The tabloid tendency in the media has recently had a feeding frenzy over sexual behaviour at work. Many of these articles miss the important point that sexual assault is a crime and covering up sexual assaults such as rapes is also criminal behaviour. The media are so anxious to ensure salacious coverage that they have missed the point that perverting the course of justice by concealing an offence is already a crime. Rape is a crime and offering the victim advancement or other corrupt inducements to conceal the rape is a crime, covering up the crime of rape is a crime. Large organisations such as political parties and corporations have far more power to pervert justice than individuals but somehow the large organisations that run the media fail to mention that they should also be prosecuted.
Rape and sexual assault that causes physical harm are usually clearly criminal, however, sexual harassment is criminal behaviour but merges by degrees with everyday behaviours, behaviours that can be extremely murky and complex. There is an excellent review "Romantic relationships at work: Why love can hurt" by Fiona Wilson (2014) that covers this complexity. The data in this article shows that 70% of UK workers have had a romantic relationship at work. This might seem harmless enough but in the US 17% of female graduate students in the study admit to a sexual relationship with a professor; this is potentially harmful because a power relationship is involved. These power relationships can begin as in the interests of both parties but where they end is problematical..
Superficially it seems obvious that there should be an utter ban on sexual relations between unequal levels in the power hierarchy of work. But what if one member of an equal relationship gets promoted or what about the overworked, single GP who only has the practice nurse and receptionist as female company? Should all sexual relationships at work be banned when 20% of marriages start in the workplace?
Suppose a female employee gives a male colleague a long gaze, looks down and giggles, wriggles up to him and he puts his hand on her knee. Is it clear that the male worker should have asked publicly "may I put my hand on your knee?"? Does the flirtatious worker get an unfair advantage when it comes to promotion? Certainly the flirtatious female salesperson obtains an advantage when selling to men.
Serious sexual offences must be prosecuted by the police and those covering up these offences, including entire organisations, should be prosecuted and the law tweaked to ensure such prosecutions can be made to stick. The problem of harassment is much more difficult. Where the harassment is obvious harassment it is already covered by existing legislation and the police need to act. Unfortunately much harassment is behaviourally similar to non-harassing relationships and becomes harassment because it is unwelcome by the harassed. There is no doubt that minor harassment can be as hurtful to victims as major harassment but how can an outside authority fairly arbitrate in such cases without the simplification of making all possible sexually harassing behaviour illegal? Banning all potentially harassing behaviour by law is a draconian measure that may inflict more harm on the workforce and society than the good it does for victims.
The way to stop "minor" harassment is fairly straightforward. The solution lies in spreading good management practice. Good managers should suppress overt flirting and sexual behaviour at work. I also believe that organisations need contractual codes of behaviour about sexual banter, sexual relations and sexual power relations at work but introducing the force of the law at this level is dubious and even dangerous to the health of society.
Reference
Wilson, F. (2015), Romantic Relationships at Work: Why Love Can Hurt. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17: 1–19. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12034
Rape and sexual assault that causes physical harm are usually clearly criminal, however, sexual harassment is criminal behaviour but merges by degrees with everyday behaviours, behaviours that can be extremely murky and complex. There is an excellent review "Romantic relationships at work: Why love can hurt" by Fiona Wilson (2014) that covers this complexity. The data in this article shows that 70% of UK workers have had a romantic relationship at work. This might seem harmless enough but in the US 17% of female graduate students in the study admit to a sexual relationship with a professor; this is potentially harmful because a power relationship is involved. These power relationships can begin as in the interests of both parties but where they end is problematical..
Superficially it seems obvious that there should be an utter ban on sexual relations between unequal levels in the power hierarchy of work. But what if one member of an equal relationship gets promoted or what about the overworked, single GP who only has the practice nurse and receptionist as female company? Should all sexual relationships at work be banned when 20% of marriages start in the workplace?
Suppose a female employee gives a male colleague a long gaze, looks down and giggles, wriggles up to him and he puts his hand on her knee. Is it clear that the male worker should have asked publicly "may I put my hand on your knee?"? Does the flirtatious worker get an unfair advantage when it comes to promotion? Certainly the flirtatious female salesperson obtains an advantage when selling to men.
Serious sexual offences must be prosecuted by the police and those covering up these offences, including entire organisations, should be prosecuted and the law tweaked to ensure such prosecutions can be made to stick. The problem of harassment is much more difficult. Where the harassment is obvious harassment it is already covered by existing legislation and the police need to act. Unfortunately much harassment is behaviourally similar to non-harassing relationships and becomes harassment because it is unwelcome by the harassed. There is no doubt that minor harassment can be as hurtful to victims as major harassment but how can an outside authority fairly arbitrate in such cases without the simplification of making all possible sexually harassing behaviour illegal? Banning all potentially harassing behaviour by law is a draconian measure that may inflict more harm on the workforce and society than the good it does for victims.
The way to stop "minor" harassment is fairly straightforward. The solution lies in spreading good management practice. Good managers should suppress overt flirting and sexual behaviour at work. I also believe that organisations need contractual codes of behaviour about sexual banter, sexual relations and sexual power relations at work but introducing the force of the law at this level is dubious and even dangerous to the health of society.
Reference
Wilson, F. (2015), Romantic Relationships at Work: Why Love Can Hurt. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17: 1–19. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12034
Comments