3
We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them.
—Christian Nestell Bovee, writer1
Suzanne, a hospital manager, shared with me how one of her closest friendships began. The friendship began when a female colleague complimented her on her outfit. You can imagine how this might have transpired. “I love your suit, where did you get it?” And a conversation ensued about Suzanne’s favorite shopping destinations.
Now imagine what may have occurred if a man offered that compliment. Josh, a manager I spoke to, told me about when he offered a compliment to a female colleague. Josh admired his female colleague’s business suit. This time, no extended conversation ensued. No friendship developed. Instead, Josh was called in by his human resources department for questions surrounding sexual harassment allegations. Josh describes what happened this way:
It was just this week when HR said to me that they had to ask me some questions. And there were two specific things they asked me. One is, had a particular employee struggled with a box as she was coming into the lobby, and had I opened the door for her. I didn’t remember the incident all that clearly, but I said that was possible. Then they asked, “Did you say, ‘It’s good to see you sweat’”? I said I don’t remember specifically, but it seems possible. When she [the human resources employee] first asked that question, because it had no previous context, I had no idea where she was going with it.
Then the next question [from the human resources department] was, “Have you ever complimented this person on her clothes?” And then all of a sudden I said, “Oh, where are you going with this?” First of all, this is a person who did wear very nice clothes, but otherwise, believe me I had no interest in her whatsoever. If I said that’s a nice suit or something, nothing was meant by that. I know sometimes that comment can be a euphemism for “nice tight sweater,” but this is not a case of a woman who had a shapely figure or wore revealing clothes. She wore tailored stuff and there was no turn-on there, so anything that was interpreted, it had to be entirely on her part.
And as for the comment “nice to see you sweat,” my God the last thing I would have ever hinted was a sexual reference. It was good to see her working hard, carrying a box, basically because she’s lazy.2
For these two employees, compliments had dramatically different outcomes. Josh’s compliment resulted in questioning by his human resources department, while Suzanne’s compliment resulted in a new friendship. Human resources departments are sending a message to their employees that interactions that are perfectly safe and natural with same-sex employees can land you in trouble with opposite-sex employees. Take Josh’s comment, “It’s good to see you sweat.” Had Josh, instead, opened the door for a male colleague carrying a box and commented, “It’s good to see you sweat,” it is extremely unlikely it would have been perceived as inappropriate. If it had been a man, human resources would not have become involved.
After his run-in with the human resources department, Josh changed his behavior toward all women at work. As many in his position would, he feared sexual harassment charges would result from casual conversations with female colleagues, and he severely limited his future interactions with female employees.
Backlash Stress Creates a Gender Divide
Stories like Josh’s spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted. These stories intensify concerns that remarks, particularly those taken out of context, could be perceived as sexual harassment. Indeed, the fear regarding sexual harassment charges is so common among men, one researcher created a psychological term to describe it. The term “backlash stress” was created to label the stress that results from insecurity surrounding what constitutes sexual harassment. Technically, the official definition of backlash stress is “fear of being accused of sexual harassment or from uncertainty about the norms for interacting with women in the workplace.”3 In one study, several male employees at a midwestern university described their experience with backlash stress:
I would call the specter of sexual harassment an extreme burden on my daily work practices. I do not manage or direct women, but I feel compelled to address all women differently than I would men.4
I feel the need to be “on guard” to prevent any behavior which may be misinterpreted by women, particularly younger women with very sensitive natures.5
The problem with sexual harassment is constant worry and self-checking to make sure something I do innocently is not misconstrued.6
Workers who experience sexual harassment backlash stress are more likely to be tardy or absent from work and tend to be less satisfied with their coworkers and supervisor. However, a greater consequence for the organization may result from the deterioration of communication between male and female employees. Those overly concerned that their actions will be misconstrued will most likely avoid interacting with opposite-sex coworkers.
Why Is Sexual Harassment on Everyone’s Mind?
Clearly backlash stress is the result of a heightened awareness of sexual harassment, but why is sexual harassment engrained so prominently in the minds of employees? Primarily, the organization has incentive to keep it on the minds of employees. In addition to legal requirements in some states requiring sexual harassment training, organizations have their own financial incentives to heighten their employees’ awareness about sexual harassment and to offer training and reporting procedures. While a few organizations may have a genuine motivation to protect their employees from sexual harassment, the primary motivation stems from a desire to control the organization’s liability in harassment lawsuits.
