FLC 30.541 Dibujo en la esquina superior izq de la página
2.7. EL EXTERIOR ES UN INTERIOR.
2.7.2. Segunda fase Barras desplazadas
C. BILDT
National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm, Sweden.
Introduction
Sexual harassment at work is most often defined as unwelcome actions or verbal expressions with sexual con- tents that afflicts women and men’s integrity at the workplace. The European Commission Code of Practice definition is for example as follows: "Sexual harassment means unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of men and women at work" (Commission 1993). Sexual harassment is unacceptable behavior that subjects an individual or a group to unwelcome attention, intimidation, humiliation or ridicule. It may involve the abuse of seniority of position or status within the organization and may take many forms. Sexual harassment is not restricted to attempts to start a sexual relationship. The term covers harassment and offensive behavior based on the gender of the recipient. Such behavior may be verbal, non-verbal or physical and examples are given below:
• Verbal; telling sexual stories or jokes, making questions about personal or sexual life, making sexual innuen- does, making sexual comments about a person's dress or appearance, sexual propositions, continued sugges- tions for social activity outside the workplace after it has been made clear that this is unwelcome.
• Non-verbal; making suggestive gestures such as wolf whistling or leering, displaying pornographic material. • Physical; unwelcome touching, patting or pinching, touching or rubbing oneself sexually in front of another,
coerced sexual favors, criminal action, including rape or other physical assault.
The occurrence of sexual harassment differs between the various sectors of labor market, and especially women working in male dominated sectors or occupations have been found to be exposed to sexual harassment. In one example more than half of the female construction workers had experienced sexual harassment (Goldenhar et al 1998). Socio-economic status does not seem to be an important predictor since for example female physicians (at least in one study) had a prevalence of almost 48 percent gender discrimination and of almost 37 percent gender harassment. Sexual harassment in academia, at universities and college universities, has been examined in some studies, but then mostly with focus on the students, rather than the employees (Roosmalen 1998. In these studies, the prevalence of various types of expressions for sexual harassment ranged from 7 to 60 percent, depending of the definition.
It is not farfetched to assume that there is a relation between sexual harassment and other forms of workplace harassment, and such relationships has been indicated in some studies (Paterson 1997). An organization that allows harassment of one type might as well allow other forms of harassment, and some earlier studies have indicated a rela- tion between sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Sexual harassment and gender discrimination seem to be concomitant, and sexual harassment to be a result of a work organization that in it self discriminates and that accept such behavior among the employees (Fitzgerald et al 1997). It has, for example, been shown that organizations or com- panies where there are few sanctions against sexual harassment, and where women have lower status than men (for example lower wages) had a much higher occurrence of sexual harassment than other organizations or companies. Also in a longitudinal context has such a relation been found (Glomb et al 1999). Where there was an acceptance for gender discrimination in the organization and where the individuals worked within non-traditional jobs, the prevalence of sex- ual harassment later on was much higher than in other organizations. Such a context did also predict poor mental health and low job satisfaction among individuals.
The common characteristic between sexual harassment and other forms of harassment, or mobbing and conflicts, is that they stemming from conflictual interpersonal relationships. In general, when the occurrence of sexual harassment is compared between women and men, women more often than men experience sexual harassment at work (Rospenda & Flaherty 2000). During the last years, harassment experiences have more often than earlier been included in the framework of work stress, thereby being seen more as a result of how the work organization does function rather than being a result of poor characteristics among individuals. (Schneider et al 1997). Also in relation to workplace violence has work organization factors been shown to be important, as has work climate (Cole 1997).
Gender differences have been observed also in that respect that even thus women and men observes the same behavior, they do not interpret it similarly. One proposed explanation is the fact that men most often have more power than women, and that power is an important aspect of sexual harassment (Wiener & Hurt 2000). One aspect of power is allocation of resources and access to information. Another aspect is access to informal power structures (or decision structures), and it has been shown that within the academia, such structures have a large influence on distribution of funds and resources for research (Wold & Wennerås 1997). In their study, male applicants had more access to the in- formal decision structures (knew more of the reviewers) and did therefore receive more of the funds, compared to fe- male applicants.
