 |
| Former RCMP constable Janet Merlo (Chad Hipolito for The Globe and Mail) |
Text from my affidavit brought under the Class Proceedings Act in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to inform the court in the gender discrimination case brought against the RCMP.
What is the meaning of gender-based discrimination against women in the workplace?
The meaning of gender-based discrimination against women in the workplace is the presence of unequal and inferior opportunities, terms, and/or conditions of employment for women compared to men.
Gender-based discrimination can be established by comparing the opportunities, terms, and/or conditions of employment experienced by women and men. Whenever possible, this comparison should control for other characteristics that can influence opportunities, terms, and/or conditions of employment, and should examine whether such characteristics interact with gender to affect employment outcomes.
Other characteristics than can affect opportunities, terms, and/or conditions of employment include age, experience, education, rank, income, race, personality, gender expression, sexual preference, marital status, children, and domestic caregiving activities. Some of these characteristics have been shown to interact with gender to affect employment outcomes. For example, being a parent has been shown to improve men’s, but to hurt women’s, employment outcomes, controlling for characteristics such as age, experience, education, rank, and performance.1 As another example, women, but not men, with agentic personalities (i.e., assertive, outspoken, and self-confident) have been shown to be negatively evaluated and to experience gender-based harassment, all else equal.2 Such studies demonstrate that what gets rewarded in men gets punished in women in the workplace, and that the terms and conditions of employment are unequal and inferior for women compared to men.
What is the meaning of gender-based harassment against women in the workplace?
The meaning of gender-based harassment against women in the workplace is the presence of unequal and inferior treatment of women compared to men. Gender-based harassment is a type of gender-based discrimination, as unequal and inferior treatment can constitute or influence unequal and inferior opportunities, terms, and/or conditions of employment.
Gender-based harassment against women often involves sexually derogatory treatment, attention, come-ons, comments, jokes, materials, and pranks.3 This type of “sexual” behavior is designed to degrade women and remind those involved in the harassment of men’s dominance over women, sexually and otherwise.4 Gender-based harassment against women can also involve general acts of mistreatment that do not directly reference sex, gender, or sexuality, such as repeated ignoring, exclusion, slander, sabotage, withholding of information or favors, undermining, and calling a target’s competence into question.5
Gender-based harassment against women is most common in male-dominated domains6 and has been shown to be triggered by threats to men’s identities and self-esteem as men.7 For example, studies8 have shown that men who consider having a male identity particularly important are more likely to send sexually derogatory images to women who express interest in working in a typically male occupation and the belief that women are equally competent to men. This act of gender-based harassment served to help restore the men’s sense of male identity and self-esteem.
Gender-based harassment against women in the workplace generally comes from, but is not limited to, male perpetrators.9Women can put other women down based on gender and are likely to be rewarded for doing so in male-dominated environments.10 For example, a woman can call another woman a “slut” or put down her performance in order to gain favor or inclusion among the men in the environment.
Gender-based harassment can also be directed against men.11 Gender-based harassment against men often involves insulting women, such as derogating a man by suggesting he is like a (inferior) woman (e.g., suggesting a man performs like a woman sexually or plays a “woman’s” role). Thus, gender-based harassment against men typically serves the dual purpose of demeaning a particular man and of demeaning women in general.12Gender-based harassment against women and men is thus part of the same system of behavior that penalizes individuals who do not engage in gender stereotypical behavior, and often serves to preserve a domain of work for those considered to be “real men.”13
What is the impact on women who have been the subject of gender-based discrimination and/or harassment in the workplace?
The impact on women who have been the subject of gender-based discrimination and/or harassment in the workplace is typically a downward spiral of impaired professional and personal well-being, especially if the discrimination and/or harassment is not stopped.
