Reputation Matters: How HR Personnel Reputation and Organizational Trust Influence the Reporting of Sexual Harassment

Abstract

This study investigates how HR Personnel Reputation (HRPR) and Perceived Organizational Trust (POT) influence the likelihood of sexual harassment reporting from both victims and bystanders. It addresses a gap in research regarding HR’s role in sexual harassment reporting by exploring the direct relationship between HR reputation and reporting likelihood and the mediating role of POT. Utilizing partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), the study examines the relationships between HRPR, POT, and the likelihood of reporting sexual harassment. It draws upon Source Credibility Theory (SCT) to hypothesize increased reporting likelihood with positive perceptions of HRPR. Data were collected through a Prolific survey panel, with a final sample size of 412 participants. The findings support the hypothesized positive relationship between HRPR and the direct likelihood of reporting sexual harassment by victims and bystanders through the mediating effect of POT. This suggests that HR reputation, directly and indirectly, impacts reporting behavior by influencing organizational trust. HR reputation is crucial in reporting sexual harassment, both directly and indirectly, through perceived organizational trust. Enhancing HR’s reputation and building organizational trust is vital in encouraging the reporting of sexual harassment, thereby addressing a widespread issue more effectively within organizations. The study underscores the importance of credible HR practices and the development of a trusting environment to encourage reporting of sexual harassment, offering practical implications for HR departments aiming to improve their effectiveness in handling such sensitive issues.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Corporate Reputation Review
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-025-00228-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Reputation Matters: How HR Personnel Reputation andOrganizational
Trust Influence theReporting ofSexual Harassment
MatthewT.Oglesby1 · MelanieBoudreaux2· KellyG.Manix3
© The Author(s) 2025
Abstract
This study investigates how HR Personnel Reputation (HRPR) and Perceived Organizational Trust (POT) influence the
likelihood of sexual harassment reporting from both victims and bystanders. It addresses a gap in research regarding HR’s
role in sexual harassment reporting by exploring the direct relationship between HR reputation and reporting likelihood
and the mediating role of POT. Utilizing partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), the study examines
the relationships between HRPR, POT, and the likelihood of reporting sexual harassment. It draws upon Source Credibil-
ity Theory (SCT) to hypothesize increased reporting likelihood with positive perceptions of HRPR. Data were collected
through a Prolific survey panel, with a final sample size of 412 participants. The findings support the hypothesized positive
relationship between HRPR and the direct likelihood of reporting sexual harassment by victims and bystanders through the
mediating effect of POT. This suggests that HR reputation, directly and indirectly, impacts reporting behavior by influencing
organizational trust. HR reputation is crucial in reporting sexual harassment, both directly and indirectly, through perceived
organizational trust. Enhancing HR’s reputation and building organizational trust is vital in encouraging the reporting of
sexual harassment, thereby addressing a widespread issue more effectively within organizations. The study underscores the
importance of credible HR practices and the development of a trusting environment to encourage reporting of sexual harass-
ment, offering practical implications for HR departments aiming to improve their effectiveness in handling such sensitive
issues.
Keywords Human resource management· Sexual harassment· HR reputation· Organizational trust
Introduction
Thanks to Toby, I have a very strong prejudice against
Human Resources. I believe that the department is a
breeding ground for monsters.
-Michael Scott, The Office (Daniels etal. 2008)
Michael Scott’s opinion of Toby Flenderson illustrates
a common negative perception of human resource (HR)
departments. The popular press has suggested many reasons
for this perception, including bad experiences with HR, inept
HR professionals, rigid rule enforcement, an overemphasis
on policies and procedures, perceived untrustworthiness, and
a lack of care and concern for employees (Miller 2020; Ryan
2016). This negative perception has the potential to com-
plicate critical human resource functions, including sexual
harassment reporting and prevention.
Numerous accounts of sexual harassment often go unre-
ported despite high numbers of documented claims. Studies
have shown that as many as 90 percent of victims fail to take
formal action for various reasons (U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 2023), including fear of blame,
disbelief, inaction, humiliation, ostracism, and damage to
careers or reputations (Cortina & Areguin 2021). Failing to
report sexual harassment can be incredibly costly to indi-
viduals and organizations. Harassed employees can expe-
rience lowered self-esteem, tarnished reputations, stalled
careers, mental anguish, and more (Jacobson & Eaton 2018).
* Matthew T. Oglesby
mtoglesby@una.edu
1 Sanders College ofBusiness andTechnology, University
ofNorth Alabama, UNA, Box5017, Florence,
AL35632-0001, USA
2 Al Danos College ofBusiness, Nicholls State University,
Thibodaux, LA, USA
3 Jones College ofBusiness, Middle Tennessee State
University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA

M.T.Oglesby et al.
It is estimated that sexual harassment costs organizations
thousands of dollars a year in lost productivity per affected
employee due to declines in job satisfaction, commitment,
and performance, as well as increases in mental and physical
health issues stemming from the harassment (Johnson etal.
2016). Additionally, monetary settlements for compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as reputational damage, can
add to a company’s overall costs (Brown & Battle 2019).
The prevalence of sexual harassment, the low likelihood for
it to be reported, and the staggering costs associated with it
underscore the need to investigate sexual harassment report-
ing further.
Human Resources plays an integral role in the sexual
harassment prevention process, including educating, inves-
tigating, and addressing sexual harassment, and is often the
initial recipient of complaints (DuBois etal. 1999). Previous
research suggests employees are more likely to report sexual
harassment when organizations have clear policies and pro-
cedures (Fitzgerald etal. 1999), believe their HR depart-
ment will strictly adhere to those policies and procedures
(EOOC, 2006), and have high regard for leaders (Cortina &
Magley 2003). Yet, despite HR’s integral role in reporting
and prevention and the knowledge that perceptions of HR
can impact employee attitudes and behaviors (Chang 2005;
Ferris etal. 2007; Guthrie etal. 2009; Huselid, 1997; Kehoe
& Wright 2013), research has not addressed the potential
impact of HR personnel reputations on employee report-
ing of sexual harassment. Drawing from source credibility
theory (SCT), we contend the expertise, trustworthiness, and
likeability of HR staff will greatly impact employee likeli-
hood of reporting sexual harassment.
Additionally, previous research has emphasized impor-
tant differences in sexual harassment reporting for victims
and bystanders, yet it has not addressed the impact of the
reputation of HR personnel. While both victims and bystand-
ers tend to be support-seeking, victims are more motivated
to stop the unwanted behavior and seek justice (Bell etal.
2014), while bystanders may be motivated by a combina-
tion of supporting victims, moral obligation, improving the
workplace, or preventing liability (Meyer & Zelin 2019).
While there is the risk of retaliation for both groups, victims
are more at risk of extreme emotional and psychological
consequences (Bell etal. 2014). Compassionate bystanders
can provide additional support to victims and deter revictim-
ization (Armitage 2022), making both groups’ perceptions
of HR personnel equally important for sexual harassment
prevention.
We address these issues by posing three primary research
questions: (1) How do the collective personal reputations of
human resources personnel impact the likelihood of report-
ing sexual harassment? (2) Does perceived organizational
trust (POT) impact the relationship between HR personnel
reputation (HRPR) and employee likelihood to report sex-
ual harassment? (3) Do these relationships differ when the
complaint comes from the victim or a bystander? Grounded
in source credibility theory, we contend that the likelihood
to report sexual harassment will increase as the complain-
ant’s perception of HR personnel credibility increases. We
utilize partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) to investigate the direct relationship between
HR personnel reputation and the likelihood to report sexual
harassment and the indirect relationship of these variables
via perceived organizational trust (see Fig.1).
Our study provides several significant contributions to
the understanding of sexual harassment reporting within
organizations, with a focus on the influence of HR personnel
reputation and organizational trust. First, by grounding this
investigation in source credibility theory (SCT), the research
Fig. 1 Conceptual model

