Harassment in the workplace is unfortunately very common, with surveys suggesting anywhere from 25% to 85% of workers experience some form of harassment during their careers. However, despite its prevalence, harassment often goes unreported and unpunished. There are many reasons why victims may be reluctant to come forward, but one of the biggest challenges is that harassment can be extremely difficult to conclusively prove.
What constitutes harassment?
Harassment encompasses a wide range of unacceptable behaviors. Legally, harassment is defined as any unwelcome conduct based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation. It becomes illegal when enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive.
Some examples of behaviors that can constitute harassment include:
– Sexual harassment – unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, inappropriate touching, comments about physical appearance etc.
– Racial harassment – racial slurs, offensive comments or jokes about race, intimidation through threats of violence.
– Religious harassment – offensive comments about religious beliefs, mocking religious practices, forcing involvement in religious activities.
– Harassment based on other protected characteristics – offensive or derogatory remarks about gender, age, disability, sexual orientation etc.
– Bullying – persistently singling out someone for ridicule, intimidation, verbal abuse.
– Physical harassment – violence, physical intimidation, blocking someone’s path.
He said, she said situations
One of the biggest reasons harassment is hard to prove is because it often takes place behind closed doors without witnesses, so that it turns into a “he said, she said” debate. Harassers rarely harass someone in plain view of others. They are more likely to do it when alone with the victim, or disguise it behind a closed office door. This allows them to later deny it ever happened. The end result is two conflicting accounts, with no evidence to validate either side.
Victims are then in the difficult position of having to convince others to take their word over the harasser’s denials. If the accused harasser is in a position of power, victims may fear they won’t be believed. And even if they are believed, lack of proof makes it hard for organizations to take definitive disciplinary action against the harasser.
Subtle behaviors
While some harassment – like sexual assault, physical intimidation or threatening language – is overt and identifiable, other types of harassment are more subtle. For example, a manager consistently giving preferential treatment to employees who flirt or date them, a coworker frequently making sexist jokes, or employees using derogatory terms behind someone’s back. Microaggressions and comments that are racially or culturally insensitive may also constitute harassment, depending on their severity and pervasiveness.
These subtle forms of harassment can be just as damaging, but are often downplayed as not being “real” harassment. After all, there’s no slurs, no groping, no smoking gun. But victims can feel delegitimized reporting what may seem on the surface like minor slights, even though the cumulative effect is a hostile environment. And because there are rarely witnesses, it turns into another “he said, she said” situation when trying to call out this behavior.
Power dynamics
Harassers often target those they view as having lower power or status within the organization. For example, harassment is more commonly directed at women, minorities, young workers, or subordinate employees. Victims may be reluctant to report harassment when it is being done by someone in a superior position for fear they won’t be believed, will get fired, or it could ruin their careers.
Power Differential | Potential impact on victim |
---|---|
Manager vs direct report | – Fear of retaliation |
Senior employee vs junior employee | – Feel too powerless to speak up |
Majority group vs minority group | – Fear of not being believed because of inherent biases |
When there is a steep power imbalance, harassers often count on victims staying silent. After all, who will leadership believe – an executive or long-time employee, or a lower level worker? The credibility automatically lent to someone in a high status position makes accusations against them even harder to validate.
Gray areas
Many people think of overt behaviors like groping and sexual extortion when they think of harassment. But much harassment involves more gray areas that could potentially have non-harassing interpretations.
For example, a standing too close, giving personal gifts, constantly asking coworkers out, or frequently complimenting someone’s appearance. Are these just friendliness, or harassment? Does the intent even matter if the behaviors make someone uncomfortable?
Because these types of boundary-crossing behaviors are open to interpretation, victims often second guess themselves on whether or not it constitutes real harassment. They may doubt their own feelings or worry they are overreacting. This ambiguity makes reporting harassment much less straightforward.
Gaslighting
Gaslighting and undermining victim accounts is another common tactic used by harassers that muddies the waters when trying to prove accusations. Harassers may flat out deny any misconduct, or downplay obviously inappropriate behaviors as being purely complimentary or misinterpreted.
If others are present, harassers may even recruit them to back up false denials that anything improper happened. Harassers can also undermine victims by bringing up unrelated performance issues, relationship status or clothing choices to imply the victim is oversensitive, incompetent or somehow at fault.
This gaslighting leads victims to second guess themselves, and further diminishes the perceived credibility of their accounts when reported.
Example scenarios
Gaslighting Behavior | Impact on Victim |
---|---|
“I was just joking around, they have no sense of humor.” | Makes victim look hypersensitive |
“It was a compliment, don’t flatter yourself into thinking I’m interested.” | Makes victim seem conceited |
“I’d never do that, they must be confusing me with someone else.” | Puts doubt on victim’s recollection |
“This is why they struggle with their work, they are too distracted by imagined slights.” | Undermines victim’s professional competence |
Lack of witnesses
In an ideal world, victims would immediately report any harassment to help identify repeat offenders. But the fear of “he said, she said” situations means many victims don’t file formal complaints unless sexual assault, threats of violence or severe misconduct occurs.