Gender-based discrimination and/or harassment has been shown to have the following effects on targets:14
§ Diminished professional status and reputation
§ Impaired concentration and performance
§ Decreased motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
§ Increased work withdrawal, tardiness, absenteeism, and turnover
§ Social rejection and isolation
§ Deterioration of personal relationships
§ Depression, suicidal ideation, and attempted suicide
§ Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
§ Alcohol and substance abuse
§ Diminished physical health and well-being
Gender-based discrimination and harassment can directly diminish a target’s professional status and reputation by encouraging others to view the target in a demeaning light.15 It can also indirectly diminish a target’s status and reputation by interfering with the target’s concentration and performance.16
Gender-based discrimination and harassment interferes with concentration and performance as targets attempt to cope with the threat of being devalued, humiliated, and unable to control or prevent their experiences of negative treatment and outcomes in the workplace. This impaired concentration and performance, in turn, has cascading effects on the target’s confidence and others’ evaluations of the target’s worth and abilities. The effects of gender-based discrimination and harassment thus end up providing justification for the mistreatment and its continuation (e.g., “I toldyou she/they was/were no good!”).17
Employees who experience gender-based discrimination and harassment have been shown to suffer lowered motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, and to be more likely to behaviorally withdraw from work (e.g., avoid meetings, count the time left in the workday, daydream as a psychological escape), be tardy, absent, and quit.18
Targets of gender-based discrimination and harassment are also likely to experience social rejection and isolation in their work environments as other employees distance themselves from these devalued and stigmatized targets. The stress and negative effects of discrimination and harassment often spill over into employees’ personal lives and well-being. Personal relationships deteriorate as targets bring their stress into the home and their personal lives. Gender-based discrimination and harassment has been linked to depression, suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol and substance abuse, and lowered physical health and well-being.19
These effects of gender-based discrimination and harassment are likely to be exacerbated when discrimination and harassment is ongoing, complaints do not lead to meaningful action or cessation of the behavior, and particularly if attempts to stand up to the discrimination and harassment result in retaliation.
Are there policies, procedures, codes of conduct or guidelines that an employer can implement to protect women against gender-based discrimination and harassment of women in the workplace?
Yes.
If the answer to question [d.] is yes, are there steps an employer can take to ensure that its policies, procedures, codes of conduct and guidelines on gender-based discrimination and harassment are complied with?
There are steps an employer can take to make sure its policies, procedures, codes of conduct, and guidelines on gender-based discrimination and harassment are complied with.20
A written document informing employees of these policies, procedures, codes of conduct, and guidelines is necessary, but not sufficient. These policies, procedures, codes of conduct, and guidelines must be actively provided to all employees (as opposed to passively provided among dozens of other documents or online resources), be made readily available and accessible at all times, and publicized and communicated to everyone in the organization.
Employees considered for promotion to the managerial ranks should be required to undergo training so they are thoroughly informed about these policies, procedures, codes of conduct, and guidelines and how to follow, implement, and communicate these policies as managers. Failing to follow, implement, or communicate policy, procedures, codes of conduct, and guidelines on gender-based discrimination and harassment should disqualify an employee from a managerial position. Repeat offenders should be terminated.
Are there standards for employers in Canada to protect women against gender-based discrimination and harassment in the workplace?
Provincial health and safety acts and federal human rights legislation oblige employers in Canada to protect women against gender-based discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and standards and best practices exist for employers to ensure these laws are observed.21
The steps outlined above in [e.] should be followed. In addition, leadership, providing victims with multiple channels of advice seeking and/or reporting, immediate investigation into complaints, meaningful attempts to resolve the problem and/or consequences for offenders, and zero tolerance for retaliation are standards for employers in Canada to follow to protect women against gender-based discrimination and harassment in the workplace.22
Leadership. The importance of leadership in creating and encouraging an organizational culture and work environment free of gender-based discrimination and harassment cannot be overstated. Research shows that if employees do not believe the leadership of their organization “has religion” on this issue – that is, if employees are not convinced that leadership truly believes in gender-based equality and values a work environment free of gender-based discrimination – then gender-based discrimination and harassment tends to thrive.23 If employees witness leadership engaging in gender-based discrimination and harassment (e.g., making disparaging or derogatory remarks about women), observe leadership ignoring these acts by others, or observe leadership rewarding or promoting employees known to have engaged in gender-based discrimination and harassment, then gender-based discrimination and harassment flourishes.24 Under such circumstances, leadership commits, condones, and rewards gender-based discrimination and harassment, leaving employees to conclude that engaging in gender-based discrimination and harassment has no negative, and is likely to have positive, consequences.
