Discrimination, Harassment,
and the Glass Ceiling: Women
Executives as Change Agents
ABSTRACT. In this article, we discuss the relationships between discrimination, harassment, and the
glass ceiling, arguing that many of the factors that
preclude women from occupying executive and
managerial positions also foster sexual harassment.
We suggest that measures designed to increase
numbers of women in higher level positions will
reduce sexual harassment. We first define and discuss
discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling,
relationships between each, and relevant legislation.
We next discuss the relationships between gender
and sexual harassment, emphasizing the influence of
gender inequality on sexual harassment. We then
present recommendations for organizations seeking to
reduce sexual harassment, emphasizing the role that
women executives may play in such efforts and,
importantly, the recursive effects of such efforts on
increasing the numbers of women in higher level
positions in organizations.
KEY WORDS: discrimination, gender equity, glass
ceiling, harassment, women executives
Myrtle P. Bell is a faculty member in the Management
Department at the University of Texas at Arlington.
Her research centers on diversity, including discrimination, harassment, physical ability, and effects of gender
and race on employment issues.
Mary E. McLaughlin is a faculty member in the
Management and Organization Department at The
Pennsylvania State University. Her publications and
research interests include the topics of disability and work,
method effects and cognition in self-reports, development
and application of attitude-behavior models to a variety
of management issues (e.g., affirmative action policies),
and sexual harassment.
Jennifer M. Sequeira is a management Ph.D. student at
the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research
interests are entrepreneurship, international entrepreneurship, diversity, and women’s issues within those
areas.
Myrtle P. Bell
Mary E. McLaughlin
Jennifer M. Sequeira
Although sex discrimination is prohibited by law
in the United States and various other regions,
it continues to be a widespread problem for
working women.1 Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, amended in 1991 to include
punitive damages, prohibits sex discrimination in
the U.S. in all employment-related matters.
Women in the U.S. have made considerable
progress in organizations in the nearly 40 years
since Title VII was passed and affirmative action
for women was implemented. Nonetheless,
women in the U.S. earn only about 76 cents to
the dollar that men earn (Wall Street Journal,
1998), are more concentrated in lower earning
industries and organizations than are men (Kim,
2000), and are under-represented in managerial
and executive positions – positions of power,
decision-making, and influence. Though comprising almost 50% of the U.S. workforce,
women occupy only about 30% of all salaried
manager positions, 20% of middle manager positions, and about 5% of executive level positions
(Bose and Whaley, 2001; Fagenson and Jackson,
1993; Rice, 1994). These disparities in earnings,
status, and position cannot be completely or
largely explained by differences in the education,
job tenure, or experience of working women,
leaving much to be attributed to employment
discrimination (Blau et al., 1998; Cain, 1986).
As in the U.S., discrimination against women
is a continuing problem around the world
(e.g., Can, 1995; Maatman, 2000; Muli, 1995;
Korabik, 1993; Shaffer et al., 2000). Various
countries provide prohibitions against discrimination. The Sex Discrimination Act of 1975
in the United Kingdom, the Canadian Human
Rights Act, the Sex Discrimination Acts of 1984
and 1992 in Australia (Barak, 1997) and the
Journal of Business Ethics 37: 65–76, 2002.
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
66
Myrtle P. Bell et al.
Hong Kong Sex Discrimination Ordinance of
1996 (Shaffer et al., 2000) all prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. These prohibitions
provide criminal and/or individual penalties for
such behavior (Maatman, 2000). Nonetheless,
despite bans against sex discrimination, in most
countries, as in the U.S., women’s lower earnings,
status, and occupation of managerial positions
when compared with men’s provide evidence of
its continued existence (Roos and Gatta, 2001).
In this article, we discuss the relationships
between discrimination, harassment, and the glass
ceiling, arguing that many of the factors that
preclude women from occupying executive and
managerial positions also foster sexual harassment. We suggest that measures designed to
increase representation of women in higher level
positions will also reduce sexual harassment. We
first define and discuss discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling, relationships between
each, and relevant legislation. We next discuss
the relationships between gender and sexual
harassment, emphasizing the influence of gender
inequality on sexual harassment. We then present
recommendations for organizations seeking to
reduce sexual harassment, emphasizing the role
that women executives may play in such efforts
and, importantly, the recursive effects of such
efforts on increasing the numbers of women in
higher level positions in organizations. Though
much of the discussion focuses on U.S. women,
because discrimination and harassment are issues
for working women worldwide, we include available references to such issues in various regions
outside of the U.S. In addition, our suggestions
for addressing discrimination and harassment
should be useful for organizations worldwide,
particularly given the increasing recognition of
the problems of discrimination and harassment
for working women around the world (e.g.,
Maatman, 2000; Shaffer et al., 2000).
Discrimination, harassment, and the glass
ceiling
We propose three forms of sex discrimination
that affect women in organizations: overt discrimination,2 sexual harassment, and the glass
ceiling. Though by no means exhaustive of discriminatory acts, each has negative effects on
women’s status and therefore on women’s ability
to effect change regarding such discrimination.
We discuss each form of discrimination, their
shared antecedents, and a possible solution below.
Overt discrimination
Overt discrimination is defined as the use of
gender as a criterion for employment-related
decisions. This type of discrimination was
targeted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibited making decisions based
on sex (as well as on race/ethnicity, national
origin, and religion) in employment-related
matters such as hiring, firing, and promotions.
Overt discrimination includes, but is not limited
to, such behaviors as refusing to hire women,
paying them inequitably, or steering them to
“women’s jobs”. Overt discrimination has long
been a factor in women’s employment experiences, yet its inclusion in Title VII is said to have
been an “after-thought” perceived as certain to
ensure its failure to pass.
Along with societal norms and perceptions of
gender-appropriate occupations, overt discrimination led to occupational sex segregation.
