Peggy Stockdale Psychology, IUPUI Research-Infused Strategies for Responding Effectively to Sexual Harassment Peggy Stockdale Psychology, IUPUI

Why Didn’t She Just Report Him? Thomas nominated to fill the seat of Justice Thurgood Marshall – first Black justice and major voice for civil rights movement in America. Thomas was perceived to “fill the Black seat” but with a decidely more conservative voice. His nomination is criticized, but it moves steadily through the various committee processes toward Senate Confirmation. Anita Hill, a Oklahoma University law professor who had worked with Thomas in the Department of Education and at the EEOC, alleges numerous acts of sexual harassment by Thomas toward her during both of those administrative appointments. She is allowed to testify in front of the Senate Judicial Committee. The hearing turned into a trial of her character. A question that befuddled the senators, indeed the nation, was “why didn’t she just report him?”

Sexual harassment facts: Prevalence (surveys): 40-75% women; 13-31% of men (workplace) Forms: Sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, and gender harassment Claims to EEOC (2011): 11,364 (down) Monetary Benefits (excl. litigation): $52.3M (up) Claims filed by men: 16.3% (up) Claims to EEOC: 74% dismissed due to administrative closure or no reasonable cause Administrative closure: Failure to locate charging party Chariting party failed to respond to EEOC communications Charging party refused to accept full relief Closed due to related litigation which quiets the claim Charging party requests widrawal No statutory jurisdiction No reasonable cause that discrimination/harassment occurred, but party can pursu private court action

Impacts of Sexual Harassment Source: Willness, C. R. , Steel, P Impacts of Sexual Harassment Source: Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162. Outcome K N Rc Coworker satisfaction 25 34,221 -.31 Supervisor satisfaction 26 34,450 -.29 Work Satisfaction 23 33,486 -.24 Global job satisfaction 12 14,455 -.25 Organizational commitment 16 31,194 Job withdrawal 6,201 .13 Work withdrawal 4,940 .24 Workgroup productivity 6 27,425 -.22 Mental health 29 45,880 -.27 Physical health 32,121 PTSD 9 4,076 .25 Life satisfaction 11 4,545 -.12

Experienced Unwanted Sex-Based Behavior Responding to SH Experienced Unwanted Sex-Based Behavior 62% Acknowledged SH 35% File Complaint 5% Sources: Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the Univted States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 607-631. Stockdale, M. S., Vaux, A. & Cashin, J. (1995). Acknowledging sexual harassment: A test of alternative models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 469-496.

Why don’t targets complain? Fear of retaliation, reprisal Concern about reports not being kept confidential Fear not being believed Belief that nothing will be done Don’t want to hurt the perpetrator

Typology of SH Responding Mode of Response Focus of response Self Initiator Avoidance-Denial Confrontation/ Negotiation Others Support Seeking Advocacy Seeking Avoidance-Denial Go it alone Common among those who fear retaliation Common among younger workers, Hispanics and those experiencing unwanted sexual attention Common in female-dominated work groups and institutional environments that tend to tolerate sexual harassment. Good use of strategy: Positive self talk to remind yourself that you’re not the cause. – may mobilize more assertive responses. Support Seeking Get helps from friends, coworkers and professionals to make sense of the harassment and devise strategies for responding more effectively or manage negative consequences. Young victims, and those experiencing sexual coersion more likely to use Good use: have trained sexual harassment advisors, ombudspersons, and affinity groups can provide confidential services. Military’s SAPR Confrontation/negotiation Telling initiator directly that behavior is unwelcome and unwanted; threatening to report Generally effective in ending harassment, but sued infrequently Can lead to social retaliation (ostracism, criticism) and work-related retaliation. Courts don’t accept “fear of retaliation as an excuse”. Good use: don’t wait for conduct to escalate. Consider writing a letter. Advoacy seeking Rely on institutional support and remedies to address initiator’s conduct. Filing a complaint, using mediation. Rare, but necessary to preserve legal remedies. Source: Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., Ekeberg, S. E., & Dubois, C. L. Z. (1997). Academy of Management Review,

Is Assertive Responding Effective? First, The frequency or severity of sexual harassment experiences is significantly associated with negative outcomes, as shown before

Is Assertive Responding Effective? Second, Targets who experience more severe Harassment are more likely to use a confronting response than those who experience less severe/frequent SH Question is: for those who experience severe SH does a confronting response reduce negative outcomes compared to those who don’t respond confrontationally or assertively.

