17
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
—Lyndon B. Johnson1
Started in 1921, Wonder Bread was an American phenomenon. The first brand to offer sliced bread, the bleached white, high-sugar (or high-fructose corn syrup) bread was touted as a healthy alternative to milk, eggs, and potatoes. The nutrients in Wonder Bread were advertised to enrich your body in eight ways (by the 1960s when more nutrients were added, Wonder Bread claimed to help your body in a remarkable twelve ways). As far as Americans were concerned, the more Wonder Bread they consumed, the better. During the 1930s and 40s Americans obtained more calories from commercially available white bread than from any other food. By the 1950s and early 60s, Americans ate so much that 25 to 30 percent of their daily calories came from white bread.2 Then something changed. While not all bad for you, Americans gradually began to discover the unhealthy aspects of white bread. By 2010 sales of sliced wheat bread exceeded sales of sliced white bread in the United States.3 In January 2012 Wonder Bread’s parent company, Hostess Brands, filed for bankruptcy protection.4 Most Americans apparently realized the benefits of this bread did not outweigh its drawbacks. In its day, Wonder Bread was perceived as a miracle food chosen by responsible parents, and it remains the icon to which we compare all new inventions (the greatest thing since sliced bread). It’s not hard to understand why a “more is better” attitude prevailed with regard to Wonder Bread.
Today organizational practices designed primarily to protect women in the workplace are the Wonder Bread of the feminist movement. They’re not all bad, but just like Wonder Bread, we need to assess what’s in them before we start consuming them in large amounts. Add a little whole wheat, take out some of the sugar and overprocessing, and they could be a whole lot better for both women and the organization.
By all means, I’m not suggesting we stop eating bread. Nor should we abandon the programs that train employees about sexual harassment. However, as with Wonder Bread, the contents are key. We can no longer assume sexual harassment training is 100 percent beneficial for women, men, and organizations, and that more sexual harassment training is better. However, if we just modify the contents and adjust the ingredients of these training programs, then we can confidently roll them out to improve relations between men and women at work.
Recall there are four ways that sexual harassment impacts the sex partition. In order to break down the sex partition, all four of these must be addressed by training programs. The first, awareness of sexual harassment issues along with concern that one could be charged with sexual harassment, instills fear and causes men to avoid interactions with women. The second problem surrounds poor training methods and how they contribute to these fears. Third, the belief that women need protection in the workplace leads some to perceive women as weaker than men. And, most important, those who are sexually harassed naturally want nothing to do with their opposite-sex coworkers. Therefore, altering the content of sexual harassment training involves much more than merely ensuring that the information in these training programs is correct (though that would be a good first step).
Sexual Harassment Training as It Should Be
First and foremost, training needs to be effective in reducing harassing behavior. Despite the demands for sexual harassment training in the workplace, little research has examined the efficacy of this training, and the few exceptions do not offer cause for optimism. Recall one study found sexual harassment training added to confusion about what constitutes sexual harassment.5 In yet another study, sexual harassment training increased participants’ ability to identify sexually harassing behaviors, but it had no impact on participants’ tolerance for sexual harassment.6 Still more research indicates that watching a sexual harassment training video had no impact on one’s knowledge about sexual harassment or likelihood to engage in harassing behaviors.7
It seems odd, given the strong demand for training, that more efforts have not been devoted to ensuring its effectiveness. If we’re dishing out training that polarizes men and women at work and possibly increases perceptions of women as weak, it doesn’t seem too much to ask that the training should at least reduce harassing behavior. However, research does not seem to support this link.
Lessons from Social Psychology
Why is sexual harassment training not as effective as we’d like? I believe the lack of efficacy in sexual harassment training may result from the lack of effort invested in studying how to frame the training in order to change behavior. The goal of sexual harassment training has unfortunately become the reduction of legal liability, not the reduction of harassing behavior.
Scholars can also be blamed. A great deal of academic research has been focused on sexual harassment, and a search of scholarly articles with the words “sexual harassment” in the title reveals there are over ten thousand such articles. While these papers focus on important topics related to sexual harassment (for example, characteristics of harassers and victims, organizations where sexual harassment is most likely to occur, case studies of sexual harassment, strategies for the harassed), I have found little that offers suggestions for improving sexual harassment training programs. Discovering strategies to reduce harassing behavior in the workplace, without repercussions for the sex partition, must become a higher priority.