The relations between sexual harassment, and to a certain degree also gender discrimination, general discrimi- nation (a variety of causes) and health effects have been studied, and associations have been found. In most of the stud- ies mental health has been the studied health outcome, but also leaving work and reduced job satisfaction has been stud- ied as an outcome from sexual harassment (Goldenhar et al 1998, Gutek & Koss 1993, Piotrkowski 1998). Sexual har- assment has been recognized as a continuing, chronic occupational health problem in many of today’s working envi- ronment (Bell et al. 1998). Generalized discrimination has been shown to have as large influence on the population’s mental health as many of the more commonly studied stressors.
Aim
The aim of the present study is to examine the relation between sexual harassment, gender discrimination, bullying, conflicts and informal decision structures. A second aim is to examine the relation between these factors and health outcomes among women and men.
Method
During autumn 2000, a study aiming at describing the work situation for women and men working with educa- tion and research at a large university in the northern part of Sweden was performed. Sexual harassment and gender discrimination were in focus, as were informal power structures and psychosocial working conditions in general. The study was designed as a cross-sectional study and the experiences from it are planned to form the basis for a compara- tive European study, including all Swedish universities and college universities, as well as a number of educational institutions in other European countries.
The university have five faculties – school of education, humanistic, medical-odontologic, social sciences and science faculty – and the study group consisted of all PhD students, Assistant master, Senior master, Post doc research- ers and Professors that were employed at the university in September 2000. Those 2 049 individuals received a ques- tionnaire and a letter with a request to participate in a study performed by Statistics Sweden, with the main aim to de- scribe women’s and men’s working condition at the university and to analyze if the questionnaire used was sufficiently designed to make it possible to answer the research questions in the study. Out of these 2 049 individuals did 68 percent (599 women and 796 men) participate in the study.
Information was collected about a wide range of work-related subjects. The “exposure” data analyzed in the present study focused on sexual harassment and gender discrimination, decision structures and equality. Poor health was in the present study defined as occurrence of psychosomatic symptoms; heartburn, acid indigestion, smarting pain in the stomach or upset stomach, been tired and listless, headache or having trouble to sleep, because of thinking about work. The eligible subjects who did not return the questionnaire within the time limit given in the accompanying letter was reminded by post. In total three reminders were sent out, and out of them did the last include a new copy of the ques- tionnaire.
To study the relation between the studied variables, path analyses were made, using SPSS. To present the occur- rence of the various factors of interest among the study group, and to prepare for analyzes of association, the variables was dichotomized. Univariate analyzes of association between the studied working conditions and health was per- formed, and prevalence rates (PR) have been used as a measure of association, calculated in the module PROC FREQ in SAS. The precision of the point estimates of PR was estimated by test based 90% confidence intervals (c.i.) (Miettinen 1976). All analyzes were made per gender. To analyze the influence from background variables – age, faculty and posi- tion – also stratified analyzes was performed and presented.
Results
Sexual harassment was more prevalent among women then among men, as was gender discrimination, which was re- ported by almost half of the women (table 1). A similar proportion of women and men did report that there are informal decision structures and these had negatively affected about a fifth of the respondents. The proportion of respondents who had no access to these structures was twice as high among women then among men. Both women and men re- ported lack of equality. Many more men than women reported that women are favourised at their institution, and more than twice as many women then men reported that men were are favourised, all thus the proportion of women reporting prevalence of favouritism was much higher than the proportion of men. Conflicts and being treated with lack of objec- tivity was reported to similar degree among women as among men. Poor health was more common among women than among men.
The path analyzes revealed some differences in the pattern of associations between the studied “exposure” variables among women and men (figure 1 and 2). There were more relations between lack of equality and other studied factors among men than among women, where lack of equality only was related to gender dis- crimination, and not to bullying and con- flicts. Among women, bullying was stronger related to conflicts, among women than among men, as was gender discrimina- tion to bullying. Lack of equality and con- flicts were significantly related to sexual harassment among women, but none of the studied factors to sexual harassment among men. Informal decision structures at work was negatively related to bullying among women and positively to bullying among women. Age, faculty belonging and position (not included in the figure) did not influence the other studied factors significantly among women or among men.
Table 1. Occurrence of harassment, discrimination, informal decision structures and health outcomes. Per gender as percent
Whole study group
Women Men
(N=599) (N=796) Diff.
