0075 PDF

Review of Public Personnel Administration
http://rop.sagepub.com
Gender, Age, and Sexual Harassment

Laura A. Reese and Karen E. Lindenberg
Review of Public Personnel Administration 2005; 25; 325
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X04272349
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rop.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/325
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Section on Personnel Administration and Labor Relations of the American Society for Public Administration
Additional services and information for Review of Public Personnel Administration can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://rop.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://rop.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://rop.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/4/325
Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

REVIEW
10.1177/0734371X04272349
Reese, Lindenberg
OF PUBLIC
/ GENDER,
PERSONNEL
AGE,ADMINISTRATION
AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT
/ December 2005
Gender, Age, and Sexual Harassment

LAURA A. REESE
Wayne State University
KAREN E. LINDENBERG
Eastern Michigan University
Research has found both age and gender to be significant factors in how employees
evaluate sexual harassment policies. The presence of different perspectives on sex-
ual harassment among men and women of different age groups may have signifi-
cant implications for the implementation of sexual harassment policies. To the
extent that older employees are more likely to be in positions of authority or super-
vision, they are a critical link in the design and implementation of effective poli-
cies. Using a survey of 595 municipal employees, this article concludes that there
are significant age group differences among male and female employees regarding
perceptions of sexual harassment, attitudes about model policy and procedure,
and evaluations of workplace policies. Specific policy recommendations are posed
to address these critical employee and supervisor differences.
Keywords: sexual harassment policy; public personnel policy; gender and the
workplace
esearch has found both age and gender to be significant factors in how
R employees evaluate sexual harassment policies. More fundamentally, this
also appears true in perceptions of what behaviors constitute sexual harass-
ment and whether it has occurred, particularly for minor or ambiguous
behaviors (Adams, 1997; DuBois, Faley, Kustis, & Knapp, 1999; Fain &
Anderson, 1987; Frazier, Cochran, & Olson, 1995; Riger, 1991). These dif-
ferent perspectives are apparent not just between men and women but also
among employees of different ages (Reese & Lindenberg, 1999). The pres-
ence of different perspectives on sexual harassment among men and women
Authors Note: An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the
Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 2003. This research has been sup-
ported by the Michigan Municipal League, the State Policy Center at Wayne State Univer-
sity, the Fraser Center for Workplace Issues at Wayne State University, and Eastern Michi-
gan University. The authors would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Kristofer
Kazmierczak, Heather Kahn, and Tammy Croxall and the invaluable input of Professor Joe
Ohren.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 25, No. 4 December 2005 325-352
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X04272349
2005 Sage Publications
325

326 REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / December 2005
of different age groups may have significant practical implications for the
implementation of sexual harassment policies. To the extent that older
employees are more likely to be in positions of authority or supervision, they
are a critical link in the design and implementation of effective policies. If
their attitudes about what constitutes sexual harassment and ideals for model
policy and procedure differ significantly from younger and less senior
employeeswho are also then most likely to experience and report harass-
ment if they are female (DuBois et al., 1999)then overall satisfaction with
and use of policy may be reduced.
Using a survey database of 595 municipal employees, this article
addresses the following research questions:
Are there significant age group differences between male and female employ-
ees toward:
perceptions of when sexual harassment has occurred?
attitudes about model policy and procedure?
evaluations of workplace policies?
Are age group differences equally important for male and female employees?
Are there relationships between age and gender and how supervisors actually
implement sexual harassment policies?
What are the implications of gender-based and age-based attitudes for effec-
tive policy implementation?
ATTITUDES ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Gender and Definitions of Harassment
Research has found a variety of gender differences that appear important

from a personnel policy implementation perspective. For example, general
uncertainty surrounds major issues related to gender relations in the work-
place, including whether the issue is overrated, whether men and women
use their sexual attractiveness to gain advantages at work, whether the work-
place is an appropriate venue for establishing sexual relationships, and
whether employees of different ranks should engage in romantic relation-
ships. Male and female feelings about being harassed are different, with
men more likely to feel flattered. Women are more likely to avoid reporting
sexual harassment, concerned that nothing will be done, fearing retaliation,
or knowing nothing has been done in other cases. Additionally, for women,
there are two conceptually different aspects of policy process satisfaction

Reese, Lindenberg / GENDER, AGE, AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT 327
and dissatisfaction: Confidentiality and perceiving the process as fair to all

parties will determine overall satisfaction with the outcome of a complaint
(Reese & Lindenberg, 1999). Finally, women appear to characterize more
behaviors as sexual harassment than men do, particularly the more ambigu-
ous complimentary looks, casual staring, pinups, comments about the
body, and persistent and unwelcome staring are (Frazier et al., 1995; Gutek,
1985; Reese & Lindenberg, 1999; Reilly, Carpenter, Dull, & Bartlett,
1982).
Yet later studies have found substantial gender agreement on definitions
of sexual harassment (Frazier et al., 1995; Gutek & OConnor, 1995). Sur-
veys have indicated widespread agreement (more than 90% of respondents)
that physical assault, demands for sex accompanied by threats (quid pro
quo harassment), unwanted pressure for sexual activity or dates, unwel-
come touching, and subtle pressure for sex all constitute sexual harassment.
More than 80% of respondents indicated that sexual remarks about cloth-
ing or the body and pressure for dates were sexual harassment, and more
than 70% classified unwelcome staring and sexually related language as sex-
ual harassment. More modest numbers, although still majorities (53% to
65%), defined the following as sexual harassment: excessive eye contact,
pinups, touching, and jokes with sexual content (Reese & Lindenberg,
1999). This suggests that male and female employees agree on the basic
parameters of sexual harassment, even though women may classify more
behaviors as harassment, and that levels of agreement may be increasing
with time (Pickerill, Mitchell, Jackson, & Newman, 2003). However, this
does not necessarily mean that agreement on definitions will affect behav-
iors, nor does it reflect a willingness to use or implement sexual harassment
policies.
Do Age or Other Traits Play a Role?
Other factors besides gender may come into play in defining sexual
harassment. For example, older employees are more likely to define sexual
jokes and pinups as sexual harassment, indicating possible generational dif-
ferences in tolerance for such activities. Similarly, those with more tenure
on the job are more likely to define jokes with sexual content as harassment.
African American employees are significantly more likely to consider
unwelcome pressure for sexual activity to be harassment. Furthermore, hav-
ing been sexually harassed is correlated with broader or more inclusive defi-

