‘THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986, 1.155
ASYSTEM DYNAMICS MOBEL OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
James M. Norris
Institute for Government and Policy Studies
Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
State University of New York at Albany
Albany, New York 12222
ABSTRACT
The majority of women report that they have been victims
Of sexual harassment (Safran, 1976, Tangri, Burt & Johnson,
1982). Sexual harassment has been linked, both theoretically
and empirically, to psychological and physiological stress
often accompanied by somatic symptoms such as headaches
nausea, and loss of concentration, as well as decreases in job
performance and increased absenteeism and turnover. In
addition, estimated losses in the Federal government alone were
in excess of $189 million over a two year period. This paper
is one of the First to unify the past research and empirically
consider sexual harassment in terms of its underlying
mechanisms. It is also one of the first to examine the dynamics
of the harasser and the organization in which the harassment
occurred. Interactions between the victim, harasser, and
organization sector are explored. Results indicate that long-
standing organizational traditions of sexual harassment may
make it difficult to eliminate harassment in the near future
without a comprehensive group of policies concerned with
eradicating sexual harassment,
4.156 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
INTRODUCTION
Importance of Sexual Harassment
The majority of women report that they have been victims
of sexual harassment (Safran, 1976, Tangri, Burt & Johnson,
1982). Sexual harassment has been linked, both theoretically
and empirically, to psychological and physiological stress,
often accompanied by somatic symptoms such as headaches,
nausea, and loss of concentration, as well as decreases in job
performance and increased absenteeism and turnover. In one
study of Federal employees, twenty-nine percent of the 20,083
randomly stratified respondents (see Tangri et al., 1982, for a
description of this sample) reported that sexual harassment had
negatively affected their psychological health (United States
Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981). Aside from the
undesirability of these problems from a humane standpoint,
these variables carry attendant dollar costs.
Over a two year period, the United States Merit System
Protection Board CUSMSPB, 1981) estimated losses due to sexual
harassment were in excess of $189 million in the federal
government alone. This Figure includes costs associated with
turnover, medical insurance claims, absenteeism, and reduced
Productivity. In addition, increased awareness by women of
grievance avenues has led to a rise in costs due to lawsuits
and out-of-court settlements. As awareness of the costs and
consequences of sexual harassment increases among victims and
the judiciary, one might expect costs in the areas of
grievances and lawsuits to rise.
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.157
Due to the nature of sexual harassment, traditional
experimental research designs are inadequate. A laboratory
study of sexual harassment examining the effects of high levels
of harassmefit on psychological health would certainly pose
important ethical questions. Also, many organizations are
reluctant to allow their workers to participate in a study of
sexual harassment fearing an increase in harassment complaints
and legal actions. A system dynamics approach to the problem
of sexual harassment avoids some of these problems and allows
for a theoretical conceptualization of the problem.
This paper is one of the First to unify the past research
and empirically consider sexual harassment in terms of its
underlying mechanisms. It is also one of the First to examine
the dynamics of the harasser and the organization in which the
harassment occurred. Research relevant to the harasser and
organization sectors of the model are briefly reviewed.
Interactions between the victim, harasser, and organization
sector are explored. Finally, policy implications based on
model behavior are discussed.
Review of the Literature
Theories of Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment has been defined as "Unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal and
physical conduct of sexual nature” (Hoyman, 1980, p. 13).
attempts to explain sexual harassment have fallen into four
main categories: the natural/biological, the organizational,
1.158 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
the socio-cultural (Tangri et al., 1982); and the spillover
approach (Gutek and Morasch, 1982). These orientations have
been developed From research, court cases, and legal defenses
(Tangri et al., 1982).
Th
tural/Biological Theory. The natural/biological
approach is based on the assumption of natural attraction
between people. One position holds that men have stronger sex
drives and express it in the workplace when women are around.
Another version posits that people in general have sexual needs
and will attempt to develop sexual relations with others in the
workplace. Still another version the of natural/biological
approach holds that it is only a few ”"sickos” who are harassing
women. Tangri et al. (1982) note that the natural/biological
explanation senves to minimize the importance of harassment as
a problem while simultaneously accepting harassment as a
natural phenomenon to be expected in organizations.
