By Lamar Odom, Connie Green, Nikkie Saldivar Hodgson, Karlene Fenton, and Daniel Calvert, Our Lady of the Lake University.

Academic Citation: Odom, L., Green, C., Hodgson, N.S., Fenton, K, and Calvert, D., "Leadership, Power and Sexual Harassment: An Ethical Perspective," Kravis Leadership Institute Leadership Review, Fall 2003.

About the Authors:: Lamar Odom, J.D.,M.S., is an Assistant Professor at the Center for Leadership Studies, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas. Connie Green, is an Assistant Professor, University of the Incarnate Word, and a doctoral student, Center for Leadership Studies, Our Lady of the Lake University. Nikkie Saldivar Hodgson, is a doctoral student, Center for Leadership Studies, Our Lady of the Lake University. Karlene Fenton, is a doctoral student, Center for Leadership Studies, Our Lady of the Lake University. Dale Calvert, J.D., MBA, is an Associate Professor, School of Business, Our Lady of the Lake University.

ABSTRACT

Sexual harassment exists at all levels within an organization in relationships categorized as male-to-female, male-to-male, female-to-male, and female-to-female. Through research, there have been attempts to conceptualize sexual harassment. In a recent review, Lengnick-Hall (1995) identified several frameworks apparent in current research: gender approaches, role approaches, power approaches, and demographic approaches. In this paper, the authors examine the power approach, which "define[s] sexual harassment as a product of power differences between men and women in society and the workplace" (e.g., Hemming, 1985). Both men and women hold several sources of power. The authors theorize that leaders should use their power for both preventing and eliminating this unethical behavior of sexual harassment in the workplace.

INTRODUCTION

Sexual harassment continues to be one of the primary problems facing leaders in the workplace. Notwithstanding the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which established a federal cause of action for workplace sexual discrimination and the numerous state statutes that also provide women and men protection from unwelcome sexual advances, cases of such behavior continue to crowd the dockets. When leaders fail to “do the right thing”, corrective measures are often sought through legislation. For example, passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that mandated changes in financial reporting by public companies and enhanced the powers of the Security and Exchange Commission, was a direct result of the numerous cases of unethical conduct of leaders in corporate America. So, whether the unethical behavior is sexual harassment or cooking the corporate books, the common nexus seems to be the leader’s inability to properly exercise the ethical use of power over those persons or entities he attempts to lead.

Congress seems to have recognized this void through its passage of the numerous anti-discrimination laws. Consequently, women and minorities have experienced increased opportunities in the area of employment. However, along with these positive gains, the protections afforded by the law, women, and in some cases men, continue to be adversely impacted by the willingness of some leaders to use their position of authority to engage in the illegal conduct of sexual harassment.

WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors that result in a hostile environment or quid pro quo tangible job detriment (Miller & Jentz, 2000, p. 54). In many cases, the harassment occurs because the harasser is in a position of leadership or authority that provides the necessary power to facilitate the harassing behavior. Power is defined as “the potential ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things they would not otherwise do” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 30). Simply stated, it is the capacity to influence the behavior of others. Leaders, by definition, use their power whether it is referent, expert, reward-based, positional, coercive or legitimate, to influence followers to achieve certain objectives (Northouse, 2001). If power is used ethically, objectives are achieved and the leader is acknowledged as effective. However, when power is used unethically, as in the case of sexual harassment, the leader and the organization may face serious consequences. Although contemporary literature is fraught with the topic of sexual harassment and power, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Individuals and corporations continue to face criminal and civil remedies for their conduct resulting in huge settlements against the organization (Odom et al., 2003).

This article examines the relationship between leadership, power and sexual harassment in the workplace. Specifically, it addresses how perceived and actual power, when applied ethically, serves as a source of and solution to workplace sexual harassment. In order to ensure long-term survival, organizations have a legal and moral obligation to keep the workplace free of sexual harassment and its accompanying employee fear and intimidation.

