Introduction
Even after considering the fact that the perils of sexual harassment have notably earned viral publicity within the previous couple of decades, surveys still demonstrate that a considerable number of businesses and institutions have yet to discourse the issue. Furthermore, more fresh reports present that sexual harassment has penetrated up to the highest levels in management, and even though corporates know it exists, they seem unsure of what or how to go about the issue. However then, does such disorderly behaviors get to win their way up in the society?
No, they do not and can never be allowed to. Employers and employees must be adequately aware of the matter and consequently at the least poses a knowhow on how to go about the issue. That is why, the primary purpose of this issue paper is to thoroughly investigate on the theory of sexual harassment, the major factors driving motivation towards, and the accounts (excuses) connected with the action. In addition, the paper will review the relevant theories supplemented to the issue and thereabout, recommend on the relevant ways to respond to the issue astutely in order to minimize its impacts on the workplace.
The Theory of Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment simply refers to those sexually discriminative behaviors, those unwelcome and unwanted sexual behaviors that make the receiver of the action feel more of offended, intimidated, and humiliated. The act could result either from an employer or even an employee, as well, the deed can occur between persons of different sex, or in some other weird cases, persons of the same sex. Indeed the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (CFEHA, 2014) regards the action as “harassment based on sex or of a sexual nature; gender harassment and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and includes many forms of offensive behavior.”
Sexual harassment occurs mostly when the employer permits, creates, or condones an offensive, intimidating, or hostile work environment in ways such as reprisal for filling grumbles, discriminative treatments, and/or biases while in the investigation. However then, many are the cases where the doer of the action will not be of much interest as to the reasons accompanied to the doing of the action, the motive and motivations behind the scene. Among these, motivation is the key to all the rest. It is the motivation that will charge courage in a person up until he/she is able to commit the deed. That being so, motivation (personal or group) is generated by a number of factors. Of the many factors, the first one is revenge where employees holding grudges between themselves or towards their employers can result into a very bad start-over. It generates disgruntlement and disaffection, which gradually compels individuals to pursue any form of harassment with sexual harassment being first in the line. Secondly are the ideologies held by a person on the same issue. These could be all the way from their childhood; the cultures brought up with, or even individual view of things. This means if the ideologies are negative, they all compel the preceptor towards wrong doing as the person might think he or she is doing the right thing. Lastly are the rewards that the person get from engaging in the act. Persons can intentionally commit sexual harassment only as a means to prove themselves, hold up their esteem or recognition or any other financial or material thing they anticipate to get after so doing. In some cases, a person is rewarded by getting satisfaction from hunger of sex he or she has been having. Admiring someone might lead to engaging in the act because the doer might be rewarded through getting what was intended.
The following motivation aspects would be categorized as the firm’s management liability rather than an individual’s own course. One is excessive trust, and the other is poor employee monitoring and screening. In both instances, the firm’s management is too discrete to it employees, mostly those in the senior positions, to remember they are also prone to offensive behaviors. The employees on the other hand take this opportunity, and make barbaric use of it. Freedom is one thing that all individuals should rightfully have, but having it without specific limits is another thing. The act may not go hand in hand with “too much of something is poisonous” king of a saying, but yes, most people will be prone to using these chances wrongly and this is the fact that brings sexual harassment as a frontier most likely outcome. It comes as a first offensive action since it does not matter as to the parallelism of the sexes involved, but the way individuals will want to show off and “stress in” their points.
Application of the Various Theories Entangled to Sexual Harassments in Explaining the Behavior
Having mentioned the motives and motivational aspects that can drive a person towards involving a sexually abusive deed in the workplace, it is now more beneficial to shine some light on those causal factors if at all a fine solution is going to be obtained for the matter at hand. Talking of which, there two major theories that explain the possible cause of the deed. These are; the sociological theories and the personality theories.
