"Victimhood" and the Implementation of Sexual Harassment Policy

• Date: 01 January 1997
• Published date: 01 January 1997
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X9701700104
• Author: Karen E. Lindenberg,Laura A. Reese
• Subject Matter: Articles

"Victimhood" and the
Implementation of Sexual
Harassment Policy
Laura A. Reese, Wayne State University
Karen E. Lindenberg, Eastern Michigan University
This article explores a critical policy conundrum Most organizations have sexual
harassment policies, most employees are aware of such policies; there appears to be
widespread agreement regarding the behaviors which constitute sexual harassment, and,
substantial numbers of employees experience sexual harassment Yet, formal reporting rates
are extremely low Several alternative "causes" of this conundrum are explored, that
employees are not knowledgeable about procedures, that they prefer informal solutions, that
victims fear or know of negative reactions to complaints, that incidents were judged to be
too "minor" to warrant complaint, or that victims are reluctant to acknowledge that they
are indeed victims of sexual harassment. Survey responses from employees in two public
sector organizations indicate that fear of possible negative consequences and an
unwillingness to admit to "victimhood" reduce formal reporting and hence represent
roadblocks to full implementation of sexual harassment policies
.
he
impact of sexual harassment
has also centered on the types of policies
t
in the workplace is a cntical area
T
which should be developed and how they
of study. The costs to the fed-
ought to be implemented, and includes sur-
eral government alone have been estimated
veys of the extent and types of policies in
at $327 million during a two-year period,
place (American Association of University
representing the cost of replacement, sick
Professors [AAUP], 1995;Biaggio et al.,
leave, and reduced productivity (Merit Sys-
1990; Remick et al., 1990; Ross & England,
tems Protection Board [MSPB], 1995).
1987). Less research, however, has explic-
Sexual harassment can also lead to stress,
itly examined the connections between
low morale, lower job satisfaction and aban-
employee perceptions of sexual harassment
donment of career opportunities for those
and policy implementation. In addition,
who have been harassed (Koss, 1990).
there has been little effort to link the dis-
Research on sexual harassment has fo-
parate literatures examining these issues, in-
cused predominantly on definitional issues
cluding psychology, public admimstration,
as well as perceptions of whether, when, and
women’s studies, pubhc policy and manage-
how sexual harassment occurred (for ex-
ment, among others.
ample, Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Frazier et al.,
Much of the policy research has assumed
1995; Kelly, 1992; MSPB, 1995; Paludi et
predictable and rational relationships be-
al., 1990, among many others). Discussion
tween behaviors, perceptions, and pohcies;
37

---

the policy provides a definition of sexual
2. Submission or rejection ofscxual hci-
harassment, employees become aware of the
rassment demands was the basis for
policy, harassmg behaviors occur and are
employment decisions; and
reported. This research examines these
3. The behavior mterfered with work
connections more carefully, focusmg on
performance or created an intimidat-
how employees perceive, process, and un-
ing, hostile or offensive working en-
derstand the behaviors of others and de-
vironment.
fine their own reactions to sexual harass-
However, only with the Meritor (Mervtor
ment
m
the workplace. It thus suggests how
Savings Bank v. Vinson, 1986) case, six years
public sector sexual harassment policies
later, were these guidelines recognized in
might be better adapted to accommodate
the adjudicative process, mcluding both
worker attitudes and perceptions as well as
qmd-pro-quo and hostile environment
the findings of psychological studies of vac-
forms of sexual harassment.
timization.
In short, it has been determmed that
sexual harassment includes both quid-pro-
quo harassment and the existence of a hos-
Literature Review
tile work environment. The former has
been defined as a situation where the &dquo;ha,
Legal and Definitional Issues
rasser has denied job benefits, such as a pro-
The Equal Employment Opportunity
motion or salary mcrease
because sexual
...
Commission’s (EEOC) guidelmes in 1980
favors were not granted; or the harasser has
defining sexual harassment were adopted
taken away job benefits (e.g., discharge or
after several court cases had already found
demotion) because sexual favors on the
sexual harassment to be a violation of Title
part of the employee were not forthcom-
VII (Wlllwms v. Saxbe, 1976, was the first
ing&dquo; (Greenlaw & Kohl,
1992, pp. 164-165).
of such cases), and employers to be liable
A
hostile work environment has been de-
for sexual harassment m
the workplace for
fined to exist where any of the following
actions of supervisors (Barnes v. Costle,
conditions are present: (1) the claimant
1977) and, later, employees (EEOC v. Ha-
belongs to a protected group; (2) any ha-
cienda Hotel, 1989). While sexual harass-
rassment was unwelcome; (3) the harass-
ment
was defined as a form of sex discrimi-
ment
was
based on sex; (4) the harassment
nation, questions remained regarding (1)
affected a condition of employment; and
exactly what behaviors constituted sexual
(5) the employer knew or should have
harassment, and (2) how sexual harassment
known about the harassment and did not
might be demonstrated or &dquo;proven.&dquo; The
take proper action (Lee & Greenlaw,
1995,
1980 EEOC guidelines attempted to settle
p. 359). Finally, a hostile work environ-
many
of these issues by defining unwelcome
ment has also been defined to include ha-
sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
rassment based on gender but not neces-
and other verbal or physical contact of a
sarily of a sexualized nature. Thus, dispar-
sexual nature as &dquo;sexual harassment&dquo; and a
aging remarks about a gender group or writ-
form of sex discrimination when:
ten matenal denigrating a group would be
1. Submission to such demands of a
prohibited as a form of gender harassment
sexual nature was implicitly or explic-
(Harrvs v. Forklift Systems, 1993; McKinney
itly a condition of employment;
v. Dole, 1985).
38

