- · Fox News
- · Uber
- · Sterling Jewelers
- · UC Berkeley
What do all of these organizations have in
common? In 2017, they are in the news,
and not in a favorable way.
All of these major U.S. employers are in the news because
of high profile claims of discrimination and harassment in the workplace. And what do all of these cases tells us about
how we prevent harassment? It starts at
the top!
In June 2016, the Chairs of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace asked
employers to “reboot” harassment prevention efforts. The EEOC used a poker term, “double down”[1], calling on employers to
get more serious about efforts to prevent harassment. After spending 18 months listening to
business leaders, legal scholars, and social science researchers in the area of
harassment, the EEOC said: “we heard that leadership and commitment to a
diverse, inclusive, and respectful workplace in which harassment is simply not
acceptable is paramount. And we heard that this leadership must come from the
very top of the organization.” The EEOC
also said: “Conversely, leaders who do
not model respectful behavior, who are tolerant of demeaning conduct or remarks
by others, or who fail to support anti-harassment policies with necessary
resources, may foster a culture conducive to harassment.” Over the course of the decades since
organizations first began to address harassment in the workplace, many research
projects have been completed. Some of
those focus upon leadership. One study
looked at leadership in the military.[2] What the study found was
that “harassment occurred less frequently in groups whose members perceive that
the organization’s upper levels (i.e., leaders) will not tolerate such behavior….”
When leadership does not tolerate the behavior, it is
less likely to occur. When leadership
tolerates or condones disrespectful behavior, it will occur more
frequently.
What types of leadership behaviors increase the frequency
of harassment in the workplace? The
research is in:
·
Tolerance. When a leader is dismissive of behavior that
is troublesome, or casts aspersions on the “accuser,” the message to the
organization is clear: This type of
behavior will be tolerated here. Those
who might have a tendency to engage in disrespectful behavior are given
implicit permission, from the top, to engage in the behavior. Those who might be subjected to the behavior
understand implicitly that, if they complain, they will not be believed, or, as
in the case of Fox News, they will lose their jobs. When the leader models harassing or
disrespectful behaviors that implies tolerance. This is what happened at Fox
News, the leader at the very top, the powerful CEO, Roger Ailes, was engaging
in these behaviors. That gave permission
to people lower on the org chart, like Bill O‘Reilly, to be accused of the same
types of behavior.
·
Permissive
in addressing problems. When harassment is found, what are
the consequences? When the leader is
“easy” on the harasser, the leader gives implicit permission for the behavior
to continue. This is what Berkeley
leaders discovered when they did not hold prominent professors responsible for
the behavior, because termination “would ruin his career,”[3] or eliminate a research pioneer[4] and the behavior at
Berkeley continued.
·
Lack
of zero tolerance policies and procedures supported and widely known.
Leaders have to be personally involved in assuring that policies are clear,
widely distributed, and endorsed by the leader.
·
Training
that lacks leadership support and clear directives against harassment.
Leaders must be personally supportive of training for all team members,
especially supervisors, introducing it and explaining its importance, and
supporting accountability and consequences when training is ignored or not
attended.
So, when someone asks you
why it is so important for leaders to be invested in diversity and harassment
prevention at your organization, your answer is: Leaders lead the way!
[1] “Double Down” is a poker term
meaning to double one’s bet. The
EEOC chairs intended this message: significantly increase, the time, effort,
energy and commitment to eliminating or reducing harassment in the workplace.
[2] Fitzgerald, L.; Drasgow, F.;
Magley, V.: Sexual Harassment in the Armed Forces: A Test of an Integrated Model, 11 Military Psychology 3, pp. 329-343 (1999)
[3] http://jezebel.com/berkeley-school-of-law-dean-downgraded-to-professor-aft-1764011841
No comments:
Post a Comment