Harassment and discrimination
Sexual harassment 9 2 *
Gender discrimination 42 15 *
Bullying 13 9 *
Conflicts 26 23 *
Decision structures and equality
Informal decision structures 40 40 ns
Negativly affected by informal decisions 25 20 * No access to informal decision structures 26 10 *
Treated with lack of objectivity 47 51 ns
Lack of equality
Women are favorised 3 15 *
Men are favorised 49 22 *
Lack of information 34 21 *
Health outcome
Poor health 14 8 *
Diff=difference of proportions, *=significant at 95% level, ns=non significant
Figure 1. Associations between the studied factors and sexual harassment among women
N = 379, chi-square = 22.62, df = 12, p < .03, RMSEA = 0.048
Sexual
Conflicts Gender discrimination BullyingInfor-
l
Lack of
Lack
0.04 0.42 0.19 0.02 0.08 0.17 0.15 0.00 0.04 -0.08 0.26 -0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.09 0.01 -0.04 0.48
The analyses of association did reveal that some of the studied aspects of the psychosocial working condi- tions were related to poor health (table 2). Common among both women and men were that gender discrimination, bullying, conflicts, being negatively affected by informal decision structures, that women are favourised and lack of information were related to poor health. Among women, also sexual harassment and that men are favourised were related to poor health, as was the occurrence of informal decision structures among men. The level of the point estimates differed somewhat between women and men, but not dramatically. The influence from age, faculty belonging and position was very modest.
Table 2. Associations between harassment, discrimination, informal decision structures and health outcomes. Per gender (Women N=599, Men N=796)
* ** *** * ** ***
PR c.i. PR c.i. PR c.i. PR c.i. PR c.i. PR c.i. PR c.i. PR c.i. Harassment and discrimination
Sexual harassment 1.4 1.1, 1.8 1.3 1.0, 1.7 1.3 1.0, 1.8 1.3 1.0, 1.8 1.3 0.6, 2.6 1.4 0.7, 3.1 1.3 0.6, 2.6 1.3 0.6, 2.6 Gender discrimination 1.5 1.2, 1.8 1.5 1.2, 1.8 1.5 1.2, 1.8 1.5 1.2, 1.9 1.5 1.2, 1.9 1.4 1.1, 1.8 1.5 1.2, 2.0 1.6 2.1, 1.9 Bullying 1.5 1.2, 1.9 1.5 1.2, 2.0 1.5 1.2, 1.9 1.5 1.2, 1.9 2.0 1.5, 2.5 1.9 1.5, 2.5 1.9 1.5, 2.5 1.9 1.5, 2.5 Conflicts 1.6 1.4, 2.0 1.7 1.4, 2.0 1.6 1.3, 1.9 1.6 1.4, 2.0 1.9 1.5, 2.3 1.8 1.5, 2.2 1.9 1.5, 2.8 1.9 1.5, 2.3 Decision structures and equality
Informal decision structures 1.1 0.9, 1.4 1.1 0.9, 1.4 1.1 0.9, 1.4 1.1 0.9, 1.4 1.5 1.2, 1.8 1.4 1.1, 1.7 1.5 1.2, 1.8 1.5 1.2, 1.8 Negativly affected by informal 1.2 1.0, 1.5 1.3, 1.0, 1.6 1.2 1.0, 1.5 1.2 1.0, 1.5 1.6 1.3, 2.0 1.6 1.1, 2.0 1.6 1.3, 2.0 1.6 1.3, 2.0 decision structures
No access to informal decision 0.8 0.5, 1.3 0.9 0.5, 1.4 0.8 0.5, 1.3 0.8 0.5, 1.4 1.0 0.7, 1.5 1.0 0.7, 1.5 1.0 0.7, 1.4 1.0 0.7, 1.4 structures
Treated with lack of objectivity 1.1 0.9, 1.4 1.1 0.9, 1.4 1.1 0.9, 1.4 1.2 1.0, 1.4 1.4 1.1, 1.8 1.4 1.1, 1.8 1.4 1.1, 1.8 1.4 1.1, 1.8 Lack of equality 1.4 1.1, 1.7 1.3 1.1, 1.6 1.4 1.1, 1.7 1.4 1.1, 1.7 1.3 1.0, 1.6 1.2 1.0, 1.5 1.2 1.0, 1.5 1.3 1.0, 1.6 Women are favorised 1.4 1.1, 1.9 1.4 1.0, 2.1 1.1, 1.0, 1.9 1.4 1.0, 1.9 1.3 1.1, 1.7 1.3 1.1, 1.6 1.3 1.1, 1.7 1.3 1.1, 1.7 Men are favorised 1.4 1.2, 1.6 1.3 1.1, 1.6 1.4 1.1, 1.6 1.4 1.1, 1.6 1.1 0.9, 1.3 1.0 0.8, 1.3 1.0 0.9, 1.3 1.0 0.9, 1.3 Lack of information 1.2 1.0, 1.4 1.1 0.9, 1.4 1.2 1.0, 1.4 1.2 0.9, 1.4 1.6 1.3, 2.0 1.6 1.2, 2.0 1.6 1.3, 2.0 1.6 1.3, 2.0 * = adjusted for age, ** = adjusted for faculty belonging, *** = adjusted for position
Women Men
Figure 2. Associations between the studied factors and sexual harassment among men
N = 501, chi-square = 22.62, df = 12, p < .03, RMSEA = 0.048
Sexual
Conflicts Gender discrimination BullyingInfor-
l
Lack of
Lack
0.07 0.29 0.20 -0.02 0.06 0.08 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 0.78 0.14 0.19 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.27
Discussion