This fear of liability stems from a 1998 case where the Supreme Court ruled that an employer can be liable for sexual harassment in their organization even if the employer is not aware of the harassing behavior. In the Supreme Court case Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the plaintiff, Beth Ann Faragher was a lifeguard with the City of Boca Raton. Faragher claimed that two of her supervisors had created a sexually hostile atmosphere at work by repeatedly subjecting her and other lifeguards to uninvited and offensive touching, making lewd remarks (e.g. “I want to eat your clit”), and speaking of women in offensive terms (e.g., referring to the female lifeguards as “tits”).7 This case is not notorious because of the size of its financial reward; Faragher was suing for only a dollar. The uniqueness of this case, and the reason it was appealed to the Supreme Court, was to determine whether the City of Boca Raton, unaware of the lifeguards’ behavior, was liable for the harassing actions of these two lifeguards. The question of whether employers can be liable in cases of sexual harassment, particularly if they were not aware of the harassment, had not been clarified prior to this case.
The 7–2 decision from the Supreme Court stated that employers are responsible for their own ignorance regarding sexual harassing conduct in the workplace. In this particular case, they ruled that the harassment was so pervasive that the city should have known about it. More specifically the court ruled that the employer must prove it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior.”8 In this case, the City of Boca Raton failed to disseminate its sexual harassment policy to the lifeguards, failed to oversee their conduct, and failed to provide a mechanism for bypassing harassing supervisors in the complaint process in its sexual harassment policy.
Feminists lauded the decision, and it was viewed as a milestone in ceasing harassing behavior in the workplace. However, a rarely discussed drawback of this finding is that it encourages organizations to err on the conservative side and to disallow any behavior that might even be close to harassment. This hypervigilance rubs off on employees, who, in turn, become more conservative in interactions with cross-sex employees.
Organizations naturally want to limit their liability and ultimately want to avoid sexual harassment litigation in order to protect their bottom line. While press coverage that often accompanies sexual harassment cases is not flattering and can impact a business’s reputation, deter customers, and reduce revenues, these costs pale in comparison to the costs associated with jury awards and class-action settlements. Dollar figures in headline-making cases are large enough to instill fear into any employer. Recent headlines touted the $95 million Ashley Alford was awarded for her bout with sexual harassment.9 Unfortunately for Alford federal caps on sexual harassment awards will reduce her payout to closer to $40 million. Other headlines hype the $168 million awarded to Ani Chopourian, a physician’s assistant who suffered repeated instances of hostile environment sexual harassment while employed at Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento, California.10 These headline-grabbing large settlements are the exception rather than the rule, and the average settlement in a sexual harassment case tends to be closer to $6000.11 When cases settle for small monetary amounts or when the payout is under $10,000, they don’t typically make headlines. The public and organizations are left with the notion that sexual harassment payouts are huge and should be avoided at all costs.
Discouraging sexual harassment is a worthy goal. And if large payouts incentivize organizations to eliminate harassment in the workplace, then all is good. Organizations should be lauded for their efforts to create a hospitable work environment. Unfortunately, that’s not the end of the story. Organizations are not only incentivized to eliminate harassment but also they’re motivated to go overboard to discourage any behavior that could be perceived as slightly annoying, even by the most sensitive employees. This is where problems arise. Well-meaning organizations are inadvertently strengthening the sex partition. The hypersensitivity toward sexual harassment is creating a barrier between men and women at work.
Popular Media Contributes Its Share on Sexual Harassment
Organizations are not the only source of information (or misinformation) regarding sexual harassment. Media coverage of celebrity harassment cases provides another source of the heightened awareness. Most claims of sexual harassment go unnoticed by the public, but when a celebrity faces sexual harassment allegations, a media circus often ensues. You may recall reading about:
In addition to increasing sensitivity to issues surrounding sexual harassment, the media doesn’t always help clarify what behaviors constitute sexual harassment, and instead may fuel the uncertainty surrounding this issue. Furthermore, the highly publicized repercussions for those accused (and not necessarily even found guilty) of sexual harassment may induce more fear of sexual harassment charges in the rank and file.
