by Kathy DiNuzzo and Biodun Iginla, News Analysts, The Economist Intelligence Unit, New York/Los Angeles
The capitalist case against sexual harassment
How workplaces can rid themselves of pests and predators
“I CAME of age in the 60s and 70s, when all the rules about behaviour and workplaces were different,” said Harvey Weinstein in response to allegations of sexual harassment, by now dozens of them since the New Yorker and New York Times published the first this month. The film producer is an “old dinosaur learning new ways”, said a spokeswoman. Mr Weinstein is reported to be seeking treatment for “sex addiction”.
A throwback who loves women too much, then; a sly old rogue who doubtless holds doors open for women, too? Nonsense. What Mr Weinstein is accused of was never acceptable. It has never been good form to greet a woman arriving for a business meeting while wearing nothing but an open bathrobe. His accusers say he made it clear that rebuffing his overtures would harm their careers. Some accuse him of rape. American and British police are investigating. Mr Weinstein has apologised for his behaviour in broad terms. He denies engaging in non-consensual sex.
Such dismissiveness is rarer now (see article). Most men and women agree that demanding sexual favours in return for a job or promotion is harassment; likewise groping and other physical assaults. But disturbingly many men are still blind to the way that personal remarks, lewd jokes and the like can make a workplace hostile. Though most rich countries ban sexual harassment at work, half of all women and a tenth of men say they have suffered it at some point; hardly any make formal complaints. In poor countries, the rate is surely higher, since women whose children are hungry cannot plausibly quit a job with an abusive boss. No industry is immune.
The key elements are power, misused by predatory men; impunity, as those who could call a halt do not; and silence, as witnesses look away and victims fear that speaking up will harm their careers. If firms are serious about stopping harassment, they will need to tackle all three.
The allegations against Mr Weinstein are unusual only in degree, not kind. Power in Hollywood is held by big-name producers and directors; their ability to turn a script into a blockbuster buys the complicity of their entourage. The unknowns desperate for their big break are easy prey. In Silicon Valley investors and boards have a huge incentive to overlook bad behaviour by men whose ideas can be worth billions. Star professors attract research funding and help universities rise in global rankings; graduate students rely on their references when scrambling for a job. The internships and staff jobs that can launch a career in Washington or Westminster are in the gift of politicians. Their only check is voters, who may neither know nor care how badly they act behind closed doors.
Women in manual jobs are also vulnerable. When a hotel cleaner or waitress is grabbed by a customer, her boss may look away rather than lose a client. Multinationals that require their suppliers to keep premises safe and root out slave labour are generally silent on sexual harassment.
The victims often suffer depression, anger and humiliation. Firms where harassment happens are eventually harmed, too. Mr Weinstein’s studio may be sued (see article). The company could even be destroyed by the scandal. Even if one leaves aside all moral arguments—which one should not—failing to deal with harassment is usually bad for business. Firms that tolerate it will lose female talent to rivals that do not, and the market will punish them. The costs of decency are trivial; the rewards to shareholders are large.
Granted, there will always be star employees who wish to abuse their power. But that power need not go unchecked. Firms should ask about harassment in anonymous “climate surveys” to ensure that they get early notice of problems. Making a complaint should be straightforward. It should be handled quickly and proportionately. A first complaint about unwelcome remarks or a creepily tactile style merits a warning. A man who meant no harm will be mortified, and stop.
For the most serious cases, the law will be needed. Some are not fit for purpose. British employment tribunals take a dim view of a woman who waits more than three months to complain, and regard cordial communications with her alleged harasser as undermining her case. But neither delay nor politeness at work mean she is lying: it is rational to worry about retaliation, and anyone who wants to keep her job cannot sulk. Such obstacles to justice should be removed.
Firms need to take care that, in their zeal, they do not make matters worse. The no-dating policies common in America are intrusive, useless and have perverse consequences. People sometimes fall in love with colleagues. When firms require one half of an office couple to quit, it is usually the woman, who is typically younger and earns less. That is unfair. Likewise, an atmosphere in which senior men are wary of mentoring young women for fear of being misunderstood hurts women’s careers. Perfunctory anti-harassment training, which is also common, can put employees’ backs up and, if it uses absurd examples, can even make them less sympathetic towards victims and less likely to see borderline cases as wrong.
