|
A Briefing Paper on Sexual Harassment at Work and the Ethics of Dual Relationships
1. Introduction
1.1 Sexual Harassment
The history of the term sexual harassment is relatively short and
it is only in the past decade that the behaviour has been researched,
anecdotes being replaced by systematic investigation of the situational
correlates and the characteristics of victims and perpetrators. In the
main, survey and self-report data form the basis for a variety of
social, psychological, biological and organisational explanations, none
of which satisfactorily accounts for behaviour which is increasingly
regarded as socially, economically and legally unacceptable (Tangri et
al., 1982; Rubenstein, 1989). In the US survey research has bolstered
the view that harassment is a problem in the work place and that it
represents a cost to business. Now, in the UK sexual and racial
harassment are well defined in law (The Sex Discrimination Act 1975,The
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978). Various public sector
employing authorities and Higher Education establishments have policies
on harassment and within the National Health Service a recent Advance
Letter (GC 2192) makes it clear that employing authorities are expected
to ensure that sexual harassment is prevented. A variety of effects
have been noted as occurring consequent upon sexual harassment
(Salisbury et al., 1986; Bartell & Robin, 1990). These include
psychological, occupational and physical effects. Livingstone (1982)
also describes the way in which cultural norms may exacerbate women's
feelings of intimidation following sexual harassment 'since sex role
stereotypes and socialisation seem to give men the right (if not the
duty) to pursue sexual encounters with women aggressively and women are
encouraged to be nice and avoid challenging males'. Sexual harassment
is difficult to measure and difficult to prove (Fitzgerald, 1989). It
may occur between men and women, or between members of the same gender
with or without the same sexual orientation; thus, men may harass other
men, or women other women. In a large scale survey conducted by Tangri
(op cit) victims were more likely to be women and those under
supervision or younger workers were more likely to be affected.The
perpetrators were more likely (but not exclusively) to be men and older
than their victims (if the victims were women) and supervisors were two
and a half times more likely to be harassers of women. Despite evidence
of its frequency, however, individuals are apparently reluctant to
report sexual harassment (Gottlieb, 1990) and men seem to perceive it
differently (Saal, 1989; Guteck, 1985; Hartnett et al., 1989).
Livingstone (1982) argues that to inspire remedial action it is first
necessary to legitimise the problem. Policy documents should contain
definitions of harassment and examples of unacceptable behaviour,
contain an explicit statement of disapproval, information about how to
complain, where to get support, and they should detail the disciplinary
actions which could be taken.
1.2 Dual Relationships
Whilst enough information exists about sexual harassment to make it
plain that it should be proscribed, that it is a matter for grievance,
and may sometimes be a matter for disciplinary action by the Society,
less is known about what are called 'dual' relationships or
'unethically' intimate relationships. Dual relationships are those in
which individuals engage in a personal loving and/or sexual
relationship with someone to whom they also have professional
responsibilities. Sexual relationships between supervisors and
postgraduate or undergraduate students, like sexual harassment, have
been demonstrated to be more common than is generally assumed
(Fitzgerald, 1988). Glaser and Thorpe (1986) in a large-scale US survey
of almost 500 female clinical psychologists found 17 per cent reporting
sexually intimate relationships with 'educators' and Richardson (1992)
in the UK found a rate of just under 10 per cent for a sample of men
and women. In both these studies, however, the reported rate of
negative consequences was relatively low; some trainees, but by no
means all, experienced negative effects upon their work and
professional relationships. Despite this, it is interesting to note the
suggestion (Glaser & Thorpe) that trainees (unlike staff) come to
regret the relationships, feeling that they were unethical,
irresponsible and unprofessional, despite feeling comfortable at the
time.