nitions of sexual harassment (Reese & Lindenberg, 1999). Thus, although

gender plays a role in how employees define sexual harassment, it is proba-
bly not the barrier to effective policy implementation suggested by those
concerned about differing perceptions of harassment.
Other individual traits are also important in employee attitudes about
sexual harassment: age, race, tenure, experience with harassment, position
in the job hierarchy, and so forth. Clearly, it is not just about gender. More
exploration of the relationship between gender and sexual harassment pol-
icy processes, including these other factors that may affect attitudes, is thus
warranted. This analysis furthers this exploration by considering the inter-
action of age and gender in the formation of attitudes about sexual harass-
ment, sociosexual relations in the workplace, and optimal sexual
harassment policies.
METHODOLOGY
Stage 1
Data for this research were collected in several stages employing different
methodologies. The first stage of the research involved a content analysis of
municipal sexual harassment policies in the state of Michigan. All cities in
the state are members of the Michigan Municipal League (MML) and serve
as the population for the study (N = 273).1 In early 2000, all MML member
municipalities were sent a brief questionnaire under the auspices of the
league that asked them if they had a sexual harassment policy and, if so, to
provide a copy of the policy. Respondents were also asked to describe the
nature and extent of training supporting the policy and whether evaluations
of supervisory personnel take into account how they handle sexual harass-
ment complaints or hold supervisors accountable for proper policy imple-
mentation. The response rate to the Stage 1 request for policies and the brief
survey was quite high: Of 273 cities in the state, 177, or 65%, responded.
The average population size of the cities that responded was 19,624, rang-
ing from 385 to 189,126. The average size of the population of cities in the
state is 19,555, so the responding municipalities appear to be representative
of the population size of all of the cities in the state. Cities responding were
most likely to have a city manager form of government (75%), also
mirroring patterns generally in the state. The mean number of employees
was 151.

Stage 2
Because the central focus of the larger research project was on satisfaction
and outcome differences emanating from sexual harassment policies and
training, a method was needed to sort the policies in the database by the
nature of the policy and training. Although many public and private orga-
nizations now have sexual harassment policies that follow the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, previous
research has indicated that policies vary in such factors as level of specificity,
time frames, and reporting options and processes (Reese & Lindenberg,
2002a). Training occurs with varying frequency, comprehensiveness, and
modalities (Gutek, 1997).
Using factor analysis, two indexes were created: one representing the
extent and coverage of sexual harassment training and the other represent-
ing the extent that procedures are codified in the policy (see Reese &
Lindenberg, 2002b, for more discussion of these indexes). Cities scoring
high and low on both the training and policy indexes were identified. Cities
high on the good policy index included those with an f score of .89 or
higher, whereas bad policy cities scored .93 or lower. High-training cities
were those scoring above .61, and low-training cities were those scoring
anything below that.2 Cities with high and low training and good and bad
policy were then arrayed on a four-by-four grid to create four types of
municipalities: good policy and good training (Type A), good policy and
bad training (Type B), bad policy and good training (Type C), and bad pol-
icy and bad training (Type D). For further analysis, only cities with at least
70 employees were targeted.3 Based on this methodology, there were 15
Type A, 14 Type B, 6 Type C, and 9 Type D Cities. Each city was contacted
by letter and phone with a request to permit employees to be surveyed by a
mailed questionnaire and for the cooperation of local officials in face-to-
face interviews. Of these, four Type D cities and three of each of the other
types agreed to participate further in the study.
All employees in each of these 13 cities were surveyed in the fall of 2000.
Questionnaires were distributed via internal mail systems but were returned
directly to the researchers by regular mail. The employee survey achieved an
average 30% response rate, varying from 16% to 41% among the targeted
municipalities. A total of 595 completed surveys were returned. Obviously,
response rates of 16% are quite low. It is somewhat difficult to compare
response rates across sexual harassment surveys because such disparate
methodologies and sampling frames have been employed. In many cases,

surveys have been conducted on volunteer participants of training pro-

grams or other types of captive student audiences (Blakely, Blakely, &
Moorman, 1998; Perry, Kulik, & Schmidtke, 1998; Winkel & De Kleuver,
1997). National surveys conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board (1981, 1995) have garnered quite high response rates, approximately
60% to 65% (1981 and 1995, respectively). Response rates to previously
mailed public employee sexual harassment surveys have ranged from 26%
to 39% (Reese & Lindenberg, 1999).4 Thus, although the responses from
some of the cities included are low, others appear to be typical of many large
surveys. It should be noted that this rate was obtained with no follow-up to
nonrespondents because human subjects review would not permit code
numbers to be placed on surveys and because no other type of follow-up
contact was deemed acceptable.
The survey included a number of questions related to respondent traits,
providing another way to profile survey responses. Sixty-two percent of
respondents were male, the modal age range of respondents was 40 to 49
(36%), and almost half of respondents had been in their current place of
employment for more than 10 years (49%). The representation of males in
this sample is higher than that found in most surveys of sexual harassment,
and the proportion of males in the sample is slightly higher than that of the
population (56%). Ninety-two percent of respondents were Caucasian, 4%
were African American, and other racial groups composed less than 1% of
the sample. The majority of respondents were line employees (55%), 20%
were middle managers, 18% were supervisors, and 8% were top managers.5
DATA ANALYSIS
Women and Age
To provide an initial assessment of possible patterns by gender and age

group, correlations were run separately for men and women between age of
respondent and a number of survey questions related to sexual harassment
experience and policy (see Table 1).6 The first striking finding is that age
appears to have very little effect on many perceptual and policy-related vari-
ables for women. Indeed, only 9 of 90 possible correlations are significant.
Older female employees are significantly more likely than younger ones to
be familiar with organizational policies and procedures related to sexual
harassment. They are also more likely than younger women to admit that
experiencing behaviors they define as harassing makes them feel victimized,