The Organizational Theoru, The ot ganizations view of
sexual harassment holds that organizational variables such as
organizational structure, status differentials and
organizational climate promote sexual harassment. Because of
promotion and termination power over their subordinates,. bosses
may coerce subordinates into unwanted sexual relationships.
This is particularly a problem where the victim’s position has
been classified as probationary.
The Socio-Cultural Theory. The socio-cultural
interpretation of sexual harassment is based on the premise of
a male-dominated society Further attempting to keep women from
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.159
attaining economic, political and social power. Men are in
positions of status and power and do not want to share them.
Supporters of this view maintain that forcing women to engage
in unwanted sexual attention increases the power of the
harasser. Sexual harassment maintains the status quo by
intimidation, discouragement, and the objectification of women
(Tangri et al., 1982).
The Spillover Theory. The spillover approach proposed by
Gutek and Morasch (1982) maintains that role expectations on
the job are a function of the sex-roles of the numerically
dominant sex. This means that the nontraditionally employed
woman is often viewed First as a woman,
then as 4 worker, Her
sex-role and work-role are incongruent, which is a possible
explanation for the increased number of harassment incidents
reported by women in nontraditional jobs (Gutek & Morasch,
1982).
While reporting less harassment, women working in
traditional jobs are not immune to it (Gutek & Morasch, 1982).
By their nature, traditional Jobs tend to be sex-segregated and
reinforce the expectations of sex-role behavior. The sex-role
and the work-role become equivalent. Women holding these kinds
of jobs are expected to act in stereotypical fashion. The
sexuality of women is one dimension that spills over from sex-
role to expected job behavior.
The Theories Examined. Tangri et al. (1982) examined
these three conceptualizations of harassment using data
obtained from the United States Merit Systems Protection Board
4.160 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
(1981). They found that none of the first three theories
seemed to adequately represent the dynamics of sexual
harassment. They were much too simple to account for the many
interactions Found in the system (Tangri et al., 1982).
For example, the natural/biological version would assert
that because sexual harassment is a result of natural
attraction, victims would be singled out by their
attractiveness, In their analysis of the Merit System
Protection Board data, Tangri et al. (1982) found that only a
few people report being the sole object of their harasser’s
sexual attention. Additionally, this version would suggest
that harassers would likely be the same age and social level as
their victims. They Found, however, that those who harassed
women tended to be older than their victims, while those
harassing males were younger, particulariy in the case of women
harassing men.
The organizational representation of ‘sexual harassment can
be faulted for several reasons. Most harassers are coworkers
(Tangri et al., 1982), and not superiors as this theory would
predict. The socio-cultural theory of sex harassment can be
similarly faulted. It-holds that harassment is a tool to "keep
_women in their place” both economically and in organizational
status. Supporters of this perspective would then expect an
organization to respond negatively to harassment complaints.
In fact, only a very small percentage of sex. harassment victims
reported a hostile response. Formal action was often more
effective at stopping the harassment than the victims had
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986, 1.161
expected (Tangri et al., 1982).
As for the spillover theory, Gutek and Morasch (1982)
argue that awareness of sexual harassment arises From the
knowledge that one is being treated differently than other
workers, This would explain why women in nontraditional jobs
report more harassment than traditionally employed women,
Still, the sex-role spillover approach does not explain
harassment For all women in all jobs. Nor does it explain the
harassment of male workers.
Perceptions of Sexual Harassment
The relative status and power of the harasser plays a role
in the categorization of behaviors. The greater the status
differential between the initiator and the victim, the less
likely the mild forms (e.g. sexual jokes, leering) of
harassment would be classified as such (cf. Brewer, 1982).
However, when the initiator of harassment is perceived to have
social or organizational power over the individual, a sexual
advance will more often be viewed as an abuse of power (Brewer,
1982). For example, in an academic setting where the power
differential is very apparent, professors’ advances are not
well received (Schneider, 1982). But when considering the
social-sexual behaviors of airline personnel, Littler-Bishop,
Seidler-Feller, and Opaluch (1982) found less negative affect
to supervisory harassment than coworker harassment. The status
differential between harasser and victim was perceived to be
smaller by the airline employees than by the students.