Reputation Matters: How HR Personnel Reputation andOrganizational Trust Influence the…
provides a theoretical framework for understanding how HR
personnel reputations impact employee decision-making in
sensitive and high-stakes situations. Results confirm the
impact of HR personnel’s credibility—defined through
their expertise, trustworthiness, and likeability—as a criti-
cal determinant of whether employees are likely to report
instances of sexual harassment. Second, the study investi-
gates how these dynamics affect both victims and bystanders
of sexual harassment. Our findings suggest that employee
perceptions of HR personnel influence the likelihood of
reporting harassment, regardless of whether the employee
is a victim or bystander. This distinction acknowledges the
different motivations and challenges faced by each group
when choosing to report and improves the generalizability
of our findings. Third, the research delves into the mediating
role of perceived organizational trust between HR personnel
reputation and the likelihood of reporting, emphasizing how
the broader organizational context and trust in the institution
helps to explain the effects of HR credibility on reporting
behavior. Our results substantiate the impact of HR person-
nel credibility on organizational trust and offer actionable
insights into fostering an organizational culture that supports
reporting and trust.
Theoretical Background andHypothesis
Development
Human Resources Reputation
A substantial body of work suggests employee perceptions
of human resources can greatly impact employee behavior
and attitudes as well as the overall work environment (Chang
2005; Ferris etal. 2007; Guthrie etal. 2009; Huselid, 1997;
Kehoe & Wright 2013). In the past, it has been argued that
perceptions of HR effectiveness should be measured by
the department’s ability to meet constituent needs (Tsui &
Milkovich 1987). Then, Hannon and Milkovich (1996) rec-
ommended perceptions of HR, or HR reputation, be concep-
tualized as collective perceptions of HR policies, practices,
and procedures. Later, Ferris etal. (2007) labeled these two
concepts as “implicitly the same thing” as perceptions of
HR effectiveness are highly intertwined with reputation and
vice versa (p. 120). Yet, aside from studies that explore the
impact of HR policies and initiatives on corporate reputation
(Friedman 2009; Selvaraj & Joseph 2014), little has been
done to advance theory as it relates to HR reputation.
We concur with Ferris etal.’s (2007) view of HR reputa-
tion and effectiveness being inextricably linked, but we also
posit that previous conceptualizations of HR reputation have
failed to consider HR reputation as an aggregate measure of
the personal reputations of individuals working within the
HR department. Defined as “a perceptual identity reflective
of the complex combination of salient personal character-
istics and accomplishments, demonstrated behavior, and
intended images presented over some time as observed
directly and/or as reported from secondary sources” (Ferris
etal. 2003, p. 118), Ferris etal. have argued for the integra-
tion of personal reputation into research on HR reputation
as the theory suggests it “can be applied to the department
level” (p. 119). Thus, we utilize Zinko etal.’s (2016) multi-
dimensional scale to assess the collective personal reputa-
tions of HR personnel. The scale measures three dimensions
of reputation: task, social, and integrity, which differentiates
how individuals are perceived based on their skills, social
interactions, and ethical standards. We apply the scale to
evaluate departmental reputation by assessing the collec-
tive attributes of individuals within a given department.
For example, in the current study, the HR department is
evaluated on the collective task proficiency of its person-
nel (akin to individual task reputation), which would reflect
the department’s ability to effectively accomplish its goals
and responsibilities. Similarly, the social reputation of the
department is assessed based on the quality of interactions
with HR personnel, reflecting how well the employees per-
ceive that the department integrates with the rest of the
organization. Lastly, the ethical standards and values of HR
personnel are measured reflecting the department’s trust and
reliability perceptions among employees.
Source Credibility Theory
Source credibility theory has been heavily used in market-
ing and communications research to investigate consumer
responses to advertising (Gotlieb & Sarel 1991) and product
endorsements (Weismueller etal. 2020). When consumers
trust the source of the information received, they are more
likely to take action and purchase the advertised or endorsed
products. Although the application of SCT source credibil-
ity theory in management literature is sparse, researchers
have explored the source credibility of supervisors (Kingsley
etal., 2018), leaders (Williams etal. 2022), and interview-
ers (Fisher etal. 1979). In each of these cases, the credibil-
ity of company representatives affected the candidates’ and
employees’ willingness to accept and respond to a specific
message.
Source credibility theory involves five essential ele-
ments: (1) the influencer; (2) the receiver; (3) information;
(4) the information source; and (5) response. Integral to the
response of the receiver are the expertise, trustworthiness,
and homophily of the information source (Hovland & Weiss
1951; Ismagilova etal. 2020). Expertise refers to the extent
to which the receiver believes the information source can
provide correct information, trustworthiness relates to the
degree of confidence in the source to deliver honest informa-
tion, and homophily (sometimes referred to as likeability)

M.T.Oglesby et al.
pertains to the similarity between the receiver and the infor-
mation source and resulting attraction. The three character-
istics influence a source’s perceived credibility, ultimately
impacting individual attitudes and behaviors in response to
source messages and communications.
We apply the five elements of source credibility to HR
management as follows: (1) the organization as influencer;
(2) individual employees as receivers of information; (3)
information comprises organizational policies and proce-
dures; (4) HR department personnel as information source;
and (5) the response is employee acceptance and adherence
to organizational policies and procedures. We argue that
employees will consider the credibility of the information
source (HR personnel) as they decide whether or not to com-
ply with organizational policies. Specifically, an employee
may consider the expertise, trustworthiness, and homophily
of HR personnel before complying with an organizational
policy encouraging them to report sexual harassment.
HR Personnel Reputation andPerceived
Organizational Trust
HR serves as a bridge between employees and manage-
ment, and its perceived credibility and effectiveness can
significantly influence the level of perceived trust within an
organization (Burke etal. 2007; Vanhala & Ahteela 2011).
Perceived organizational trust, or the expectation that a com-
pany will act responsibly for the benefit of its stakeholders
(Dirks & Ferrin 2002), is critical to an organization’s per-
formance (Ha & Lee 2022). A great deal of research has
evaluated the importance of trust in organizations, particu-
larly involving employee relationships and overall company
efficiency and effectiveness (Mayer etal. 1995; Dirks &
Ferrin 2002).
Source credibility theory posits that the credibility of a
source consists of expertise, trustworthiness, and homoph-
ily. In the context of HR, expertise is reflected in department
personnel’s ability to handle employee concerns effectively.
When HR personnel are viewed as knowledgeable and
competent, source credibility is enhanced, contributing to
increased trust. Source trustworthiness is developed with
honesty, transparency, and fairness and by communicat-
ing messages employees believe to be valid (Pornpitakpan
2004). Finally, the homophily dimension of SCT describes a
source’s perceived similarity and likability. We contend that
when HR personnel are perceived as empathetic, responsive,
and largely similar to employees, their likability and, thus,
departmental credibility and reputation should improve.
As HR personnel demonstrate expertise, trustworthiness,
and homophily, their credibility as a reliable source will be
strengthened and trust in the organization will be enhanced.
Conversely, mishandling employee concerns and interac-
tions can damage HR reputation, diminishing department
source credibility and potentially eroding organizational
trust.
H1 HR Personnel Reputation is positively related to per-
ceived organizational trust.
HR Personnel Reputation andLikelihood toReport
Sexual Harassment
Source credibility theory suggests the perceived compe-
tence, trustworthiness, and homophily of an information
source, in this case, HR department personnel, will impact
employee attitudes and behaviors in response to source mes-
saging. A study by the EEOC (2016) found employees are
more likely to comply and report sexual harassment when
they believe their HR department will handle complaints
effectively and strictly adhere to company anti-harassment
policies and procedures. In alignment with trustworthiness,
Fitzgerald etal. (1999) found employees are more likely to
report incidents of sexual harassment in organizations with
clear policies and procedures, along with managerial adher-
ence to these policies. Finally, Cortina and Magley (2003)
found employees with high regard for leaders are more likely
to report harassment incidents, further underpinning the
importance of likability/homophily for source credibility.
It is essential to note the critical differences in motiva-
tion, consequences, and barriers to reporting for victims and
bystanders. Victims are often motivated to stop the perpetra-
tor, receive support, and seek justice (Bell etal. 2014), while
bystanders typically aim to support victims, fulfill a per-
ceived moral obligation, improve the workplace, or prevent
organizational liability (Meyer & Zelin 2019). Both victims
and bystanders experience fear of backlash and retaliation,
especially if perpetrators hold positions of power (Nicksa
2014). However, victims can experience extreme emotional
and psychological consequences depending upon their satis-
faction with the reporting process and outcomes (Bell etal.
2014). Uncertainty regarding the reporting process may pre-
vent both victims and bystanders from reporting, as well as
fears of retaliation, negative impact on careers, and percep-
tions of organizational culture and norms (Crowley 2023;
Marin & Guadagno 1999).
In alignment with SCT, we argue the reputation of HR
personnel will influence both object and bystander reporting
of sexual harassment. Positive HR personnel reputation is
associated with increased trust in leadership (Burke etal.
2007) and psychological safety, a key factor in creating envi-
ronments where employees feel safe expressing concerns
without fear of repercussions (Ge 2020; Wæraas & Dahle
2020). However, low HR personnel reputation, characterized
by incompetence, perceived bias, inconsistency, or a lack
of responsiveness, can erode employee trust (Ferris etal.
2007), and deter reporting by both victims and bystanders