A link between harassment and dual relationships appears on
examination of the social psychological models which are invoked to
explain them. An understanding of the social psychology of power, the
American research argues, will explain both (Bogart et al., 1987). But
the social psychological analysis of power, an approach favoured
explicitly by the feminist literature, is only one amongst several
approaches invoked to explain harassment, rape, assault and the
predominance of male over female supervisors in the incidence of
sexually intimate relationships between staff and trainees. Other
explanations include the 'natural/biological model' (behaviour is the
product of biological drive and represents the expression of sexual
attraction); the 'organisational model' (certain environments, like
open plan offices and overcrowding, make it more likely); and the
'socio-cultural model' (certain hierarchies and authority relations
designed to protect male dominance of women promote it).These models,
which are essentially no more than preferences for viewing sexual
harassment or dual relationships in particular ways, are described
fully by Tangri et al. (1982). All the models are, to some extent,
supported by the evidence which Tangri et al. present concerning
harassment; they conclude that 'sexual harassment is not a unitary
phenomenon' and that there may be different patterns of causes between
supervisors and trainees or between co-workers. More work is needed in
this area to develop psychological models which have explanatory power.
It is clear that dual relationships will seldom be the subject of the
Society's disciplinary procedures; this is not least because dual
relationships by definition require the consent of both parties.Whilst
many dual relationships do not cause harm, however, it is certain that
they carry a risk of exploitation or of impaired judgement.The question
of the degree to which such relationships may therefore be regarded as
unethical is raised.There may be qualitative changes in the way that
professional responsibilities are carried out, or difficulties between
peers in a group of students when one is known to be in a relationship
with a member of staff; in fact, it may be particularly difficult to
convince other students or trainees that their colleague was not
advantaged by the relationship and third parties may wish to complain
about this. For these reasons, it is argued that psychologists
(particularly those in the more 'powerful' position of teacher or
trainer) should avoid such relationships or act immediately to remove,
substitute or exchange their professional role once a sexual or loving
relationship has been established.The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (1992) makes this point very plainly and contains several items which refer
to this.
1.3 The Legal Position
Direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation are against
the law. Although harassment is not defined or mentioned in the
legislation it is held to be discriminatory under the Race Relations
(1976) and Sexual Discrimination (1975) Acts following, amongst others,
two cases heard in 1986 (Strathclyde Regional Council vs. Porcelli and
De Sousa vs. the Automobile Association). Individuals as well as
employers can be liable following a case of sexual harassment, and an
individual subjected to sexual harassment can claim constructive
dismissal if no action is taken once a complaint is made and he/she
therefore resigns.The test here is whether or not the trust and
confidence necessary to sustain the employment relationship is at an
end. If an employer fails to take steps once harassment is reported
then the employer is liable - but not if the employer took such steps
as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from engaging in
the behaviour. The dismissal of an individual after an employer has
reasonably concluded that he/she is guilty of harassment is not unfair,
but an employer should not forcibly remove the person who has made the
complaint as this can be seen as a detriment, regardless of motive.
There are numbers of steps to follow when harassment or discrimination
or victimisation are thought to have taken place and these are outlined
in Section 4.
There is no case law in Britain concerning dual relationships,
although the Codes of Conduct in many HE establishments contain
reference to the inadvisability of staff having relationships with
their students, because of the risks described earlier of accusation by
third parties of unfair advantage, of bias in judgement about
assessments of the trainee's progress or examination results, of
negligence (e.g. of clinical case supervision) and of damage to the
professional status, progress, opportunities or prospects of the
supervisees. In the United States clients have attempted to sue
supervisors for negligence on the grounds that their clinical case
supervision was flawed because a dual relationship existed. Despite the
typical power imbalances, however, it seems unwise to assume that dual
relationships are exploitative or to assume that they always lead to
negative consequences; dual relationships are consensual and many
appear to be successful and long-lasting. Nevertheless, such
relationships may present difficulties, third parties may complain and
psychologists should be prepared for these eventualities.
2. Some Definitions and Examples
2.1 Direct Discrimination
2.2 Indirect Discrimination
2.3 Sexual Harassment
Any unwelcome verbal or physical sexual advances, requests for
sexual favours or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
when either:
(a) the conduct interferes with another person's work or creates an intimidating,
hostile or offensive working environment;
(b) submission to this conduct is made implicitly or explicitly a term or condition
of a person's education or employment; or
(c) submission or rejection of such conduct is used as a
basis of decisions affecting a person's employment and/or educational
prospects.