Is Assertive Responding Effective? Targets who experience more severe Harassment are more likely to use a confronting response than those who experience less severe/frequent SH This is the result we would expect if confrontation was effective. It’s called a buffering effect.

Effects of Coping Strategies HI Do Not Confront Take Leave of Absence Negative Work Consequences Federal gov’t sample: 553 men, 1782 women As we expected for harassed individuals who did not confront or use an assertive response style, the frequency/severity of the harassing experiences was associated with negative job-related outcomes, including taking leave from work, lowered job satisfaction, lowered commitment to the organization. Low Low SH Frequency HI Source: Stockdale (1998), Psychology of Women Quarterly

Effects of Coping Strategies HI Confront Do Not Confront Take Leave of Absence Negative Work Consequences However for those who did use an assertive coping style, the negative consequences associated with the severity of their harassment was exacerbated, not buffered as expected. This was especially so for male compared to female targets of the harassment. Low Low SH Frequency HI Source: Stockdale (1998), Psychology of Women Quarterly

Effects of Reporting Retaliation Supportive Climate SH Minimalization Job, Psychological & Health Outcomes SH Frequency Minimalization Survey of active duty military (1995): 5,757 women and 660 men (all reporting some frequency of SH and who made some type of report about it) Supportive Climate: Organization/Unit takes SH seriously Retaliation: “Supervisor/others were hostile toward me; reassigned me; took actions against me” Minimalization: “encouraged to drop complaint; complaint discounted; no action taken” Remedies: “perp was counseled, transferred/reassigned, took action against perp” Outcomes: job satisfaction, intention to re-enlist, positive health perceptions. Remedies Source: Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina & Fitzgerald, 2002, Journal of Applied Psychology

Effects of Reporting Male-Dominated Work Group Retaliation Supportive Climate Rank Job, Psychological & Health Outcomes SH Frequency Minimalization Retaliation was more likely to occur in less supportive work climates. The higher the perpetrator rank, the more likely the respondent experienced increased SH, retaliation and minimalization, and the less likely the organization attempted to remedy the situation Retaliation was also more likely to occur the more men there were in the respondents work environment (true for both female and male targets). Remedies Source: Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina & Fitzgerald, 2002, Journal of Applied Psychology

Some Promising Signs The solution lies with the organization In positive climates (perceptions that the organization doesn’t tolerate SH), assertive complaints are perceived as effective. Perceptions that the reporting process is satisfying positively impacts victims’ well-being. The solution lies with the organization

Importance of Process Job, Satisfaction Psychological & With Health Supportive Climate Retaliation Job, Psychological & Health Outcomes Satisfaction With Reporting Procedures SH Frequency Minimalization Satisfaction with Reporting Procedures: I was treated well be personnel handling my complaint I was satisfied with the availability of information about hot to report or file a complaint Remedies Source: Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina & Fitzgerald, 2002, Journal of Applied Psychology

Process matters Procedural fairness: Interpersonal fairness The procedures used to investigate a complaint are thorough Complaint resolution procedures are transparent Complainants have a voice in the procedures Interpersonal fairness People handling the complaint treat me with dignity and respect Trust the people handling complaint are serving in your best interest Informational fairness Knowing where to find information about how to file complaint Obtaining accurate information about outcome of the investigation

Research-Infused Strategies Create a climate that does not tolerate SH Show that complaints are taken seriously Show that perpetrators are published Closely monitor particularly risky environments: High percentage of male workers Traditional male occupations Masculinized/sexualized work environments Leadership training and role modeling

Sexual Harassment Sunshine Report # complaints received Nature of complaints Gender harassment Unwanted sexual attention Sexual coercion # of complaints investigated; if not investigated, why Complaint outcome statistics Substantiated/Unsubstantiated Sanctions Warning letters Counseling, training Reassignment Dismissal Organizations are often advised by counsel to not reveal information about how individual complaints are handled because of confidentiality concerns But redacted reports (no names or other identifying information) can be summarized and reported publicly

Provide Options Multiple reporting points Informal resolution options Mediation options Another way to increase procedural fairness is to provide multiple options for complainants – they don’t have to report only to one office, or to their supervisor; there could be multiple ways of getting help beside a formal investigation, and there can be ways of resolving a complaint that may be perceived as more effective than the solutions offered by the formal policy.