Reputation Matters: How HR Personnel Reputation andOrganizational Trust Influence the…
(Bell etal. 2014; Jacobson & Eaton 2018). Thus, we hypoth-
esize that a positive HR personnel reputation will encourage
both the object of the harassment and bystanders to report
incidents of sexual harassment due to enhanced department
credibility. Conversely, when HR personnel reputation is
low, object and bystander likelihood to report will decrease.
H2a HR personnel reputation is positively related to an
object’s likelihood to report to report sexual harassment.
H2b HR personnel reputation is positively related to a
bystander’s likelihood to report to report sexual harassment.
Perceived Organizational Trust andLikelihood
toReport Sexual Harassment
Perceived organizational trust refers to the belief that an
organization can be relied upon to act in the best interests of
its members and stakeholders (Dirks & Ferrin 2002). This
trust is built through visible prosocial and honest behav-
iors within the organization and can significantly influence
employee attitudes and behaviors (Hosmer 1995). Links
between POT and upward communication (Gaines 1980),
voice behaviors (Ng & Feldman 2013), and reporting threats
of violence (Sulkowski 2011) have all been established in
the literature, making the construct highly pertinent to
improving the likeliness of sexual harassment reporting
(Clarke 2014). However, there remains a void in the exist-
ing literature, specifically regarding the relationship between
perceived organizational trust and the likelihood to report
sexual harassment. Except for research on perceived trust in
reporting mechanisms (Vijayasiri 2008), studies explicitly
examining the relationship between perceived organiza-
tional trust and the likelihood to report sexual harassment
are sparse. We examine this critical relationship given the
damaging ramifications sexual harassment can have on
organizations (Willness etal. 2007).
As SCT suggests, victims who trust an organization’s
ability to handle complaints effectively and without retalia-
tion are more likely to report sexual harassment (Vijayasiri
2008). Effective leadership that also enforces harassment
policies and demonstrates a commitment to stopping harass-
ment and protecting employees further fosters trust among
victims, enhancing the likelihood of them reporting harass-
ment (Offermann & Malamut 2002). For bystanders, organi-
zational culture and policies play a significant role in their
trust of the organization and decision to report harassment.
Bystanders are more likely to report harassment if they trust
that zero-tolerance policies will be enforced and the organi-
zation’s commitment to protecting employees is unwavering
(Jacobson & Eaton 2018). Overall, employees who feel a
greater sense of POT are more committed to improving the
work environment (Morrison & Milliken 2000) and more
likely to share concerns than those who do not trust their
organizations (Mayer etal. 1995).
H3a Perceived organizational trust is positively related to an
object’s likelihood to report sexual harassment.
H3b Perceived organizational trust is positively related to a
bystander’s likelihood to report sexual harassment.
Perceived Organizational Trust asMediator
Various factors can influence POT, including the credibil-
ity of information sources within an organization (Schoor-
man etal. 1996). As organizations are multilevel systems,
this perceived trust can emerge at the individual, team,
department, and organizational levels (Klein etal. 1994). In
accordance with SCT, HR departments can either enhance or
diminish perceived organizational trust based on their effec-
tiveness, trustworthiness and, similarity/likability. Should
HR representatives display incompetence, insincerity, and
unfriendliness, employees may perceive this as threaten-
ing to their well-being and be less inclined to speak up for
fear of retaliatory practices like being fired, demoted, or
mistreated (Khan etal. 2022). Additionally, the perceived
effectiveness of HR departments can significantly influence
the level of trust within an organization (Burke etal. 2007;
Vanhala & Ahteela 2011). Well-trained HR professionals,
clear reporting procedures, and a comprehensive understand-
ing of the legal and ethical aspects of dealing with such
issues will reassure employees that the organization can be
entrusted with sensitive information. This perceived trust,
in turn, facilitates the relationship between HR reputation
and employees’ likelihood to report sexual harassment, as
employees will be more confident that their experiences
will be taken seriously and without negative repercussions
(Ugwu etal. 2014).
H4 Perceived organizational trust partially mediates the
relationship between HR personnel reputation and the like-
lihood of the (a) object and the (b) bystander to report sexual
harassment.
Pilot Study
Before testing the conceptual model, a pilot study was con-
ducted to assess the validity of two measurement tools used
in the main study. A personal reputation scale by Zinko etal.
(2016) was modified to measure HR personnel reputation,
and Jacobson and Eaton’s (2018) employee likelihood to
report sexual harassment scale was adapted to measure both
victim and bystander reporting.