1.162 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
In the latter situation, Brewer hypothesized that any
positive affect gained because of the instructor’s status and
resulting social exchange would be offset by the perceived
abuse of power. She believes the relationship between the size
of the status differential and the perception of sexual
advances as harassing behavior to be curvilinear. Overtures
from someone with slightly more status will be perceived
positively because of social exchange (i.e. "I look better when
I am with him or her”). Large status differences, on the other
hand, will also be perceived as large power differences
(Brewer, 1982), resulting in a perception of the overtures as an
abuse of power.
Gutek (1983) concludes by stating that men and women tend
to agree about men’s perceptions of sexual behavior at work.
They do not agree, however, on individual women’s perceptions
”...women do not like sexual advances at work” (Gutek, 1983, p.
13). While they perceive other women as being Flattered by
propositions, most women report that they are not. Similar
Findings are reported by Schneider (1982). In addition, women
often disagree as to what constitutes sexual harassment
(Collins @ Blodgett, 1981).
Antecedents and Consequences of Sexual Harassment
Antecedents. Harassers, for the most part, are men.
Other than this fact, the profile of the typical harasser is
sketchy. As Brewer (1982) observed, most of the research to
date has tended to concentrate on victims and their
descriptions of harassers. Coworkers are reportedly the most
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.163
common perpetrators of sexual harassment (65% for women, 76%
for men}, although supervisors are much more likely to harass
uiomen. Subordinate harassers are less of a problem for women
than For men
6
Even though supervisors account for
only about ome third of harassment of women, social and
cultural power differentials may still be important (Tangri et
al., 19822. For example, the woman may work as part of a team
and rely .on the assistance of her coworkers. Also, there may
be an “old boy” network to which the harassing coworker may
belong CH. P. Curran, Director of The Office of Women and Work
Michigan Department of Labor, personal communication, January
ti, 1984). The use of power in these situations is subtle and
most closely approximates that described in the socio-cultural
model (Tangri et al., 1882). In addition, unchecked coworker
harassment may leave the impression that the organization
condones and even encourages harassing behaviors.
Organizational factors may have a part in determining
levels of sexual harassment at work (Gutek & Morasch, 1982).
Hoyman (1980) Found that those holding jobs at either end of
the status spectrum experienced more harassment, This would
support Gutek and Morasch’s (1982) hypothesis about sex-role
spillover. Blue collar jobs tend to be male dominated, as do
white collar jobs. By virtue of the nontraditional sex-roles
held by women in these jobs, one could expect that more
harassment would be reported. It is difficult to discern if
there is in Fact more harassment or if these women simply
perceive more behaviors as sexual harassment CHoyman, 1980).
1.164 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY, SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
Consequences of Sexual Harassment. A.great deal more
research has been conducted on the aftereffects of sexual
harassment than on its origins. These tend to be most severe
for the victim, but secondary consequences are passed on to all
members of society in terms of higher insurance rates,
unemployment, and lost productivity (Tangri et al., 1982).
The stress resulting from sexual harassment can have
devastating physical and psychological effects. Over ninety
percent of those who had experienced sexual harassment reported
increased stress levels (Crull, 1978; Curran, 19783. Twenty-
nine percent of the victims reported that sexual harassment has
negatively affected their psychological well-being (Curran,
1979). Similar results were reported by Tangri et al. C1s8z2,
with women reporting more negative effects (33%) than men
(21%). Somatic complaints such as headaches, nervousness and
nausea are common (Jensen & Gutek, 1982). Sleeplessness,
dramatic weight gains and reductions, hypertension, and
depression are also routinely reported.
The result is that many victims adopt work-avoidance
behaviors (Curran, 1979), This is manifested as high
distractibility (Jensen & Gutek, 1982), decreased motivation to
work (Jensen & Gutek, 1982), tardiness (Curran, 1978, Houman,
1980), absenteeism (Curran, 1973, 1984; Hoyman, 1980) and
decreased productivity (e.g. Curran, 1879; Tangri et al.,
1982).