Although an extensive literature on how to psychologically influence human behavior awaits, sexual harassment trainers (often legal experts) haven’t tapped into this treasure trove of information. Psychology research can provide suggestions about how to influence behavior as well as provide insight on how to reduce unintended effects of training sessions.
For example, much can be learned from the work of Robert Cialdini, a preeminent researcher in the area of influence. His work not only illustrates how to best formulate a message in order to influence behavior but also how an incorrectly formulated message can have unintended effects on behavior change. As an example of unintended effects, Cialdini describes the Iron Eyes Cody television ad, which was intended to influence viewers to stop littering but may have resulted in the opposite effect.8 This ad, which aired frequently in the 1970s and 1980s, was rated by TV Guide as one of the top television commercials of all time. In this ad, a traditionally dressed American Indian was shown canoeing along a river strewn with garbage. The Indian came ashore near a littered side of highway and watched as a bag of garbage was thrown from the window of a passing car. The garbage splattered at the Indian’s feet. The ad then focused on the Indian’s face and a tear was shown rolling down his cheek. The slogan, “People Start Pollution, People Can Stop It,” appeared on the screen. (Several copies of this ad are available for free viewing on YouTube.com.)
Despite its popularity, Cialdini’s research indicates this ad may inadvertently have increased littering behavior.9 What’s the problem with this ad? Well, according to Cialdini, there are two types of norms that motivate human behavior, and the creators of this ad pitted two kinds of norms against one another. The first type, injunctive norms, describe how someone should behave in a particular situation to gain approval or disapproval. The second type, descriptive norms, refer to how people typically behave in a situation. People like to meet with social approval (adhering to injunctive norms), but they also like to do what is popular (adhering to descriptive norms).
Although the Iron Eyes Cody ad provided injunctive norms against littering (the Indian crying clearly exhibited his disapproval), it also depicted the descriptive norm that many people litter. By depicting an abundance of litter on the ground as well as litter being thrown from a car, the ad inadvertently suggested that most people litter or that littering is popular. These opposing forces within the ad ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the message, and the ad may actually persuade people (who want to behave like everyone else) that everyone litters, so littering is acceptable.
Whether it’s littering or sexual harassment, if we try to mobilize action against the problem by demonstrating the prevalence of the problem, we undermine the message. Much of the sexual harassment training I have viewed consists of videos of one employee sexually harassing another and then an explanation of why this behavior is wrong. Much like the Iron Eyes Cody advertisement, sexual harassment training provides both the injunctive norm that sexual harassment is unacceptable at work and the descriptive norm that depicts harassment as commonplace at work. Recall the employee who described that in his employer’s sexual harassment training program, “The perverted scenarios were presented as if they were common.”
As a result, the desire to do as others do may lead those who attend harassment training to consider harassment acceptable behavior. At the very least, the depictions of sexual harassment in training sessions detract from the effectiveness of the anti-harassment message. Therefore, endless video vignettes of sexual harassment in the workplace may not be the most effective strategy to discourage harassing behavior. Instead, messages that sexual harassment is wrong, accompanied by videos or photos of employees behaving appropriately at work, would be more effective at changing behavior.
Another descriptive norm portrayed in sexual harassment training is the objectification of women. Although the injunctive message sent by sexual harassment training is not to objectify women (or men) in the workplace, the training often depicts scenes of objectification in the workplace. Objectification of women occurs when women are thought of as merely physical objects of male sexual desire, and for decades, feminists have argued against the objectification of women in advertising and pornography. In sexual harassment training videos, several scenes (purportedly of what not to do in the workplace) objectify women. In training videos, I’ve watched scenes of men catcalling women, men inappropriately touching women at work, and men hanging photos of scantily clad women in their work areas. All of these situations depict the objectification of women.
Objectification is of particular concern in the workplace, because objectification has been linked to reduced perceptions of competence. One telling study of the consequences of objectification examined issues encountered by United States vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.10 In this study, half of the participants were asked to write about Palin, while the other half were asked to write specifically about Palin’s appearance. Those who focused on Palin’s appearance were considered to have objectified her. Participants were then asked to rate Palin’s competence and state whether they intended to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. Those who focused on Palin’s appearance rated her less competent and were less likely to vote for her than those who were not focused on her appearance. (Similar results have been found when substituting Angelina Jolie for Sarah Palin. Those writing about Jolie’s appearance also rated her less competent.) In addition to the obvious drawbacks of perceptions of incompetence in the workplace, these perceptions also contribute to the sex partition. Recall that mentors and sponsors prefer to assist only the most promising employees. Those who are objectified may have more difficulty finding mentors and sponsors.