M.T.Oglesby et al.
Pilot study participants were solicited via social media
(Facebook and LinkedIn). Two time-separated surveys were
administered a week apart, with HR personnel reputation
measured at time one and the likelihood to report sexual
harassment measured at time two. The anonymous surveys
were administered through Qualtrics, and responses were
matched using unique identifiers assigned by the platform.
One participant was removed for incomplete data, resulting
in a final sample of 61 for the pilot study.
To assess the convergent validity of the constructs, we
examined the factor loadings, average variance extracted
(AVE), and composite reliability (Hair etal. 2019). First,
all outer loadings were above the 0.708 threshold (Collier
2020) except for HRR7; however, it was above 0.60 and
considered acceptable (Hair etal. 2017). Second, the AVE
for each construct exceeded the 0.50 level recommended for
adequate convergent validity (Collier 2020). Third, the com-
posite reliability for each construct was above the accept-
able0.70 level (Hair etal. 2019). Based on the preceding
analysis, we deemed the measurement tools appropriate for
inclusion in the primary research study. In addition, the pilot
study offered preliminary support for our hypotheses.
Methods
Sample andProcedure
Data for the main study were collected via a Prolific sur-
vey panel. Prolific is an online data provider for behavio-
ral research and has been shown to produce high-quality
data (Schaarschmidt etal. 2021). As in the pilot study, two
surveys were administered a week apart with 413 partici-
pants completing both. After removing one participant for
failed attention checks, a final sample size of 412 was used
in the analysis. Fifty-six percent of participants were male,
43% female, and 1% identified as other. The average age
was 36.0years (SD = 14.87), and the average tenure was
5.83years (SD = 11.39). The racial composition of partici-
pants was 72% White/Caucasian, 10% Asian, 8% Black/Afri-
can American, 7% Hispanic, 2% Biracial, and 1% Native
American. Forty-three percent of the participants were
managers. Table1 contains a complete description of the
participants’ profile.
While the use of single-source data can raise the concern
of common method bias (CMB), a time-separated approach
is commonly accepted to help control for common method
bias (Podsakoff etal. 2012). Additional procedural remedies
were employed to reduce the potential for CMB, including
the use of different scale points, anchor labels, and both
positively and negatively worded items (Podsakoff etal.
2012). In addition, we followed Kock’s (2015) suggestion
to assess the potential for multicollinearity at the factor level.
Factor-level variance inflation factor (VIF) scores were less
than 3.3 in all instances, suggesting that the model is free
from common method bias (Kock 2015).
Measures
HR personnel reputation was measured at time 1, and per-
ceived organizational trust, likelihood to report sexual har-
assment object, and likelihood to report sexual harassment
bystander were measured at time 2. All items were measured
using seven-point Likert scales unless otherwise noted.
HR Personnel Reputation. We measured HR personnel
reputation using a 12-item personal reputation scale by
Zinko etal. (2016) (α = 0.934). We changed the referent to
the department level to measure the personal reputations of
the HR team. A sample question is, “Our HR personnel are
seen as people of high integrity.” HR personnel reputation
was measured using a five-point Likert scale.
Table 1 The sample
Variable n = 412 %
Tenure
Less than 1year 7 2
1 to 3years 125 30
3 to 5years 73 18
5 to 10years 117 28
Over 10years 86 21
Age
Under 20years old 1 0
20 to 29years old 129 31
30 to 39years old 148 36
40 to 49years old 70 17
50 to 59years old 39 9
Over 60years old 22 5
Gender
Female 175 42
Male 231 56
Other 6 1
Race
White/caucasian 297 72
Asian 40 10
Black/African American 33 8
Hispanic 27 7
Biracial 8 2
Native American 1 0
Other 0 0
Organizational Size
0–50 employees 12 3
51–100 employees 66 16
101–250 employees 72 17
250 or more employees 261 63

Reputation Matters: How HR Personnel Reputation andOrganizational Trust Influence the…
Perceived Organizational Trust. We measured perceived
organizational trust through a 10-item scale by Searle etal.
(2011) (α = 0.936). A sample question is, “This organization
is guided by sound moral principles and codes of conduct.”
Likelihood to Report Sexual Harassment Object. We
measured an employee’s likelihood to report sexual harass-
ment using a 3-item scale from Jacobson and Eaton (2018)
(α = 0.931). A sample question is, “If you were the object
of sexual harassment, how likely would you be to formally
report the incident to your organization?”.
Likelihood to Report Sexual Harassment Bystander. We
adapted a 3-item scale from Jacobson and Eaten (2018) to
measure an employee’s likelihood to report sexual harass-
ment as a bystander of the harassment (α = 0.899). A sample
question is, “If you observed someone being sexually har-
assed at your workplace, how likely would you be to for-
mally report the incident to your organization?”.
Control Variables. We controlled for gender and age.
Gender and age have each been shown in previous research
to be significant factors in sexual harassment perceptions
and evaluation of policies and procedures (Reese & Lin-
denberg 2005).
Analysis
To test our hypotheses, we utilized partial least squares
structural equation (PLS-SEM) modeling with SmartPLS
(Version 4.0.9.9; Sarstedt etal. 2021). PLS-SEM is an
appropriate statistical method for this study because it can
maximize prediction and evaluate and predict complex rela-
tionships (Hair etal. 2019). PLS-SEM is conducted in two
stages: assessment of the measurement model and subse-
quent assessment of the structural model. The measurement
model assesses the relationship between the observed items
and the latent variables, while the structural model examines
the relationships between latent variables.
Measurement Model Evaluation
Descriptive statistics and correlations are depicted in
Table2. We assessed the convergent validity of the meas-
urement model through analysis of factor loadings, aver-
age variance extracted, and composite reliability. All of the
constructs’ outer loadings (see Table3) were above the 0.708
threshold (Hair etal. 2017) except for HRPR1, HRPR6, and
HRPR8. However, each of these items met the 0.60 thresh-
old and considered to be of minimal concern (Hair etal.
2017). Therefore, they were retained in the model. The
average variance extracted (AVE) for each of the constructs
exceeded the recommended 0.50 level (Hair etal. 2019),
and the composite reliability for each construct was above
the 0.70 rule of thumb (Hair etal. 2019; see Table4). Dis-
criminant validity was assessed using the FL-criterion and
HTMT. The FL-criterion (see Table5) showed support for
discriminant validity as the AVE for each construct exceeded
the interconstruct squared correlations. HTMT (see Table6)
also showed support for discriminant validity with all items
below 0.85 (Hair etal. 2017; Henseler etal. 2015).
Results
Structural Model Evaluation
To assess the structural model, we followed the steps rec-
ommended by Hair etal. (2017). First, we examined the
item-level multicollinearity through the variance inflation
factor (VIF). Evidence of multicollinearity was found with
several items, as indicated by a VIF above 5.0. Therefore, we
removed one item from HR personnel reputation (HRPR9),
two items from perceived organizational trust (POT4,
POT5), one item from likelihood to report sexual harass-
ment (LRSH-O1), and one item from likelihood to report
sexual harassment bystander (LRSH-B1).
Second, we assessed the relevance and significance
of the path coefficients. We found support for the posi-
tive relationship between HR personnel reputation and
the likelihood to report sexual harassment as both the
object of sexual harassment (β = 0.239, p = 0.000) and as
a bystander (β = 0.218, p = 0.002). This supports hypoth-
eses 1a and 1b. We also found a positive relationship
between HR personnel reputation and perceived organi-
zational trust (β = 0.593, p = 0.000), thus providing sup-
port for hypothesis 2. Additionally, hypotheses 3a and 3b
were supported as we found significant positive relation-
ships between perceived organizational trust and both the
Table 2 Descriptive statistics
and intercorrelations for all
study variables
HRPR HR Personnel Reputation, POT Perceived Organizational Trust, LRSH-O Likelihood to Report Sex-
ual Harassment Object, LRSH-B Likelihood to Report Sexual Harassment
M SD HRPR POT LRSH-O LRSH-B
HRPR 3.35 0.77 1
POT 5.04 1.23 0.59 1
LRSH-O 5.34 1.72 0.38 0.40 1
LRSH-B 5.62 1.45 0.31 0.31 0.59 1