Even if they do report, victims know a one-off incident where they are the sole witness often can’t be fully investigated or substantiated. Many organizations require a pattern of multiple reports before initiating discipline, which prevents single victims from being believed.
This catch-22 makes it very hard to capture early warning signs like employee discomfort and build sufficient witness evidence to take corrective action before behaviors escalate. And it allows harassers to continue targeting others.
Inconsistent enforcement
Organizations also struggle with inconsistent enforcement when harassment allegations do arise. HR may dismiss some incidents as personality conflicts or ignore complaints if the accused is a high performer.
On the other hand, some organizations overreact to unsubstantiated rumors which unfairly impacts those falsely accused. This arbitrary enforcement deepens victims’ skepticism that coming forward will result in any fair resolution.
Factor | Potential organizational response |
---|---|
He said, she said situation | – Unable to take action without clear proof |
Harasser is executive/star performer | – Biased evaluation of accusations |
Harassment appears “minor” | – Dismissed as personality differences |
Harasser agrees to change behavior | – No discipline, issue considered resolved |
Harasser has multiple separate accusers | – Taken more seriously as pattern emerges |
Uneven enforcement keeps victims silent and perpetuates toxic cultures. HR really needs consistent frameworks to evaluate accusations the same way, regardless of who is involved or how egregious it is perceived.
Retaliation fears
Victims know that he said, she said situations rarely end favorably. So why take the considerable risk of reporting? Retaliation by the harasser or organizational leadership is a very real concern.
Even if the harassment can’t be proven, the accused may find subtle ways to retaliate if they know someone raised concerns. Obvious retaliation like firing someone is illegal, but harassers often get away with retaliation that seems unrelated on the surface. For example, suddenly assigning the victim undesirable tasks or shifts, denying them development opportunities, or increased scrutiny over performance.
Victims may also face retaliation from coworkers or leadership in the form of ostracism for “causing problems” or “tattling”. Retaliation essentially punishes victims for coming forward. When people perceive this futility and risk, they see little incentive to formally report most harassment.
Type of Retaliation | Examples |
---|---|
Direct retaliation by harasser | – Publicly discrediting the victim’s account – Increased harassment as punishment |
Indirect retaliation by harasser | – Unfairly denying promotions or development opportunities – Sabotaging victim’s work reputation or assignments |
Organizational retaliation |
– Viewing victim as “troublemaker” – Increased scrutiny over performance – Isolating or ostracizing the victim |
Bystander non-intervention
In an ideal world, anyone witnessing harassment would immediately intervene or report the misconduct. But in reality, most bystanders hesitate to get involved for fear of retaliation themselves, facing accusations of overreacting, or concern they misinterpreted the situation. This phenomenon is known as the bystander effect.
Bystanders are also less likely to intervene if the victim doesn’t look distressed or is going along with the behavior. When no one directly impacted speaks up, bystanders take their cues from others’ reactions. Even if they feel uncomfortable, bystanders talk themselves out of intervening since no one else is.
These factors lead to a workplace climate where offensive behaviors go unchallenged. And without corroborating witnesses, victims face yet another barrier when reporting harassment down the road.
Barrier to intervention | Impact on victim |
---|---|
Fear of retaliation themselves | – No one wants to jeopardize their own job |
Don’t want to falsely accuse | – Give the accused benefit of the doubt |
Rely on victim reaction as cue | – If victim doesn’t speak up, remains silent |
Don’t perceive it as harassment | – Minimize severity if no physical contact |
Assume someone else will intervene | – Everyone passes off responsibility |
Bystander intervention training is so critical, because it gives coworkers strategies to speak up early. This helps set expectations on acceptable conduct before behaviors cross the line into outright harassment.
Conclusion
In summary, harassment thrives when victims and bystanders stay silent. But silence does not necessarily equal compliance or consent. More often, it stems from futility over proving he said, she said allegations and reasonable fears of retaliation.
Legally, the burden should be on organizations to foster a safe, inclusive culture where harassment is not tolerated – not on victims to conclusively prove events that took place behind closed doors. But entrenched social biases make harassment allegations hard to evaluate objectively, especially when the accused occupies a position of power or social majority.
Turning the tide requires fundamentally shifting workplace cultures so targets of harassment feel safe coming forward, are taken seriously through fair investigation practices, and have confidence in consistent enforcement. And so bystanders are empowered to intervene, without suffering blowback themselves for speaking up or being told they misconstrued the situation.
Organizations must move beyond damage control when problems arise, and adopt proactive measures to reinforce conduct expectations, encourage reporting, eliminate gray areas that enable subtle harassment to fly under the radar, and apply consistent discipline when issues surface. Otherwise, harassment will continue to fester, silenced by the understandable reluctance of victims to report, and enabled by the failings of institutions to address murky but serious problems.