Sexual harassment can consist of a single intense or severe act or
of multiple persistent or pervasive acts and it does not have to be
explicitly sexual in nature. Any behaviour which ridicules, denigrates
or abuses a person because of his or her gender may be deemed
harassment.
Examples
- A tutorial group leader (male or female) regularly shows favouritism to one particular
sex.
- A clinical supervisor regularly interprets case material in a sexist manner.
- A lecturer makes habitual sexist references or uses
suggestive material in teaching (e.g. photographs of nude obese women
in a lecture on eating disorders).
- A supervisor (male or female) asks questions about your sex life.
- A member of staff uses terms of endearment (darling, love, dear) and regularly
asks the students out.
- A teacher, trainer or supervisor (male or female)
makes unwelcome sexual advances to a male or a female trainee (lunges,
grabs, tries to kiss or touch) or implies that there may be adverse
consequences of not complying with a sexual invitation.
2.4 Victimisation
Where a person is treated less favourably than others in the same
circumstances because proceedings were brought under the Sex
Discrimination Acts, because the person gave evidence in connection
with proceedings or because they alleged that sexual discrimination or
harassment occurred.
Examples
- A trainee complains to her supervisor about a sexist
comment he made. He apologises. At a staff meeting the following day he
makes a remark and then adds jokingly: 'I shouldn't say that sort of
thing in front of Linda, should I?'
- A member of staff is accused of sexual harassment
and is subsequently exonerated; he makes a complaint about his alleged
victim and he is then vilified by the rest of the trainee group.
2.5 Dual Relationships
Dual relationships are those in which the psychologist is acting in
at least one other role besides a professional one; for example, the
psychologist is supervising a student to whom he/she is married or the
psychologist is teaching a student he/she is dating. Some dual
relationships may be not be harmful. Potentially unethical dual
relationships are those where there is a conflict of interests or a
risk of impairment to professional judgement as a direct or indirect
result of the 'duality'.
Examples
- A lecturer develops and maintains a consensual loving
and/or sexual relationship with a student in his or her seminar group.
The lecturer will be required to examine the student's work and/or
write a reference for him/her.
- A clinical supervisor participates in a general
selection board for a clinical psychology training course to which his
child or a sibling has applied.
3. The BPS Code of Conduct
Section 5 of the BPS Code of Conduct is concerned with the personal
conduct of psychologists and contains three items (5.3, 5.4 and 5.10)
which have relevance for sexual harassment. These items state that
psychologists shall:
5.3 'not exploit any relationship of influence or trust
which exists between colleagues, those under their tuition, or those in
receipt of their services to further the gratification of their
personal desires';
5.4 'not allow their professional responsibilities or standards of
practice to be diminished by consideration of religion, sex, race, age,
nationality, party politics, social standing, class, self interest or
other extraneous factors';
5.10 'bring allegations of misconduct by a professional colleague to
the attention of those charged with responsibility to investigate them,
doing so without malice and with no breaches of confidentiality other
than those necessary to the proper investigatory process, and when the
subjects of allegations themselves take all reasonable steps to assist
those charged with responsibility to investigate them.' Item
5.3 of the Code of Conduct states that members in positions of
influence or trust may not exploit their position to further the
gratification of their personal desires.Thus, members of the public,
students, trainees and other Society members may seek to complain to
the Society about a member of the Society if they feel that he/she is
guilty of what are commonly called the sexual 'quid pro quo' harassing
behaviours.These include the implication that influence can be bought
with sexual favours, seductive behaviour, unwelcome attempts to touch,
or repeated suggestive verbal remarks of a sexual nature to individuals
or groups.
Item 5.4 concerns general standards of professional practice and
can be compared with the legislation on equal opportunities (Sex
Discrimination, Race Relations and Disabled Persons Employment Acts).