Take the media frenzy that occurred when sexual harassment allegations emerged against 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. During his bid for the presidency, news surfaced of four women who alleged that the presidential candidate sexually harassed them between 1996 and 1999, while he was at the helm of the National Restaurant Association.12 As a result of the accusations, which Cain labeled false, he withdrew from the 2012 presidential election. The media attention on Cain was unrelenting and for good reason. Not only were the accusations titillating, but a harassing past would certainly be relevant to Cain’s potential to lead the country.
One interview with Herman Cain illustrates how the media can augment the confusion and ambiguity surrounding harassment, while reinforcing the sex partition by suggesting men and women need to be cautious in their interactions with one another. In the following excerpt, conservative radio talk show host Sean Hannity was trying to uncover what, if any, harassing behaviors Cain performed while at the National Restaurant Association.13
Hannity: What did she [the accuser] allege?14
Cain: I don’t know, Sean, other than the one thing that I talked about in terms of making a gesture to basically say that my wife was short, and she was as short as my wife. Now he [the accuser’s lawyer] may be coming from the fact that he was her attorney when the charges [were] made. He still thinks that there’s something. In other words, I don’t know where his head is. He is not accepting the fact that the charges were found baseless is all I can conclude. Ok? So, I have no idea what they were, and when Greta [referring to an interview with Fox News reporter Greta Van Susteren] pushed me on it, I still couldn’t come up with but one thing that might have been included in it.
Hannity: Is there anything that you can think of that might have been misconstrued? You talked about somebody’s height—did you tell a woman that she looked good? That dress looks hot?
Cain: Nope.
Hannity: Anything, any flirtation that you can think of?
Cain: Nope, nope, I didn’t, Sean. Let me tell you why, because being in business I learned a long time ago, that unless I am really, really comfortable with a fellow employee I don’t pay women compliments, unless I know them well enough that they’re not going to take it the wrong way. I know in this particular case, I didn’t make those kind of compliments. I didn’t say that she looks hot or whatever this sort of thing. Why? Because when you are in a leadership position you run the risk of it being misunderstood. So, I know I didn’t do that kind of stuff.
Basically, Mr. Cain was describing the sex partition. He describes how his awareness of sexual harassment issues discourages him from interacting with his female coworkers. Specifically, he doesn’t pay women compliments unless he knows them well enough to be sure they’re not going to take it the wrong way. Those in leadership positions, he warns, are particularly prone to misunderstanding by women. With a presidential candidate suggesting that male leaders should restrict their interactions with women in order to reduce any chance of misunderstanding, the sex partition no doubt gains strength.
It’s important to note that paying a woman a compliment is not sexual harassment. Hannity asks Cain if he told a woman that she looked good or flirted. Telling a woman that she looks good is not sexual harassment either, nor is an isolated flirtation. However, this line of questioning certainly implied that telling a woman she looks good or an isolated flirtation constitutes sexual harassment. Male employees listening to the radio program could head to work with the message that similar comments toward their own female colleagues could result in sexual harassment allegations.
Recall, however, that sexual harassment law “doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious.”15 Legally, it would be okay for Cain to compliment women in the office. Even if his compliments inadvertently crossed the line from polite to creepy, if he stopped when told his behavior was unacceptable, his behavior would most likely not constitute harassment.
Furthermore, Cain’s denial that he engaged in any sexual harassment reinforces the idea that men’s innocent behavior may be misinterpreted by women at work. His message, that he withdrew from a presidential bid because of false sexual harassment allegations, perpetuates the perception that drastic repercussions ensue when women misinterpret male friendliness.
It’s also important to note that there was no subtle misinterpretation in the allegations against Cain. No, Sharon Bialek, one of the women who alleged that Cain harassed her, wasn’t concerned about compliments. She wasn’t offended that he told her that she was the same height as his wife, or that she looked good. Regardless of whether her version of events is true, there could be no misunderstanding them. Bialek claimed that she dined with Cain, who offered to help her find a new job. Driving from the restaurant, she claims that Cain parked the car and then “suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg, under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it towards his crotch.”16 When she expressed her shock at his actions, she claims Cain told her, “You want a job, right?”17 Although only Bialek and Cain know exactly what happened that night, Cain’s message that he was misunderstood merely perpetuates the attitude that caution needs to be taken in interactions with women at work.