Leaders who vocally express a heartfelt and sincere concern about gender-based equality, promote it themselves through their own actions, and communicate that they will hold those who fail to uphold these values and practices accountable (and do so), can have an immediate and profound impact on minimizing or eliminating gender-based discrimination and harassment in their organizations.25
Multiple and independent channels for reporting. Victims of gender-based discrimination and harassment often experience it at the hands of those to whom they report and in units that condone or somehow reward the behavior (e.g., from laughing at it to joining in, and/or viewing the target in a demeaning light). For this reason, units are often bad at investigating and stopping their own gender-based discrimination and harassment. Leaders and managers often hesitate to go against the grain of unit norms and culture, and are timid about investigating or penalizing their friends and coworkers for bad behavior (the so-called foxes-guarding-the-chicken-coop problem). Victims (and bystanders) are aware of this and therefore hesitate to stand up against or make formal complaints. Ironically, this means that units with particularly high rates of gender-based discrimination and harassment often witness the fewest formal complaints.
Most victims of discrimination and harassment simply want this unwanted behavior to stop.26 To this end, victims need multiple options, places, and people to go to for seeking advice and considering whether to make a formal complaint and if so, to whom and how.27Sources independent of the victim’s unit should be available for victims to go to, such as an ombudsperson over whom the leadership of the organization or unit does not have power. This enables the ombudsperson to make independent and sage advice for the victim(s), and also makes it possible for this person to gather confidential data on patterns observed in the organization.
Another way that organizations can gather information on gender-based discrimination and harassment in their organizations, identify and correct perpetrators, and encourage people to report it is through 360-degree evaluations that include information about gender-based treatment and fairness from supervisors and coworkers. If supervisors and coworkers know they will be evaluated in terms of how respectfully and fairly they treat other employees in terms of gender, they will come to view this as an organizational priority and adjust their behavior accordingly.
Finally, some organizations encourage bystanders to come forward and notify the organization of gender-based discrimination and harassment. Because perpetrators and victims are unlikely to do so, bystanders are often in the best position to report this behavior.28 Schools have encouraged bystander intervention and reporting for bullying with great success,29 and some organizations are beginning to do as well.
Immediate investigation into complaints. If formal complaints are made, they should be immediately investigated.30 The timeliness of a response is not only a good indicator of how important an issue is considered to be, it also ensures that the most accurate information can be obtained about an incident while it is still fresh in people’s minds and any problem can be resolved in a timely manner. Failing to investigate a complaint, or waiting to do so, sends the message that the discriminating or harassing behavior is not considered serious, a priority, or worthy of action. Worse it can send the message that such behavior is considered acceptable or desirable. Failing to investigate a complaint, or waiting to do so, makes it possible for the discrimination and harassment to continue and the problem to escalate.
Meaningful consequences. If complaints are made, meaningful attempts to resolve the problem, with sensitivity to power imbalances between the parties involved, should be made as soon as possible. Mediating face-to-face confrontations between the accuser and accused typically does not go well (if such confrontations were likely to be effective, the accuser and accused probably would have resolved the problem directly in the first place). Those experiencing gender-based discrimination and harassment are usually less powerful than their perpetrator(s), either in formal organizational power/rank, in physical power, and/or in social reputation and informal networks. This makes confronting perpetrator(s) difficult and risky for victims and raises concerns of retaliation. Consequences to perpetrators after complaints are made can include an official warning that goes on file, a warning plus suspension and/or re-education and training, or termination, depending on the severity and history of their behavior.31
Zero tolerance for retaliation. It is particularly important to avoid retaliation, reputationally or otherwise, against complainants for seeking help with problems of gender-based discrimination and harassment.32 Even if their complaints are considered unfounded, or the result of a simple misunderstanding, it should be assumed that complaints were made for good reason and in good faith. Another term for the negative consequences that often face victims who bring forth their complaints “secondary victimization.” Retaliation for reporting gender-based discrimination and harassment is gender-based discrimination and harassment in and of itself, and adds to and compounds the problem. The main reason victims do not seek help or come forward with their experiences of gender-based discrimination and harassment is their fear of retaliation,33 making it critical for organizations to prevent and have zero tolerance for any retaliatory consequences to victims who seek help or complain.