M.T.Oglesby et al.
Table 3 Factor loadings
Variable Loading VIF
HR Personnel Reputation
HRPR1 HR personnel are interested in everyone having a good time 0.671 2.142
HRPR2 People like having HR personnel around for social events 0.739 2.735
HRPR3 HR personnel are well liked by others 0.848 4.024
HRPR4 HR personnel are popular 0.798 3.277
HRPR5 HR personnel are known to be experts in their area 0.778 2.264
HRPR6 HR personnel are often asked for advice regarding work-related issues 0.689 2.099
HRPR7 People go to HR personnel when they have an issue at work 0.729 2.450
HRPR8 HR personnel understand the policies and procedures of the workplace 0.673 2.054
HRPR10 HR personnel are known for being upstanding 0.873 4.108
HRPR11 People feel they can trust HR personnel 0.879 3.980
HRPR12 HR personnel are of high moral character 0.866 3.904
Perceived Organizational Trust
POT1 This organization is capable of meeting its responsibilities 0.811 3.517
POT2 This organization is known to be successful at what it tries to do 0.765 3.070
POT3 This organization does things competently 0.819 3.963
POT6 This organization will go out of its way to help employees 0.847 3.436
POT7 This organization would never deliberately take advantage of employees 0.868 3.590
POT8 This organization is guided by sound moral principles and codes of conduct 0.898 4.121
POT9 Power is not abused in this organization 0.833 2.924
POT10 This organization does not exploit external stakeholders 0.797 2.341
Likelihood to Report Sexual Harassment Object
LRSH-O2 If you were the object of sexual harassment, how likely would you be to formally report the incident to your
supervisor?
0.966 4.124
LRSH-O3 If you were the object of sexual harassment, how likely would you be to formally report the incident to the
human resources division in your organization?
0.968 4.124
Likelihood to Report Sexual Harassment Object
LRSH-B2 1. If you observed someone being sexually harassed at your workplace, how likely would you be to formally
report the incident to your supervisor?
0.958 3.009
LRSH-B3 2. If you observed someone being sexually harassed at your workplace, how likely would you be to formally
report the incident to the human resources division in your organization?
0.948 3.009
Table 4 Construct reliability
and validity Construct Cronbach’s
Alpha
rho A Composite
Reliability
Average Vari-
ance Extracted
HR personnel reputation 0.934 0.943 0.944 0.609
Perceived organizational trust 0.936 0.940 0.947 0.690
Likelihood to report sexual harassment object 0.931 0.931 0.967 0.935
Likelihood to report sexual harassment bystander 0.899 0.906 0.952 0.908
Table 5 Fornell-Larcker matrix Construct HRPR POT LRSH-O LRSH-B
HR personnel reputation 0.781
Perceived organizational trust 0.593 0.831
Likelihood to report sexual harassment object 0.389 0.394 0.967
Likelihood to report sexual harassment bystander 0.324 0.307 0.587 0.953

Reputation Matters: How HR Personnel Reputation andOrganizational Trust Influence the…
likelihood to report sexual harassment as the object of sex-
ual harassment (β = 0.252, p = 0.000) and as a bystander
(β = 0.178, p = 0.005). Finally, we examined the mediating
effect of perceived organizational trust on the relationship
between HR personnel reputation and the likelihood to
report sexual harassment. Hypotheses 4a and 4b were sup-
ported as we found significant positive indirect relation-
ships between HR personnel reputation and the likelihood
to report sexual harassment object (β = 0.150, p = 0.000)
and HR personnel reputation and the likelihood to report
sexual harassment bystander (β = 0.105, p = 0.006) via per-
ceived organizational trust. Table7 provides a summary
of the results of our hypothesis testing.
Third, we assessed the R2 and the f2 for each endogenous
construct. The R2 for perceived organizational trust is 0.352;
likelihood to report sexual harassment object is 0.193; and
likelihood to report sexual harassment bystander is 0.125. F2
helps us to understand whether the effect size between two
constructs is meaningful. The f2 for HR personnel reputa-
tion to perceived organizational trust is 0.543; HR personnel
reputation to likelihood to report sexual harassment object
is 0.046; HR personnel reputation to likelihood to report
sexual harassment bystander is 0.035; perceived organiza-
tional trust to likelihood to report sexual harassment object
is 0.051; and perceived organizational trust to likelihood
to report sexual harassment object is 0.023. According to
Cohen’s (1988) standards, these effect sizes range from
small to moderate. Given the importance of prediction in
our research, we also assessed the model’s predictive capa-
bility through PLSpredict. The Q2 values for all items of the
endogenous variables were above 0, indicating predictive
relevance (Shmueli etal. 2019).
Discussion
Drawing upon source credibility theory, our study explored
the impact of HR personnel reputation on perceived
organizational trust and the likelihood of both object and
bystander sexual harassment reporting. Our findings suggest
that the personal reputation of human resource management
personnel impacts the likelihood of employees reporting
sexual harassment and is partially facilitated by perceived
organizational trust. As human resources is often the
recipient and administrator of sexual harassment claims,
our results propose HR personnel reputation influences the
decision-making process of whether to report incidents of
sexual harassment. Our findings also suggest that despite
the reporter’s status as an object or bystander, a positive
HR reputation enhances the likelihood of sexual harassment
reporting.
Theoretical Implications
The study makes three main contributions to existing
research and practice. First, we identified HR personnel
reputation as an antecedent to the likelihood of reporting
sexual harassment. In doing so, we extended the concept
of HR reputation beyond departmental effectiveness to
Table 6 Heterotrait-Monotrait
(HTMT) ratio Construct HRPR POT LRSH-O LRSH-B
HR personnel reputation
Perceived organizational trust 0.629
Likelihood to report sexual harassment object 0.415 0.418
Likelihood to report sexual harassment bystander 0.346 0.331 0.642
Table 7 Tests of hypotheses
HRPR HR Personnel Reputation, POT Perceived Organizational Trust, LRSH-O Likelihood to Report Sex-
ual Harassment Object, LRSH-B Likelihood to Report Sexual Harassment
Hypothesis Beta Mean Std. Dev T-stat p-value Support
Direct relationships
 H1 HRPR ≥ POT 0.593 0.595 0.036 16.583 0.000 Yes
H2a HRPR ≥ LRSH-O 0.239 0.239 0.060 4.007 0.000 Ye s
H2b HRPR ≥ LRSH-B 0.218 0.219 0.072 3.041 0.002 Ye s
H3a POT ≥ LRSH-O 0.252 0.254 0.057 4.446 0.000 Ye s
H3b POT ≥ LRSH-B 0.178 0.179 0.064 2.795 0.005 Ye s
Indirect relationships (Mediating)
H4a HRPR ≥ POT ≥ LRSH-O 0.150 0.151 0.034 4.359 0.000 Yes
H4b HRPR ≥ POT ≥ LRSH-B 0.105 0.107 0.039 2.734 0.006 Ye s

