This is an

important

direction

for future

studies.

How can

organizations

eliminate

sexual

harassment?

Sexual

harassment

grievance mechanisms

have

limited efTþctiveness

and

efficiency,

as

they

attempt

to correct

harassment

by rooting

out

and

punishing individual

harassers,

and

place

the burden

of managing

misbehavior

on individual

victims.

Moreover,

grievance

procedures typically

fail

to address

broader

problems that

fuel hostile

wo¡k

environments.

Experts therefore

emphasize

the

futility

of

relying

primarily or solely

on

formal

victim

complaints

to coffect

workplace

harassment

(e.g.,

Fitzgerald

et

al.,

1995c;

Magley,

2002; Shultz,

2003).

Instead,

innovative

harassment-prevention

and

control

mecha-

nisms are

badly

needed;

below

are

several

examples.

One

novel approach

to managing

sexual

harassment

is bystander

intervention

(Bowes-

Sperry

and O'Leary-Kelly,

2005;

Rowe'

1996).

As

Bowes-sperry

and O'Leary-Kelly

(2005)

explain,

this

can take

a

variety of

forms.

Employees

who

witness

the

harass-

ment of

a co-worker

can

redirect

the

harasser,

remove

the victim,

or otherwise

interrupt

the situation.

Further, bystanders

can

provide

support

to

the victim,

bolstering

the victim's

resources

and

sense

of clarity

and

control.

Bystanders

can also

take

it upon

themselves

to confront

or

report

the

harasser,

as such

responses

may

be easier

for

nonvictims.

These

possibilities suggest

that organizations

should

train employees

on

how to

respond

not only

when they

personally experience

harassment,

but also

when

they

witness

the

harassment

of others.

Sexual

harassment

interventions

might

also

be embedded

in broaderinitiatives

to establish

a civil,

respectful

workplace.

For

instance,

SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

491

to

promote

civility,

experts

(e.g.,

Pearson

and Porath,

2004)

recommend that

senior

management

model appropriate,

respectful

workplacebehavior;

clearly

state expectations

of civility

in

mission statements

or

policy

manuals; and

educate

all employees

on

civility expectations.

Cortina

(2008)

adds that

organizational

practices

to

set norms of

civil-

ity should

explicitly

discuss equitable

respect

toward

women

and men

(and

Whites,

gays,

ethnic

minorities, etc.).

Leaders

should also

emphasize

that

unacceptable

conduct

includes

notjust overt

acts ofmisogyny,

obscenity,

and

sexual

aggression,

but also

subtle devaluation

and derision

of

members of either

sex.

This

integrated strategy

of embedding

harassment-

prevention

efforts

into

larger civility-

promotion

programs would attract

broader

audiences,

being

relevant to all

employees

(female

and

male) and avoiding

the

resistance

met by

interventions

that exclusively

target

sexual

harassment

(Cortina,

2008; Cortina

et a1.,2002;

Lim and

Cortina,

2005).

A fìnal intervention

aims to

prevent sexual

harassment

by overhauling

the structures

that

support

it.

The recommendation

itself

is

quite

simple:

employ

more women,

promote more

women, and

integrate more

women

into every

level of

the organization.

The

goal

should

be a'well-integrated,

structurally

egalitarian

workplace,'in

which

women and

men equally

share

power and authority

(Schultz,

2003:

2071). Supporting

this recommendation

is

empirical

research linking

male-skewed

sex

ratios to sexual

harassment

(e.g.,

Berdahl,

2OO7a;

Fitzgerald et

al., 1997;

Gruber,

1998), stereotyping,

and discrimination

(see

Kanter,

1977; Whitley

and Kite,

2006).

Organizational'desegregation'

may not

eradicate sexual

harassment

entirely,

but

it

can

reduce the culture

of

hypermasculinity

that

promotes

objectification,

devaluation,

and

aggression

toward

women

and

gender-nonconforming

men.

M eth odo

I ogical

reco m me nd ati

o ns

for

sexual harassment

research

Most

sexual

harassment

research

relies

on cross-sectional,

self-report

surveys,

with

findings restricted

to a single

level ofanalysis.

The importance

of

this work

cannot

be

overstated,

but

it is time to broaden

the

range

of

methods

employed

in this domain.

With some

notable exceptions

(Glomb

et

al.,

1999 Magley et

a7.,2005;

Rospenda

et al.,

2006),

few have

investigated

sex-

ual harassment

longitudinally.

Longitudi-

nal

methods can

address

questions about

causality, temporal

patteming,

and

the

persis-

tence

ofnegative

outcomes.

These approaches

also allow

researchers

to conceptualize

harassment

as

a dynamic

process that

'unfolds'

or has

'cascading effects'

over

time.

Moreover,

when self-report

research

temporally

separates

assessment

of the

pre-

dictor

(harassment)

and

criterion

(outcome)

variables,

concerns

about

mono-method

bias

are

lessened.

We also encourage

more experimental

studies

of sexual

harassment.

However,

we

do

not advocate

vignette-based

paradigms

in which

students

imagine

how they

might

interpret or

respond to

a hypothetical

scenario

(if

anything,

such

studies

should be

dis-

continued,

given

that

their data

have

ques-

tionable

validity).

Instead,

more

fruitful and

interesting

possibilities

lie in simulations

of

harassing behavior

in

the laboratory.

There

are ethical

limits to

such studies,

but

they

are

possible

(see

Maass et

al., 2003;

Pryor,

1987; Schneider

et

al.,

2001; Woodzicka

and

LaFrance,

2001) and

can

yield

unique

contributions

to the

field.

Sexual harassment

research should

also

incorporate

multiple

levels of analysis.

Most studies

have

revolved around

indi-

vidual

self-reports

of

perceptions,

experi-

ences,

responses,

etc.

Not only

does this

approach

have

potential

problems

with

mono-

method bias,

it typically

misses

group-

or

organizationallevel

antecedents

(e.g.,

work-

group gender attitudes)

and outcomes

(e.g.,

declines

in unit

productivity;

see

Raver

and

Gelfand,

2005, for a

notable exception).

We

therefore

recommend

that

multilevel methods

become

more customary

in

sexual

harassment

research,

addressing

processes at the

level

of

the individual,

team,

organization,

and

society.

THE SAGE

HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

coNcrusloN

The

past

decade

Sexual Harassment in Organizations: A Decade of Research in Review

Abstract