POWER AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and comparable state statutes protect workers from workplace discrimination, including sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is often classified into two broad categories. The first category is quid pro quo, which when translated means “something in exchange for something else.” The second category is that of a hostile work environment. As previously stated, sexual harassment occurs when “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment” (Miller & Jentz, 2000, p.584). When the harassment is characterized as quid pro quo, it is often the result of a leader’s unethical use of power. According to the seminal work of researchers French and Raven, leaders possess various forms of power. In the context of quid pro quo sexual harassment, the leader often uses his position, referent or expert power to achieve sexual ends (Northouse, 2001).

The unethical use of power results in employees submitting to unwelcome sexual advances, verbal or physical abuse, or requests for sexual favors in exchange for continued employment. It is important to note that voluntarily engaging in the requested conduct does not necessarily mean the conduct was not unwelcome. A person may accommodate a request for sexual advances due to the position power of the harasser (Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v Vinson Et Al., 477 U.S. 57, 1986). For example, an Army drill sergeant was tried and convicted for sexual assault and rape, notwithstanding the fact that many of the victims admitted that they consented to the sexual encounter, found the defendant sexually attractive, and in some cases enjoyed the encounter (United States v. Simpson, 55 M.J. 674, 2001). However, the court ruled that the defendant used his position of power and influence over the trainees to effectively negate their consent. The court described this type of abuse of power as constructive force. Constructive force, which is defined as one’s reputation within the organization, actual and apparent authority, official office, and leadership position, can be the basis to negate consent, or make what appears to be welcomed behavior, unwelcome. For example, constructive force was used in Meritor, where a bank employee engaged in sex with her supervisor over 50 times. Although the supervisor unethically used his position power to engage in sex with his employee, and the sex was consensual, the United States Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the victim’s voluntarily behavior, quid pro quo sexual harassment occurred. The Court established a distinction between the voluntary behavior of having sex and whether the victim through her conduct was in fact welcoming the harassing conduct. The Court’s ruling suggested that the unethical use of power would not be tolerated in the work place.

As in Meritor, most sexual harassment occurs between male supervisors and female subordinates; however, sexual harassment can also occur when the female is in a superior role to the male, or when two individuals are of the same gender. The 2003 case of Fantazzi v. Temple University (2003 US Dist. Lexis 3445) is illustrative of this type of legal action. Fantazzi claimed that there were a number of incidents of a sexual nature which took place over a period of nine months. He alleged his female supervisor propositioned him for sex, touched him inappropriately, and made inappropriate sexual comments.

In addition to Fantazzi, power is also used to engage in same-sex sexual harassment. Perhaps the most important case in recent years involving allegations of same-sex sexual harassment is the landmark case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Service. In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court held that same-sex sexual harassment in the workplace was actionable under the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Oncale claimed he was the victim of sexual remarks and inappropriate behavior to the extent that he “felt that if I didn’t leave my job, I would be raped or forced to have sex.” While the court noted that “same-sex sexual harassment in the workplace was not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII, nevertheless there is no justification in the language of the statute or Supreme Court precedents for a categorical rule excluding such claims from Title VII’s coverage.”

These types of cases lend credence to the theory that abuse of power for sexual gains is not just limited to men. In fact, as more and more women attain levels of prominence within organizations, the potential for female abuse of power for sexual gains will increase.

THE ETHICAL USE OF POWER

Although leadership and power are inextricably connected, another component of equal importance is ethics. According to Joanne Ciulla in her book entitled Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, “leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good. Ethics, then, lies at the very heart of leadership.” Quid pro quo sexual harassment is contingent upon the leader’s unethical use of power, oftentimes position power or legitimate power. Northouse provides the following description of position power: “Position power refers to the power a person derives from a particular office or rank in a formal organization whereas personal power refers to the power a leader derives from followers” (Northouse, 2001, p. 6). Sexual harassment is concerned primarily with positional power, since submission to unwanted behavior may be a condition of employment. Further, those in a position of authority have the ability to reward or punish a subordinate for failure to submit to the unwanted behavior.