Cain is not alone—other famous cases of sexual harassment have brought down men in high positions. Mark Hurd, for example, was at the height of his career when charged with sexual harassment. Hurd took over a struggling Hewlett Packard (HP) in 2005. By 2010 Hurd turned the company around, and the New York Times reported that Hurd had “pulled off one of the great rescue missions in American corporate history, refocusing the strife-ridden company and leading it to five years of revenue gains and a stock that soared 130 percent.”18 Hurd was negotiating a three-year contract with HP that would pay him $100 million when sexual harassment charges surfaced. HP investigated the charges and found that they were unsubstantiated.19 The investigation, however, uncovered expense reports that Hurd had filed indicating a misuse of company funds, and Hurd was asked to resign, ostensibly because of the expense reports. Hurd believed the true reason the board decided to oust him stemmed from potential public relations problems that would follow sexual harassment allegations.20 Even though the investigation could not substantiate that harassment took place, Hurd suggested that the allegations alone brought him down, and not the expense reports.
Both positive and negative messages are sent through the extensive media coverage of these two cases. The positive message is that sexual harassment will not be tolerated no matter how powerful the perpetrator. The second, more subtle, message suggests that mere allegations of sexual harassment can bring down powerful men, even if the evidence of harassing behavior is sketchy or nonexistent. It is this second message that strengthens the sex partition by escalating fears of sexual harassment allegations.
False Allegations Add to the Fear Surrounding Sexual Harassment
Cain and Hurd both asserted that the sexual harassment claims against them were false. In general, employees believe that false sexual harassment allegations are relatively common. According to a 2011 Newsweek poll, 85 percent of those surveyed felt that employees are unfairly accused of sexual harassment at least some of the time.21 Yet another poll revealed that 25 percent of men worry that they will be falsely charged with sexual harassment at work.22 If one avoids harassing behavior, fear of legitimate claims of harassment is minimized. However, how can anyone avoid false allegations without avoiding cross-sex interactions altogether?
Indulge an analogy to shoplifting. Typically, if you don’t shoplift, chances are pretty slim that you’d be falsely accused of shoplifting. And, if by some chance, you were falsely accused of shoplifting, due process would most likely exonerate you. Therefore, most of us have no trepidation when entering a store. Now, imagine instead that false shoplifting allegations were prevalent, and that those suspected of shoplifting were typically prosecuted by store security without due process. Chances are you’d develop an aversion to shopping, and you would think twice before stepping into a store. Similarly, the general perception that false harassment charges are common, and that those accused of sexual harassment are not afforded due process, results in an aversion to interactions with opposite-sex employees.
False allegations of harassment are of course feared, because they can have a devastating impact on the accused. Even if the accused is found not guilty, coworkers can still assume guilt despite evidence to the contrary, families are affected, and all male employees (not just the accused) are likely to shut down their interactions with female coworkers. One professor I spoke with, we’ll call him Rohit (not his real name), shared with me the impact that false allegations had on him. Although the case was formally closed over a decade ago, the repercussions persisted long after.
Rohit’s ordeal began in a class he taught that tackled controversial issues. In the class, some female students disagreed with a classmate’s viewpoint on the likelihood of false allegations of rape. The students complained to the school’s sexual harassment officer, and Rohit was initially charged with creating a hostile environment for women in his class. However, after the first few months of the investigation into the hostile environment allegations, the charges escalated to rape. That’s right, one of the students who claimed he created a hostile environment in class was now accusing him of raping her as well. Why didn’t these charges surface at the beginning? The alleged victim thought the hostile environment charges would be “enough.”
Even though Rohit had alibis when these alleged rapes supposedly occurred, a university panel found him guilty. Fortunately, the university chancellor reversed the panel and dismissed the case, and Rohit won a defamation case against his accuser. It may sound like everything turned out fine. After all, Rohit was not found guilty and even won a defamation case against his accuser. But things weren’t okay for Rohit, his family, his coworkers, or his female students—and more than ten years later, they’re still not back to normal.
Despite the verdict in his favor, people still assumed Rohit was guilty. The day of the verdict, Rohit says the local newspaper ran a piece on how the outcome (in Rohit’s favor) was a travesty of justice. At the university, some of Rohit’s colleagues, other professors who had invited him to speak to their classes each semester, pretended not to know him any longer. “I’d walk on campus, I’d say ‘hi’ and they’d turn their head.”