Are there special considerations for police organizations, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
Traditionally male-dominated organizations, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, often have “macho” cultures in which gender-based discrimination and harassment tend to thrive.34 This is a widely-recognized fact, and one that should make any historically male-dominated organization, such as the RCMP, especially vigilant in protecting women employees from gender-based discrimination and harassment in the ways outlined above. Leadership needs to be proactive in calling out and condemning gender inequality, and in holding managers accountable for following, communicating, and implementing policies, procedures, codes of conduct, and guidelines against gender-based discrimination and harassment.
When a historically segregated occupation begins (and continues) to integrate underrepresented groups into its ranks, leadership should be proactive in reframing organizational and occupation goals and culture to be inclusive of these new identities. It also needs to be proactive in seeking opportunities to recruit, hire, train, mentor, sponsor, and promote historically underrepresented groups and educate management and employees about the unique experiences and obstacles these groups, such as women, are likely to face as historical minorities within the organization.
Footnotes
1Correll, S. J., Benard, S. & Paik, I. (2007), Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297-1338; Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T. & Glick, P. (2004), When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice, Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701-718; Fuegen, K., Biernat, M. Haines, E. & Deaux, K. (2004), Mothers and fathers in the workplace: How gender and parental status influence judgments of job-related competence, Journal of Social Issues, 60, 737-754.
2 Berdahl, J. L. (2007), The sexual harassment of uppity women, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 425-437; Berdahl, Ramarajan & Moon (2013), Fitting in or Standing Out:The Gender Deviance Trade-off Between Treatment and Promotion, manuscript in preparation; Dall'Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999), Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles, 41: 681-704; Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003), Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853-780; Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 629-645;Rudman, L. A. & Glick, P. (1999), Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004-1010; Rudman, L. A. & Glick, P. (2001), Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women, Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762; Siebler, F., Sabelus, S. & Bohner, G. (2008), A refined computer harassment paradigm: Validation, and test of hypotheses about target characteristics, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 22-35.
3 For example, see Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, A., Ormerod, A. J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175; Berdahl, J. L. & Raver, J. L. (2011), Sexual harassment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (pp. 641-669), American Psychological Association; Cortina, L. & Berdahl, J. L. (2008), Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade of research in review, In C. L Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 1, 469-497.
4 Berdahl, ibid; Franke, K. M. (1997), What’s wrong with sexual harassment? Stanford Law Review, 49, 691–772; MacKinnon, C. A. (1979), Sexual harassment of working women, New Haven: Yale University Press; Schultz, V. (1998), Reconceptualizing sexual harassment, Yale Law Journal, 107, 1683-1796.
5 Berdahl, ibid; Berdahl, & Raver, ibid; Cortina, L.M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55-75; Cortina & Berdahl, ibid.
6 Berdahl, ibid; Gruber, J. E. (1998), The impact of male work environments and organizational policies on women’s experiences of sexual harassment, Gender and Society, 12(3), 301-320; Mansfield, P. K., Koch, P. B., Henderson, J., Vicary, J. R., et al, (1991), The job climate for women in traditionally male blue-collar occupations, Sex Roles, 25, 63-79; Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997), Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589.
7 Dall’Ara & Maass, ibid; Maass et al., ibid; Siebler et al., ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Berdahl, J. L. (2007), Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy, Academy of Management Review, 32, 641-658; Berdahl & Raver, ibid; Cortina, & Berdahl, ibid.
10 Derks, B., Ellemers, N., van Laar, C. & de Groot, K. (2011), Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 519-535.
