The Workplace : Why Can't We Stop Sexual Harassment at Work?

Why Can't We Stop Sexual Harassment at Work?

If you run a company in California, you have to take state-mandated anti-harassment training every two years.

This October, Matt MacInnis, founder of a digital distribution business called Inkling, clicked through two hours’ worth of slides about inappropriate touching and sexual comments in an online course produced by an HR services company. As he answered multiple-choice questions to prove he’d paid attention, a thought occurred to him: This is a farce. MacInnis couldn’t see how an online training course would keep “an a--hole from still being an a--hole,” as he puts it. “There is a laudable goal, but the way we address sexual harassment now, the whole system is flawed,” he says. “I mean, is there anti-murder training?”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which by law must investigate all federal harassment claims before they can proceed in court, received 13,000 sexual-harassment complaints last year (16 percent of them from men), outpacing the number it received for racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. “We by no means think that’s the extent of the harassment,” says Peggy Mastroianni, the organization’s legal counsel. She estimates that as many as 90 percent of people who experience sexually inappropriate behavior at work never take formal action. Many who do are contractually obligated to litigate through private arbitration, which the EEOC can’t track. But decades of surveys show that harassment remains prevalent: In a 1981 Harvard Business Review survey, 60 percent of women said they’d been “eyed up and down” by male co-workers; last year the EEOC reported that somewhere from 50 percent to 75 percent of women have experienced sexual comments or touches that made them feel uneasy at work.

For more than three decades, U.S. companies and institutions have addressed such behavior through corporate policies and awareness programs, although there’s little evidence they’re effective. Compliance training makes up a sizable portion of what market-research company IBISWorld estimates is a $4 billion HR software market. In California, which has the most robust training requirements of any state, companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on courses every year. About 80 percent of companies offer some form of training, although only three states—Connecticut and Maine, in addition to California—require them to do so. (Thirteen more states order training for at least some government employees.) They use all sorts of courses, produced by dozens of companies, from the cut-and-dried to risible theatrical re-creations.

Skillsoft makes compliance videos covering everything from data privacy to environmental sustainability for about 7,000 companies; it leans heavily on hired actors who demonstrate legal definitions in generic corporate scenes. HR Learning Center advertises one of its courses with a picture of a man and a woman making out on top of a filing cabinet. Inspired eLearning, which MacInnis used at Inkling, starts one of its videos with the words “charges of sexual and other forms of harassment can land your company in court,” followed by a picture of a frightened gray-haired man on what appears to be a witness stand. Emtrain, which creates online courses and runs in-person events for companies such as Chevron, Netflix, and Nordstrom, urges employees to mentally color-code their comments—green is respectful, red is offensive—and to call out their co-workers with gentle warnings such as “that’s a little orange.”

Early versions of these programs first cropped up in the 1980s, but their use didn’t pick up until two U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1998 clarified when companies can be held liable for harassment. In the cases, which considered what’s known as “hostile work environment” harassment (frequent sexualized comments or touches), as opposed to the “quid pro quo” variety (the classic “sleep with me or you’re fired”), the court decided that a company will be held liable when a boss harasses a subordinate unless it can prove that it takes steps to prevent and address such behavior.

Catchall policies that disavowed harassment quickly became the norm. Pick any major institution today, and you’ll find one: “We do not tolerate harassment or inappropriate conduct,” JPMorgan Chase’s official code of conduct reads. Apple is committed to “a workplace free of harassment.” In addition to the standard prohibitory language, Google urges its employees to “be excellent to each other.” Goldman Sachs says it does “not tolerate any form of discrimination prohibited by law.” Despite the recent outpouring of harassment complaints regarding former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, the policy at the network’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, says that “unwelcome sexual advances [or] … verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” aren’t allowed, and people should feel free to report any harassment they see or experience.

These policies often go hand in hand with the training courses, which typically cover the legal definition of harassment and what kind of behavior can get people into trouble. Maine and Connecticut passed their laws requiring training in 1992, in direct response to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas. California followed suit in 2004 after 16 women accused then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of harassment. (“With your background, you probably ought to sign it,” Sarah Reyes, the state assemblywoman who introduced the bill, said about Schwarzenegger at the time.) But according to employment attorneys, HR managers, and the companies that design the courses, their goal isn’t to stop harassment—it’s to guard against lawsuits.