Occupational sex-segregation, in which at least
75% of workers in an occupation are male or
female, has declined somewhat in the past three
decades, however, most jobs remain fairly well
sex-segregated (Bose and Whaley, 2001). In the
U.S., women constitute the majority of nurses,
flight attendants, and secretaries, in positions
supportive of men, who comprise the majority
of physicians, pilots, and executives, respectively
(Roos and Gatta, 2001). Indeed, 7 of the 10 most
common jobs for women are sex segregated
(secretaries, cashiers, registered nurses, nursing
aides/orderlies/assistants, elementary school
teachers, and servers; Bose and Whaley, 2001).
These jobs are characterized by low pay, low
status, and short career ladders (Reskin, 1997).
Women’s occupational sex segregation, and the
concomitant low status, short career ladders, and
low pay, are common in other regions around the
world (Kemp, 1994; Shaffer et al., 2000). In the
Discrimination and Harassment
U.S. and other countries, women who are low
in organizational status, have low organizational
power, and who earn significantly less than men
are more frequent targets of sexual harassment
(Fain and Anderton, 1987; Gruber, 1998; Gruber
and Bjorn, 1982). Further, in these lower status
positions, and many others that women occupy,
women are considerably more likely to be supervised or managed by men than by women (Gutek
and Morasch, 1982; Nieva and Gutek, 1981),
which increases the risk that they will be harassed
by their male superiors.
Sexual harassment
Sexual harassment, a form of sex discrimination,
is but one manifestation of the larger problem
of employment-related discrimination against
women. It now appears obvious that sexual
harassment is a form of sex discrimination.
However, its inclusion under Title VII was not
the original intent of the act (Clarkson et al.,
1995, p. 743). Early legal cases under Title VII
questioned whether sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination (Lee and Greenlaw,
2000), often finding that it did not. Some cases
ruled that supervisor sexual harassment resulted
from individual proclivities over which organizations had little control (e.g., Corne v.
Bausch & Lomb, In., 1975). However, in 1980,
using Title VII, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published
guidelines on sexual harassment. These guidelines
clarified the illegality of harassment, describing
two specific types as being unlawful sex discrimination: quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment.
In quid pro quo harassment, employmentrelated bribery or threat is used to obtain sexual
compliance. The coercive nature of quid pro quo
harassment requires that the harasser have some
power over the target, thus most of such harassment is perpetrated by managers or supervisors.
Hostile environment harassment occurs when
sexual behaviors have “the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with an individual’s
work performance or creating an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive” work environment (EEOC,
67
1980, p. 74677). This type of harassment may
be perpetrated by managers, supervisors, peers,
or subordinates (Paetzold and O’Leary-Kelly,
1996).
As is overt discrimination, sexual harassment
is a persistent workplace problem for women
worldwide. Numerous regions include prohibitions against such harassment (e.g., Canada,
Israel, the United Kingdom, Australia; Barak,
1997), though with varying levels of stringency
and application. Though specific prohibitions,
terminology, and stringency vary worldwide,
researchers have empirically identified three psychological dimensions of sexual harassment that
persist across international boundaries: sexual
coercion, gender harassment, and unwanted
sexual attention (Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Gelfand
et al., 1995). These dimensions have been confirmed in the U.S., Brazil, China, Canada, and
other regions (e.g., Barak, 1997; Gelfand et al.,
1995; Shaffer et al., 2000).
It is estimated that at least half of all U.S.
women and about 15% of men will be sexually
harassed at some point during their careers
(Gutek, 1985; USMSPB, 1981, 1988). Although
most sexual harassment targets do not file formal
charges, more than 15,000 charges are filed with
the U.S. EEOC each year (Buhler, 1999), an
amount that has increased five-fold since the late
1980s. Most of those filing charges are women;
91% in 1992 and 86% in 2000 (EEOC, 2000).
In contrast, most harassment perpetrators are men
(Baugh, 1997; Keyton, 1996; O’Donohue, 1997,
p. 2); clearly, sexual harassment is a gendered
problem (Riger, 1991; Welsh, 1999). Indeed,
reasons frequently suggested as explanations for
the persistence and pervasiveness of sexual harassment are often gender-based, specifically, gender
differences in perceptions of what constitutes
harassment (e.g., Baugh, 1997; McKinney, 1992;
Piotrkowski, 1998; Riger, 1991; Welsh, 1999)
and gender differences in access to power and
status (both a consequence and a cause of overt
discrimination and harassment).
Sexual harassment may contribute to the
perpetuation of occupational sex segregation.
Women may purposefully enter occupations
typically dominated by women – occupations
that have lower pay and fewer opportunities for
68
Myrtle P. Bell et al.
advancement (Gutek and Koss, 1993; Kemp,
1994), in part to be safer from harassing coworkers. O’Farrell and Harlan (1982) found that
women working in non-traditional, craft worker
jobs experienced frequent harassment. Similarly,
women who were blue-collar trade and transit
workers in Mansfield et al’s (1991) study, also jobs
not traditionally held by women, were more
likely to be harassed than were secretaries. In
these cases, such sexual harassment may be deliberate and resentful behavior, designed to deter
women from entering historically male jobs
(Kemp, 1994; Martin, 1989; Miller, 1997; Tangri
et al., 1982). The sometimes virulent harassment
experienced by some women in male-dominated
environments (e.g., Yoder and Aniakudo, 1996)
makes the suggestion of intentional, purposeful
creation of an inhospitable working environment
appear credible.