Perhaps more directly related to friendship development, objectification also results in the dehumanization of the woman.11 That is, objectified women are perceived as lacking the characteristics that make someone human (for example, lacking traits such as helpfulness or impulsiveness) and instead are perceived as more robotic. Thus the objectification may have both intrapersonal and interpersonal impact. Removing objectification from sexual harassment training should aid in increasing perceptions of women’s competence and help in reducing the sex partition.
What Do White Bears Have to Do with Sexual Harassment Training?
Have you ever tried not to think about something? Try it right now. Try not to think about a white bear. You thought about a white bear, didn’t you? Most people do. Subjects in one study illustrated this effect when they were asked to talk about whatever they were thinking about for five minutes. Furthermore, they were asked not to think about white bears. If they happened to think of a white bear, they were instructed to ring a bell. Results of the study indicated that subjects were not able to suppress the thought of the white bear. Clearly, most of the participants would not have thought of a white bear on their own during those five minutes. However, their effort to suppress the image of a white bear seemed to cause a preoccupation with it.12
Studies like this one suggest that the very act of asking employees to suppress their sexual thoughts about cross-sex coworkers could paradoxically make thinking these thoughts more likely. Although no studies to date have examined this effect with sexual harassment training, it is not hard to imagine a similar result. After all, we’re instructing employees to not think about women in sexual terms. That is, after being instructed for two hours not to think of opposite-sex employees in sexual terms, employees, who may have never previously thought of employees in sexual terms, may begin to do just that. Indeed, it is possible that the results of the study presented in the earlier chapter, where women were perceived as weaker after viewing sexual harassment training, may be explained by this effect. That is, participants may have been more likely to think about women in sexual terms after the sexual harassment training, and this objectification resulted in ratings of the women as weaker. However, more research will be needed to determine if sexual harassment training suffers from the white-bear effect.
Don’t Exaggerate
Accuracy is another aspect of sexual harassment training that should be addressed. Sometimes, in an effort to eradicate all harassing behavior, organizations overstate what constitutes harassment. Unfortunately, this just leaves employees confused and nervous in cross-sex interactions. Recall Josh who was called in by his HR department for complimenting a female colleague’s business suit. Others were warned about having lunch with an opposite-sex colleague. This is overkill. Sexual harassment training needs to be clear about what constitutes harassing behavior, but it needs to be equally clear about what does NOT constitute harassing behavior. Compliments about attire do not constitute harassment. Having lunch does not constitute harassment. Meeting alone with an opposite-sex employee is not sexual harassment. Employees and managers need to feel free to interact with their coworkers.
The Goal Should Be Inclusiveness
Earlier I described how my male colleagues’ joking around stopped in the presence of a female coworker. I blame this behavior on the current message many organizations are sending about inappropriate joking at work. In one widely used sexual harassment training video, the narrator describes how if your inappropriate comments or jokes are overheard by someone, that’s sexual harassment. The implication here is that the joking is only inappropriate if it’s overheard. By emphasizing the overhearing aspect instead of the joking itself, we may be limiting our legal liability, but we’re not creating an environment where women and men can really bond at work. Instead we’re inadvertently suggesting that coworkers segregate their joking sessions to ensure that they won’t be overheard by the opposite sex.
In lieu of avoidance, the training sessions should emphasize inclusiveness. The reason we want to eliminate these jokes from the workplace is that we want men and women to be able to be privy to all interactions in the office. Indulge this analogy. Pretend you have a child, and you don’t want your child to eat a lot of candy. You can basically take two routes. One is to threaten your child, telling him that if he is caught eating candy he will be severely punished. In this case, the child may not eat candy when adults are present, but he will be more likely to scarf down candy when no one is looking. A second strategy is to explain that candy is bad for your teeth and your body, and if you eat too much of it you’ll get sick. I believe the second strategy is more effective.
Just like the child who eats candy when his parents aren’t present, employees feel free to joke as long as there is no potential tattletale present. We need to explain to employees why inappropriate jokes are harmful—even if they are not overheard. Instead of threatening punishments if someone, presumably of the opposite sex, overhears the jokes, let’s explain why the jokes themselves serve to polarize the sexes at work.
Sexual Harassment Training—Improved
In sum, there is ample room for improvement in sexual harassment training programs. Unfortunately, improving these programs has not been a high priority. Regulations that address frequency and length of sexual harassment training programs must also begin to address the contents of these programs. For those who really want to institute change in their organization, the following suggestions provide solid first steps in amending sexual harassment training.
