Organizational Responses for Preventing and Stopping Sexual Harassment: Effective Deterrents or Continued Endurance?
- 442 Downloads
Survey data from a student population of experienced workers was used to examine perceptions of organizational responses to sexual harassment. Results revealed significant differences in the perceived seriousness of gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. Moreover, women viewed all three types of harassment as being significantly more serious than men. Terminating perpetrators’ employment, providing a verbal/written reprimand, and mandating an apology were rated as being the most common organizational responses to sexual harassment. A significant positive relationship existed between perceived organizational response severity and effectiveness in combating harassment. Results partially supported the notion that more severe responses are associated with greater effectiveness in communicating organizational intolerance of harassment. Contrary to hypotheses, ratings of organizational response effectiveness and appropriateness were not dependent upon harassment type. Further, organizational responses that involved transferring or reassigning victims were not viewed as less severe punishment for perpetrators than were most responses that involved the perpetrator directly.
KeywordsSexual harassment Intervention Punishment Victimization
- Brown, T. D. (1993). When counseling is not enough: The ninth circuit requires employers to discipline sexual harassers. Washington University Law Quarterly, 71, 901–919.Google Scholar
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1980). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex. Federal Register, 45, 74676–74677.Google Scholar
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1990). Policy guidance on current issues of sexual harassment. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html.
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1999). Enforcement guidance: Vicarious employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.
- Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 3, pp. 141–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
- Franklin, E. D. (1999). Maneuvering through the labyrinth: The employer’s paradox in responding to hostile environment sexual harassment—a proposed way out. Fordham Law Review, 67, 1517–1608.Google Scholar
- Gilliland, S. W., & Steiner, D. D. (2001). Causes and consequences of applicant perceptions of unfairness. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (vol. 2, pp. 175–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
- O’Connor, M. A. (1998). Gender and the definition of sexual harassment: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
- Padgitt, S. C., & Padgitt, J. S. (1986). Cognitive structure of sexual harassment: Implications for university policy. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 34–39.Google Scholar
- Rusbasan, D., Gallivan, C. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003, April). Transfer as an effective organizational tactic to impede sexual harassment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
- Salisbury, J., & Jaffe, F. (1990). Individual training of sexual harassers. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Sexual harassment on campuses: Abusing the ivory power (pp. 141–152). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Willert, S. J. (1998). Sexual harassment: Defining employers’ rights. For the Defense, 40(11), 8–11.Google Scholar