The glass ceiling
The glass ceiling is the third form of discrimination that we discuss as affecting women in
organizations and is an important factor in
women’s lack of access to power and status in
organizations. The term “the glass ceiling” refers
to invisible or artificial barriers that prevent
women (and people of color) from advancing
past a certain level (Federal Glass Ceiling
Commission – FGCC, 1997; Morrison and von
Glinow, 1990). As discussed above, women
comprise about 30% of all managers, but less than
5% of executive managers in the U.S. At the
lowest levels, women comprise a larger percentage of managers, making more obvious the
disparities between women in high and low-level
managerial positions. The barriers that result in
such disparities are often subtle, and include
gender stereotypes, lack of opportunities for
women to gain the job experiences necessary to
advance, and lack of top management commitment to gender equity and equal employment
initiatives. As with overt discrimination and
sexual harassment, the glass ceiling exists in other
regions of the world. According to Antol and
Izraeli (1993), in industrialized nations overall,
the number of women in the highest levels of
management is about 6% (compared with about
5% in the U.S.). Of managerial women in China,
Korabik (1992, p. 204) stated that “the higher
the post, the fewer the women.”
As an “invisible” barrier, the glass ceiling is
difficult to eradicate through legislation. Informal
networking and mentoring are frequently suggested as means of increasing the numbers of
executive women (FGCC, 1997), yet these suggestions have had limited time to demonstrate
effectiveness for women. Further, networking
with and mentoring offered by executive men
can be less fruitful and more problematic for
junior women, who may be assumed to be
sexually involved with their mentors. These
problems can be particularly difficult for women
of color (Thomas, 1989).
In sum, the relative lack of women managers
and executives, the support roles many women
workers provide to men workers, and occupational sex-segregation all facilitate sexual
harassment. We propose that because overt
discrimination, the glass ceiling, and sexual
harassment are all forms of sex discrimination
with (some) shared antecedents, measures to
mitigate one will necessarily address the others.
In the sections that follow, we discuss how having
women in managerial and executive positions
may be one particularly effective measure for
reducing discrimination, for multiple reasons.
Women executives and harassment
prevention
In the previous sections we have discussed ways
in which discrimination, the glass ceiling, and
harassment affect women workers. Women who
have attained executive positions have apparently
achieved some measure of success against sex
discrimination in matters of promotion and
advancement. However, as evident by the existence of the glass ceiling, executive women are
by no means discrimination free. Nonetheless, in
the following sections, we propose that such
executive women are uniquely positioned to
address sexual harassment as illegal discrimination
in their organizations in a variety of ways. From
the perspective of the need for women execu-
Discrimination and Harassment
tives in the battle against sexual harassment, we
suggest that (1) women who work for male
supervisors or managers report greater harassment
and perceive their organizations as being more
tolerant of harassment, (2) women rarely perpetrate harassment, (3) women view harassing
behaviors differently from men and (4) women
executives are more likely to have personal experience with sexual harassment than are men.
Each is discussed below.
Supervisor gender and organizational tolerance of
sexual harassment
Research suggests that leader gender and
behavior influence perceptions of organizational
tolerance for sexual harassment and the actual
existence of sexual harassment in an organization.
For example, in Gutek’s (1985) stratified random
sample of workers in Los Angeles, women who
had a male supervisor were more likely to report
being harassed. Most of these women were
harassed by male co-workers, who may have perceived that such behavior was tolerated (or
condoned) by male supervisors. In Hulin et al’s
(1997) study, women who reported to a male
supervisor viewed the organization as being more
tolerant of harassment than did women who
reported to a female supervisor. Finally, in her
study of women office workers who worked
in male-dominated environments, Piotrkowski
(1998) found that women whose supervisors
were men experienced more frequent sexual
harassment than did women whose supervisors
were women. Further, the most frequent hostile
environment harassment was reported by women
whose supervisors were men whom they
perceived as being biased against women
(Piotrkowski, 1998). Gruber (1997, p. 95)
reporting several studies, summarized the relationship between leader behavior and harassment,
noting that “organizations whose leaders were
perceived as discouraging harassment had a lower
incidence of harassment.” For those perceived as
encouraging harassment and bias the opposite
was true.
69
Supervisor gender and harassment perpetration
Supervisor gender itself is also a factor in sexual
harassment, in a fairly simplistic way. Women
infrequently perpetrate sexual harassment; EEOC
estimates suggest that female to male of harassment comprises about 9% of harassment while
male to female harassment comprises 90% of
harassment, with the remainder being same sex
harassment (Keyton, 1996). Thus, it appears that
merely employing women in managerial and
executive positions would necessarily reduce
sexual harassment to some extent – particularly
sexual coercion.3
Gender differences in perceptions of harassing
behaviors
In addition to differing in the experience and
perpetration of sexual harassment, some gender
differences exist in the determination of what
behaviors constitute sexual harassment. These
differences are less pronounced with sexual
coercion; men and women view such behavior
similarly and clearly, both perceiving it as
harassment (Blakely et al., 1995; Burgess and
Borgida, 1997; Williams et al., 1997). Sexual
coercion occurs less frequently than does hostile
environment harassment (Gruber and Bjorn,
1982; Munson et al., 2000; O’Hare and
O’Donohue, 1998). Whether the more frequent,
but less clear cut behaviors, such as sexual joking,
making obscene comments, and persistent
requests for dates are deemed harassment depends
largely on the pervasiveness and persistence of
the behavior and the gender of the perceiver.
Specifically, women are more likely to interpret
ambiguous behaviors as harassing than are men;
in situations where the behavior is less clear cut,
women are more likely to label those behaviors
as being harassing than are men (e.g., Konrad
and Gutek, 1986; Thacker and Gohmann, 1993;
Wiener and Hurt, 2000). Thus, the types of
behaviors that are more common are also the
types of behaviors about which there are gender
differences in perceptions of whether sexual
harassment has occurred (see also Baugh, 1997).
These differences may help to explain the
70
Myrtle P. Bell et al.
persistence of sexual harassment (Baugh, 1997).