Table 1. Age Correlations for Women
50 and Younger
Agea Olderb 40 to 49 30 to 39 Than 30
Sexual Harassment
Sexually harassed in current job .05 1.52 0.08 3.82 0.59
Sexually harassed in previous job .10 12.3*** 1.72 5.23* 0.64
Know of others harassed .07 2.96 0.53 1.30 0.92
Gray area .06 115.61 109.16 127.68 131.62
Hostile environment .03 44.29** 25.55 39.62* 21.57
Quid pro quo .05 32.14 23.87 23.58 22.40
Have reported harassment .05 5.15 1.29 1.79 0.65
Would report harassment .10 3.08 3.79 2.73 0.81
Experience makes me feel harassed .16 3.31 4.29 3.97 3.90
Behaviors that were not harassment .15 1.89 0.60 1.24 6.03
Behaviors that were not severe .23*** 7.81** 0.54 1.38 11.21**
Not harassment if by friends .05 0.82 4.40 4.68 1.50
Do not feel harassed .05 3.03 0.79 0.40 0.96
Feel flattered .07 1.58 3.05 2.49 5.99
Feel like a victim .23*** 4.68 4.34 5.04 9.07**
Sociosexual attitudes
Problem overrated .05 4.99 3.62 4.22 2.91
Hard to know if harassing .09 3.82 4.24 7.18* 3.13
No workplace relationships .16** 11.10** 3.55 1.60 3.31
Same-sex harassment a problem .15 3.17 0.75 4.53 1.02
Women use attractiveness .05 2.54 3.38 8.62** 3.10
Men use attractiveness .16** 9.40** 0.74 5.81 1.13
Women do not really mean no .11 1.72 2.79 1.32 4.10
Friendliness has been mistaken .03 5.16 0.30 3.33 1.81
Afraid of any personal interactions .18*** 3.96 0.70 1.94 4.58
Policy awareness and training
Aware of policy .06 1.65 1.04 5.73** 1.25
Aware of procedures .16** 3.65 5.70 10.0*** 1.61
Attended training .03 0.31 4.16 6.11** 0.93
Training was effective .04 31.76 31.60 30.70 49.50*
Policy preference
Confidentiality sanctions .09 1.56 1.72 0.96 3.90
Sanctions for false reports .11 2.50 0.69 3.57 1.63
Timelines for reporting .01 0.75 2.19 2.45 2.83
Timelines for processing .04 0.52 3.29 2.61 3.63
Findings provided to complainant .19*** 5.45 2.89 0.70 16.4***
Discipline provided complainant .12 0.79 1.05 0.47 8.22**
Evaluate supervisors .10 1.12 2.03 2.20 6.58*
Provide detailed definitions .03 4.58 3.19 1.81 2.50
(continued)

Table 1 (continued)
50 and Younger
Publicize possible punishments .02 6.66* 1.72 3.34 6.29*

Handle informally .10 4.02 3.15 7.76* 1.73
Offer mediation .15** 1.42 2.24 3.75 2.63
Require mediation .02 4.85 1.90 2.34 3.58
Always investigate .01 0.61 1.27 0.48 3.58
Dismiss if substantiated .05 1.48 2.49 3.46 6.29*
Progressive discipline .08 0.55 4.52 2.27 5.92
Specific disciplines for offenses .00 1.35 4.07 0.47 1.47
Discipline based on severity .04 5.05 0.51 2.45 4.91
Discipline on a case basis .02 4.82 2.04 1.44 2.42
Investigation team mixed gender .07 1.18 1.16 0.85 3.67
Investigation by one individual .12 2.40 0.82 0.35 2.97
Assessment of policy
Fair to complainant .05 0.47 3.22 3.34 0.10
Fair to accused .03 0.83 2.56 1.57 2.23
Confidentiality for complainant .06 5.25 6.77 7.17 2.93
Confidentiality for accused .06 5.11 7.20* 6.11 3.36
Complainant aware of outcome .02 5.21 4.77 3.09 0.47
Policy reduces harassment .09 2.74 2.44 1.22 0.89
Policy satisfaction
Findings of investigation .16 9.88** 1.51 7.73** 4.33
Methods used to address .20 7.44** 1.36 5.72 1.47
Confidentiality was protected .10 1.70 3.53 3.60 2.73
How complainant was treated .11 2.93 5.41 4.74 4.13
How accused was treated .01 0.87 5.61 4.13 7.07*
Quality of investigation .16 2.61 4.70 0.76 4.75
Timeliness of investigation .17 2.58 1.73 1.31 2.04
Supervisor training
Taking complaints .17 0.75 3.56 1.49 4.47
Interact with all parties .03 1.09 1.52 1.18 3.10
Investigate .12 2.00 2.77 2.90 1.26
Interview .09 3.09 3.31 2.91 2.64
Apply discipline .02 4.82 2.04 1.44 2.42
Supervisor training effectiveness
Taking complaints .27 1.12 3.17 6.55* 4.97
Dealing with people under stress .27 3.57 3.31 6.55* 4.97
Conduct investigation .16 2.07 1.69 6.72* 2.72
Maintain confidentiality .28 7.31* 1.63 8.69** 3.97
Select discipline .20 4.84 4.33 14.3*** 3.97
Have enough training .03 4.59 0.59 1.15 6.29
(continued)

