Sexual Harassment in the Military

• Author: Corey S. Sparks,Richard J. Harris,Daniel P. McDonald
• Published date: 01 January 2018
• Date: 01 January 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X16687069
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Sexual Harassment in

the Military: Individual

Experiences, Demographics,

and Organizational Contexts

Richard J. Harris

1

, Daniel P. McDonald

2

and Corey S. Sparks

1

Abstract

Purpose: Sexual harassment remains a persistent problem in the U.S. military

despite extensive research and policy initiatives. Theoretical explanations identify

individual circumstances (e.g., power differentials) and organizational factors (e.g.,

climate, culture). However, data constraints limit the capacity to link individual

contexts with independent measures of environments.

Data/Methods: A unique Defense Equality Opportunity Climate Survey allows

assessment of organizational climates and individual experiences with multilevel

analyses.

Results: Sexist environmental context increases the likelihood of personal har-

assment experiences after controlling for individual-level variables. However, unit-

level climate, group cohesion, and job satisfaction are not significant.

Conclusion: Both individual and organizational factors are important. However,

the organizational context has less to do with culture or unit cohesion and more to

do with tolerance of sexism. Focusing on problem units may be effective for reducing

the prevalence and persistence of sexual harassment.

1

University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

2

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, Patrick, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Richard J. Harris, University of Texas at San Antonio, 501 West Cesar E. Chavez Blvd., San Antonio,

TX 78249, USA.

Email: richard.harris@utsa.edu

Armed Forces & Society

2018, Vol. 44(1) 25-43

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16687069

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Keywords

sexual harassment, organizational climate, sexist environment, multilevel analysis,

U.S. military

Sexual harassment remains a persistent problem in the U.S. military despite exten-

sive research over more than three decades and policy initiatives designed to

reduce the incidence (Buchanan, Settles, Hall, & O’Connor, 2014; Cortina &

Berdahl, 2008; Stander & Thomsen, 2016). Research shows that sexual harassment

is a widespread phenomenon with adverse consequences for both individuals and

organizations. For example, targets have been found to experience career inter-

ruptions, lowered productivity, lessened job satisfaction, lowered self-confidence,

loss of motivation, physical health ailments, and loss of commitment to work and

employer. For the organization, legal damages may be small compared to costs

associated with reduced productivity, turnover, absenteeism, employee transfers,

loss of company loyalty, low levels of job satisfaction, and health costs.

1

The

objective of this article is to identify and test the independent influences of

individual-level and organizational-level factors on the likelihood of reporting

sexual harassment.

Theoretical Orientations

Theoretical explanations, both for prevalence and persistence, tend to operate at

different levels of analysis (micro, macro). At the individual level, harassment

experiences are often seen as resulting from unequal power relations that are socially

constructed (e.g., see Uggen & Blackstone, 2004). Alternatively, organizational-

level factors like climate, job gender context, and tolerance may influence the

probability that individuals experience sexual harassment (Buchanan et al., 2014).

Butler and Schmidtke (2010) identify organizational (structural), sociocultural (sex

role contexts), and attraction (based on age and marital status) models as potentially

competing explanations for harassment in the military, with empirical support for all

three domains.

Military ‘‘culture’’ is another organizational dimension sometimes put forward to

account for the levels of harassment, based on a ‘‘hypermasculine’’ environment,

focus on unit/team cohesion, clearly delineated lines of authority, and power or other

indicators thought to contribute to a unique military context (e.g., see Castro,

Kintzle, Schuyler, Lucas, & Warner, 2015). Organizational-level perceptions of

cohesion and commitment typically are based on the subjective views of respondents

who may or may not have experienced sexual harassment or assault. Even when

individual-level data are aggregated to represent organizational units, the same

respondents provide the information measuring microlevel experiences and larger

unit-level contexts.

2

26 Armed Forces & Society 44(1)