---

While the guidelines defined the legal
regardmg the perceived mcidence of harass-
parameters of sexual harassment in the
ment. Because of the nature of sexual ha-
workplace, they are not necessarily useful
rassment and the connection to power im-
for researchmg perceived or reported mci-
balance, most research has focused on in-
dents of sexual harassment. Sexual harass-
cidence as perceived by women. The per-
ment policies and procedures must be trug-
centage of women in university settings re-
gered by an action, mterpretation of that
porting sexually harassing incidents has
action, and a reaction based on that mter-
ranged from 9% to 44% (Blanshan, 1983;
pretation. Thus, legal defimtions provide
Carroll &Ellis,
1989; Goodwm, et al., 1989;
a framework of employer liability but are
McIntyre &
Renick, 1982; Olsen &
not the critical variable with respect to
McKmney, 1989). Studies of governmen-
policy impact. Rather, characteristics, at-
tal agencies have found somewhat higher
titudes, perceptions, and experiences of m-
rates, from 42% m
the 1980 MSPB survey
dividuals determine the nature of interper-
and 44% in the 1995 MSPB report, to 57%
sonal relations m
the workplace and how a
of women m
a fme-state study (Kelly, 1992).
policy is actually implemented.
These figures support Dzeich and Wemer’s
Research exploring these latter issues has
(1984) conclusion that about 20-30% of all
found perceptions of harassment to be af-
employees have been sexually harassed,
fected by gender and other personal char-
though rates may be higher m governmen-
acteristics or attitudes. For example,
tal organizations. It should be made clear
women tend to characterize more behav-
that these estimates of the extent of harass-
iors and
behavior vignettes as sexual harass-
ment are based on survey questions rather
ment than men (Frazier et al., 1995; Gutek,
than reportmg rates. Indeed, a 1988 MSPB
1985). And, while there is gender agree-
study mdicated that only 5% of respondents
ment on what constitutes harassment in
experiencmg harassment actually formally
many mstances (Frazier et al., 1995; Gutek
reported it. The 1995 MSPB report con-
& O’Connor,
1995), mother cases, particu-
firmed this, mdicatmg an average of 478
larly regardmg sexualized language and body
formal complaints from 1991-1993 for the
language, male and female defmtions are
entire federal government.
mconsistent (Baker et al., 1990; McKinney,
1990; Terpstra & Baker, 1987).
Other fac-
Recognition and the Victimization Factor
tors have also been found to heighten
A
per-
separate issue is the recogmtion of
ceptions of sexual harassment, mcludmg
sexual harassment. While research suggests
&dquo;femmst&dquo; views (McCormick et al., 1989),
that sexual harassment incidence rates are
seriousness of the behaviors (Carroll & Ellis,
m
the 20-30% range, actual expenence of
1989; Frazier et al., 1995; Gutek, 1985;
sexually mappropriate behavior m
the work
McCormick et al., 1989), and when &dquo;the
place may m fact be much higher due to a
unwanted imposition of sexual
&dquo;resistance
requires-
to the recognition&dquo; of sexual ha-
ments&dquo; was &dquo;in the context of a relation-
rassment (Lott, 1993). Lott (1993, p. 92)
ship of unequal power&dquo; (Blanshan, 1983:
suggests that this recognition problem may
16; Carroll & Ellis, 1989).
stem from several sources:
The...