M.T.Oglesby et al.
a collective measure of the personal reputations of indi-
viduals working within the department. Through the lens
of source credibility theory, our results suggest that how
individuals perceive and evaluate the credibility of HR
personnel, to whom they are reporting incidents of sex-
ual harassment, will impact their willingness to divulge
this information. Source credibility theory posits that the
effectiveness of a communication source is influenced by
its perceived trustworthiness, expertise, and homophily
(or likability). When applied to HR personnel within an
organization, the following inferences can be made based
on our results: (1) HR professionals with good reputa-
tions, who are perceived as trustworthy, are more likely
to be approached by employees with concerns, including
reports of sexual harassment; (2) HR professionals viewed
as knowledgeable and competent are more likely to be
trusted and respected, increasing employee willingness
to follow HR guidance and policies and report sensitive
issues; and, (3) when HR representatives are perceived as
approachable and empathetic, employees may feel more
comfortable reporting sexual harassment.
Second, we investigated the impact HR personnel
reputation has on both victims and bystanders of sexual
harassment. We found that the likelihood to report sexual
harassment by both groups was significantly positively
affected by how they viewed the people who work in HR.
The effect of HR personnel reputation on likelihood to
report was only slightly higher for victims than bystanders.
This may be explained by the potential for negative con-
sequences such as retaliation for reporting sexual harass-
ment, especially if the perpetrator is in a position of power.
Or, it is possible the “bystander effect”—where individuals
diffuse responsibility to others that are present and assume
someone else will take action—further weakens bystander
likelihood to report (Fischer etal. 2011; McMahon at el.,
2023). Based on our findings, the perceived credibility of
HR personnel may somewhat alleviate the fear of retalia-
tion and diffusion of responsibility and enhance bystander
reporting.
Third, we explored the role of perceived organizational
trust to potentially explain the relationship between HR
personnel reputation and the likelihood to report sexual
harassment. Our finding of a positive indirect relation-
ship between HR personnel reputation and likelihood to
report via perceived organizational trust highlights the
importance of credible HR practices in fostering a trusting
organizational environment. The significant positive medi-
ating relationship for both direct victims and bystanders
demonstrates that credibility can extend beyond individual
sources and spread throughout the organization. Trust in
the organization enhances the perceived safety of report-
ing, suggesting that trust-building measures can be critical
in encouraging reporting behaviors.
Practical Implications
Our study offers several implications for practitioners. First,
companies should work to enhance the credibility of their
HR personnel. While investment in HR and its strategic
value has gradually increased (Roziq etal. 2021), negative
perceptions of HR persist, and many employees fear HR
(DeCasperis 2023). The individualization of HR personnel
reputation in our study stresses the importance of interper-
sonal dynamics. According to SCT, the effectiveness of
communication is not only about the message but also about
how the message is delivered and by whom. HR profession-
als’ communication styles, listening ability, and sensitivity
may also significantly impact their perceived credibility.
The theory also implies that the perceived alignment of HR
professionals with organizational values and culture will
affect their credibility. Employees may be more apt to trust
HR representatives who exemplify organizational standards
and ethics. Based on these results, organizations should
prioritize investment in the development of the expertise,
trustworthiness, and relatability of their HR staff. This may
include regular training in communication, conflict resolu-
tion, employment law, and ethics. HR professionals should
not only be experts, but relatable to employees as well.
Hiring HR staff from diverse backgrounds may increase
employee comfort in divulging sensitive information. Addi-
tionally, HR departments should increase the accessibility
and visibility of HR professionals with informal check-ins,
involvement in employee activities, and open-door policies
to enhance familiarity and encourage open communication.
These efforts can make HR personnel more approachable
and trustworthy, encouraging employees to come forward
with reports of harassment.
Second, companies should evaluate the effectiveness
of their sexual harassment training policies and programs.
Research suggests HR professionals often underestimate
the extent to which incidents are not reported, reflecting
a gap between HR intentions and employee experiences
(Hayes etal. 2020). There are many reasons this could be
the case, including inconsistent and low-quality training pro-
grams that focus more on sexual conduct and legal issues as
opposed to the inherently discriminatory nature of sexual
harassment (Tippet, 2018). Often companies conduct train-
ing simply to remain in compliance, leading to inefficient
and ineffective training programs (Compliance Training
Group 2024). Additionally, budget constraints can result
in underinvestment in training. Companies focused on cost
savings will select cheaper programs that meet legal require-
ments but may not be as effective (HR Daily Advisor 2018).
Our findings suggest that training programs need to be more
robust with an additional focus on enhancing HR credibil-
ity through greater personnel expertise, trustworthiness, and
relatability to encourage reporters to come forward.

Reputation Matters: How HR Personnel Reputation andOrganizational Trust Influence the…
Third, the study highlights the importance of organi-
zational trust in enhancing the reporting of sexual harass-
ment. According to the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer
survey(Edelman, 2025), 22% of employees do not trust
their employer. To cultivate improved organizational trust,
HR departments should be transparent in their actions and
decisions, consistently demonstrating fairness and ethical
behavior. While reporting harassment typically involves
supervisors and HR, alternative avenues such as speaking
to peers or using anonymous online reporting methods can
enhance trust by providing additional channels for employee
communication (Sairam 2019). Regular feedback mecha-
nisms, like anonymous surveys, can also help HR address
employee concerns while also improving their practices and
reputation. Finally, HR departments should leverage source
credibility theory and implement tailored communication
strategies that emphasize the competence, trustworthiness,
and relatability of HR staff. Likewise, our findings stress
the need for HR departments to proactively manage their
reputation to create an environment conducive to reporting
sexual harassment.
Finally, to enhance department credibility, organizations
should hold individual HR professionals accountable and
acknowledge when investigations are mismanaged. Account-
ability in HR is critical to the development of a positive
organizational culture (Lawrence 2022) and indispensable
in addressing sexual harassment (O’Leary-Kelly etal. 2004).
Conversely, rewarding and recognizing HR personnel for
effectively resolving employee concerns can also reinforce
the importance of maintaining a positive HR reputation.
This should motivate HR staff to handle complaints with
care and signal to the broader organization the value placed
on supportive and ethical HR practices.
Limitations andFuture Directions
While our findings offer practical and theoretical insights,
we recognize four main limitations of our research. First,
surveys are an imperfect measurement tool to evaluate
causality. Future research could incorporate other methods,
including vignette experiments, to consider the relationships
between the identified constructs. Second, we did not
consider other barriers to the likelihood of reporting sexual
harassment, such as the reporter’s economic dependence on
their job, where the harassment occurred (e.g., in person or
online), the impact of the receiver of the complaint (direct
supervisor, external body, HR representative.) on the
likelihood to report, or the impact of the medium through
which sexual harassment reports are made (e.g., digital or
face-to-face). Including these as control variables in future
research could help to more clearly isolate the relationship
between employee attitudes toward HR staff and the
likelihood to report harassment. Third, our study assesses a
general, collective impression of all those currently working
in the HR department. Subsequent studies could further
conceptualize HR reputation as a multi-factor construct that
includes both the collective personal reputation of HR staff
as well as perceptions of HR effectiveness. Comparatively
evaluating the impact of the different facets of SCT theory
(expertise, trustworthiness, homophily) on the likelihood of
reporting sexual harassment may also prove illuminating.
Theoretically, trustworthiness may be impacted by the
quantity and consistency of interactions with department
personnel, suggesting another potential barrier condition
for future research to consider. Fourth, the current study
only tested the impact of HR personnel reputation on the
likelihood to report sexual harassment. Future studies may
examine additional outcome variables such as employee
health and safety compliance, corporate social responsibility
participation, and employee advocacy.
Conclusion
Sexual harassment has harmful and lasting effects on
individuals and organizations. Our results suggest the
collective reputation of those in the HR department can
contribute to whether or not these incidents are reported.
We stress the importance of managing and dispelling
negative perceptions of Human Resources, such as Michael
Scott’s opinion of Toby, to ensure that employees trust the
organization enough to report sexual harassment.
Data availability Data not available – participant consent.Open
Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu-
tion 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation,
distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro-
vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Armitage, J.S. 2022. When I least expected it: An autoethnography
of reporting workplace sexual harassment and compassionate
bystanders. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 51 (1): 29–58.
Bell, M.E., A.E. Street, and J. Stafford. 2014. Victims’ psychosocial
well-being after reporting sexual harassment in the military. Jour-
nal of Trauma & Dissociation 15 (2): 133–152.
Brown, S.E., and J.S. Battle. 2019. Ostracizing targets of workplace
sexual harassment before and after the# MeToo movement.