“You’re building a defense in the event of an incident, passing liability from the organization to the individual,” says Eugene Van Biert, vice president for global compliance solutions at Skillsoft. His company offers different levels of training; he says most of its clients pick the basic online course that employees click through to learn the legal do’s and don’ts. “They want to generate a record so they can say they’ve done it, then they want to move on,” he says. Skillsoft’s most comprehensive program includes a way for people to report harassment they’ve experienced in the past, but Van Biert says fewer than 20 percent of his clients choose the service.

Despite its popularity, there’s little research on this kind of training. Last year the EEOC established a task force to investigate workplace harassment and concluded that “much of the training done over the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool.” The commission could find only three studies, the most recent of which is 15 years old, that evaluated training programs over time at companies. “These training companies are making buttloads of money off these courses, but what little information we have on them raises serious questions about their efficacy,” says Vicki Magley, an organizational psychology professor at the University of Connecticut who co-authored two of the studies. There’s other academic research, Magley says, but it usually deals with fictional programs designed by researchers rather than actual courses that companies might use. In her experience, compliance courses help employees understand the definition of sexual harassment, but don’t change people’s behavior. “I have absolutely no faith that any kind of an online course is going to do anything to stop harassment,” she says.

The companies that design the courses—and the HR departments that implement them—also have trouble measuring their impact. “I kind of don’t have any answers,” says Phyllis Hartman, an HR consultant who’s been working on anti-harassment training for 25 years. “You just sort of do it and hope it’ll be better.” Emtrain’s chief executive officer, Janine Yancey, says her company plans to publish a report demonstrating how its services decrease harassment complaints, but it hasn’t released any results yet. As a researcher, Magley once teamed up with a company to evaluate its anti-harassment training but had to discontinue her study after the company got nervous about legal liability should she find it didn’t work. “The attorneys from this company came in and said, ‘We are not finding out that information.’ They pulled out of the study because they didn’t want to know,” she says. “If we could ask companies, ‘Have you had fewer HR complaints after taking our training?’ ” says Felix Odigie, Inspired eLearning’s CEO, “and gather that kind of intel, it would be gold. But I don’t know what company would provide that information. I asked the head of my own HR department if they’d be comfortable with that, and she looked at me like I had two heads.”

Focusing on the legal limits of harassment can make these courses culturally tone-deaf. Last year an internal investigation by the University of California at Berkeley found that a renowned astronomy professor, Geoff Marcy, had for more than a decade repeatedly groped female students who worked in his lab. (Marcy referred Bloomberg Businessweek to his lawyer, who did not respond.) And yet the school’s online anti-harassment training course included a hypothetical scenario that was almost the opposite of what the university was dealing with. The course described a fictional female student who “is attracted to her dissertation advisor, Dr. Randy Risktaker, and for months has repeatedly asked him out on dates.” Instead of discouraging a relationship, Berkeley’s training course noted that legally, Randy Risktaker could date the student as long as he first stopped being her adviser. “I have to tell you, that is not a problem most of us encounter as professors,” says Michael Eisen, a biology professor at Berkeley who took the course.

Sindy Warren, an employment attorney whose firm, Warren and Associates, investigates workplace harassment, says the best courses go beyond the law. “If you draw lines around behavior that’s just illegal, you’re missing the broader point. Lots of things are not illegal, but they’re not respectful or appropriate,” she says. But she’s quick to point out that compliance training is better than no training at all. The EEOC’s task force doesn’t want to do away with it either; it recommends that companies supplement training with initiatives that emphasize broader topics such as civility and respect.

MacInnis says he tries to do that at Inkling. Because his company has only 150 employees, he often meets one-on-one with people and asks about their concerns. Not long ago, for instance, he had lunch with a recent college graduate, and they wound up talking about the gender wage gap most of the time because it was on her mind. “The idea is that more nuanced engagement will create the kind of environment where, if it’s necessary, people can bring it up,” he says. Even so, in the seven years since he founded his company, MacInnis has dealt with a few internal harassment cases. “I have friends who are CEOs who’ve dealt with way more gnarly stuff than I have,” he says. “I’d like to say I’m lucky, but usually there’s some sort of observable behavior that you can see before it rises to the level of something really serious.”