A leader’s ability to exert influence is not limited to his positional power. Researchers French and Raven (1959) provide the most widely cited research on power (Northouse, 2001, Bolman & Deal, 1997). “French and Raven identified five common and important types of power: (a) reward, (b) coercive, (c) legitimate, (d) referent, and (e) expert” (Northouse, p. 7). Reward, coercive, and legitimate power are utilized individually or in various combinations to influence a worker to submit to unwanted behavior.

Reward power is characterized by the ability of one to deliver rewards based on specific conduct. Coercive power is characterized by the ability of one to punish or restrict based on specific conduct. One who exercises coercive power often evokes fear in the subordinate worker. Legitimate power is characterized by the ability of one to exert influence over another based on the authority that is granted one due to one’s position within the organization.

While many workers cannot clearly define “sexual harassment” or “power,” they certainly know it when it occurs. When used unethically, power can be the source of sexual harassment; however, when used ethically power can be the solution to sexual harassment in the workplace. According to Joseph Rost in his often cited book, Leadership For The Twenty-First Century, leaders must evaluate their ethical decision-making and behavior in the context of the process and the content of their actions. A leader may engage in an unethical process to achieve an end that has an ethical content or result. Or, to the contrary, a leader may use an ethical process to achieve an unethical result. In either case, Rost posits that the leader is ultimately engaging in unethical behavior if both the process and content are not ethical. “When an individual is faced with a free choice between harmful (e.g. sexually harassing) or non-harmful actions, a moral issue exists; when the individual chooses the harmful action (e.g. sexual harassment), an unethical decision has been made” (O’Leary-Kelly, 2001).

The ethical use of power is essential to eliminating quid pro quo sexual harassment in the workplace. Leaders must realize that only through the ethical use of power will they reap the benefits of a highly motivated employee and avoid the corporate liability associated with unethical use of power. For example, reward power can give leaders the ability to deliver a job, money, political support, or other rewards. Leaders with reward power can easily demand subordinates to provide sexual favors in order to remain on the job, earn an extra bonus, or gain other rewards that may be of great value. Usually the subordinates being harassed value the position and wages, which makes them even more likely to tolerate the sexual advances. However, such abuse of power is not without consequences and often such consequences are to the detriment of the organization (Odom & Green, 2003).

CONCLUSION

Power is an essential element of leadership. However, when used inappropriately and unethically, power can have grave consequences to an organization. As previously discussed, one area in which such abuse often occurs is sexual harassment. Whether leaders are using positional, reward, or coercive power, the ethical use of power must be a paramount concern. In every organization “positions confer certain levels of formal authority—professors assign grades, and judges decide disputes” (Bolman & Deal, 1997). People in certain positions also place their own people in either a more or a less powerful position within their organization. Therefore, those with position power can exercise influence and even sexually harass those without position power with possible impunity because of their status within the organization. “If sexual harassment is tolerated by management and if reports are not taken seriously, targets may believe that the risks of reporting are too great” (Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993). Individuals may also fear some sort of retaliation against them for filing the complaint; and the thought of losing their job, wages, and benefits, or even the possibility of a demotion, is distressing enough to simply continue to put up with the sexual harassment activities.

Leaders with legitimate power can use their authority to achieve what they want sexually: the individual being harassed faces a decision of whether to report inappropriate behavior. Some research has found that gender roles may determine whether or not sexual harassment occurs and whether or not the incident is reported. In many cases, tenure in an organization and the occupational skills level of an individual have been found to have an impact on how individuals respond to sexual harassment. Gruber & Bjorn (1986) found that women at lower occupational levels are less likely to respond assertively to sexual harassment. On the contrary, Terpstra & Cook (1985) found that paraprofessional women and women in technical positions are more likely to file charges than are professional women. In addition to reporting the harassment, victimized individuals will have to be prepared to reckon with the circumstances, which can harm the reputation of those in power as well as those without the power.