And the toll the ordeal took on his family? Rohit told me that if it wasn’t for his wife and two children, he would have contemplated suicide. That’s how much of a nightmare the whole situation was for him. Even his eight-year-old daughter suffered consequences. A previously independent little girl began wetting her bed, wouldn’t sleep alone, and was afraid to go to school. One reporter who called their home told the scared little girl who answered the phone that her father was in “big trouble.”
And, of course, the allegations affected his female students. Not only was Rohit less likely to interact with his female students, but do you think his fellow professors wanted to endure what Rohit had experienced? They also shut down interactions with female students. Rohit told me how his open-door policy quickly became a closed-door policy.
When I first started teaching, I had an open-door policy. Students could come in any time my door was open, and they could talk to me about anything. I had a real easy relationship with my students. Obviously, that all changed. After the whole thing began, I had a closed-door policy. You didn’t come to my office unless you had an arrangement with me, and I would avoid making appointments with female students. If a female student wanted to talk to me, I told them to see me in class. I’d tell them, right before the beginning of class, come up in front and ask me your questions—in other words, with everybody else sitting there. I did everything I could to avoid meeting female students outside of class. And I’d say that continued for close to ten years. None of my colleagues had exactly the same open-door policy I did, but some of them were close, and that all stopped. None of us wanted to deal with female students anymore.
None of the professors wanted to deal with female students anymore. And that’s just the people that Rohit knew. What about the others that read about his ordeal in the local papers or heard about it on the local news? It would be a safe bet that many that heard about his story were also more reluctant to interact with their female colleagues. For Rohit, things never returned to normal. Although he’ll now allow female students in his office, his blind trust of female students is gone forever. Wariness around women is his new normal.
I asked Rohit how such an event could transpire at his university. Rohit explained that the sexual harassment officer on campus overzealously sought to find sexual harassment, even when it wasn’t there. She spoke to students and warned them that sexual harassment was pervasive, and that they must be constantly on guard. He told me:
The sexual harassment booklet that was sent around to the students and the faculty was so insane, and the sexual harassment officer who promoted it found sexual harassment everywhere she looked. In it, she said if we upset a student or say something in class that upsets a student, that can be sexual harassment.
When she came to our department, she explained there are two basic types of sexual harassers. There are those that are stodgy, they dress up and like to wear nice clothes, they want you to call them Professor this or Doctor that, and they seem to be beyond reproach. And you have to watch them, because once they establish their sense of superiority, then they take advantage of you. The other type are the ones that are loose and laid back, they’re relaxed, they wear casual clothing, they don’t mind if you call them by their first name, and they get to be friends with you. Those are really the sinister ones, and you have to watch out for them, too. Basically, she just described all males on campus.
She would go around the campus talking to the students and faculty, and she created such fear in the faculty. People were afraid to say anything against her. You had to join with her, because if you weren’t a part of that group, you could become part of the outgroup. And that’s how she got people to support her insanity.
In other words, the members of the faculty were too afraid to stand up to the sexual harassment officer and clarify that upsetting a student in class does not constitute harassment. Obviously, neither a professor’s style of dress nor how he or she prefers to be addressed are related to his or her likelihood to sexually harass. Students who are lucky enough to have the ear of a professor should take that opportunity, not be discouraged from it. The harassment policy at this university seemed to suggest it was best to avoid all professors. It’s tough to learn that way. Fortunately, in light of Rohit’s ordeal, they modified the policy. It’s now toned down a bit.
Rohit’s story isn’t an isolated case. Stories of false harassment charges and overzealous pursuit of harassers are all too frequent. Professor of psychology Russell Eisenman, who studies sexual harassment, reported several instances of false harassment charges and situations where students were coerced into filing charges.23 In one instance, a student was coerced into filing charges after a male professor asked her for a date. The student told a female professor about the date request, and this professor recommended that the student file sexual harassment charges. When the student wavered, the female professor gave the student an incomplete in her course, threatening to alter her grade if she did not file the charges. The student filed the charges, the male professor was convicted and penalized, and the student received an A in the female professor’s course.