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-sexual-harassment-policy/#/

Don’t be afraid to confront bullies in the workplace

Bullying can be as harmful in the workplace as it is in schools, causing well-understood effects on people, plus a long list of challenges for organisations. More sobering to business leaders are the irrefutable statistics – bullying is costing businesses billions annually.

As explained by Lisa Castle, the vice president of human resources at the University of British Columbia in Canada:

"Its impact is enormous: disengagement; loss of creativity and productivity; sick leave, benefit and turnover costs." For every short-term result that a bully achieves, there is a list of longer-term negative business impacts that far outweigh any temporary benefits.

The good news is that increased public awareness, research, and an expanded appreciation of the costs/effects of bullying have paved the way for efforts to address it.

Further, there are many tools, experts and ideas for formulating an effective action plan. In the highly diverse Middle Eastern workplaces, to effectively address bullying, it is essential to have skills and a common language to talk about difficult things, across differences and in a consistent manner. While managing aggressive behaviour is difficult, it’s worth speaking up and taking action – for you, your workplace culture and the bottom line.

Having a discussion about bullying is never enjoyable but that doesn’t mean it should be avoided. Most organisations are generally unprepared and terrible at managing workplace bullying. There are many contributors:

Business leaders are afraid to confront bullies

While most leaders are aware that workplace harassment is a severe problem, they are often afraid to deal with it. Bullying is a sensitive topic because it requires a difficult discussion – confrontation, conflict and courage as much as it requires tools. Fear often feeds the problem: fear of the actual confrontation, of what else might be uncovered.
Having talked with plenty of executives, it is fair to state that fear of having that discussion is a serious impediment to eliminating the issue. The result is paralysis, and so the bullying continues.

A focus on results

In our hyper-competitive world, there are intense demands for results. Organisations become so focused on short-term results that they ignore how they are achieved. If there is one commonality among bullies, it’s a gift for whipping up results.

Misinterpretation of a ­"competitive workplace"

Organisations confuse healthy competition with a "survival of the fittest" model for workplace behaviour. There have been stories about Amazon, Apple and other global companies where staff members are regularly challenged to outperform their colleagues using over-the -top rewards for the winner.

It is possible to have both workplace respect and healthy competition. Staff members do not need to be abused to perform to their fullest. The truth is that by addressing bullying and empowering staff, leaders improve workplace culture, increase employee engagement and motivate innovation.

A belief that bullying is a ­leadership style

Bullying is the opposite of leadership. In my opinion, executives who use this excuse to support a tormentor are probably afraid to confront the problem. They discount the level of the bullying, rationalise it as a leadership issue or find another excuse to avoid actively engaging. They leave the mess alone, hoping it will sort itself out. That never happens if leaders don’t speak up.

Lack of effective policies

Most organisations have a harassment policy that outlines what is unacceptable workplace behaviour. How­ever, many organisations don’t have an effective complaints process. Without a fair, impartial, confidential and effective complaints and conflict resolution processes, the policy is meaningless.

The above reasons are why organisations fail to respond effectively to cases of bullying.

There are undoubtedly others, too. What is important is that even though the vast majority of leaders acknowledge the problem should be eradicated, very few actually do. The effect on organisational success is significant and totally preventable. With the help of others and a willingness to confront the problem head-on, long-term improvements to the workplace culture and bottom line await.

by: Paul Pelletier a consultant with PDSi, a coaching and leadership development company that has created its own certified programme, HardTalk, to help individuals and teams have the difficult conversations necessary for success
Source

Australian Update - Workplace Bullying

Workplace Bullying: A Message for all Employers

The Australian Federal Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten, recently announced changes that will allow employees to seek assistance in respect of workplace bullying from the Fair Work Commission (FWC).
The proposed new laws seek to cut through the current complex processes available to employees under state health and safety laws and seek early intervention in bullying claims. The new changes will require the FWC to deal with any application urgently.

The Potential Changes

The Commonwealth Government has announced it will hurry through amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) creating a new cause of action in relation to workplace bullying.

The amendments are proposed to take effect from 1 July 2013.

Definition of Bullying

The changes will adopt the definition of "bullying" set out in the Draft Code of Practice Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying. "Bullying" will be defined as "repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or a group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety". Importantly, the changes will clarify that the definition of bullying does not include reasonable management action, including performance management conducted in an appropriate and reasonable manner.