Table 1 (continued)
50 and Younger
Have not had enough training .10 4.63 1.84 1.69 5.18
Actions taken
Counseled complainant only .18 1.44 2.06 2.4 NA
Sought help from human resources .74** 6.88* 1.67 10.00** NA
Moved complainant .32 1.93 0.24 0.92 NA
Moved accused .38 0.63 0.24 1.32 NA
Recommended a form charge .46 4.52 5.40 5.62 NA
Did not recommend a charge NA NA NA NA NA
Conducted investigation .62 3.59 5.24 5.24 NA
Complaint substantiated .01 1.49 2.26 0.11 NA
Disciplined accused .50 3.59 0.76 2.55 NA
Disciplined complainant .32 0.63 0.24 1.32 NA
Harassment addressed informally .02 1.57 2.32 2.67 2.40
I did a good job .04 0.58 1.12 0.43 13.34**
Hard to implement .16 4.86 2.15 1.80 13.34**
Complainants are overreacting .18 6.58* 4.07 1.25 0.64
Respondent traits
Tenure .38*** 14.6*** 4.80 2.73 29.1***
Supervisor .20*** 4.23** 0.15 0.00 8.16**
N 222 52 76 56 35
Note: NA = no variation.
a. Pearson correlation.
b. Chi-square.
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
and they are more likely to feel that potentially harassing behaviors are seri-
ous and do, in fact, constitute harassment. In other words, older female
employees have a broader conception of sexual harassment and are more
likely to recognize it when it occurs. Older women are also significantly dif-
ferent from younger ones in several sociosexual attitudes. They are more
likely to feel that the workplace is an unacceptable venue for developing
personal relationships and that men use their sexual attractiveness to get
ahead in the job, and older women are more concerned about any
expressions of a personal nature on the job.
As for policy, older women are more likely than their younger peers to
feel that mediation should be offered but should not be required when com-
plaints occur. Additionally, they feel more strongly that information and
feedback should be provided to complainants regarding the findings of sex-
ual harassment investigations. Finally, older female supervisors are signifi-

cantly less likely than younger ones to go to the human resources depart-
ment for assistance when they receive complaints of sexual harassment,
feeling confident to address them on their own.
It is important to note that older women are significantly more likely to
be supervisors and have longer tenures in the organization than younger
women are. Thus, it is possible that the few differences just noted are actu-
ally a factor of supervisory status rather than age. When controls for job sta-
tus were added to the analysis, all of the correlations remained significant,
except that between age and knowledge of the policy process. Women in
management positions are more likely to be aware of policy and procedure
regardless of age than nonmanagement women are.
However, the analysis employed age as a continuous variable and thus
does not allow for a finer assessment by age groups. To examine such differ-
ences, four separate age groups were created: 50 and older, 40 to 49, 30 to
39, and younger than 30. Cross-tabulations and chi-squares were used to
assess significant correlations between perceptions and policy preference,
and each age group and the findings are discussed below by age group (see
Table 1).7 Although it would have been optimal to be able to explore differ-
ent permutations of age categories, the survey included only this ordinal
measure. All of the descriptions of each age group represent significant cor-
relations between being in the relevant age group as opposed to being in any
other age group.
Women older than 50. As suggested by the previous analysis, being a
woman older than 50 is significantly correlated with longer tenure on the
job and supervisory status. Women in the older-than-50 age group are more
likely than younger women to have been sexually harassed in previous posi-
tions but are less likely to experience hostile environment types of sexual
harassment in their current position. Obviously, this suggests greater levels
of harassment on the way up the job ladder for women but less harassment
as they become supervisors. Being older than 50 is significantly correlated
with defining a broader array of behaviors as sexual harassment. When
asked questions of a sociosexual nature, women older than 50 indicate that
the workplace is an unacceptable venue for establishing personal sexual
relationships and that men use their attractiveness to gain advantage in the
workplace. Regarding sexual harassment policy, women older than 50
appear satisfied with both the findings of actual investigations as well as the
methods used to address harassment complaints, perhaps because as super-
visors, they have been responsible for them. Finally, they think that possible
punishments for sexually harassing behaviors should be publicized as a

deterrent to harassment and do not see complainants as overreacting to

potential sexual harassment. As supervisors handling complaints, women
older than 50 indicate that they have been effectively trained in maintaining
confidentiality and do not tend to seek help from staff in human resources.
Because women in this age group are significantly more likely to be in
supervisory positions than younger women, controls were run to see if atti-
tudes were the result of age or job status. In only one case was the initial cor-
relation rendered insignificant when controlling for job status: whether the
respondent had been exposed to hostile environment sexual harassment.8
Women 40 to 49. There is only one variable significantly correlated with
this age group for women: a tendency to feel that current sexual harassment
policies maintain confidentiality for the accused.
Women 30 to 39. Women in this age group are less likely than those in
other ages to have experienced sexual harassment in other employment and
do not appear to be experiencing hostile environment harassment in their
current jobs. Thus, they lack the personal history with harassment that
older women have. These women are not particularly knowledgeable about
workplace policies and procedures dealing with harassment, perhaps
because they have had little training on the issue. They believe that it is pos-
sible to establish common definitions of what behaviors constitute harass-
ment and do not think that women use their attractiveness to gain advan-
tage in the workplace. Finally, women in this age group tend to not be
satisfied with the known findings of previous investigations, perhaps
because they also prefer to see complaints addressed informally.9
Women younger than 30. As one might expect, female employees in this
age group are significantly less likely to be in supervisory positions and have
less tenure on the job than older women. Although young women are no
different in the extent of training they have received, they do not tend to
think that the training was effective. They are also different from women in
other age groups in how they interpret behaviors that might constitute sex-
ual harassment. First, they do not think that many of the behaviors com-
monly typifying sexual harassment are severe enough to constitute harass-
ment. As a result, they do not tend to feel victimized when they experience
such behaviors. These women also differ on several policy recommenda-
tions. They do not believe that complainants should be provided with
information on the findings of an investigation nor on the type of discipline
imposed if charges are substantiated. Although only significant at the .10
level, these young women also do not think supervisors should be evaluated