Even though women are more likely than men
to believe that certain behaviors do constitute
harassment, they are unlikely to be in positions
of power to influence behaviors, which contributes further to the persistence of sexual
harassment. Further, as suggested by Dipboye
(1985), women may not be treated fairly in organizations because the organizational culture may
directly and indirectly communicate that they
should not be. The absence of women in such
positions may signal to potential harassers that
women are not viewed as valuable members of
the organization.
Women executives and the experience of sexual
harassment
Despite being of higher level and status than most
working women, as noted earlier, women executives remain far outnumbered by men executives and also experience sexual harassment. In
addition to harassment from higher status executives and peers, women executives may also
experience “contra-power” harassment, in which
higher status women are harassed by lower
status men (Benson, 1984; Grauerholz, 1989;
McKinney, 1990, 1992). Galen et al. (1991)
reported that 53% of the National Association
of Female Executives in their survey had been
sexually harassed. In a study of healthcare executives, twenty-nine percent of the women executives and five percent of the men executives
reported having been harassed (Burda, 1996).
Executive women in a 1992 survey by Working
Women were also harassed at a higher rate than
non-executive women. Working Woman attributed
this in part to the employment of such executive women in male-dominated companies
(Sandoff, 1992). One respondent noted that “the
higher up you climb, the worse the harassment
gets,” reflecting her belief that the harassment
resulted from men’s efforts to deter advancement
of women (Sandoff, p. 48). Finally, in a sample
of professional and managerial Canadian women,
Burke and McKeen (1992) found that sexual
harassment was a significant problem and resulted
in lower organizational commitment and less job
satisfaction. Clearly, sexual harassment is not
limited to women of low occupational status,
which may be beneficial in cessation efforts.
Women executives, as persons who are more
likely to have experienced harassment than are
men executives, may have a greater ability to
empathize with harassment targets than would
men. In addition, regardless of whether they have
personally experienced harassment, executive
women will be likely to perceive harassing behaviors similarly to other women, who, as discussed
earlier, view such behaviors differently from men.
As policy-makers, regardless of a genuine intent
to maintain a harassment free environment, executive men may be perceptually disadvantaged
with regard to sexual harassment. Specifically, due
to their position as men, and a lifetime of unfamiliarity with sexual harassment or fear of assault,
executive men may be less able to perceive
sexually harassing behaviors as do women. Wells
and Kracher (1993) have argued that life experiences and socialization make women likely to
perceive sexual behaviors as offensive and possibly
frightening; men may perceive the same behaviors as harmless or flattering. These differences
in perception accentuate the need for women
executives to battle in the war against sexual
harassment.
Increasing women executives: equity and
policies
We have discussed relationships between discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling,
arguing that they are all factors that preclude
women from occupying executive and managerial positions. Thus, we are in a double-bind with
respect to executive women, discrimination, and
harassment. More women are needed in executive positions to help curb sexual harassment. At
the same time, sexual harassment (along with
other forms of discrimination against women)
may be preventing or limiting the advancement
of women to executive positions. In the following sections, we provide suggestions for
coping with this conundrum, drawn from the literatures on sexual harassment, discrimination,
and gender equity. We begin with organizational
Discrimination and Harassment
support of gender equity, which is an important
factor in reducing discrimination and harassment.
Given the small percentage of women in positions of power and decision-making in organizations, such a commitment to gender equity
would necessarily require the commitment of
men in such positions. The high costs of sexual
harassment, in the forms of withdrawal behaviors
and intentions (Shaffer et al., 2000), physical and
psychological effects on harassed employees
(Hulin et al., 1997; Piotrkowski, 1998; Schneider
et al., 1997), lowered job satisfaction (O’Farrell
and Harlan, 1982; Piotrkowski, 1998), litigation
costs, and damage awards if found liable, should
result in executives of both genders and other
stakeholders being wholeheartedly in support of
efforts to curb harassment.
Organizational support of gender equity
Grundmann et al. (1997, p. 177) have argued that
efforts to prevent sexual harassment would
include equal numbers of women and men in
various levels of authority, and clearly communicated job roles with expected duties and limits.
Gutek and Morasch (1982) indeed found that
women working in gender-integrated settings
with approximately equal numbers of men and
women reported the lowest levels of harassment.
We thus propose that concerted organizational
efforts be made to reduce sex segregation and to
employ women and men in various levels of
authority, across the organization. Women would
be employed in non-stereotyped positions, in
decision-making, and policy-making positions,
and earning pay comparable to men. Although
overt efforts to employ women in male-dominated environments may initially increase levels
of sexual harassment and backlash (see Burke and
McKeen, 1996 for a discussion), over time, sexist
barriers and hostile environments should be
reduced. In their research on sexual harassment
of women working in male-dominated fields,
Mansfield et al. (1991) noted that the women
who experienced the most harassment were
working in more recently sex-integrated environments. We suggest that in organizations committed to gender equity, awareness of the
71
potential for increased harassment would mean
more concerted prevention efforts, including a
strong harassment policy that reflects women’s
perspectives.
Sexual harassment policies
Strong sexual harassment policies have long been
suggested as an important means of curbing
sexual harassment (e.g., Dekker and Barling,
1998; Pryor et al., 1993). Stronger prohibitions
and sanctions against harassment are associated
with fewer reports of sexual harassment (Dekker
and Barling, 1998; Pryor et al., 1993). Further,
researchers have suggested that considering a
feminist view of harassment in designing harassment policies is important (Maier, 1997; Riger,
1991). Despite large damage awards discussed in
the media, most women who are harassed do not
file lawsuits or even formally complain (Gutek
and Koss, 1993; Sandoff, 1992). Baugh (1997)
and Riger (1991) have argued that women’s
failure to complain reflects gender bias in
policies, stemming from perceptual differences in
the way women and men view harassment and
from women’s belief that their complaints will
not be taken seriously. Riger has also suggested
that informal grievance procedures for sexual
harassment complaints may be more successful
than formal ones, given women’s relative lack of
power. In addition, rather than punishment or
retribution, many harassed women simply want
the behavior to stop (Riger, 1991; Robertson et
al., 1988). This suggests that in addition to formal
grievance policies, organizations should include
informal dispute resolutions that focus on harassment cessation for harassment targets who would
be more comfortable with such measures.