Some victims do protest about sexual harassment.
Livingston (1982) Found that fifty-four percent of her sample
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.165
reported that their strongest response improved the situation.
Positive results were more likely to scour when the harasser
was a coworker (683%) than when he was a supervisor (48%).
Livingston also noted that women were more likely to formally
report harassment when the harasser was in a supervisory
position.
Most victims do not use Formal grievance procedures,
however, Because of ignorance about their legal rights
(Livingston, 1982), length of time required to resolve the
issue (Hanley, 1960), legal expenses (Livingston, 1982), and
lack of support from family, Friends, coworkers, and community
CH. P. Curran, personal communication, January 11, 1984), most
victims chose not to Formally complain. For those that do file
formal complaints, the price can be high. Fifty-three percent
were either transferred to another job or discharged. Poor
evaluations, denied promotions, or "voluntary” terminations
were experienced by nearly twenty-five percent of those who
complained about harassment, while ten percent were either
demoted or simply not hired. Only eighteen percent reported no
consequence of complaining about sexual harassment (Curran,
1979). Livingston’s (1982) analysis of the USNSPB data found
similar results.
A woman who speaks out risks being labeled as an agitator
and a "complainer” CRenick, 1980) and will often lose the
support of other workers (Jensen & Gutek, 1982), Many women
particularly those with traditional sex-role beliefs, attribute
the harassment received by other women to sexy dress or
1.166 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986,
behavior (Jensen & Gutek, 1982). As as result of all of the
feelings outlined above, the woman may begin to believe that
performance previously judged as being good was based on her
looks or sexual qualities, rather than on her ability as a
worker €Benson & Thompson, 1982). Her Feelings of competence
about her ability to perform the job may then suffer CBensan &
Thompson, 1982). Self-esteem may also plummet because of self-
blame, perceived SHeORpRTEAOY, and lack of support from other
workers (Curran, 1979).
The consequences of reported harassment are much less
severe for the harasser than for the victim (Curran, 1979),
Livingston's analysis €1962) of the USMSPB (1981) data revealed
that action was taken against forty-four percent of the sexual
harassers. Curran (1979) found that no action of consequence
was taken against seventy-eight percent of the harassers.
These figures are all the more discouraging in light of
Livingston’s (1982) observation that formal channels are
usually used only in cases involving severe cases of harassment
by @ superior of a person in a lower status position.
The Sexual Harassment Model
The system dynamics model of sexual harassment builds on
the previous descriptive models (Tangri, et al., 1981, Gutek &
Morasch, 1982) to include the harasser and the organization in
which the harassment occurs. In particular, the effects on the
victim’s job performance, and the harasser’s anger at being
rebuffed by the noncomplying victim are presented. The
dynamics of the organizational response to sexual harassment
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.167
complaints are also examined:
Sexual harassment is hypothesized to be a function of
harasser, victim, and organizational variables. Central to the
model are two characteristics of the victim, his or her use of
coping skills to stop most harassment before it becomes
serious, and the ability to activate other means to reduce
harassment. The effects of the harasser’s anger, perception of
threat, retribution, and attitudes about gender work roles on
sexually harassing behavior are explored. Finally,
organizational variables including sexual harassment tradition,
harassment tolerance, and response to harassment complaints are
considered.
Hypothesized variable linkages were derived From
interviews with the Director of the Office of Women and Women
and Work, Michigan Department of Labor; and the Departmental
Counselor and the Director of Minority ard Women’s Programs,
both of the Division of Human Relations at Michigan State
University. Other sources of information included reviews of
victim case studies, and work done by other modelers (e.g.
Goluke, 1980; Levine, Van Sell, & Rubin, 1986).
Yictim Job Performance
Job performance is hypothesized to be a function of the
victim’s baseline performance and the effects of the ratio
between the stress experienced by the victim and the amount of
stress at which the victim functions best. Curran Cpersonal
communication, January 11, 1984) and Powell, Benzinger, Bruno,
Gibson, Pfeiffer, & Santopietro, (1981) noted that many victims
4.168 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
claimed their performance increased after the onset of
harassment. The dynamics of this phenomenon can be explained
by the model (see Figure 1).