on how they handle sexual harassment complaints, do not think dismissal

should be an option if charges are substantiated, and do not support publi-
cizing possible punishments (although they tend to be more extreme on this
variable in both directions). Finally, they are not satisfied with how the
accused were treated in cases with which they are familiar. Because women
younger than 30 are also significantly more likely to be in nonsupervisory
jobs than older women are, controls were again run for job status. In this
case, only one relationship appears to be the result of low job status as
opposed to age per se: viewing training as ineffective.
Summary. Examining attitudes of female age groups reveals several cen-
tral themes. First, women older than 40 are more likely than other women
to indicate that they have experienced sexual harassment, perhaps because
they tend to perceive a wider spectrum of behavior as being harassing. They
are also less likely than other women to hold traditional gender values, per-
ceiving a greater divide between professional and personal. In general, they
are more satisfied with the results of sexual harassment complaints. Younger
women, those younger than 40, appear to have a different world view
regarding sexual harassment than those older than 40. They are less knowl-
edgeable about what constitutes harassment and are less likely to perceive
that it is occurring. Very young women are also less supportive than their
older peers of several elements of policy that have been identified as model
policy in previous research (American Association of University Professors,
1995; Gutek, 1997; Pierce, Rosen, & Hiller, 1997; Reese & Lindenberg,
1999; Remick, Salisbury, Stringer, & Ginorio, 1990; Riger, 1991;
Rudman, Borgida, & Robertson, 1995; Stringer, Remick, Salisbury, &
Ginorio, 1990). One possible conclusion here is that younger women are
simply less knowledgeable about sexual harassment, how to recognize it,
and how organizations can create policy to deal with it. Because they tend to
not see harassing behaviors as harassment, they are less likely to perceive the
whole issue as a problem. Clearly, there is an age gap among female employ-
ees, and because there is little unique about the 40-to-49 age group, the
critical divide appears to occur at age 39.
Men and Age
The initial bivariate correlations between age and sexual harassment per-
ceptions for men are presented in Table 2. Older male employees are more
likely than younger male employees to be familiar with sexual harassment
policy and procedures, to have had training, and to think that the training

Table 2. Age Correlations for Men
50 and Younger
Sexual Harassment
Sexually harassed in current job .07 11.0*** 5.48* 1.13 5.72
Sexually harassed in previous job .08 4.68* 1.37 0.16 3.42
Know of others harassed .11** 5.26* 3.35 0.23 10.2***
Gray area .14*** 151.54 179.71 196.9* 162.92
Hostile environment .15*** 71.0*** 39.51 41.32 33.55
Quid pro quo .02 32.81 33.91 35.22 25.13
Have reported harassment .03 1.39 8.70* 5.75 3.72
Would report harassment .11 4.35 0.92 1.53 5.29*
Experience makes me feel harassed .24*** 10.88** 2.25 4.24 5.53
Behaviors that were not harassment .06 1.22 2.78 8.16** 5.56
Behaviors that were not severe .11 1.26 5.80 4.12 2.65
Not harassment if by friends .15** 7.87** 0.12 3.30 2.86
Do not feel harassed .09 2.80 1.83 1.23 1.84
Feel flattered .05 2.45 9.22** 1.56 2.58
Feel like a victim .23*** 2.65 8.33** 9.72** 3.42
Sociosexual attitudes
Problem overrated .09 3.71 6.22* 6.10 3.50
Hard to know if harassing .15*** 4.11 6.30* 4.53 10.48**
No workplace relationships .09 6.98* 1.64 2.25 2.95
Same-sex harassment a problem .08 1.45 0.15 2.37 0.89
Women use attractiveness .08 4.32 4.17 1.31 2.93
Men use attractiveness .02 1.15 4.37 0.25 4.42
Women do not really mean no .12** 7.46** 1.42 5.19 2.06
Friendliness has been mistaken .03 3.74 1.55 5.85 2.52
Afraid of any personal interactions .08 3.96 4.11 0.95 3.39
Policy awareness and training
Aware of policy .11** 2.58 0.81 1.08 4.12
Aware of procedures .15*** 2.63 6.20 6.87* 15.4***
Attended training .20*** 3.86 3.14 3.02 15.5***
Training was effective .14** 62.47 57.30 73.16 30.60
Policy preference
Confidentiality sanctions .03 1.38 6.86* 3.37 4.43
Sanctions for false reports .02 2.46 13.2*** 5.56 1.13
Timelines for reporting .05 3.62 7.06* 2.20 2.00
Timelines for processing .03 1.71 9.97** 5.07 7.60**
Findings provided complainant .05 2.24 8.18** 6.78* 2.74
Discipline provided complainant .05 3.58 3.45 2.82 0.73
Evaluate supervisors .04 5.23 2.62 4.63 1.87
Provide detailed definitions .07 0.86 3.89 4.08 1.91
(continued)

Table 2 (continued)
50 and Younger
Publicize possible punishments .00 0.64 1.67 4.04 5.69

Handle informally .09 14.1*** 8.59** 3.89 1.41
Offer mediation .10 5.45 1.24 10.8*** 0.84
Require mediation .07 1.50 2.15 1.12 3.73
Always investigate .15** 7.41* 0.27 7.33* 3.17
Dismiss if substantiated .09 4.42 4.50 7.15 2.07
Progressive discipline .02 2.69 2.47 1.32 2.17
Specific disciplines for offenses .05 1.04 2.54 1.85 0.10
Discipline based on severity .03 2.43 2.19 1.85 2.35
Discipline on a case basis .10 4.65 1.19 0.84 3.32
Investigation team mixed gender .03 1.72 0.57 0.13 1.13
Investigation by one individual .02 1.69 6.71* 0.08 5.11
Assessment of policy
Fair to complainant .05 6.62* 5.45 9.56 1.65
Fair to accused .01 2.84 2.28 2.71 0.47
Confidential for complainant .04 3.61 2.81 3.26 0.95
Confidential for accused .05 7.46** 2.32 3.29 0.63
Complainant aware of outcome .10 9.77** 3.46 0.91 0.30
Policy reduces harassment .03 4.14 2.26 0.97 5.65
Policy satisfaction
Findings of investigation .09 0.79 0.31 2.93 6.43*
Methods used to address .07 1.95 1.87 1.43 6.08
Confidentiality was protected .11 2.14 2.44 3.31 2.96
How complainant was treated .01 2.69 4.28 2.05 5.92
How accused was treated .01 0.21 1.90 2.00 6.03
Quality of investigation .16 2.68 1.21 2.84 3.75
Timeliness of investigation .18 5.04 0.50 1.97 5.39
Supervisor training
Taking complaints .17 8.09** 2.47 6.04 0.26
Interact with all parties .15 11.5*** 11.1*** 3.00 2.70
Investigate .28*** 7.41* 0.27 7.33 3.20
Interview .19** 7.79* 5.54 5.93 1.31
Apply discipline .10 4.65 1.19 0.84 3.32
Supervisor training effectiveness
Taking complaints .18** 8.32** 4.01 2.45 4.80
Dealing with people under stress .09 4.26 2.98 1.34 3.03
Conduct investigation .15 7.48** 1.89 6.02 1.25
Maintain confidentiality .18 7.69** 2.97 5.25 0.70
Select discipline .16 4.17 1.43 5.25 0.70
Have enough training .24** 5.88 3.31 12.1*** 1.65
(continued)