Process to Resolve Complaints

Mr Shorten announced that the new process will permit workers who believe they have been bullied to make a complaint to the FWC, which will be required to list any application within 14 days of the complaint. The changes will also enable the FWC to make orders in relation to the complaint, and/or to refer the complaint to the relevant state health and safety regulator.

Early reports suggest that any new FWC processes would be similar to those currently in place for unfair dismissal and adverse action complaints. This would include a compulsory conciliation conference, which is intended to quickly resolve the dispute to the parties' mutual satisfaction and avoid the need for arbitration or court action.

Where conciliation is unsuccessful, the amendments to the Fair Work Act will enable FWC to make civil orders in respect of claims. Current penalties under the Fair Work Act are up to AUD33,000 per breach, however, the Minister has advised that he will consult with business before confirming such penalties will apply.

What does this mean for employers?

Currently, victims of workplace bullying may seek to have their complaints addressed under many different legislative regimes. If an act of bullying is serious enough to pose a risk to health and safety, employers and employees may be liable under the relevant state health and safety legislation. In addition, in Victoria, legislation created as a result of the Brodie Panlock case enables criminal prosecutions in cases of serious workplace bullying. Both of these actions are initiated by state prosecution authorities rather than the individual employee.

The changes foreshadowed by the government suggest that for the first time individual employees (rather than regulators) will be able to bring claims against their employers for workplace bullying. This is a significant change in workplace law and if it proceeds is likely to result in an influx of claims from employees.

As yet, no draft legislation has been tabled regarding these significant changes. This is expected in the autumn session of parliament and we will provide a further update once the legislation is tabled.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Source

Managing pressure at work: Dealing with workplace bullies

I have been working in the stress management field for over 20 years and it never ceases to amaze me that some of the issues I was dealing with then are still prevalent today.

In my role as an Expert Witness to the UK courts I am often required to give a professional opinion to the court as to whether an organisation had anti-bullying procedures in place, prior to an employee deciding to institute a compensation claim against them.

Too many times, employees would have made an official complaint to the HR department yet no action was ever taken. Was it that HR were just uncaring and unsupportive?

Not necessarily so. Too often it was because HR really didn't really know what action to take. A lack of agreed policies and procedures left them uncertain whether they should support the employee's claim about being bullied or just minimise the alleged behaviour by telling the complainant that there was little they could do.

A recent survey

I read last week that the UK January Employment Index based on a survey of 2,600 people showed that 25 per cent of the respondents have experienced workplace bullying with incidents ranging from colleagues taking credit for work that they didn't do to public humiliation at the hands of a colleague, and it made me wonder what more could be done to tackle this conduct that is so often responsible for employees taking extended periods of sick leave and, often ultimately deciding to leave the company.

It is easy for anyone to identify the most obvious cases of intimidation, the times when you see a manager screaming at an employee or humiliating them in front of their team. This is overt bullying behaviour but what about the bullying behaviour that goes on behind closed doors.

The psychological bullying that can now take place on social networking sites is a more dangerous style of bullying as it is a much more difficult phenomenon to detect.

Individuals can often be humiliated even by an anonymous posting on a website and social networking sites can facilitate remote intimidation that can cause serious psychological damage to the victim.

I have counselled many clients who would describe such intimidation as a ‘reign of terror'. They became reluctant to go to work but had little option unless they decided to leave or report sick.

Fighting the scourge

First and foremost, they need to check if the organisation has a formal anti-bullying policy and procedure code and if it does then they should use the procedures laid down to make a complaint. Where procedures are not laid down then they need to speak to someone in authority in the company.

Raising the issue with HR is the recommended way forward.

However, as we saw above, the HR department may not always know what action to take. But this is a risk that may have to be taken as there is strong evidence to show that bullying behaviour creates stress and ultimately health problems.

Company policies

Make sure that your organisation has robust policies and procedures in place to combat workplace bullying and that your HR professionals and line managers are fully trained to recognise and deal effectively with such issues.

An anti- bullying policy should state that the organisation will not tolerate unacceptable behaviour.

If people are in fear of going to work and watching the clock to get back to the safety of their home, then those people will be poor performers, poor sales people, poor producers and a bad advertisement for your firm.

That competitive disadvantage will be reflected in your company's image and your brand.

The author is a BBC guest-broadcaster and Motivational Speaker. She is CEO of an international stress management and employee wellbeing consultancy based in London. Contact them for proven stress strategies - www.carolespiersgroup.co.uk

Key points

• Beware of bullying in the workplace and on social networks.
• Intimidatory behaviour can cause psychological damage.
• Unacceptable conduct results in competitive disadvantage.