Women executives: An untapped advantage
Women executives’ leadership styles
A growing body of research indicates that women
executives differ from men executives in many
ways that enhance their management style and
success (e.g., Rigg and Sparrow, 1994; Rosener,
72
Myrtle P. Bell et al.
1990; Stanford et al., 1995), which may translate into how they address issues of sexual
harassment. A woman is more likely to lead an
organization from the center of a network of
interrelated teams, rather than from the top of a
traditional command hierarchy as do most male
leaders (Gilligan, 1982; Helgesen, 1990). As such
“centralist” leaders, women executives are more
likely to gain information directly about harassing
or discriminatory behaviors, and can thus be
more responsive (Smith, 2000, p. 38). As noted
earlier, they may also be more likely to see such
behaviors similarly to other women, rather than
discounting or doubting them.
Another benefit of increased numbers of executive women may be higher satisfaction and
retention of other managerial and professional
women – those who would be future executives,
shaping future policies. Burke and McKeen
(1996) have reported that managerial and professional women working in organizations with
predominantly men in higher level positions were
less satisfied with their jobs and had greater
intentions to quit than women in organizations
with less skewed gender ratios in higher level
positions. Burke and McKeen (1996) have also
argued that the absence of women in executive
positions may also result in the reluctance to
create policies supportive of career goals of lower
level managerial and professional women. We
suggest that an under-representation of women
may also result in reluctance or inability to create
sexual harassment policies that meet the needs
of women and men who are harassed. Regarding
harassment of men, in McKinney’s (1992) study
of contrapower harassment, male participants
thought that women who were harassed by
persons of lower status would be more upset than
men who were so harassed. Interestingly, female
participants thought that both men and women
targets of contrapower harassment would be
equally upset. That is, regardless of the target of
harassment, women see harassing behaviors
negatively. Thus, in situations where men are
harassed by women, women executives would be
expected to perceive this negatively rather than
as flattering or innocuous as executive men might
(Wells and Kracher, 1993).
Feminist perspective, equity, and effectiveness
Feminists and other researchers have long argued
that viewing discrimination and its effects from
a feminist rather than masculinist perspective
would be beneficial in many ways. For example,
Maier (1997, p. 943) has suggested that feminist
alternatives be considered in organizations, rather
than continuing to “take the prevailing masculinst managerial paradigm for granted.” He also
suggested that efforts toward gender equity would
be beneficial for men as well as for women, given
the prevailing (mis)perceptions and dysfunctionality inherent in masculinst assumptions. Maier
(1997, p. 943) argued that these assumptions
disadvantage women, parents (including men),
and reduce overall organizational performance.
He suggests that “feminist-based organizational
transformation” would promote gender equity as
well as more effective and ethical organizational
behavior.
We suggest that women executives may
increase organizational effectiveness in other areas
as well. A climate of intolerance of sexual harassment is associated with a climate of tolerance for
differences (e.g., in terms of race or ethnicity,
culture, religion, or physical ability) and one that
supports employee growth, participation, and
empowerment through training, mentoring
programs, and equitable pay for all employees.
Such a climate is associated with a positive public
image, and the concomitant attraction and retention of top talent (e.g., Fortune, 2000). In order
to compete for human resources in today’s tight
labor market, men (as well as women) executives
in other organizations will likely see the need
to adopt similar policies that foster a healthy
organizational climate. Policies and actions that
promote gender equity may also be adopted in
other organizations as the latest “management
fashion” or trend (Abrahmson, 1996; DiMaggio
and Powell, 1983; Weaver et al., 1999). Thus,
women executives have the potential to make
sweeping, progressive changes, both within and
beyond their organizations.
Discrimination and Harassment
Conclusion
In this manuscript, we have discussed three forms
of sex discrimination: overt discrimination,
sexual harassment, and the glass ceiling. We have
argued that women in executive leadership roles
are uniquely positioned to reduce sex discrimination, and that because all three have some
common antecedents, steps to reduce one form
will likely affect the others. We focused on the
reduction of sexual harassment in particular, and
argued that not only should simply increasing the
numbers of women in executive positions
decrease sexual harassment, but also that women
executives use their positions of influence to
increase gender equity and reduce sexual harassment. A particularly important contribution of
our work is our explication of how women
executives are especially motivated and qualified
to reduce sexual harassment and increase gender
equity, and the specific steps that they may take
to do so. Given the beneficial consequences
of such actions, and the imitative nature of
organizations, they will likely “spillover” and be
adopted in other organizations as well (e.g.,
Abrahamson, 1996).
There is a critical, immediate need for such
actions. For over 20 years, employers have had
EEOC guidelines on sexual harassment, which
include clarification of what it is and steps to
prevent it, along with litigation and numerous
damage awards that serve as warning signals.
Nonetheless, the rate of sexual harassment
charges filed with the EEOC has grown. This
rate of growth in charges filed may be a good
sign, insofar as it reflects the targets’ understanding of their rights and willingness to report
incidences of harassment, perhaps as a consequence of training and information about sexual
harassment provided by organizations. On the
other hand, the sheer number of charges filed
indicates that sexual harassment continues to be
a problem, if not a growing problem. The persistence of sexual harassment despite efforts to
curb it via methods used thus far (i.e., legislation and organizational policies) points to the
critical need for innovative strategies. We believe
that increasing representation of women at
executive levels in organizations is just such a
73
strategy, and one that will have comprehensive
effects on all forms of sex discrimination and
improve gender equity at all levels. This is no
quick, easy solution, but one that is likely to have
broad ranging positive effects on all employees,
male as well as female, in the long run.