Table 2 (continued)
50 and Younger
Have not had enough training .05 6.95* 1.84 8.30 3.36
Actions taken
Counseled complainant only .02 7.92** 1.99 3.90 7.65*
Sought help from human resources .16 3.47 2.35 1.57 0.41
Moved complainant .18 2.52 0.94 0.27 0.02
Moved accused NA NA NA NA NA
Recommended a form charge .13 0.96 2.32 3.83 0.54
Did not recommend a charge NA NA NA NA NA
Conducted investigation .21 3.29 2.34 3.00 0.66
Complaint substantiated .04 0.27 2.40 4.68 7.82**
Disciplined accused .02 2.55 3.24 2.28 6.56*
Disciplined complainant .18 2.52 0.94 0.27 0.02
Harassment addressed informally .10 10.24** 3.45 3.09 1.84
I did a good job .24*** 8.86** 0.80 2.12 2.42
Hard to implement .03 1.26 6.05 3.33 1.59
Complainants are overreacting .01 1.06 1.78 3.97 3.53
Respondent traits
Tenure .41*** 10.15** 31.3*** 16.5*** 78.3***
Supervisor .23*** 2.60 9.05*** 5.38** 13.4***
N 348 87 129 99 35
Note: NA = no variation.
a. Pearson correlation.
b. Chi-square.
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
was effective. They also are more likely than younger men to know more
coworkers that have experienced harassment, to think that an investigation
should be conducted whenever there are charges of sexual harassment, and
to think that they have been effectively trained to address sexual harassment
complaints. All of these relationships disappeared when controlling for
supervisory position: Job status produces these opinions rather than age per
se. However, there were a number of other relationships between age and
sexual harassment attitudes that remained significant even when
controlling for supervisory status among men.
Older male employees have experienced less hostile work environment
sexual harassment and less gray area harassment (compliments, looks,
requests for dates, etc.) than younger men. However, when harassing
behaviors occur, they are significantly more likely than younger males to

feel that they have been sexually harassed and are more likely to feel that
they have been victimized. Furthermore, older men are less willing to excuse
such behaviors because those involved are friends. Older men are more
likely to feel that it is possible to establish uniform definitions of sexual
harassment. On an interpersonal level, older men are more likely than
younger men to think that women do not really mean no when they say it.
From a training standpoint, older males indicate that they have been
trained on investigating complaints and in interviewing parties and that
they have had enough training to handle complaints effectively, and they
perceive that they have done a good job in addressing complaints brought
to them. Again, all of these correlations are independent of supervisory sta-
tus; although, older males are more likely to be supervisors and to have lon-
ger tenure on the job than younger men.
The attitudes of men by separate age category follow. Again, descriptions
of each age group represent the significant correlations between being in the
relevant age group as opposed to being in any other age group.
Men older than 50. Table 2 also presents the chi-square values for each age
group and sexual harassment attitudes for men. As indicated, older males
are significantly more likely to be supervisors and to have been on the job
longer than younger men. Status in the older-than-50 group is negatively
correlated with experiencing hostile environment sexual harassment and
knowledge of others who have experienced harassment. However, men
older than 50 feel harassed when exposed to potentially harassing behaviors
and are not willing to allow those behaviors to pass, even if done by friends.
Regarding interpersonal relationships, being older than 50 is positively cor-
related with feelings that the workplace is an unacceptable venue to estab-
lish personal relationships but also with thinking that women do not always
mean no when they say it.
From a policy standpoint, older men feel that current policy protects the
confidentiality of the accused, that the complainant is satisfactorily made
aware of the outcomes of investigations, and that the policy is fair to the
complainant. Hypothetically, they are more likely than other men to think
that investigations should be conducted, but they also feel that situations
should be handled informally when possible.
Men in the older-than-50 age group indicate that they have been well
trained on how to take sexual harassment complaints, a particularly positive
finding as they are significantly more likely to be supervisors than younger
men. In particular, they indicate that they have been trained on how to take
a complaint, how to interact effectively with all parties involved, and how to

conduct interviews. They feel that the training has been effective in improv-
ing their ability to take complaints, conduct investigations, and maintain
confidentiality. Overall, they feel that they have received enough training to
effectively deal with sexual harassment complaints and think that in prac-
tice, they have done a good job of interacting with all parties involved in
complaints that they have received. Because they tend to be supervisors,
these men were able to provide information on how they have handled
actual complaints. They have dealt with complaints informally and have
tended to provide only counseling to the complainant. Thus, although they
have been exposed to training and feel they can deal with complaints effec-
tively, their actual handling of complaints does not appear to be optimal
according to much of the literature. The policies themselves typically
require investigations in all cases rather than allowing supervisors to deal
with each case individually and informally.
Many of the significant correlations remain, even when controlling for
job status, indicating that in most cases, age is more important than being
in a management position. The variables for which being a supervisor was
more important were as follows: attitudes about confidentiality protections
for the accused, whether the complainant should be made aware of the out-
come of the investigation, whether they felt they had received enough train-
ing to effectively deal with complaints, whether they counseled the com-
plainant only as opposed to pursuing a formal investigation, and the extent
to which they had experienced sexual harassment.
Men 40 to 49. Men in this age group are more likely than other men to
have experienced sexual harassment in their current job and reported it,
perhaps because they are more likely than men of other ages to think that
the harassment problem is important and has not been overrated. Such men
feel that definitive definitions of sexual harassment can be established and
tend not to feel flattered when harassed, feeling like a victim instead. They
appear to have a strong preference for policies to be less codified, however.
For example, they are less likely than men in other age groups to feel that
policies should include confidentiality protections for all parties, that sanc-
tions for false reports should be incorporated, that complainants should
receive information on the findings of investigations, and that the policy
should include time frames for reporting sexual harassment and for process-
ing and making findings on complaints. However, they do not think that
complaints should be handled informally. This suggests that they feel that
formal investigations should take place but that supervisors should be free
to handle them on a case-by-case basis without specific policy mandates.