Comments (1)

Added 10:43 February 15, 2011 Companies must have policies and procedures to deal with workplace bullying behaviour. It wont just go away. Our organisation is very clear about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. We have a workplace bullying policy in place and management have been trained to diffuse the issue themselves, if the need arises. It was only a one day training programme but they had this training at the same time as the policy was implemented and so understood its implications. We can now hold our head high as a company and say that we will not tolerate workplace bullying behaviour and I am proud to work here. Jacky Cullen, London, United Kingdom source

Irish Political Party Fianna Fail issues warning about bullying, harassment and sexual harassment

FIANNA Fail has drawn up a new policy to prevent bullying and sexual harassment in the party.

And it contains a warning that "appropriate disciplinary action" will be taken against any party member who violates the policy in the workplace (the Dail and Seanad) and at work-related events such as conferences.

It comes after a female member of the parliamentary party, Senator Mary White, complained last year that she was being bullied by someone in Leinster House.

The new document, titled "Fianna Fail policy on preventing and dealing with bullying/harassment at work" was presented to party TDs and senators last night at their parliamentary party meeting.

It contains a list of examples of bullying, including verbal abuse, humiliation, menacing behaviour, being treated less favourably than colleagues, and being "blamed for things beyond the person's control".

It also contains a detailed section on sexual harassment, which it defines as including unwanted physical contact such as unnecessary touching, making sexually suggestive gestures, making lewd comments or displaying pornographic material.

Bluntly

The policy document states bluntly: "Any such bullying, harassment or sexual harassment will not be tolerated by Fianna Fail and may lead to the imposition of appropriate sanctions". But it also makes clear that sexual harassment is not to be confused with "friendly behaviour or relationships which are mutually entered into".

The move is likely to be welcomed by employment rights groups, who have warned that bullying is the silent scourge of the workplace.

Last October, Fianna Fail Senator Mary White revealed in the Seanad that she had been subjected to bullying by somebody in Leinster House the previous day.

"I was actually bullied by somebody yesterday and I told my colleagues in my office what was said to me," she said.

Ms White, who has declared her interest in running for the presidency, went on to say: "People have no right to intimidate other people or to try to diminish them. How dare they!"

The Fianna Fail policy states that it has been drawn up to comply with the party's obligations under health and safety legislation. It is based largely on the Health and Safety Authority's code of practice on workplace bullying.

Source

NEWS - Workplace to consult Union on Bully-Harassment Policy review

New staff policies for council

KEMPSEY Shire Council will implement new policies to ensure staff angst is appropriately dealt with.

At an Industrial Relations Commission hearing last week, council and the United Services Union (USU) discussed issues which had been affecting some staff members since last August.

General manager Allan Burgess said issues between staff and some areas of management had been resolved amicably.

“The commissioner, John Stanton, heard the six grievances and the matters were fully discussed,” he said.

“Council has undertaken to improve its internal communication process and introduce some new policies to ensure more clarity when dealing with staff issues.”

The USU, representing the six staff members, said it too was happy with the outcomes of the hearing.

I’m pleased our members had the opportunity to present their issues to the commissioner and have their concerns heard and be treated with compassion,” USU organiser Narelle Rich said.

“The commissioner provided both parties with some excellent opportunities to improve the consultative mechanisms available to the Union and council, in particular, allowing regular weekly access to its members in an effort to avoid this situation arising again.”

Council and the USU are currently investigating a joint initiative regarding bullying and harassment in the workplace.

Shire to look at Cittaslow concept

KEMPSEY could become one of the first towns in Australia to embrace the Cittaslow concept.

Cittaslow is an Italian concept developed through the slow food movement and encourages communities to take time out and think about the future direction of their town.

It aims to introduce policies that nurture the distinctive features of town and its surrounds.

Kempsey Shire Council has invited the mayor and chief executive of Alexandria Council in South Australia to address a public meeting on Cittaslows next Tuesday at 3pm.

Alexandria Council administers Goolwa, is the first town in Australia to embrace the Cittaslow concept.

The meeting will be held in the council chambers.

source

Slow Cities in Australia : After Goolwa, there are two other towns - Katoomba, City of Blue Mountains