In another instance a female professor helped a student file a complaint against a male professor who had allegedly hugged the student in his office and spoke to her about sex.24 He was convicted by a university panel and punished. However, the female professor then urged the student to file assault and battery charges with the police. She did file charges but then told a fellow student that the charges were not true. She had merely filed the charges to appease her female professor. After a long court battle, the professor was acquitted of the assault and battery charges.
Hearing stories of false allegations, it’s not surprising that male executives fear sexual harassment charges. Some feel the “he said, she said” nature of sexual harassment allegations allows them to be used as a tool to get back at a disliked colleague, while others allege that overzealous feminists use sexual harassment charges to get back at men in general.25 Male participants in one study described their fears of sexual harassment charges, and voiced concerns that sexual harassment can be used to target men:
What could polarize men and women in the workplace more than the suggestion that sexual harassment allegations can be falsely applied to get revenge upon a disliked coworker? The sentiments from these men clearly indicate anger and frustration at being potential targets of sexual harassment scams. The natural response to these feelings would be to withdraw and restrict interactions with female coworkers.
Accusations of sexual harassment can have consequences that run the gamut from losing one’s job to losing the respect of family, friends, and coworkers. Clearly the repercussions of harassment charges were severe for Rohit. What about innocent until proven guilty? Within an organization, harassment cases are typically decided by a human resources representative without formal legal training. Often there is no fair hearing of both sides and no “reasonable doubt” standard prevails in determining guilt.
In fact, employers have incentive to favor the victim of sexual harassment. Ethics professor Mane Hajdin claims that “an employer that ends up erring in favor of the alleged harasser, even if only slightly, may easily find itself in court, while an employer that errs in favor of the alleged victim is unlikely to find itself in similar trouble, unless the error is extreme.”27 As a result employers have incentive to give the benefit of the doubt to the victim over the alleged harasser. While beneficial to victims of harassment, this strategy of presumed guilt of the accused further fuels the fears associated with sexual harassment charges.
Awareness of false allegations can lead men to limit their interactions with women and favor spending their free time with other men. One university professor told me how he became more cautious in his interactions with female students after hearing rumors of a colleague who was allegedly set up with false sexual harassment allegations. As a result, he described to me how he’s more cautious in his interactions with female students.
If I was teaching a night class that gets out at ten at night, and wanted to meet right after class with a student, I’d be much more comfortable meeting with a male student than meeting with a female student. I think about how this is going to be construed by the female student, “Hey, why don’t you stop in at 10:15 at night.” And that could be interpreted in a different way by a female student. It would seem creepy. Maybe I just have an avoidance of seeming creepy. With male students that doesn’t enter my mind at all, I just tell them to stop by, and it’s not a big deal. And I don’t think it’s going to be misconstrued as creepy.
As a result, there is an opportunity to get to know his male students better, and this translates into advantages for them. He continues:
There would be a higher probability with male graduate students, if we had to kill time, for me to say, “Hey do you want to go grab a beer,” or “I have to go eat, why don’t you come with me” than with a female grad student. I can get to know a student better, and that might help them get a better letter of recommendation or personal recommendation from me down the road.
For this professor, the effects of the sex partition may seem small. Ostensibly, for female students, missing out on late-night meetings or dinner discussions may not be career altering. However, an opportunity exists for male students that clearly does not for female students. Male students have greater opportunities to befriend this professor and may walk away with a superior letter of recommendation as a result.
Acquaintances vs. Close Friends—Who Bears the Brunt of the Sex Partition?
In his interview with Sean Hannity, Herman Cain mentioned that he only offers compliments to women he knows well, suggesting that the fear of sexual harassment charges may have a larger impact on acquaintances than on close friends. The sex partition obstacles are not impenetrable, and there are certainly cross-sex dyads that are able to overcome these barriers and establish a close friendship at work. It seems that fear of sexual harassment charges may not constitute an issue for these closer cross-sex friendships.