Because men in this age group are also more likely to be supervisors than
younger males are, controls for job status were run. Only one of the initial
relationships significant at .05the extent of training on how to interact
with the parties involved in a complaintwas the result of supervisory
status as opposed to age.
Men 30 to 39. Men in this age group are significantly less likely to be
supervisors, and they have lower tenures on the job than older men. Males
in this group are also more likely than other men to have experienced gray
area harassment, such as flattery and requests for dates. Experiencing these
behaviors does not make them feel like sexual harassment victims because
they do not feel that many such behaviors constitute sexual harassment.
They also tend not to be familiar with sexual harassment policy and proce-
dure. From a policy standpoint, they do not tend to think that an investiga-
tion should take place when a complaint is lodged, do not feel that media-
tion should be offered, and do not support giving information on findings
to complainants. Because this group is less likely to be in supervisory posi-
tions than older men are, a control was run for job status. Nonsupervisory
job status was more important than age for this group for only one variable
(preference that mediation not be offered).10
Men younger than 30. As with the younger men above, men in this age
group have less tenure and are significantly less likely to be supervisors than
their older peers. They have not been exposed to sexual harassment and do
not know of others who have been exposed. They also indicate that they
would not report harassment if it occurred. They have received little train-
ing about sexual harassment, and as a likely consequence, they tend not to
be aware of procedures for reporting harassment. They also feel that it is
hard to know when they behave in a way that might constitute harassment.
Regarding policy, they think that policies should have clear time frames for
reporting harassment on the part of complainants. Overall, men in this age
group seem to be generally unaware of the nature of harassment and organi-
zational policy and procedure. Job rank appears to have no effect on any of
the relationships originally significant at the .05 level.
Summary. First, it is clear from the number of significant relationships
that age is more important for attitudes among male employees than it was
for females, and each age group appears to have its own unique traits for
males. Overall, men in the older-than-50 age group, in particular, present
an interesting conundrum. On one hand, in comparison to younger men,
they appear to be more sensitive to behaviors that might constitute sexual

harassment, they believe that investigations should take place, they have
been trained on how to deal with sexual harassment as supervisors, and they
feel that the training has prepared them to address complaints effectively.
Moreover, because these men are most likely to be supervisors, they will be
taking the bulk of any complaints that arise. Based on the training, this
appears to be a positive sign. However, when actual complaints arise, they
tend to deal with them informally rather than conducting formal investiga-
tions. Furthermore, they hold some traditional gender values (e.g., that
women do not mean no when they say it) that may get in the way of effective
reactions to complaints. In short, it could be hypothesized that they have
been sufficiently well trained to know what should take place when com-
plaints occur but do not necessarily take prescribed actions. Thus, training
may not have completely overcome ingrained sociosexual attitudes formed
at an earlier age. An examination of younger men, particularly those youn-
ger than 30, raises different concerns and suggests that although traditional
gender values may be decreasing with time among men, younger male
employees appear to be largely clueless when it comes to sexual harassment.
Men in the 40-to-49 age group appear to be aware of behaviors that con-
stitute harassment, but they have strong preferences for informal processes
when dealing with complaints. Although they support formal investiga-
tions in all cases, they disdain the types of policy codification that make pro-
cesses more predictable and uniform: time frames for activities, sanctions
for false reports, and providing information back to the complainant.
Younger male employees (30 to 39) do not even support investigations and
appear to have very narrow perceptions about what behaviors constitute
harassment, raising concerns about their own behaviors on the job. Men
younger than 30 appear to have received less training on sexual harassment
and consequently are more likely to admit that they do not really know
which behaviors are harassing. They are also less knowledgeable about pol-
icy and procedures. They have never experienced sexual harassment and do
not know anyone else who has, again suggesting that sexual harassment is
simply not on their radar screens.
CONCLUSION
In concluding, it is useful to revisit the questions posed at the beginning

of this analysis and consider what these findings imply about implementing
sexual harassment policies in the public sector. At the outset, it is useful to
restate the limitations of the data. First, surveys were conducted in only one

state. Thus, regardless of how internally representative the cities may be,
they clearly represent only public employee attitudes in Michigan. There-
fore, although the findings and policy implications noted here can serve as
thoughts or lessons for human resource specialists in other states, certainty
about generalization is limited.
With this caveat in mind, the initial questions are now revisited. First, are
there significant age group differences among male and female employees
regarding perceptions of sexual harassment, attitudes about model policy
and procedure, and evaluations of workplace policies? Clearly, the answer
to this question is yes. Age group matters, and in many respects, it matters
even when controlling for supervisory status and other personal and
workplace variables.
Previous research using the same data has compared the relative effects of
age on policy preferences and satisfaction using regressing analysis (Reese &
Lindenberg, 2003). Although age does not directly explain ultimate satis-
faction with sexual harassment policies, it does have an independent effect
on attitudes, including the definition of sexual harassment and a willing-
ness to report harassment, that directly affect policy satisfaction (Reese &
Lindenberg, 1999, 2003). Separating age and gender in the analysis here
highlights patterns lost in the aggregate analysis, however. Overall, older
employees, particularly older women, are more likely to be aware of and
sensitive to sexual harassment and are more supportive of model policy. Age
group differences do not appear to be equally important for male and
female employees, however. Differences among male age groups are more
marked than they are for female age groups, suggesting that for women,
there is a similarity in attitude that transcends age. Men appear to be captive
both of their gender and the times in which they were raised.
The answers to the final questions, which relate to the implications of
gender-based and age-based attitudes for effective policy implementation,
are more complex. Given the age and gender interactions discovered here,
three general areas of recommendations are posited: enhanced training, sur-
facing the issues, and rerouting complaints. These are discussed below in
turn.
Training
The obvious answer to lack of awareness of current policies, confusion