Sociological theories are generally insinuative (Schechter, and Lang, 2011). In, for example, the social bond theory that will explain the fact that individual capabilities to resist temptations vary and that is why different people will engage different methods of harassment (sexual) while others will not even think of it, or the deterrence theory that explains how punishments results to grudges within the workplace, which later translates to the urge of discriminating the fellow work mates. On the other hand, is the general strain theory? In it, matters pertaining individual achievements –whether economic or non-economic, - are clearly discussed. What the theory bid to illustrate is the fact that determined individuals will stop at nothing if at all they have to achieve a particular goal. The fixed nature of the individuals involved is what makes them a relative threat in the workplace. If by any chance a person questions their quest, the possible foremost outcome is that they get not only physically, but also sexually offended.
One might at times find similarity between the general strain theory and the accounts/excuse theory, but a difference clearly exists. While the general strain theory will go as a consequence of individual determinations, the accounts theory is primarily based on excuses. Prefectures of this group are rational, they use each and every opportunity available to rationalize the actions done. Apparently, this is a very common social encounter. People get offended sexually in workplaces such in public vehicles, or even in shopping malls, but what do the offenders opt to? They prefer to justify the deed even when there are clearly guilty.
On the other hand, are the personality theories? The human psychology is the human self, that gear that creates awareness and hence helps individuals bear a particular perception about a specific matter. Definitely, this is the very same gear that will determine the how persons view the issue of sexual violence. In Eysenck’s “Theory of Personality and Crime,” (Bartol et al., 2011) three personalities: antisocial, borderline, and the narcissistic personalities are provided as the most associated with insensitive and inhumane reactions including sexual harassments. It is an individual’s personality that will determine the individual temperaments –on a state known as “conditioned conscience,”- and given the prior mentioned motivations; then, an individual’s personality will appear as a key factor determining the nature and extent of sexual harassment behaviors he/she might engage in.
Responding to Sexual Harassments in the Workplace
Harassment does not and can never disappear on its own. As a matter of fact, no negative deed can. Actually it is much likely that when such problems are not effectively addressed in, and specifically in their realms of occurrence, they will only worsen and consequently become a more difficult remedy to solve as time passes by. As such, and considering sexual harassment as a matter requiring immediate response, the most effective weapon will be prevention. Both the employer and the employee must be ready to accept their liabilities to the matter at hand, join hands and hold up all the anti-harassment policies available. Those that will not only serve to protect individual’s rights (The Human Rights Library, 2003), but also embrace social well-being, and at the same see safe, and liability free workplaces.
However, no matter how much the system might be dedicated to eliminating and exerting justice on criminal deeds such that of sexual harassments in the workplace, there seems that accounts and excuses always turn up. They supplement the language employed by social actors/doers trying to explain a given untoward act. Generally, these accounts exist in two forms; excuses and justifications. In the excuse form of account, the actor literally accepts that the deed done is wrong, but denies responsibility whereas, in the justification form of account, the actor accepts and takes responsibility, but rejects the pejorative aspect of the deed (Sykes & Matza, 1957). It is these very same circumstances that the workplace are faced with, people engaging in sexually discriminative behaviors and then finding all excuses available only to take away the blame when a subjective enquiry is made.
The above is enough reason as to why all in the work place, must rise up and say no more to harassments. The existence of a grievance procedure only in a given institution is by all means not enough. Procedures cannot be made only to be left alone without implementation. Therefore, and since employers bare responsibility for the actions of their managers, supervisors and all of their employees, they should also take this one very vital responsibility right to their working desks: eliminate by all means, all aspects of sexual harassment, be it from fellow business partners, suppliers, senior employees, co-works or even the customers, the deed must stop! Lastly, the dress code should be well so as to make everybody in the workplace respect their colleagues as some cases happen due to attraction from the dress code of other colleagues especially ladies who might wear tempting and tight cloths.
References
Bartol, C.R. and Bartol, A.M. (2011).Criminal Behavior: A Psychological Approach. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, Inc.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (CDFEH), 2014. Fair Employment and Development Act (FEHA): Sexual Harassment. Web at<http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_FEHADescr.htm> May 25, 2014.
Schechter, O. and Lang, E. L. (2011).Identifying Personality Disorders that are Security Risks: Field Test Results. Monterey, CA: Defense Personnel Security Research Center.
Sykes & Matza (1957) “Techniques of Neutralization,” American Sociological Review, Vol 22, No. 6, 664-670.