M.T.Oglesby et al.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 39
(1): 53–67.
Burke, C.S., D.E. Sims, E.H. Lazzara, and E. Salas. 2007. Trust in
leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership
Quarterly 18 (6): 606–632.
Chang, E. 2005. Employees’ overall perception of HRM effectiveness.
Human Relations 58 (4): 523–544.
Clarke, H.M. 2014. Predicting the decision to report sexual harassment:
Organizational influences and the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of Organizational Psychology 14 (2): 52.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences,
2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collier, J.E. 2020. Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS:
Basic to advanced techniques. Routledge.
Compliance Training Group. 2024. Workplace harassment training:
Cultivating safe workspaces. Compliance Training Group. https://
compl iance train inggr oup. com/ 2024/ 06/ 26/ culti vating- safe- works
paces- the- impact- of- workp lace- haras sment- train ing/
Cortina, L.M., and M.A. Areguin. 2021. Putting people down and push-
ing them out: Sexual harassment in the workplace. Annual Review
of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 8:
285–309.
Cortina, L.M., and V.J. Magley. 2003. Raising voice, risking retaliation:
Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 8 (4): 247–265.
Crowley, J. E. (2023). Bystander behavior and sexual harassment:
The case of the fashion industry. Violence against Women,
10778012231182409.
Daniels, G., Celotta, J., Lieberstein, P., & Feig, P. 2008. Goodbye, Toby
(Season 4, Episode 14). In Schur, Lieberstein, & Celotta (Execu-
tive Producers), The Office. Reveille Productions and Deedle-Dee
Productions.
DeCasperis, I. 2023. HR departments need to be human and resource-
ful—not the principal’s office. Forbes. Retrieved January 24,
2025, from https:// www. forbes. com/ counc ils/ forbe shuma nreso
urces counc il/ 2023/ 11/ 30/ hr- depar tments- need- to- be- human- and-
resou rceful- not- the- princ ipals- office/
Dirks, K.T., and D.L. Ferrin. 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic
findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of
Applied Psychology 87 (4): 611–628.
DuBois, C. L., Faley, R. H., Kustis, G. A., & Knapp, D. E. 1999. Per-
ceptions of organizational responses to formal sexual harassment
complaints. Journal of Managerial Issues, 198–212.
Edelman Trust Institute. 2025. Edelman Trust Barometer: 2012–2025.
EEOC. 2016. Select task force on the study of harassment in the work-
place. Retrieved from https:// www. eeoc. gov/ select- task- force-
study- haras sment- workp lace
Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Tread-
way, D. C. 2003. Personal reputation in organizations. In J. Green-
berg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science.,
2nd ed. (pp. 211–246). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ferris, G.R., P.L. Perrewé, A.L. Ranft, R. Zinko, J.S. Stoner, R.L.
Brouer, and M.D. Laird. 2007. Human resources reputation and
effectiveness. Human Resource Management Review 17 (2):
117–130.
Fischer, P., J. Krueger, T. Greitemeyer, C. Vogrincic, A. Kastenmüller,
D. Frey, M. Heene, M. Wicher, and M. Kainbacher. 2011. The
bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander interven-
tion in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological
Bulletin 137 (4): 517–537.
Fisher, C.D., D.R. Ilgen, and W.D. Hoyer. 1979. Source credibility,
information favorability, and job offer acceptance. Academy of
Management Journal 22 (1): 94–103.
Fitzgerald, L.F., F. Drasgow, C.L. Hulin, M.J. Gelfand, and V.J. Magley.
1999. Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in
organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied
Psychology 84 (3): 372–391.
Friedman, B.A. 2009. Human resource management role implica-
tions for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 12:
229–244.
Gaines, J. 1980. Upward communication in industry: An experiment.
Human Relations 33: 929–942.
Ge, Y. 2020. Psychological safety, employee voice, and work engage-
ment. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
48 (3): 1–7.
Gotlieb, J.B., and D. Sarel. 1991. Comparative advertising effective-
ness: The role of involvement and source credibility. Journal of
Advertising 20 (1): 38–45.
Guthrie, J.P., P.C. Flood, W. Liu, and S. MacCurtain. 2009. High per-
formance work systems in Ireland: Human resource and organi-
zational outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 20 (1): 112–125.
Ha, J.C., and J.W. Lee. 2022. Realization of a sustainable high-perfor-
mance organization through procedural justice: The dual mediat-
ing role of organizational trust and organizational commitment.
Sustainability 14 (3): 1259.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson. 2019. Multivari-
ate data analysis. Cengage.
Hair, J.F., Jr., M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, and S.P. Gudergan. 2017.
Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation mod-
eling. Sage Publications.
Hannon, J.M., and G.T. Milkovich. 1996. The effect of human resource
reputation signals on share prices: An event study. Human
Resource Management 35 (3): 405–424.
Hayes, T.L., L.E. Kaylor, and K.A. Oltman. 2020. Coffee and contro-
versy: How applied psychology can revitalize sexual harassment
and racial discrimination training. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology 13 (2): 117–136.
Henseler, J., C.M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for
assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equa-
tion modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43
(1): 115–135.
Hovland, C.I., and W. Weiss. 1951. The influence of source credibility
on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15
(4): 635–650.
Hosmer, L.T. 1995. Trust: The connecting link between organizational
theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review
20 (2): 379–403.
HR Daily Advisor. 2018. Should harassment prevention training be
mandatory in the workplace?. HR Daily Advisor. https:// hrdai
lyadv isor. blr. com/ 2018/ 11/ 27/ should- haras sment- preve ntion- train
ing- be- manda tory- in- the- workp lace/
Huselid, M.A., S.E. Jackson, and R.S. Schuler. 1997. Technical and
strategic human resources management effectiveness as determi-
nants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal 40
(1): 171–188.
Ismagilova, E., E. Slade, N.P. Rana, and Y.K. Dwivedi. 2020. The
effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behav-
iour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices 53: 101736.
Jacobson, R.K., and A.A. Eaton. 2018. How organizational policies
influence bystander likelihood of reporting moderate and severe
sexual harassment at work. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal 30 (1): 37–62.
Johnson, S. K., Kirk, J., & Keplinger, K. 2016. Why we fail to report
sexual harassment. Harvard Business Review.
Kehoe, R.R., and P.M. Wright. 2013. The impact of high-performance
human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors.
Journal of Management 39 (2): 366–391.
Khan, J., I. Saeed, M. Zada, A. Ali, N. Contreras-Barraza, G. Salazar-
Sepúlveda, and A. Vega-Muñoz. 2022. Examining whistleblowing