Notes
1
We acknowledge that the experience of sex discrimination and/or harassment is not limited to
women, however, most discrimination and harassment
involve women as targets. Thus, we focus our discussion on discrimination against and harassment of
women.
2
We use the term overt discrimination to differentiate this type of discrimination from sexual harassment and the glass ceiling.
3
It could be argued that women do not perpetrate
sexual harassment because they have not historically
had the access to power and position that men have
had; however, as women are 30% of all managers, but
are estimated to be 9% of all harassers, it appears that
managerial women are less likely to perpetrate sexual
harassment than are men.
References
Abrahamson, E.: 1996, ‘Management Fashion’,
Academy of Management Review 21, 254–285.
Antal, A. and D. Izraeli: 1993, ‘A Global Comparison
of Women in Management: Women Managers
in their Homelands and as Expatriates’, in E.
Fagenson (ed.), Women in Management (Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA), pp. 52–96.
Barak, A.: 1997, ‘Cross-cultural Perspectives on
Sexual Harassment’, in W. O’Donohue (ed.),
Sexual Harassment: Theory, Research, and Treatment
(Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA), pp. 263–300.
Baugh, S. G.: 1997, ‘On the Persistence of Sexual
Harassment’, Journal of Business Ethics 16, 899–908.
Benson, K.: 1984, ‘Comment on Crocker’s “An
Analysis of University Definitions of Sexual
Harassment” ’, Signs 9, 516–519.
Blakely, G. L., E. H. Blakely and R. H. Moorman:
1995, ‘The Relationship between Gender, Personal
Experience, and Perceptions of Sexual Harassment
in the Workplace’, Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal 8, 263–274.
Blau, F., M. Ferber and A. E. Winkler: 1998, The
74
Myrtle P. Bell et al.
Economics of Women, Men, and Work, 3rd edition
(Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Bose, C. E. and R. B. Whaley: 2001, ‘Sex Segregation
in the U.S. Labor Force’, in D. Vannoy (ed.),
Gender Mosaics: Social Perspectives (Original Readings)
(Roxbury Publishing, Los Angeles, CA), pp.
228–248.
Buhler, P. M.: 1999, ‘The Manager’s Role in
Preventing Sexual Harassment’, Supervision 60(4),
16–18.
Burda, D.: 1996, ‘ACHE Survey Response Spurs
Expedited Sexual Harassment Policy’, Modern
Healthcare 26(42), 2–3.
Burgess, D. and E. Borgida: 1997, Sexual Harassment:
An Experimental Test of Sex-role Spillover
Theory’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
21, 63–75.
Burke, R. J. and C. A. McKeen: 1992, ‘Social-sexual
Behaviors at Work: Experiences of Managerial and
Professional Women’, Women in Management Review
7(3), 22–30.
Burke, R. J. and C. A. McKeen: 1996, ‘Do Women
at the Top Make a Difference? Gender Proportions
and the Experiences of Managerial and Professional
Women’, Human Relations 49, 1093–1104.
Cain, G.: 1986, ‘The Economic Analysis of Labor
Market Discrimination: A Survey’, in O.
Ashenfelter and R. Layard (eds.), Handbook of Labor
Economics (Elsevier Science Publishers, B. V.,
Amsterdam), pp. 693–785.
Can, T.: 1995, ‘The Existence of Sexual Harassment
in China’, Chinese Education and Society 28, 6–15.
Clarkson, K. W., R. L. Miller, G. A. Jentz and F. B.
Cross: 1995, West’s Business Law: Text, Cases, Legal,
Regulatory, and International Environment (6th ed.)
(West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN).
Conte, A.: 1997, ‘Legal Theories of Sexual
Harassment’, in W. O’Donohue (ed.), Sexual
Harassment: Theory, Research, and Treatment (Allyn
and Bacon, Boston, MA), pp. 50–83.
Corne v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 161 (D.
Arz. 1975), vacated, 562 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1977).
Dekker, I. and J. Barling: 1998, ‘Personal and
Organizational Predictors of Workplace Sexual
Harassment of Women by Men’, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 31, 7–18.
Dimaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell: 1983, ‘The Iron
Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and
Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’,
American Sociological Review 48, 147–160.
Dipboye, R. L.: 1985, ‘Some Neglected Variables
in Research on Discrimination in Appraisals’,
Academy of Management Review 10, 116–127.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 1980,
‘Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex’,
Federal Register 45, 74676–74677.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 2000,
‘Sexual harassment charges EEOC & FEPAs
Combined: FY 1992–FY 2000’, [On-line].
Available: http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/harass.html.
Fain, T. C. and D. L. Anderton: 1987, ‘Sexual
Harassment: Organizational Context and Diffuse
Status’, Sex Roles 5(6), 291–311.
Fagenson, E. A. and J. J. Jackson: 1993, ‘The Status
of Women Managers in the United States’,
International Studies of Management and Organizations
23, 93–112.
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission: 1997, ‘The Glass
Ceiling’, in D. Dunn (ed.), Workplace/Women’s
Place: an Anthology (Roxbury Publishing, Los
Angeles, CA), pp. 226–233.
Fitzgerald, L. F., C. L. Hulin and R. Drasgow: 1995,
‘The Antecedents and Consequences of Sexual
Harassment in Organizations: An Integrated
Model’, in G. P. Keita and J. J. Hurrell, Jr. (eds.),
Job Stress in a Changing Workforce: Investigating
Gender, Diversity, and Family Issues (American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC), pp.
55–73.
Fortune: July 10, 2000, ‘America’s 50 Best Companies
for Minorities’, pp. 190–200.