Sexual harassment is a serious problem, especially when the problem is allowed to perpetuate. However, while the unethical use of power by leaders is often the source of sexual harassment, the ethical use of such power can help remedy sexual harassment. Leaders with (a) reward, (b) coercive, (c) legitimate/position, (d) referent, and/or (e) expert power must use their power ethically. One way to do so would be for leaders to use their power to establish an ethical climate within the organization. This can be achieved by establishing a zero tolerance policy, conducting mandatory sexual harassment training, and providing prompt corrective assistance to the victimized employee.

It is important for leaders to use their power proactively because so many victims feel powerless to address the harasser. Usually "those having lower-level jobs, those having a great power differential between them and the perpetrator, and those believing their organization will not provide the support needed to remedy workplace sexual harassment" (Knapp & Faley, 1997) hesitate to report the harassing behavior, but victimized employees must move beyond the avoidance/denial stage and take constructive action. If victimized employees do nothing to correct the unethical behavior of the harasser, employees will certainly continue to experience negative consequences, e.g. "career interruption, lower productivity, less job satisfaction, lower self-confidence, loss of motivation, deterioration of interpersonal relationships, and loss of commitment to work and employer" (Crull, 1982; DiTomaso, 1989; Fitzgerald, Hulin, & Drasgow, 1994; Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Gutek, 1985; Gutek & Koss, 1993; USMSPB, 1981, 1987).

Leaders possessing position power can clearly communicate and enforce a sound sexual harassment policy, develop investigatory and disciplinary procedures, plus offer centralized and decentralized reporting systems. These people would seek to utilize the advocacy approach to resolving sexual harassment behavior. More importantly, such policies could serve a defense to organizational liability (Odom et al.2003).

Quid pro quo sexual harassment has a causational relationship with the use of power within an organization. All employees must take responsibility to eradicate this unethical behavior. The values and norms established on sexual harassment are paramount to employee satisfaction, and in preventing turnover and legal action. To exercise power is a natural phenomenon; however, it is whether leaders or subordinates use power to create problems or to resolve issues that can make a substantial difference in the workplace dynamic. Leaders who obtain and use power ethically will be successful in diminishing costs and maintaining a stable, respectful, and safe workforce.

REFERENCES

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.

Ciulla, J.B. (1998). Ethics The Heart of Leadership, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.

Fantazzi v. Temple University (2003 US Dist. Lexis 3445)

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990’s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5-27.

Gruber, J. E., & Bjorn, L. (1986). Women’s response to sexual harassment: An analysis of sociocultural, organization, and personal resource models. Social Science Quarterly, 67, 814-826.

Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55-74.

Hemming, H. (1985). Women in man’s world: Sexual harassment. Human Relations, 38, 67-79.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue- contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.

Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., Ekeberg, S. E., & Dubois, C. L. Z. (1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 22, 687-729.

Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1995). Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique. Personnel Psychology, 48, 841-864.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing. Personnel Psychology, 41, 267-281.

Miller, R. L. & Jentz, G. A. (2000). Business law today. London: International Thomson Publishing Europe.

Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v Vinson Et Al., 477 U.S. 57, 1986.

Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Odom, L., & Green, M.T., (2003), Law and the ethics of transformational leadership. The Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 24, 62-69

Odom, L., Ferguson, R., Golightly-Jenkins, C., Alarcon, R., Leadership Review , Summer-2003

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 US 75; 118 S. Ct. 998; 140 L. Ed. 2nd 20l

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2001). Sexual harassment as unethical behavior the role of moral intensity. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 73-93.

Rost, J.C. (1998), Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, Praeger, Westport, CT.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5. Women and men in the workplace: Language, sex and power. New York: Avon.

Terpstra, D.E., & Cook, S. E. (1985). Complainant characteristics and reported behaviors and consequences associated with formal sexual harassment charges. Personnel Psychology, 38:559-574.

United States v. Simpson, 55 M.J. 674., 2001

Velasquez, M.G., & Rostankowski, C. (1985). Ethics: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Wren, J.T. (1995). The Leader's companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. New York: The Free Press.