Standardize training. First and foremost, training should be standardized. The EEOC recommends that all employers offer sexual harassment training to their employees. Some states legislate who should have the training, the frequency of training, and the length of the training, but somehow there is less concern with the actual content of training. There is a plethora of misinformation being conveyed to employees that may inadvertently result in segregating male and female employees from one another. Training should have to meet certain standards. Criteria for what should and should not be covered in sexual harassment training should be provided to organizations. Off-the-shelf courses could be preapproved. This would go a long way toward reducing misinformation and making the training as effective as possible.
Those accused have rights too. Employees should be assured that all accusations will be investigated, and that those accused of sexual harassment will not be presumed guilty. Due process should be guaranteed. Guaranteeing an investigation that is fair to the accuser and the accused will help reduce the fear of sexual harassment charges.
Eliminate scare tactic terms such as “zero tolerance.” Some organizations tout their adoption of a zero-tolerance policy toward sexual harassment. Sexual harassment isn’t like taking drugs or carrying a weapon. It’s not that clear cut. What does zero tolerance even mean when applied to sexual harassment? Zero tolerance is particularly murky for the hostile environment-type harassment. The EEOC says the behavior must be frequent or severe to constitute harassment. How can you have zero tolerance for a behavior that must be repeated? The term zero tolerance further implies that isolated incidents of teasing or offhand comments could result in severe punishments.
Do NOT overidentify or provide misinformation about what constitutes sexual harassment. While this may seem obvious, in an effort to minimize the likelihood of lawsuits, organizations tend to overstate exactly what constitutes harassment. In addition to covering what constitutes harassing behavior, it is important to also cover what is not sexually harassing behavior. Employees should be made aware that the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment includes that “the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious. Harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).”
The goal of training should not be limiting legal liability. The goal of training is to create a positive working environment that is more hospitable toward both sexes. This message makes it clear that the goal is inclusiveness, and that segregating your networks so you won’t be charged with sexual harassment is not acceptable.
Do not generate perceptions of women as fragile. Make it clear that sexual harassment training is not provided just for the protection of women. Although most sexual harassment training is already gender neutral (portraying both men and women equally as victims of harassment), more work is needed in this area. For example, presenting research that indicates both men and women suffer the same repercussions after experiencing harassing behavior would help dispel myths that training is to protect women who “can’t take a joke.”
Take steps to avoid backlash or anger at having to attend sexual harassment training. Keep sexual harassment training interesting and not an insult to one’s intelligence. Perhaps eliminating the time requirement and permitting a shorter training period would aid in reducing criticism. Furthermore, a genuine interest in workplace relations (as opposed to a legal motive) would help reduce backlash.
In addition, providing useful information that employees can use will make the training sessions more interesting and informative. Useful information on broaching workplace romance or communicating with the opposite sex would make these training sessions more interesting and applicable for many employees.
Access both descriptive and injunctive norms in the training. While it’s important to access injunctive norms (that sexual harassment is not acceptable), it is also important to access descriptive norms (that most people do not sexually harass). Sexual harassment training too often focuses only on the injunctive norms. Photos or vignettes incorporated in sexual harassment training often depict instances of sexual harassment in the workplace. However, very little time is spent focused on images of positive relationships at work. A photo of a mentor dining with an opposite-sex mentee, accompanied by an explanation of the value of mentor relationships and that most often they are not accompanied by sexual harassment, would send a positive message.
For elementary through high school, use the label “sexual bullying” instead of “sexual harassment.” Bullying is a major problem in schools, and clearly steps should be taken to eradicate it. There seems no added benefit to introducing the sexual harassment label and sexual harassment training in addition to training aimed at eliminating bullying and sexual bullying. Referring to school bullying as harassment may add to the confusion surrounding the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Do not ignore workplace relationships. Workplace relationships will occur regardless of policies. Instead of merely discouraging office romance, offering employees suggestions on how to manage these relationships might help avoid misunderstandings.
Encourage cross-sex friendships and discourage gossip. Sexual harassment training should emphasize to employees that their concerns regarding sexual harassment should not inhibit the development of cross-sex friendship. Increasing awareness of the importance of bridging the gap between the sexes at work may go a long way to breaking down the sex partition. Furthermore, gossip or suspicion suggesting close cross-sex friends are involved in a romantic or sexual relationship should be discouraged. Instead, cross-sex friends should not receive any more scrutiny than same-sex friends.