Multiple reporting options Supervisor Some other supervisor HR/EEO office Hotlines SH advisors Supervisors Usually the first level of reporting procedure Compelled to act Maybe the harasser or party to the harasser, therefore other options are needed Some other supervisor Has the same duty to respond (duty to care) HR or EEO Office Usually the organization’s official office to manage an investigation, keep records, develop policy, etc. Designated personnel in this office are or should be trained and keep up to date Hotlines are often 3rd party services that take information Provide information to caller about how to resolve the issue (where to report) Can take the caller’s information and initiate a process of investigation Can inform employer of a potential problem area but not provide name of caller. SH Advisors Trained peers throughout an organization that can serve as a liaison to other resources, provide information strategies, listen to complaint without requiring reporter identity

Informal Response Options Caveat: Employer has a “duty to care” Redacted/confidential report to central office Write a letter Date(s) of offending conduct Specific facts about conduct How it affected me What I want you to do Bystander Intervention: Friends don’t let friends endure harassment Managers and supervisors have a duty to care – often interpretted as a duty to take formal, assertive action (initiate an investigation). Targets often are reluctant to report because they don’t want to initiate a formal action – they just want the harassment to end. Informal responses are ways of helping the target deal with the matter without invoking a formal response, but they are often botched because supervisors, coworkers, etc. may not know what they’re doing, they may impinge on the rights of the accused, and the organization may not have records of harassing behavior and knowledge of repeat offenders. Redacted or confidential reports may partially alleviate this problem. (Similar to how IUPUI handles student misconduct claims). But if well trained, with a good procedure to follow in assisting an informal response, they can be highly effective. One method is the letter: Bystander intervention: Prejudice reduction strategies – confront a harassment when you see it. Train peers on how to support a colleague through informal resolution or to point them to other organizational resources. The point is to build a organizational climate where there is a strong perception that harassment is taken seriously – this must be infused throughout the organization, not just with the HR or EEO office.

Mediation Options Alternative Dispute Resolution Settlement conference Confidential Information can’t be used in court Neutral 3rd party Attorney/advocate may be present Face to face vs. caucuses Solutions can run the gamut Sincere apology Monetary compensation Resignation Concerns about power differences Alternative Dispute Resolution – legal concept Alternative ways of resolving a complaint without a trial For organiztaions this may be used as a means to resolve a complaint in a way that restores interpersonal justice (make whole) Settlement conference – again a legal concept Meeting between parties, there representatives, and often a 3rd party to discuss options and reach a solution/agreement If part of a legal proceedings, everything said in the course of a mediation is protected – can’t be used in court. Mediators are neutral 3rd parties – so can’t be a supervisor or member of management (they are not neutral) Mediation can be conducted face to face (parties meet each other), but they can also be done in caucuses with the mediator going back and forth between the parties that are not in the same room. Solutions don’t have to be prescribed by a policy Sometimes extracting a sincere apology is sufficient Power differences can be an issue in mediation because the employer (who is a party to the complaint), as well as the accused party is likely to have more power than the complainant which can impact the mediator’s judgment. Also employers may have a “repeat player” advantage – the mediator is more likely to have worked with the employer on other cases and thus the employer knows how to “manipulate the mediator. The solution is to be mindful of this and choose the mediator carefully.

Discussion: What do you think works or doesn’t work? What other tangible things can employers do to end harassment? Should we treat harassment, bullying and incivility the same? So, as promised, this wasn’t a “self defense class” There is no magic solution or technique to respond effectively to SH The solution is hard work that organizations need to do to create a work environment that’s intolerant of harassment and mindful of the procedural, interpersonal and other process related factors that help build a culture of respect and intolerance for SH.