Compiionce
‘Secial Credit Perceived Pertermence
Sirsa. Relative Job Perfermenct
| L
Actual Performance J Performance Horm
Figure i: Causal loop diagram of vict
perceived performance.
‘"s performance and
As the inficw of st:mulation is increased by sexual
harassment, stress and the stress ratio also increase. This
increase in stress has a noniinear effect on job performance.
The inverted "J” relationship between stress and job performance
has been well documented Ce.g. Scott, 1966). As stress reaches
ats optimal value, the victim’s job performance peaks. the
harassed victims have increased stress levels that allow them
to perform better. If the harassment stops, job performance
eventually returns to normal, If the harassment continves, or
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.169
if the victim is Faced with other stressors, stress will
increase beyond the optimal level leading to a decrement in
performance. °
All things being equal, the organization’s perception of a
victim’s job performance usually correlated with his or her
actual performance on the job relative ta other works. But
other Factors like halo and the effects of harasser retribution
can increase the discrepancy between reality and perception.
Compliance can also affect perceived performance. Submitting to
a higher status harasser’s demands may gain the victim a
Rromotion or raise. The harasser would justify these action as
as being deserved by a competent, valusd employes. However,
these positive effects of compliance are probably short-lived.
On the other hand, complying with a harasser of equal or less
social credit may be viewed negatively by the organization and
coworkers. The victim may be seen as promiscuous and
unprofessional.
Social Credit
Social credit, adapted from Goluke’s alcoholism model
(19803, is comparable to a financial credit rating. -A good
rating allows one to take out larger loans at the bank.
Similarly, a person with high social credit can borrow against
that credit, Although similar to organizational status, social
credit is more encompassing, including socio-cultural variables
not typically identified in the organizational structure. For
example, although two people may hold comparable positions
within the organization and receive the same pay, one of them
4.470 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
may be liked more than the other. Given undesirable behavior,
an organization may treat the high and low social credit person
differently. The liked individual may be told to do better
next time, while the unpopular person may be less gently
treated.
In terms of the model, social credit becomes important
when considering the validity accorded harassment complaints
and tolerance of the victim’s reduced job performance that may
result from harassment. Social credit of the victim, harasser,
and a victim/harasser social credit ratio are considered as key
variables.
If the organization perceives a performance drop, social
credit will also soon decrease. But the time over which the
organization evaluates performance is influenced by the
victim’s social credit. Several days of poor work for the low
social credit victim may provide the organization a sufficient
excuse for disciplinary action. The person with a high social
credit rating may perform poorly for several years before
action is initiated.
Other factors that may work to decrease the victim’s
social credit include harasser retribution and the ‘pursual of
grievance or legal proceedings. The harasser may seek revenge
for noncompliance with sexual demands or refusal to participate
in nonphysical sexual behaviors (e.g. leering). Retribution
may take the form of rumors about the "wanton” nature of the
victim or attempts to impugn his or her motives for initiation
of informal or formal action. The organization tolerant of
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.171
sexual harassment is also likely to respond negatively to
Formal grievance or legal action, The victim becomes a painful
annoyance and embarrassment. In this instance, the "squeaky
wheel" often gets the axe. This is particularly true of a low
social credit victim with high levels of external coping
skills,
Harasser’s. Anger and Retribution
Faced with a noncompliant victim, the harasser may grow
angry because of embarrassment, Fear of being caught and
punished, actual punishment, and ego deflation. Additionally,
high levels of anger can feed on itself, stimulating aver-
increasing levels of anger. OF course, anger does not climb
indefinitely. The model specifies two means for decreasing the
anger level: leakage and venting (see Figure 2).
Leakage is one process by which the level of anger can be
reduced. Leakage, a dissipative process, is more passive than
the explosiveness of venting. The venting of anger occurs
after anger reaches a threshold beyond which the harasser
cannot contain the pressure. The vented anger can be directed
at coworkers or family, released through physical activity, or
aimed at the noncompliant victim. The harasser may also Focus
the anger inward, blaming himself for inappropriate behavior.
