The Costs of Harassment, the Value of Prevention

---

by Daryl Landau November 2005

-Print -Email -Comment -Subscribe  (free)

Every organization decides where to allocate resources to prevention, and where to reaction. Given the realities of scarce resources—time, money—and uncertainty about the future, it’s not possible to prevent every problem that could occur. This article makes a case, though, for the opportunity to save money through prevention in the area of workplace conflict, especially in cases of alleged harassment. It will look at one case in particular where this could have been done.

I consulted to an organization that was dealing with a man who had been found to have sexually harassed two coworkers. I read the investigation report, and also spoke to the department manager, and understood that the two women had been quite upset by the harassment. The fact that the harassment was described by the investigator as relatively low-level (the term “annoying” was used by one of the complainants) does not, I’m sure, take away from their experience of it.

I met with this “respondent”, and heard his story. Upon being accused of harassment, he denied it, but asked for mediation so he could apologize to the complainants. The complainants were not willing to meet. After the investigation found that harassment had occurred, though not in all of the alleged circumstances, this man had a mild stroke and had to have medical treatment. He also had to face his wife and children and explain what had happened.

The respondent felt strongly that the investigator, who was the internal Sexual Harassment Officer, had been biased from the start, and had coached the two complainants. Consequently, he filed several grievances against the employer. He had a witness who could testify to the bias of the investigator. The very real possibility was that the organization could face considerable embarrassment. For this reason, the organization launched a review of their complaint process.

Altogether, here are the costs of this harassment issue, in general terms:

• Personal costs to the complainants and the respondent, as well as to coworkers, family members, etc. Lost pay for the respondent after being suspended for a week. A drop in morale for all involved.
• Financial costs of doing an investigation, hiring me to provide sensitivity training, then going through a grievance process to arbitration.
• Time involved, and lost productivity, for all individuals to deal with this issue, and to conduct the review of the complaint process.
• Embarrassment for all involved.

Now let’s consider what prevention might have meant. The respondent says that he had never in his career been given harassment or sensitivity training. Moreover, this was his first experience of being accused of harassment. It is realistic to assume that a good one-day workshop would have raised his awareness about the risks of some of his behaviour. Next, one can ask, why did the complainants not tell him that the behaviour was unwelcome? The allegations, in general, were low-level and not necessarily obvious. The respondent was not in a position of authority. The answer might be that the complainants were uncomfortable asserting themselves. It is likely that a good one-day training on how to assert oneself in cases of harassment would have altered their choice.

The added benefit of preventative training is that it demonstrates the employer’s commitment to a respectful workplace. It forms part of the due diligence to uphold human rights.

This case is not rare. Either it has happened in your organization, or it will. Why wait for the consequences?

Biography

---

Daryl Landau is a Mediator who specializes in employment and human rights cases. Daryl has a Master's degree from the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (George Mason University) in Virginia. He has worked as a Mediation Officer at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. He is the co-author of the book From Conflict To Creativity: How Resolving Workplace Disagreements Can Inspire Innovation and Productivity. He is a roster mediator with the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program. Daryl also facilitates meetings, runs training programs, coaches individuals, and conducts workplace assessments.

Email Author
Website: www.orgstrat.ca

Additional articles by Daryl Landau

Comments

Tweet

---

Free subscription to comments on this article

Add Brief Comment

Fran ,   San Diego CA	12/11/05
It seems to me that managers can use some preventive training, as well. Sometimes a manager is in the position to prevent harrassment from taking place between coworkers, if s/he knows the coworkers. In one situation where space was at a premium and numerous employees shared an office, a manager decided to place certain employees together in an effort to control employee behavior. This put undue stress on the employees, making one person uncomfortable dealing with inappropriate behavior and making the others resentful, seeing clearly what the manager was trying to do. Essentially, the manager was having an employee do his/her job. Not only was this unfair to that employee and putting that employee in harm's way, this caused undue stress and time wasted. Had these employees not sat together, the negative situation may never have come up. The employees might have remained on better terms. The manager needs to do his/her job. Add New Comment

Author	12/08/05
reply
Jacqueline, You are right that it would be a mistake to segregate in this way. I was thinking that everyone should get some preventative training in both subjects. Add New Comment

Jacqueline ,   Winnipeg	12/07/05
I do agree with preventative techniques, however, are you suggesting that these 1 day seminars be offered OR a requirement that employees attend? If a requirement, then my assumption would be that someone would "assign" an employee the specific seminar to take. This leads to making a determination of which employee would be a potential "harasser" and which employee would need to be "empowered", which is making more assumptions on these individuals, and in turn may be construed as discrimination based on sex (males attend the harassment seminar, females attend the assertion seminar). Add New Comment

The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Mediate.com or of reviewing editors.