Galen, M. J., J. Weber and A. Cuneo: 1991, ‘Out of
the Shadows, the Thomas Hearings Force Business
to Confront an Ugly Reality’, Business Week
(October 28), 30–31.
Gelfand, M. J., L. F. Fitzgerald and F. Drasgow:
1995, ‘The Structure of Sexual Harassment: A
Confirmatory Analysis Across Cultures and
Settings’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 47, 164–
177.
Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Grauerholz, E.: 1989, ‘Sexual Harassment of Women
Professors by Students: Exploring the Dynamics
of Power, Authority, and Gender in a University
Setting’, Sex Roles 21, 789–801.
Gruber, J. E.: 1997. ‘An Epidemiology of Sexual
Harassment: Evidence from North America
and Europe’, in W. O’Donohue (ed.), Sexual
Harassment: Theory, Research, and Treatment (Allyn
and Bacon, Boston), pp. 84–98.
Gruber, J. E.: 1998, ‘The Impact of Male Work
Environments and Organizational Policies on
Women’s Experiences of Sexual Harassment’,
Gender and Society 12, 301–320.
Gruber, J. E. and L. Bjorn: 1982, ‘Blue-collar Blues:
Discrimination and Harassment
The Sexual Harassment of Women Autoworkers’,
Work and Occupations 93, 271–298.
Grundmann, E. O., W. O’Donohue and S. H.
Peterson: 1997, ‘The Prevention of Sexual
Harassment’, in W. O’Donohue (ed.), Sexual
Harassment: Theory, Research, and Treatment (Allyn
and Bacon: Boston), pp. 175–184.
Gutek, B. A.: 1985, Sex and the Workplace ( JosseyBass, San Francisco).
Gutek, B. A. and M. P. Koss, 1993, ‘Changed Women
and Changed Organizations: Consequences of
and Coping with Sexual Harassment’, Journal of
Vocational Behavior 42, 28–48.
Gutek, B. A. and B. Morasch: 1982, ‘Sex Ratios,
Sex-role Spillover, and Sexual Harassment of
Women at Work’, Journal of Social Issues 38,
55–74.
Helgesen, S.: 1990, The Female Advantage: Women’s
Ways of Leading (Doubleday, Garden City, NY).
Hulin, C. L., L. F. Fitzgerald and F. Drasgow: 1997,
‘Organizational Influences on Sexual Harassment’,
in M. S. Stockdale (ed.), Sexual Harassment in the
Workplace, Vol. 5 (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp.
127–150.
Kemp, A.: 1994, Women’s Work: Degraded and Devalued
(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Keyton, J.: 1996, ‘Sexual Harassment: A
Multidisciplinary Synthesis and Critique’, in B. R.
Burleson (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 19
(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 92–155.
Kim, Marlene: 2000, ‘Women Paid Low Wages: Who
They Are and Where They Work’, Monthly Labor
Review 123(9), 26–30.
Konrad, A. M. and A. Gutek: 1986, ‘Impact of
Work Experiences on Attitudes Toward Sexual
Harassment’, Adminstrative Science Quarterly 31,
422–438.
Korabik, K.: 1992, ‘Women Hold Up Half the Sky:
The Status of Managerial Women in China’, in
W. Wedley (ed.), Advances in Chinese Industrial
Studies, Vol. 3 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp
197–211.
Korabik, K.: 1993, ‘Managerial Women in the
People’s Republic of China’, International Studies
of Management in Organization 23(4), 47–64.
Lee, R. D., Jr. and P. S. Greenlaw: 2000, ‘Employer
Liability for Employee Sexual Harassment: A
Judicial Policy-making Study’, Public Administration
Review 60(2), 123–133.
Maatman, G. L., Jr.: 2000, ‘Harassment,
Discrimination Laws Go Global’, National
Underwriter 104(37), 34–35.
Maier, M.: 1997, ‘Gender Equity, Organizational
75
Transformation, and Challenger’, Journal of Business
Ethics 16(9), 943–962.
Mansfield, P. K., P. B. Koch, J. Henderson, J. R.
Vicary, M. Cohn and E. W. Young: 1991, ‘The Job
Climate for Women in Traditionally Male Bluecollar Occupations’, Sex Roles 25, 63–79.
Martin, S.: 1989, ‘Sexual Harassment: The Link
Joining Gender Stratification, Sexuality, and
Women’s Economic Status’, in J. Freeman (ed.),
Women: A Feminist Perspective, 4th ed. (Mayfield
Publishing, Mountain View, CA), pp. 57–75.
McKinney, K.: 1990, ‘Sexual Harassment of
University Faculty by Colleagues and Students’,
Sex Roles 23, 431–470.
McKinney, K.: 1992, ‘Contrapower Sexual
Harassment: The Effects of Student Sex and Type
of Behavior or Faculty Perceptions’, Sex Roles 27,
1–17.
Miller, L. L.: 1997, ‘Not Just Weapons of the Weak:
Gender Harassment as a Form of Protest for Army
Men’, Social Pscyhology Quarterly 60, 32–51.
Morrison, A. M. and M. A. von Glinow: 1990,
‘Women and Minorities in Management’, American
Psychologist 45, 200–208.
Muli, K.: 1995, ‘Help Me Balance the Load’:
Gender Discrimination in Kenya’, in J. Peters and
A. Wolper (ed.), Women’s Rights, Human Rights:
International Feminist Perspectives (Routledge,
London), pp. 78–81.
Munson, L. J., C. Hulin and F. Drasgow: 2000,
‘Longitudinal Analysis of Dispositional Influences
and Sexual Harassment: Effects on Job and
Psychological Outcomes’, Personnel Psychology 53,
21–46.
Nieva, V. F. and B. A. Gutek: 1981, Women and Work
A Psychological Perspective (Praeger, New York).
O’Donohue, W.: 1997, ‘Introduction’, in W.