A distinction is made between anger directed at the victim and
retribution against the victim. While both may be stressful
for the victim, once the former is completed things return to
normal. Retribution is a more insidious, planned process that
occurs over a longer period of time.
1.172 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
Herasser’s Compliance Orgenization's
Fear of Response te
Penishment Harassment 5
x
Anger ——
—
Retribution
+l
+
Ethics,
Leakage a aa)
Victim's Percerved 4 Retribution ») wn
Perceived J Victim's Social
Perfo Credit
Ce)
Figure 2, Causel lcop diagram of harasser anger and
retribution,
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986, 1.173
Some people have ethics prohibiting retribution and vent
their anger in other, more acceptable ways. Others may find
retribution a perfectly acceptable venting process. Such a
harasser, identified by an ethical system allowing for
retribution, will only consider the possibility of getting
caught before retaliating. But a very angry harasser may be
too impassioned to consider the consequences of harassment
behavior or want to get even in spite of the potential
punishment. Once a very high anger threshold is reached, the
crazed individual pushes ethics and fear of punishment aside,
setting the course For reprisal, The threshold is, of course,
an individual parameter.
Retribution may take many Forms. Increased harassment and
threats of physical harm are Fairly obvious examples of
retribution. Retribution is usually more subtle, though. When
the harasser is a superior retribution may appear as deflated
performance reviews. These evaluations may be difficult to
dispute, particularly in Jobs where evaluation criteria are
abstract. Sabotage or exclusion From teamwork are retribution
avenues open to the coworker harasser.
Organizational Harassment Tradition and
Tolerance of Sexual Harassment
Organizational tolerance cf sexual harassment is a
function of the long-standing harassment tradition. Although
related, there is an important distinction between the
harassment tradition and the organization’s tolerance of sexual
harassment. Due to changes in the legal or ethical climate,
4.174 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
the organization's harassment tradition may not equal the
organizational tolerance of sexual harassment. The harassment
tradition ig a phenoménon that evolves over a long period of
time. [£ the tolerance changes quickly, the discrepancy
between the tolerance and the tradition may cause confusion.
The resuit is that the harassers within a organization may not
believe the organization is naw intolerant of sexual
harassment. Victims may also be slow to trust the organization
and take a wait-and-see attitude before beginning to use
grievance resources.
Organizational Response to_
@n organization's response to sexual harassment is
determined by its tolerance level, victim, and harasser social
credit, the social credit ratio, and the victim’s effectively
available external coping skills (see Figure 3). . Before the
organization can respond, the victim must use coping skills to
alert the organization that harassment is a problem. The
effectiveness of the victim’s coping skills on organizational
response is probably a function of several organizational and
individual variables. The size of the organization, its
attitudes about people Filing complaints, and beliefs about
gender work-roles are examples of organizational factors that
would moderate the victim's ability to force the organization
to respond. Individual variables might include. secial support
from Friends, family and coworkers, and legal support from
government agencies or civil rights groups.
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.175
Secial Credit
Reite J
Heraszer’s Victim's
Organization Seciel Creat Secrel Creat
Te Vietum's
© External
\ | . Coping Skits
; Orgamtzetionsl
Respense te
fo rere
i (oo) i
Me
\ feresser Harassment
tos
Harasser Perception 4
of (hreat
Figure 3. Causal loop diagram of Organizational response
tc sexual harassment.
Both the actual leveis of victim and harasser social
credit, as well as their reiative value, are considered in the
erganization’s response to sexual harassment. High status
harassers and victims will likely evoke a less vigorous
response that those with low social credit. This is due to the
organization’s desire to keep their high social credit people.
The social.credit ratio, on the other hand, considers the
relative social credit discrepancy between the harasser and
victim. Punishment of a sexual harasser is a function of the
strength of the organization’s response.