Many of those I interviewed reiterated Cain’s sentiment that caution is primarily required in interactions with those you don’t know well. Andrew, a male management consultant, described how he needs to be comfortable with colleagues before he shares an inappropriate joke:
If I make an off-color joke or something like that, I’m more likely to do that with a male than a female. Not that I go around telling dirty jokes all the time, but if I get a funny e-mail that I find humorous, I would certainly segregate by gender who I’d send that to. So it is harder to develop a real friendship. I have to have comfort, even though I am not necessarily operating strictly within the professional decorum boundaries, that it’s not going to reflect back on me professionally through that person’s eyes. And it’s easier to get a feel for that with a same-sex person.28
You’re probably thinking Andrew should keep his inappropriate jokes to himself at work. And you’re right. However, rules that attempt to shut down this behavior don’t seem to be effective. Instead, they merely restrict the sharing of such jokes to same-sex colleagues and a few cross-sex colleagues that can take the joke. As a result, it’s women who are left out of the bonding that results from the joking sessions.
In her book Gender on Trial, Holly English recounts an interview with a male partner in a law firm who concurred that fear of sexual harassment led him to ask different questions of female coworkers he knows well and those he does not.
I think that it takes longer for a male partner, me specifically, to let my hair down when supervising a woman associate than with a man. You kid around in a different way, talk about different things. The fear of lawsuits is in there at all times at some deep level. We don’t want to create a hostile workplace so we create a stultified workplace. A guy is more easily prone to ask a guy who he was seeing, but I wouldn’t ask a woman that unless I knew her well enough. I would be less reluctant to ask what a guy did over the weekend. I’d be more careful in my language, I’d swear a bit with a guy. I wouldn’t do that with a woman. I sort of regret that I have to be that way.29
While it’s good news that concerns surrounding sexual harassment have less impact on close cross-sex friendships, trouble developing acquaintance relationships can be problematic. Recall the importance of acquaintances or weak ties for career advancement. These are the folks more likely to get you a new job and connect you to new circles. And close friendships typically evolve from these acquaintance relationships too. Obstacles that impact acquaintances may ultimately hinder the development of close friendships.
Attractive Women May Have Even More Difficulty Establishing Friendships
Just as acquaintances may be harder hit by the sex partition, attractive women may also suffer greater obstacles to cross-sex friendship development at work. Imagine that a senior male executive decides to mentor a junior woman. They frequently engage in closed-door meetings in his office and occasionally meet up outside of work. How does the interpretation of this scenario change if the woman is extremely attractive or extremely unattractive? Sadly, the executive’s motivations are more likely to be questioned when the woman is attractive. As a result, men may be even less likely to engage in one-on-one meetings with very attractive women. As a result, attractive women may have more difficulty establishing cross-sex friendships and mentor relationships than their more homely female colleagues.
Most of us have a schema or a mental picture of how sexual harassment transpires in the workplace.30 In this mental picture of sexual harassment, the perpetrator is typically male and the target is typically female—an attractive female, that is. Most people believe unattractive people are less likely to be sexually harassed, and thus are less likely to believe sexual harassment charges when they come from a less attractive employee.31 Therefore, employees may be more cautious when interacting with an attractive woman.
In general, attractive people receive a lot of breaks at work and are generally perceived as more intelligent, more likely to be hired, and they typically earn more money than those who are less attractive.32 Interestingly, attractive women don’t seem to fare quite as well as their good-looking male counterparts. One study followed MBA graduates who had each been rated on their physical attractiveness.33 Ten years after their graduation, attractive men earned an additional $2600 for each additional unit of attractiveness, but attractive women only outearned unattractive women at a rate of $2150 for each additional unit of attractiveness. Attractive women still have an advantage, but their advantage is not as great as that experienced by attractive men. I would argue this discrepancy results from the greater burden the sex partition imposes on attractive women.
Ironically, men at work need not worry so much about attractive women bringing harassment charges, because research indicates that attractive women are less likely to label certain behaviors (including sexual joking, requests for romantic or sexual relations, touching and grabbing) as sexually harassing.34 Most likely because attractive women are more accustomed to flattery and other flirtations from men, they are less likely than unattractive women to label these behaviors sexual harassment.
Work Is a No-Flirting Zone
Flirting is another avenue to friendship that is curtailed in the workplace due to sexual harassment awareness. In their book Flirting 101: How to Charm Your Way to Love, Friendship, and Success, Andrew Bryant and Michelle Lewis suggest that those who have the ability to flirt generally establish more cross-sex friendships. The best flirters are typically skilled conversationalists and good listeners who can initiate new conversations and forge new relationships.