O’Donohue (ed.), Sexual Harassment: Theory,
Research, and Treatment (Allyn & Bacon, Needham
Heights, MA), pp. 1–5.
O’Farrell, B. and S. L. Harlan: 1982, ‘Craftworkers
and Clerks: The Effects of Male Coworker
Hostility on Women’s Satisfaction with
Nontraditional Jobs’, Social Problems 29, 252–264.
O’Hare, E. A. and W. O’Donohue: 1998, ‘Sexual
Harassment: Identifying Risk Factors’, Archives of
Sexual Behavior 27, 561–580.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., R. L, Paetzold and R. W.
Griffin: 2000, ‘Sexual Harassment as Aggressive
Behavior: An Actor Based Perspective’, The
Academy of Management Review 25, 372–388.
Paetzold, R. L. and A. M. O’Leary-Kelly: 1996, ‘The
Implications of U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit
76
Myrtle P. Bell et al.
Court Decisions for Hostile Environment Sexual
Harassment Cases’, in M. S. Stockdale (ed.) Sexual
Harassment in the Workplace, Vol. 5 (Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA), pp. 85–104.
Piotrkowski, C. S.: 1998, ‘Gender Harassment, Job
Satisfaction, and Distress Among Employed White
and Minority Women’, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 3, 33–43.
Pryor, J. B., E. R. DeSouza, J. Fitness, C. Hutz, M.
Kumpf, K. Lubbert, O. Pesonen and M. Erber:
1997, ‘Gender Differences in the Interpretation
of Social-sexual Behavior: A Cross-cultural
Perspective on Sexual Harassment’, Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 28, 509–534.
Reskin, B.: 1997, ‘Sex Segregation in the Workplace’,
in D. Dunn (ed.), Workplace/Women’s Place
(Roxbury Publishing, Los Angeles, CA), pp.
69–73.
Rice, F.: 1994, ‘How to Make Diversity Pay’, Fortune,
August 8.
Riger, S.: 1991, ‘Gender Dilemmas in Sexual
Harassment Policies and Procedures’, American
Psychologist 46(5), 497–505.
Rigg, C. and J. Sparrow: 1994, ‘Gender, Diversity,
and Working Styles’, Women in Management Review
9(1), 9–16.
Robertson, C., C. E. Dyer and D. Campbell: 1988,
‘Campus Harassment: Sexual Harassment Policies
and Procedures at Institutions of Higher Learning’,
Signs 13(4), 792–812.
Roos, P. A. and M. L. Gatta: 2001, ‘The Gender Gap
in Earnings’, in G. Powell (ed.), Handbook of Gender
and Work (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 95–123.
Rosener, J. B.: 1990, ‘Ways Women Lead’, Harvard
Business Review 68(6), 119–126.
Sandoff, R.: 1992, ‘Sexual Harassment: The Inside
Story (Working Woman Survey)’, Working Woman
( June), 47–78.
Schneider, K. T., S. Swan and L. F. Fitzgerald, 1997,
‘Job-related and Psychological Effects of Sexual
Harassment in the Workplace: Empirical Evidence
from Two Organizations’, Journal of Applied
Psychology 82, 401–415.
Shaffer, M. A., J. R. W. Joplin, M. P. Bell, T. Lau and
C. Oguz: 2000, ‘Gender Discrimination and Jobrelated Outcomes: A Cross-cultural Comparison of
Working Women in the United States and China’,
Journal of Vocational Behavior 57(4), 395–427.
Smith, S. M.: 2000, Women at Work: Leadership for the
Next Century (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ).
Stanford, J. H., B. R. Oates and D. Flores: 1995,
‘Women’s Leadership Styles: A Heuristic Analysis’,
Women in Management Review 10(2), 9–16.
Tangri, S., M. Burt and L. Johnson: 1982, ‘Sexual
Harassment at Work: Three Explanatory Models’,
Journal of Social Issues 38(4), 33–54.
Thacker, R. A. and S. F. Gohmann: 1993,
‘Male/Female Differences in Perception and Effect
of Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment:
‘Reasonable’ Assumptions?’, Public Personnel
Management 22, 461–471.
Thomas, D. A.: 1989, ‘Mentoring and Irrationality:
The Role of Racial Taboos’, Human Resource
Management 28, 279–290.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board: 1981, Sexual
Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Is It a Problem?
(U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC).
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board: 1988, Sexual
Harassment in the Federal Workplace: An Update (U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC).
Wall Street Journal: 1998, ‘Pay Gap between Men and
Women Begins to Narrow Again After a Pause’,
June 10, B6A.
Weaver, G. R., L. K. Treviño and P. L. Cochran:
1999, ‘Integrated and Decoupled Corporate
Social Performance: Management Commitments,
External Pressures, and Corporate Ethics Practices’,
Academy of Management Journal 42, 539–552.
Wells, D. L. and B. J. Kracher: 1993, ‘Justice, Sexual
Harassment, and the Reasonable Victim Standard’,
Journal of Business Ethics 12, 423–431.
Welsh, S.: 1999, ‘Gender and Sexual Harassment’,
Annual Review of Sociology 25, 169–190.
Wiener, R. and L. Hurt: 2000, ‘How Do People
Evaluate Social Sexual Conduct at Work? A
Psycholegal Model’, Journal of Applied Psychology
85, 75–85.
Williams, C., R. Brown, P. Lees-Haley and J. Price:
1997, ‘An Attributional (Causal Dimensional)
Analysis of Perceptions of Sexual Harassment’,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25, 1169–1183.
Yoder, J. D. and P. Aniakudo: 1996, ‘When
Pranks become Harassment: The Case of African
American Women Firefighters’, Sex Roles 35,
253–270.
University of Texas at Arlington,
Department of Management,
P.O. Box 19467,
Arlington, TX 76019-0467,
U.S.A.
E-mail: mpbell@uta.edu