1.176 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
esul ind Discu:
Several simulation-runs were conducted. Figure + shows
the effect of harassment on the victim’s job performance. The
organization has a harassment tradition that is moderately
tclerant of sexual harassment. Current organizational
tolerance deviates little From established tradition. The
“simulated harasser has a fairly negative view of women at work.
The simulation begins at the onset of moderate amounts of
sexual harassment. Cver the next two weeks, Job performance
climbs dramatically before it begins to decrease. By the eighth
week performance has returned to its normal level.
Sexual Harassment: =—- Performancet — ——
oamme
Figure 4. Performance increase as a result of sexual
harassment.
‘THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.177
In this instance the victim possessed sufficient coping
skills to reduce the sexual harassment. Had this particuler
victim been under severe stress from more serious sexual
harassment or other stressors, job performance would have
dropped below its original value. Low levels of social credit,
self esteem, or coping skills would also make it likely that
performance would drop below the original level.
Figure S shows the effect of decreased organizational
tolerance on the system. Simulated over a two year period, the
organization's tolerance of sexual harassment is abruptly
changed after the First year. The organization was initially
parameterized as being very tolerant of sexual harassment.
After one year the tolerance was reduced to one-tenth of its
original value. This could have been the result of new
management or a change in the legal climate.
As can be seen, although sexual harassment sharply
decreases, it soon climbs back towards its initial value. This
is because the harassment tradition has yet to change, and the
harasser does not believe the organization is sincere about its
intolerance of harassment. Within several weeks, however, the
harasser comes to realize the organization will not tolerate
sexual harassment, and harassment behavior is decreased.
Although this exaggerated a tolerance change is unlikely
to occur in a real system, Figure 5 does demonstrate the
applicability of the systems approach to the problem of sexual
harassment. Clearly, a change in tolerance is not enough to
stop the harassment. But perhaps combined with training
1.178 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
Sexual Harassment: ——- ——
Organizational Tolerance: —
Figure $, Shift in organizational tolerance of sexual
harassment.
programs, behavioral evidence of intolerance of harassment, and
other acts of good faith, the victims and harassers may come to
see that the organization is sincere in its new intolerance.
Over a period of several years, a time frame outside the
dynamics of this model, one would expect that the harassment
tradition would begin to reflect the orgdnizational tolerance.
on Si
The biological, organizational, and socio-cultural
harassment models (Tangri, et al., 1981); and the spillover
approach (Gutek & Morasch, 1882) were integrated in the dynamic
|HE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.179
medel af sex
harassment, The biglogical approach assumes
thst harassment is s Function of natural attraction between
pecple. The harasser sim
does not realize the effect of the
harassment on the victim. This harasser will stop making
sexual overtures when the victim indicates they are not
appreciated. A relatively low level of coping skills is needed
to stop the harassment stemming From natural attraction.
The use of the harassment tradition and organizational
tolerance, as well as victim and harasser social credit and the
social credit ratio, in the dynamic model represents the
organizational approach. Organizations with strong traditions
of sexual harassment often condone or encourage it. The
victim's and harasser’s social credit and ratio, in part,
determine how strongiy the organization responds to sexual
harassment complaints. The harasser with very high social
credit will elicit a milder response than a mailroom clerk
This is particularly true
the victim has much less social
credit than the harasser.
The socio-cultural approach is represented in the
dynamic model by the harasser’s attitudes about gender work
roles and the harassment tradition, The organization's sexual
harassment tradition is attributable to locally prevailing
social norms. The spillover approach is also represented by
the harasser’s attitudes about gender work roles. The victim’s
work-role and sex-role are incongruent.
1.180 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
Depending on the parameterization of the individual,
harasser, and organization, the mechanisms representing one or
more of the above approaches will dominate the model’s
behavior. For example, the mechanisms representing the
organizational approach will dominate in the organization that
tolerates sexual harassment.
Simulation of the model suggests that no one policy will
be effective over the long run in reducing and eliminating
sexual harassment. Continued assurance to victims and
harassers of the organization’s stance must form the Foundation
of any harassment policy. Sexual harassment is a phenomenon
based on long established socio-cultural values that are
reflected by the organization and its members.