It states that members should not discriminate on grounds of e.g. race,
sex, age, etc. This item of the Code of Conduct may therefore be
invoked in cases where an individual is thought to be guilty of sexual
harassment which, whilst not explicitly sexual in nature, discriminates
against any particular group on the grounds of sex or sexual
orientation. Favouritism shown to one particular sex is an example of
this, as is the use of highly biased or suggestive material in
teaching.The thoughtless use of terms of endearment would also fall
into this category if it continued after requests to stop. It is
important to note that an individual may be guilty of harassment
despite the absence of any intention to offend, because it is the
effect upon the recipient which defines it as a problem. It is also
important to recognise the impact that staff-trainee relationships can
have upon the group of trainees as a whole; complaints by third parties
of favouritism or bias may also be made under Section 5.4 of the Code
of Conduct if it is felt that high standards of professional practice
are not being maintained.
Item 5.10 concerns the responsibilities of members to behave in a
professional way once allegations of misconduct have been brought to
their attention; it is self-explanatory and probably does not require
elucidation here. Nevertheless, there are important points to make
about what is good practice in general terms and about the procedures
which psychologists should follow in their places of work. Many Higher
Education establishments, public and private institutions have policies
on sexual harassment and BPS members are urged to read and follow these
carefully.
4. Interpreting the Code of Conduct
Psychologists faced with complaints of sexual harassment, or who
are victims or colleagues of those directly involved, may wish to take
complaints to their employing institution.They may additionally or
independently wish to make a case to the Society that an individual is
guilty of sexual harassment and should be disciplined under the Code of
Conduct. Such complaints will be dealt with by the Society without
prejudice and will be investigated quite independently of any
investigation held by an employing authority. There are certain
guidelines to good practice which apply equally to complaints taken to
the Society and to complaints taken to an employer. It is hoped that
these guidelines will be of value to members.
It follows from the above that all psychologists have a
responsibility to refrain from behaviours which can be identified as
sexual harassment. In addition, following the discussion of the ethics
of dual relationships in Section 1, those in positions of management or
authority would seem to have additional responsibilities. Staff should
recognise the difficulties which may be consequent upon consensual
sexual and/or romantic relationships or other (e.g. familial) dual
relationships between supervisors or teachers and trainees or students.
These difficulties include problems associated with the maintenance
of boundaries of professional and personal life, disruption of teaching
or learning, bias in assessment or damage to the quality of the working
environment.There may also be difficulties for other members of the
group of trainees or staff. Given the disparity of power and authority
between staff members and students or trainees it is the responsibility
of the staff member concerned to withdraw from any professional
responsibility towards the student or trainee. Staff should also be
aware that failure to initiate this course of action will make them
vulnerable to allegations of bias or favouritism. Limited research
evidence suggests that around 10 per cent of postgraduate psychologists
in training have relationships with their 'educators'. Because there
are a number of potential professional risks in a situation which can
at first seem exciting, flattering and positively helpful, it may be of
value for psychologists in training to be aware of this data. Whilst
many dual relationships do not cause harm to either party, and whilst
there may be no detrimental professional consequences, it is
nevertheless good practice to be mindful of the risks. It may be good
practice for a psychologist in training to discuss the situation with a
colleague and seek advice.
4.2 Conduct in Responding to Complaints
If an individual comes to you as someone in authority to complain
about a colleague on the grounds that they are guilty of sexual
harassment, the following points maybe helpful to observe:
DO
Read in advance any existing employment policy or policy of
the HE establishment and be familiar with local procedures. Make an
appointment quickly to see the complainant. Clarify the scope and
limits of your role (manager, senior colleague, advocate, confidante)
and agree the purpose of your interview. Remind the complainant of
confidentiality. Establish their rights. Inform them of any harassment
investigatory procedure. Ask whether they need additional personal
support. Ask clear, specific questions. Remind them you can't take up a
complaint on their behalf - only guide and support them to do it
themselves (a colleague or manager ought not to present evidence on
behalf of someone else).