Although many typically think of flirting as signaling sexual interest, flirting need not have a seduction component. People often flirt merely to make others feel good about themselves.35 Evolutionary psychologists believe humans’ ability to flirt is hardwired.36 From an evolutionary perspective, good flirters are able to attract more potential mates, which is advantageous for passing along genes to future generations. Humans are not the only flirters—all mammals flirt, as do birds, fish, and even fruit flies.37
In the workplace, however, there is a fine line between flirting and inappropriate behavior. As Bryant and Lewis describe, “Knowing where that line is will protect you from ending up in bed with someone you really only wanted to talk to, or from making a terrible mistake in work situations.”38 Fear of making a terrible mistake or crossing the line at work keeps many coworkers from using flirting as a tool for developing cross-sex friendships at work.
While completing a research study on sexuality in the workplace, Christine Williams, Patti Giuffre, and Kirsten Dellinger spoke to a female urologist who described the effect of sexual harassment regulations on flirting in the operating room:
Sexual banter happens partly because of the high stress situations. In the operating room, it’s even more stressful. You all go in and put on these scrubs. It removes social and sexual boundaries. . . . [There’s] teasing and joking and pinching and elbowing. It’s fun. That’s one reason people like being in that arena. That’s part of the camaraderie. . . . I think it’s been limited somewhat by all of the sexual harassment cases. It’s sad that if someone who I’m working with nudges up to me and elbows me, and I say, “I’m glad I wore my metal bra today to protect myself from your elbow,” I can’t say that in peace anymore. It’s a way that men and women interact. It’s a form of flirtation.39
Clearly, flirting behavior that “crosses the line” should not be tolerated in the workplace, especially if it makes some employees uncomfortable. Yet cross-sex friends often flirt to develop and maintain their friendships. Efforts aimed at eliminating this behavior in the workplace exacerbate the sex partition.
Is the Sex Partition All about the Men?
Thus far, the evidence suggests that men are more reserved in their interactions with women because of their fears regarding sexual harassment charges. Where are the women in this? In general, women don’t fear sexual harassment charges, but instead sense their male colleagues’ discomfort with women. Women feel that in order to fit in, they need to put the male colleagues at ease.
Recall Joan at the beginning of this chapter who described how her male coworkers typically feel uncomfortable around women, and friendship can only develop after they perceive no risk of sexual harassment charges. Elizabeth, a female attorney, noted a similar discomfort from the male law partners in her firm:
My own experience when I worked with certain male partners, I think when they worked with male associates they would be more free to, as some attorneys do, probably a lot of senior management do, swear or act in a certain way. You felt as though they didn’t feel comfortable doing that in front of you, which was fine, but then you felt that also they just didn’t feel comfortable. They felt uncomfortable with you entirely. You could tell they were trying to think about how they should act, which made it an uncomfortable relationship. You wanted to say, “Hey, act how you want, I don’t really care, I’m very easy going, just do whatever.” You could just sense that they felt they had to act differently, and that it made them just prefer to not be alone with you in an office and not have to, you know, they would rather work with a male associate.40
These women clearly sensed that the men in their organizations hold back in their interactions with women, making it harder to “break the barrier” and establish a friendship with these men. As a result of the gender differences that emerged in these interviews (that men are more likely to withdraw or hold back due to concerns regarding sexual harassment, and the women report having to relax these fears in the men in order to establish a friendship), women may face a double-edged sword. To be included as “one of the guys,” they may have to endure behavior they find objectionable. If they complain about the objectionable behavior, the women will most likely be excluded from the male networks.
I’m not suggesting the sex partition is men’s fault. It’s really not anyone’s fault. It’s true that men may be more reserved in their actions around women, but that’s because we’re inadvertently encouraging men to do just that. We’re instilling a fear of sexual harassment charges that’s polarizing women and men at work. Fortunately, we can improve the situation. I devote later chapters to detailed solutions and work-arounds, but the single most important catalyst for change is starting a dialogue. Talking frankly about the sex partition at work with peers, managers, and subordinates will facilitate communication between the sexes. Through open communication, employees can get a sense of exactly where the boundaries lie in their workplace. Would the female urologist’s coworkers really be offended if she made a joke about her metal bra? I suspect not. She feels the camaraderie is missing because she can’t be free to make these comments, but if she talked to her coworkers about her concerns, perhaps the camaraderie and her free speech could be restored.