For changes in the organization’s sexual harassment
climate to be possible, a concerted effort must be made to
convince both harassers and victims that the organization is
Sincere in its desire to stop sexual harassment. The expected
time horizon is probably a function of the discrepancy between
the harassment tradition and organizational tolerance of sexual
harassment, victim coping skills, and environmental (e.g.
legal) pressure.
THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986. 1.181
REFERENCES
Benson, D. J., & Thomson, G. (1982). Sexual harassment on a
university campus: The confluence of authority relations,
sexual interest, and gender stratification. Social
Problems, 29(3), 236-251.
Brewer, M. B. (1982). Further beyond niné to five: An
integration and future directions. Journal oF Sovial
Issues, 38(4), 149-158.
Collins, E. G., & Blodgett, T. B. (1981). Sexual harassment:
Some see it..,.some won’t. Harvard Business Review, 59,
76-95.
Crull, P, C1980). The impact of sexual harassment on the job:
a profile of the experiences of $2 women. In 0. Neugarten
& J. Shafritz, Sexwalitu in Organizations: Romantic and
Coercive Behaviors at Work (pp. 67-71). Oak Park, IL:
Moore Publishing Co., Inc.
Curran, H. P. (1979). Chairperson, Michigan task force on
sexual harassment in the workplace Lansing, MI:
Department of Labor, Office of Women and Work.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines on
discrimination because of sex. (1980). Federal Register
45(219), 74676-74677.
Goluke, U. 1980.A comprehensive theory of the pathogenesis of
alcoholism: Appendix. Resource Policy Center, Thayer
School of Engineering, Dartmouth College.
Gutek, B. A. CAugust, 1983). Men’s and women’s attitudes
about social-sexual behavior at work. Paper presented at
the Academy of Management Meeting, Dallas, TX.
Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1962). Sex-ratios, sex-role
spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work.
Journal of Social Issues, 38C4), 55-74.
Hanley, J. H. (1980). Chairman, He ings before the
subcommittee on investigations on the committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives.
Ninety-sixth Congress, First Session. Washington, DC;
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hoyman, M. mM. (1880). The EE : se’
harassment;..The solution or 1 ust ne be. Stray Urbana~
Champaign: University of Tiiineis. Institute of Labor and
Industrial Relations.
1.182 THE 1986 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE SYSTEM DINAMICS SOCIETY. SEVILLA, OCTOBER, 1986.
Jensen, 1. W., & Gutek, B. A. (1982). Attributions and
assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment.
Journal of Social Issues, 38¢4), 121-136.
Levine, R. L., Van Sell, M., Rubin, B. (1886). Work in
progress, Department of Psychology, Michigan State
Univers#ty, East Lansing, MI.
Littler-Bishop, S., Seidler-Feller, D., & Opaluch, R. (1982).
Sexual harassment in the workplace as a Function of
initaator’s status: The case of airline personnel.
Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 137-148.
Livingston, J. A. (1982). Responses to sexual harassment on
the Job: legal, organizational, and individual actions.
Journal. of Social Issues, 38¢4), 5-22,
Powell, G. N., Benzinger, @., Bruno, A. A., Gibson, T. N.
Pfeiffer, M. L., & Santopietro, T. P. C19813. Se
harassment as defined bu working women. Storrs:
University of Connecticut, School of Business
Administration.
Renick, J. C. ¢€1980). Sexual harassment at work: why it
happens, what to do about it. Personnel Jo!
658-562.
Safran, C. (1976), What men do to women on the job: a
shocking look at sexual harassment. Redbook,
Au(November), pp. 14S, 217-218.
Schneider, B.. (1982). Conscicusness about sexual harassment
among heterosexual and lesbian women. Journal of Social
Issues, 38¢4), 75-97.
Scott, W. E. (1966). Activation theory and task design.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 3-30.
Tangri, S. S,, Burt, M. R., 8 Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual
harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of
s Bach), 33-S4.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Merit Systems
Review and Studies. (1981). Sexual harassment in the
£ederal workplace a_problem? Washington, DE: U.S.
Government Printing Office. :
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0