The prevalence of sexual harassment and gender discrimination agrees well with earlier studies. Several of the results in the present study were surprising, for example that informal decision structures was more harmful to men’s health than to women’s health and also that they were related to bullying among men but not among women. I had ex- pected it to be the other way round, since there have been many reports of women not being allowed into the chambers where important decisions are taken. Have women managed to overcome those obstacles? Also the finding that lack of equality was related to several of the studied factors among men but “only” to gender discrimination among women was a surprise. What is clear from the result of the path analyses is that the relation between gender discrimination, bullying and conflicts at work are much stronger among women than among men, even thus the relationships are statistically significant also among men. It is also clear, out from the results of the analyses of association with poor health, that both women and men’s health is influenced by gender discrimination, bullying and conflicts (the last two more strongly so among men than among women). The same trend can be seen when it comes to lack of information and lack of ob- jectivity. An interesting finding was that women’s health are negatively influenced by lack of equality, regardless if it is women or men that are negatively treated, but men’s health affects only if it is men who are negatively treated.
A general conclusion drawn from the results in the present study is that there is a need for organizational changes at the studied university, a need for development of strategies to handle harassment and discrimination, and that such changes could be expected to have a major influence on the working climate and health among both the female and male employees.
References
Bell, M., Quick, J., Cycyota, C. (2002) Assessment and prevention of sexual harassment: Creating healthy organiza- tions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 160-167
Cole, A. (1996) Fighting The Bully. Health Service Journal, 22-4
Commission of the European Communities (1993) How to combat sexual harassment at work: A guide to implementing the European Commission Code of Practice. Brussels.
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 Frank E (1998) Prevalence and correlates of harassment among US women physicians. Archives of Internal Medicine
158, 352-358
Glomb T., Munson L., Hulin C. (1999) Structural equation models of sexual harassment: longitudinal explorations and cross-sectional generalizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 14-28
Goldenhar L, Swanson N, Hurrel J, Ruder A & Deddens J (1998) Stressors and adverse outcomes for female construc- tion workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3, 19–32
Gutek B & Koss M (1993) Effects of sexual harassment on women and organizations. Occupational Medicine, 8, 807– 819
Paterson, B., McComish, A.. And Aitken, I. (1997) Abuse And Bullying: Nursing Management (USA), 10, 8-9 Piotrkowski, C. (1998) Gender harassment, job satisfaction, and distress among employed white and minority women.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3, 33–43
van Roosmalen, E. & S. McDaniel (1998) Sexual harassment in academia: A hazard to women’s health. Women & Health, 28, 33-55
Rospenda, K. & Flaherty, J. (2000) Sexual harassment, generalized abuse, and mental health outcomes in university
employees. CoE Research Roundtable on Women’s Mental Health Issues at the University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago
Schneider, K., Swann, 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
Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social-sexual conduct: A psycholegal model. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 85, 75-85
Wold, A. Wennerås, C. (1997) Bias in peer review: A review of the article Sexism and Nepotism in Peer-review. Na-