11 Axam, H. S. & Zalesne, D. (1999), Simulated sodomy and other forms of heterosexual “horseplay:” Same sex sexual harassment, workplace gender hierarchies, and the myth of the gender monolith before and after Oncale, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 11, 155-243; Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996), The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and data, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527-547; Berdahl, J. L. & Moore, C. (2006), Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426-436; Franke, ibid; Schultz, ibid; MacKinnon, C. A. (1997), Oncale Amicus Brief for the U.S. Supreme Court submitted by C. A MacKinnon, Attorney for Amici Curiae; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998); Waldo, C. R., Berdahl J. L., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1998), Are men sexually harassed? If so, by whom? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59-79.
12 Berdahl, ibid.
13 Berdahl, ibid; Franke, ibid; Shultz, ibid.
14 For recent reviews, see Berdahl, J. L. & Raver, J. L. (2011), Sexual harassment, in S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (pp. 641-669), American Psychological Association; Cortina & Berdahl (2008), Cortina, L. & Berdahl, J. L. (2008), Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade of research in review, in C. L Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 1, 469- 497; Lapierre, Spector & Leck, 2005; Willness, C.R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007), A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment, Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162.
15 Berdahl, ibid; Franke, ibid; Shultz, ibid.
16 For example see Lim, S. & Cortina, L. M. (2005), Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,483-496; Magley, V. J., Waldo, C., Drasgow, F. & Fitzgerald, L. (1999), The impact of sexual harassment on military personnel: Is it the same for men and women? Military Psychology, 11, 283-302; O’Connell, C. & Korabik, K. (2000), Sexual harassment: The relationship of personal vulnerability, work context, perpetrator status, and type of harassment to outcomes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 299-329; Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M. & Quinn, D. M. (1999), Stereotype threat and women’s math performance, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28; Woodzicka, J. & LaFrance, M. (2005), The effects of subtle sexual harassment on women’s performance in a job interview, Sex Roles, 53, 67-77.
17 See for example Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.) (2003), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, London/New York: Taylor and Francis.
18 For examples see Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E., Fullagar, C., & Johnson, D. (1996), Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace sexual harassment, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 4-25; Berdahl, J. L. & Aquino, K. (2009), Sexual behavior at work: Fun or folly? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 34-47; Bond, M., Punnett, L., Pyle, J., Cazeca, D., & Cooperman, M. (2004), Gendered work conditions, health, and work outcomes, Journal of Occupational Health Psychoology, 9(1), 28-45; Culbertson, A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1994), Assessment of sexual harassment in the active-duty Navy, Military Psychology, 6(2), 69-93; Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997), Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589; Magley et al., ibid; O’Connel & Korabik, ibid; Piotrkowski, C. (1998), Gender harassment, job satisfaction, and distress among employed white and minority women, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(1), 33-43; Schneider, K., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. (1997), Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: empirical evidence from two organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 401-415; Schneider, K., Tomaka, J., & Palacios, R. (2001), Women’s cognitive, affective, and physiological reactions to a male co-worker’s sexist behavior, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1995–2018.
19 For examples see Berdahl & Aquino, ibid; Bond et al, ibid; Culbertson & Rosenfeld, ibid; Dansky, B. & Kilpatrick, D. (1997), Effects of sexual harassment. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.). Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 152-174), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon; Fitzgerald, Drasgow & Magley, ibid; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand & Magley, ibid; Freels, S., Richman, J., & Rospenda, K. (2005). Gender differences in the causal direction between workplace harassment and drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 30(7), 1454-1458; O’Connel & Korabik, ibid; Parker, S., & Griffin, M. (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 195-210; Piotrkowski, ibid; Richman, J., Rospenda, K., Nawyn, S., Flaherty, J., Fendrich, M., Drum, M.L., & T.P. Johnson (1999), Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among university employees: Prevalence and mental health correlates, American Journal of Public Health, 89, 358-363; Richman, J., Shinsako, S., Rospenda, K., Flaherty, J., & Freels, S. (2002), Workplace harassment/abuse and alcohol-related outcomes: the mediating role of psychological distress, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(4), 412-419; Schneider, Swan & Fitzgerald, ibid; Schneider, Tomaka & Palacios, ibid; Vogt, D., Pless, A., King, L., & King, D. (2005), Deployment stressors, gender, and mental health outcomes among Gulf War I veterans, Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(2), 115-127.