DO NOT
Take sides. Give reassurance about the outcome - you can
only say that a fair assessment will take place. Get personally
involved; if it is difficult to be objective because the alleged
harasser is a friend or a close colleague, refer the case on to someone
else. Ask leading questions or make personal comments (Was it meant to
be a joke? Oh yes, X is known to be a bit of a rogue!)
4.3 Conduct in Making a Complaint
People who feel they are being harassed should first understand
that such behaviour is not acceptable, that it runs counter to the
employment legislation as well as the Society's Code of Conduct, that
most organisations proscribe it and that there should be support at a
number of levels for the case to be dealt with and ultimately heard, if
appropriate. The first step, ideally, is to ask the person to stop and
to make it clear that the behaviour is unwelcome. In many cases the
problem can be solved by a clear, balanced statement of the facts and a
description of the reasons for discontent. If this feels too difficult,
then the initial approach may be made by a friend or a colleague. It is
good practice to make a note (or keep a diary) of the behaviour and any
action taken. If the initial approach does not result in the harassment
ceasing, then the next step is to approach someone in authority within
the organisation where the behaviour has occurred (your own manager or
a supervisor or teacher) and describe the events. It might be a good
idea to take a friend along. Be prepared to confirm in writing the
dates and the details of the incidents and the approaches made to
request the harasser to stop. You are entitled to prompt consideration
of your complaint and to know the details of what action it is possible
for the organisation to take. You do not have to agree to move away
from the environment yourself, if this is suggested, although you do
have the right to ask to be moved.You should understand that you should
be offered support by your work place, that the organisation should
respond if there is sufficient evidence of harassment, but that only
you can give evidence. A complaint about harassment cannot be followed
on hearsay.
4.4 Conduct when Someone Complains About you
It is important to note that sexual harassment is a problem which
may be identified solely on the basis of the recipient's view. Jokes
which were not meant to give offence, or the habitual (perhaps
unconscious) use of terms of endearment, constitute harassment if the
recipient finds them offensive and has told you so. This can seem
unfair and is sometimes the basis for unthinking victimisation (see
Section 2). It is advisable to be mindful of the guidance contained in
Section 5.10 of the Code of Conduct and take all reasonable steps to
listen to and understand the complainant's view. It is commonplace for
complaints of harassment to go no further than a discussion of the
facts and the associated feelings, followed by an apology and an
undertaking not to allow the behaviour to be repeated. If a complaint
is carried forward to disciplinary action at work or by the Society,
members are encouraged as part of the Code of Conduct to help those who
are required to investigate the complaint. It is important to know that
the Society undertakes to listen carefully to your view of the facts,
as well as that of the complainant. In the situation where a dual
relationship has developed, or seems likely to develop, it is also
important to understand the risks of third party complaints.There may
be some difficulty in removing yourself from the professional element
of the dual role (some of your courses may be compulsory for your
private partner, or there may be no other suitable supervisor). It is
wise to think through these facts in advance of the relationship
starting if you can.
5. The Role of the Society
The British Psychological Society recognises the problem of sexual
harassment in the workplace and is committed to helping to prevent it.
Sexual harassment will not be tolerated and such behaviour runs counter
to employment policy and to the BPS Code of Practice. The British
Psychological Society is committed to responding promptly to complaints
about members. Proven sexual harassment will constitute grounds for
disciplinary action under the Code of Conduct. The Society also regards
consensual sexual relationships between staff and trainees or students
as an important professional issue. Such relationships raise serious
questions of conflict of interest, of trust, confidence and dependency
in working relations and of equal treatment in teaching, learning and
selection, assessment and research.Whilst consensual dual relationships
may not form the basis for disciplinary action by the Society, it is
important to note that unprofessional behaviour consequent upon such
relationships (bias in assessment, for example) may be pursued by third
parties under Section 5.3 of the Code of Conduct.The Society would also
respond to complaints under Sections 5.3 and/or 5.4 if a complainant
made the case that consent was not given.
References
|
Message from the President
Code of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines
Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines (2004)