A throwback who loves women too much, then; a sly old rogue who doubtless holds doors open for women, too? Nonsense. What Mr Weinstein is accused of was never acceptable. It has never been good form to greet a woman arriving for a business meeting while wearing nothing but an open bathrobe. His accusers say he made it clear that rebuffing his overtures would harm their careers. Some accuse him of rape. American and British police are investigating. Mr Weinstein has apologised for his behaviour in broad terms. He denies engaging in non-consensual sex.
Latest updates
Not Safe For Women
Mr Weinstein is right, though, that workplace norms have changed over the course of his career. When he turned 18, in 1970, many offices were a “Mad Men”-style ordeal of leering eyes and roaming hands. When the Harvard Business Review surveyed its readers in 1980 about workplace sexual harassment, two-thirds of the men said it was “greatly exaggerated”—as one had it, a non-issue whipped up by “paranoid women and sensational journalists”. In a case brought in 1989 an American judge ruled that being made to fish for quarters in her boss’s pocket, though unpleasant, would not cause undue distress to any “reasonable woman”.Such dismissiveness is rarer now (see article). Most men and women agree that demanding sexual favours in return for a job or promotion is harassment; likewise groping and other physical assaults. But disturbingly many men are still blind to the way that personal remarks, lewd jokes and the like can make a workplace hostile. Though most rich countries ban sexual harassment at work, half of all women and a tenth of men say they have suffered it at some point; hardly any make formal complaints. In poor countries, the rate is surely higher, since women whose children are hungry cannot plausibly quit a job with an abusive boss. No industry is immune.
The key elements are power, misused by predatory men; impunity, as those who could call a halt do not; and silence, as witnesses look away and victims fear that speaking up will harm their careers. If firms are serious about stopping harassment, they will need to tackle all three.
The allegations against Mr Weinstein are unusual only in degree, not kind. Power in Hollywood is held by big-name producers and directors; their ability to turn a script into a blockbuster buys the complicity of their entourage. The unknowns desperate for their big break are easy prey. In Silicon Valley investors and boards have a huge incentive to overlook bad behaviour by men whose ideas can be worth billions. Star professors attract research funding and help universities rise in global rankings; graduate students rely on their references when scrambling for a job. The internships and staff jobs that can launch a career in Washington or Westminster are in the gift of politicians. Their only check is voters, who may neither know nor care how badly they act behind closed doors.
Women in manual jobs are also vulnerable. When a hotel cleaner or waitress is grabbed by a customer, her boss may look away rather than lose a client. Multinationals that require their suppliers to keep premises safe and root out slave labour are generally silent on sexual harassment.
The victims often suffer depression, anger and humiliation. Firms where harassment happens are eventually harmed, too. Mr Weinstein’s studio may be sued (see article). The company could even be destroyed by the scandal. Even if one leaves aside all moral arguments—which one should not—failing to deal with harassment is usually bad for business. Firms that tolerate it will lose female talent to rivals that do not, and the market will punish them. The costs of decency are trivial; the rewards to shareholders are large.
Granted, there will always be star employees who wish to abuse their power. But that power need not go unchecked. Firms should ask about harassment in anonymous “climate surveys” to ensure that they get early notice of problems. Making a complaint should be straightforward. It should be handled quickly and proportionately. A first complaint about unwelcome remarks or a creepily tactile style merits a warning. A man who meant no harm will be mortified, and stop.
For the most serious cases, the law will be needed. Some are not fit for purpose. British employment tribunals take a dim view of a woman who waits more than three months to complain, and regard cordial communications with her alleged harasser as undermining her case. But neither delay nor politeness at work mean she is lying: it is rational to worry about retaliation, and anyone who wants to keep her job cannot sulk. Such obstacles to justice should be removed.
Firms need to take care that, in their zeal, they do not make matters worse. The no-dating policies common in America are intrusive, useless and have perverse consequences. People sometimes fall in love with colleagues. When firms require one half of an office couple to quit, it is usually the woman, who is typically younger and earns less. That is unfair. Likewise, an atmosphere in which senior men are wary of mentoring young women for fear of being misunderstood hurts women’s careers. Perfunctory anti-harassment training, which is also common, can put employees’ backs up and, if it uses absurd examples, can even make them less sympathetic towards victims and less likely to see borderline cases as wrong.
Dinosaur-free zone
Until surprisingly recently, racist and homophobic remarks were rife in the workplace. Now they are rare, and likely to be challenged by anyone who hears them. If sexual harassment is to be stopped, it needs to be called out in the same way—not just by the victims, but by all those who witness it.
No comments:
Post a Comment