20 See Canadian Human Rights Commission: Anti-Harassment Policies for the Workplace: An Employer’s Guide (2006).
www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/anti_harassment_toc-eng.aspx; Conference Board of Canada: Sexual Harassment is Still a Management Issue (2001), Barbara Orser,
www.conferenceboard.ca/e-Library/abstract.aspx?DID=214; Conference Board of Canada: The High Costs of Workplace Harassment (2011), Lisa Hughes,
www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/humanresource/commentaries/11-05-16/The_High_Costs_of_Workplace_Harassment.aspx; Ontario Human Rights Commission: Policy on preventing sexual and gender-based harassment (2011), www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/PolicySexHarrCommentsENG?page=Policy-Summary.html#Heading74; Treasury Board of Canada: Guide to dealing with harassment (2001),
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/hw-hmt/phw-bhmttb-eng.asp.
21 Canadian Human Rights Commission, ibid; Conference Board of Canada, ibid; Ontario Human Rights Commission, ibid; Treasury Board of Canada, ibid.
22 See for example Berdahl, J. L., MacQuarrie, B. & Welsh, S. testimony to the Canadian House of Commons’ Standing Committee on the Status of Women, April 16, 2013: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=6079884&File=0.
23 Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T. et al. (1997), Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309-328; Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Magley, V. J. (1999), Sexual harassment in the armed forces: A test of an integrated model, Military Psychology, 11, 329-343; Snyder, J. A., Fisher, B. S., Scherer, H. L., Daigle, L. E. (2012), Unsafe in the camouflage tower: Sexual victimization and perceptions of military academy leadership, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3171-3194.
24 Offermann, L. R.; Malamut, A. B. (2002). When leaders harass: The impact of target perceptions of organizational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 885-893.
25 Ibid; Dovidio, J. (2013), Included but invisible? The benefits and costs of inclusion.Paper presented at the Harvard Business School Conference on Gender and Work: Challenging Conventional Wisdom, February 28; Murry, W. D., Sivasubramaniam, N., Jacques, P. H. (2001), Supervisory support, social exchange relationships, and sexual harassment consequences: A test of competing models. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 1-29.
26 See for example Firestone, J. M.; Harris, R. J. (2003), Perceptions of effectiveness of responses to sexual harassment in the US military, 1988 and 1995. Gender, Work and Organization, 10, 42-64.
27 Berdahl & Raver, ibid.
28 Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention, Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 61–79; Bowes-Sperry, L., O'leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005), To Act or Not to Act: The Dilemma Faced by Sexual Harassment Observers. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 288-306.
29 Salmivalli, C.; Kaukiainen, A.; Voeten, M. (2005), Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465-487.
30 Canadian Human Rights Commission, ibid; Conference Board of Canada, ibid; Ontario Human Rights Commission, ibid; Treasury Board of Canada, ibid.
31 Berdahl & Raver, ibid; Cortina & Berdahl, ibid.
32 Berdahl & Raver, ibid; Cortina & Berdahl, ibid.; Hershcovis, M. S.; Parker, S. K.; Reich, T. C. (2010), The moderating effect of equal opportunity support and confidence in grievance procedures on sexual harassment from different perpetrators, Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 415-432.
33 Bergman, M. E.; Langhout, R. D.; Palmieri, P. A.; Cortina, L. M.; Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002), The (un)reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 230-242.
34 Berdahl, ibid; Culbertson, & Rosenfeld, ibid; Firestone & Harris, ibid; Fitzgerald et al. (1999), ibid; Gruber, ibid; Magley et al., ibid; Mansfield et al., ibid; Snyder et al., ibid.
Comments
Post a Comment