Reputation Matters: How HR Personnel Reputation andOrganizational Trust Influence the…
intention: The influence of rationalization on wrongdoing and
threat of retaliation. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 19 (3): 1752.
Kingsley Westerman, C.Y., K.M. Reno, and K.B. Heuett. 2018. Deliv-
ering feedback: Supervisors’ source credibility and communica-
tion competence. International Journal of Business Communica-
tion 55 (4): 526–546.
Klein, K.J., F. Dansereau, and R.J. Hall. 1994. Levels issues in theory
development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 19 (2): 195–229.
Kock, N. 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity
assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration
11 (4): 1–10.
Lawrence, B. 2022. HR must embrace culture and accountability as
a strategic process. HRCI. Retrieved January 24, 2025, from
https:// www. hrci. org/ commu nity/ blogs- and- annou nceme nts/
hr- leads- busin ess- blog/ hr- leads- busin ess/ 2022/ 02/ 14/ hr- must-
embra ce- cultu re- and- accou ntabi lity- as-a- strat egic- proce ss
Marin, A.J., and R.E. Guadagno. 1999. Perceptions of sexual harass-
ment victims as a function of labeling and reporting. Sex Roles
41 (11): 921–940.
Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman. 1995. An integrative
model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review
20 (3): 709–734.
McMahon, S., R.A. Connor, V. Frye, J. Cusano, and L. Johnson.
2023. The presence, action, and influence of bystanders who
witness sexual harassment against medical students. Medical
Teacher 45 (10): 1134–1139.
Meyer, C., and A.I. Zelin. 2019. Bystander as a band-aid: How
organization leaders as active bystanders can influence cul-
ture change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 12 (3):
342–344.
Miller, B. 2020. Why is HR often viewed negatively by employees?.
HR Daily Advisor. Retrieved April 14, 2023, from https:// hrdai
lyadv isor. blr. com/ 2020/ 02/ 18/ why- is- hr- often- viewed- negat ively -
by- emplo yees/.
Morrison, E.W., and F.J. Milliken. 2000. Organizational silence: A
barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy
of Management Review 25 (4): 706–725.
Nicksa, S.C. 2014. Bystander’s willingness to report theft, physical
assault, and sexual assault: The impact of gender, anonymity, and
relationship with the offender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence
29 (2): 217–236.
Ng, T.W., and D.C. Feldman. 2013. Changes in perceived supervisor
embeddedness: Effects on employees’ embeddedness, organiza-
tional trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology 66 (3):
645–685.
Offermann, L.R., and A.B. Malamut. 2002. When leaders harass: The
impact of target perceptions of organizational leadership and cli-
mate on harassment reporting and outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology 87 (5): 885.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., P. Tiedt, and L. Bowes-Sperry. 2004. Answering
accountability questions in sexual harassment: Insights regarding
harassers, targets, and observers. Human Resource Management
Review 14 (1): 85–106.
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2012. Sources
of method bias in social science research and recommendations
on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569.
Pornpitakpan, C. 2004. The persuasiveness of source credibility: A
critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 34 (2): 243–281.
Reese, L.A., and K.E. Lindenberg. 2005. Gender, age, and sexual
harassment. Review of Public Personnel Administration 25 (4):
325–352.
Roziq, M., H.P. Reawaroe, and A.I. Rosyidi. 2021. Investment per-
spectives in human resources management and its contribution on
organizational performance and competitive advantages. Journal
of Management and Leadership 4 (1): 1–13.
Ryan, L. 2016. Ten reasons everybody hates HR. Forbes. Retrieved
April 14, 2023, from https:// www. forbes. com/ sites/ lizry an/ 2016/
07/ 27/ ten- reaso ns- every body- hates- hr/? sh= 450a0 2555a f4.
Sairam, E. S. 2019. Report points to witnesses being key in workplace
harassment reporting. Forbes. Retrieved March 5, 2022, from
https:// www. forbes. com/ sites/ erins pence r1/ 2019/ 07/ 17/ report-
points- to- witne sses- being- key- in- workp lace- haras sment- repor
ting/? sh= 78a1c 4aa1d 8d.
Sarstedt, M., C.M. Ringle, and J.F. Hair. 2021. Partial least squares
structural equation modeling. In Handbook of market research,
587–632. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Schaarschmidt, M., G. Walsh, and H. Evanschitzky. 2021. Hybrid
offerings sales capability: Conceptualization, scale develop-
ment and validation. British Journal of Management. 33 (3):
1560–1583.
Schoorman, F.D., R.C. Mayer, and J.H. Davis. 1996. Organizational
trust: Philosophical perspectives and conceptual definitions.
Academy of Management Review 21: 337–340.
Shmueli, G., M. Sarstedt, J.F. Hair, J.H. Cheah, H. Ting, S. Vaith-
ilingam, and C.M. Ringle. 2019. Predictive model assessment in
PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal
of Marketing 53 (11): 2322–2347.
Searle, R., D.N. Den Hartog, A. Weibel, N. Gillespie, F. Six, T.
Hatzakis, and D. Skinner. 2011. Trust in the employer: The role
of high-involvement work practices and procedural justice in
European organizations. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 22 (05): 1069–1092.
Selvaraj, P., and J. Joseph. 2014. Impact of compensation practices
on organizational reputation. South Asian Journal of Manage-
ment 21 (2): 22.
Sulkowski, M.L. 2011. An investigation of students’ willingness to
report threats of violence in campus communities. Psychology
of Violence 1: 53–65.
Tippett, E.C. 2018. Harassment trainings: A content analysis. Berke-
ley Journal of Employment & Labor Law 39: 481.
Tsui, A.S., and G.T. Milkovich. 1987. Personnel department activi-
ties: Constituency perspectives and preferences. Personnel Psy-
chology 40 (3): 519–537.
Ugwu, F.O., I.E. Onyishi, and A.M. Rodríguez-Sánchez. 2014.
Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: The
role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review 43 (3):
377–400.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 2023.
Sexual Harassment in Our Nation’s Workplaces. Office of
Enterprise Data and Analytics (OEDA) Data Highlight No.
2. https:// www. eeoc. gov/ data/ sexual- haras sment- our- natio ns-
workp laces
Vanhala, M., and R. Ahteela. 2011. The effect of HRM practices on
impersonal organizational trust. Management Research Review
34 (8): 869–888.
Vijayasiri, G. 2008. Reporting sexual harassment: The importance of
organizational culture and trust. Gender Issues 25: 43–61.
Wæraas, A., and D.Y. Dahle. 2020. When reputation management is
people management: Implications for employee voice. European
Management Journal 38 (2): 277–287.
Weismueller, J., P. Harrigan, S. Wang, and G.N. Soutar. 2020. Influ-
encer endorsements: How advertising disclosure and source
credibility affect consumer purchase intention on social media.
Australasian Marketing Journal 28 (4): 160–170.
Williams, R.I., Jr., D.M. Raffo, W. Randy Clark, and L.A. Clark. 2022.
A systematic review of leader credibility: Its murky framework
needs clarity. Management Review Quarterly 73: 1–44.

M.T.Oglesby et al.
Willness, C.R., P. Steel, and K. Lee. 2007. A meta-analysis of the
antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment.
Personnel Psychology 60 (1): 127–162.
Zinko, R., W.A. Gentry, and M.D. Laird. 2016. A development of the
dimensions of personal reputation in organizations. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis 24 (4): 634–649.
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Dr. Matthew T. Oglesby is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource
Management at the University of North Alabama. Previously, he served
as Senior Vice President and Human Resources Director for CB&S
Bank in Russellville, AL. He has a broad range of experience including
over 30 years of management, leadership, and public speaking experi-
ence. Matthew earned his Bachelor of Business Administration degree
in Organizational and Human Resource Management and his Master
of Business Administration at the University of North Alabama. He
also completed a PhD in Business Administration at the University of
South Alabama, and he holds SHRM-SCP and SPHR certifications in
Human Resource Management. Dr. Oglesby’s current research focuses
on issues relating to strategic human resource management, leadership,
and research methods.
Dr. Melanie Boudreaux is an Assistant Professor of Management at
Nicholls State University, where she teaches and conducts research in
Human Resource Management. She holds a B.S. in Business Manage-
ment (HR concentration) and an MBA from Nicholls, as well as a Ph.D.
in Business Administration from the University of South Alabama. She
is a SHRM Certified Professional (SHRM-CP) and also holds the PHR
credential from HRCI. Dr. Boudreaux has over 15 years of HR expe-
rience, primarily in the Oil and Gas industry. She joined Nicholls in
2013, aligning the HR program with SHRM curriculum standards and
advising a top-performing student SHRM chapter. Her research focuses
on strategic HRM, employee engagement, and applied organizational
behavior, and she has presented at both regional and national confer-
ences. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she also served as Director
of HR for ES&H Environmental Safety and Health Consulting Ser-
vices, overseeing HR operations for more than 250 employees. She has
received multiple teaching awards and is an active member of both the
Bayou Society for Human Resource Management, National SHRM,
and Beta Gamma Sigma.
Dr. Kelly G. Manix is an Assistant Professor of Management at Middle
Tennessee State University’s Jones College of Business. She holds
a Ph.D. in Management from the University of South Alabama, an
M.B.A., and a B.S. in Music Business Management from MTSU. Her
research explores humility, ethics, and moral leadership, with a focus
on their impact on individual well-being. Dr. Manix’s work has been
published in American Business Review, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Applied Psychol-
ogy, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, and Journal
of Individual Differences. She has been recognized with Best Doctoral
Student Ethics Paper and Best Doctoral Student Innovative Teaching
Paper awards from the Southern Management Association. In addition
to her academic career, she has held management roles in the recording
industry, food service, and retail sectors and has successfully operated
two small businesses.