over which behaviors are harassing and when they have occurred, and pref-
erence for informal, case-by-case policies is training. Moreover, training has

been deemed effective in addressing these issues in previous research

(Blakely et al., 1998; Blaxall, Parsonson, & Robertson, 1993; Moyer &
Nath, 1998; OHare Grundmann, ODonohue, & Peterson, 1997; Reese
& Lindenberg, 2003; Terpstra & Baker, 1992). Still, the analysis here raises
concerns about the extent to which training can address attitudes and
behaviors regarding sexual harassment. Although an argument can be made
that training can mitigate the ignorance of younger employees, the data
here suggest that even extensive training does not change the behaviors and
attitudes of older male supervisors. It is possible that training has simply
educated them about what should happen or on the proper responses to
policy questions but has not truly changed attitudes or behaviors. Addition-
ally, the fact that male employees who have reported harassment also appear
to have concerns about codifying procedures points to failures of imple-
mentation, regardless of knowing what should happen in an investigation.
This is a serious concern. Furthermore, what happens as these supervisors
retire and are replaced by younger males and females that are, at this point,
almost completely unaware of sexual harassment as a problem? Men in the
30-to-39 age group appear particularly problematic as they evidence some
of the traditional sociosexual attitudes and are adverse to model policies.
Will training alone be enough to address these concerns? Perhaps not.
Before training is discarded as ineffective, however, different modalities
and content should be explored; that is, perhaps the problems lie not so
much in the limitations of training but in the way training is provided.
First, much existing sexual harassment training is offered based on tradi-
tional pedagogies developed to educate children rather than adults. Most
training formats are teacher centered, assume little prior knowledge or
experience, and tend to treat sexual harassment as a subject isolated from
other workplace contexts and norms. Thus, such training methods do not
address adult learning styles that tend to be more self-directed, problem
centered, intricately connected to past and present knowledge and experi-
ences, and motivated by internal needs to solve immediate problems
(Kazmierczak, 2002; Knowles, 1988). In short, more effective training for
adults should directly involve the learners in the curricular plans in diagnos-
ing their own needs and organizational problems, formulating objectives,
and identifying effective learning strategies (Brookfield, 1986). Further-
more, research indicates that current sexual harassment training relies on
poorly acted and uncomfortable video demonstrations of harassment, writ-
ten materials that emphasize court cases, and pedantic lectures and that it
tends to occur only once, often on hiring rather than annually as some rec-
ommend (Kazmierczak, 2002; Orlov & Roumell, 1999; Reese &

Lindenberg, 2002a). Consideration should be given to the messages inher-

ent in who is conducting the training. Training provided by lawyers is likely
to emphasize legal requirements and liability issues over interpersonal or
power relationships. Training provided by internal personnel may not be as
current or professional and may be captured by directives from
administrators (Orlov & Roumell, 1999).
Thus, training should be modified to address the age group challenges by
focusing on pedagogies informed by theory on how adults learn (i.e.,

andragogy);
repeating training regularly, perhaps even on an annual basis;
involving employees and supervisors in establishing goals and methodologies
for training;
providing training formats that isolate age and gender groups to address age-
specific and gender-specific attitudes; and
ensuring that training modalities go beyond sterile video or written presenta-
tions to include role-playing, group problem solving, sharing of experiences
(particularly between age and gender groups and including stories from survi-
vors of sexual harassment to increase problem awareness among younger
workers), and making explicit the connections between sexual harassment
and power in work organizations.
Surfacing the Issues
For employees to participate in the development of training that meets

existing needs, for organizations to have a sense of how sexual harassment
complaints are actually being addressed, and for top policy makers to assess
actual levels of harassment absent formal complaints, some form of
employee surveys may be required. Many academics have recommended
employee surveys prior to the development of sexual harassment policy and
as a means of understanding the extent of the problem, so such suggestions
are not new. In light of the findings herethat supervisors do not necessar-
ily address complaints in the manner prescribed by policysuch surveys
should also allow a sense of how often employees raise concerns but are
counseled to remain silent and how well employees feel that supervisors
have interacted with them and addressed complaints. Additionally, such
surveys could go beyond sexual harassment policies to provide a general and
ongoing gauge of workplace satisfaction, covering violence, other types of
harassment, opportunities for advancement, satisfaction with policies, and
so forth. Another means of surfacing implementation issues is to include
sexual harassment as part of supervisor evaluations. Although this may be

too burdensome as part of annual evaluations, surveys of employees every 3

to 5 years as part of supervisor assessment could be a means of raising a
number of policy implementation issues, including sexual harassment.
Rerouting Complaints
One other way to address implementation concerns is to reexamine the

sexual harassment policy itself. Because it appears that male supervisors are
tending to counsel victims against filing formal complaints, one alternative
is to acknowledge that this is occurring and that age group attitudes are not
changing in the face of extensive training. This implies changing policy so
that complaints are more likely to go to female supervisors. Because women
are often in management positions in human resource or EEOC depart-
ments, policies might require that concerns and complaints go to these
offices rather than to immediate supervisors. Increasing the likelihood that
older women are the first point of contact takes advantage of existing age
and gender interactions rather than allowing them to work against formal-
ized and less standardized reactions. This proposal is offered with some cau-
tion, however, because it potentially institutionalizes the tendency to treat
sexual harassment as a womans problem. However, many scholars have rec-
ommended that organizations ensure that they have both male and female
options for taking complaints, and these findings support those suggestions
(Biaggio, Watts, & Brownell, 1990; Reese & Lindenberg, 1999; Remick
et al., 1990).
Finally, a reconsideration of the discussion of the causes of sexual harass-
ment is pertinent at this point. The analysis here suggests that serious con-
sideration be given to a sex role spillover theory of workplace sexual harass-
ment, particularly given that it accommodates both organizational and
cultural theories (Fitzgerald, 1990; Saal, 1996). In short, it still appears that
older males dominate in positions of organizational power. Hence, the cli-
mate of hierarchy and authority relations that has historically provided sup-
portive environments for sexual harassment remains in place. Indeed,
women as a whole in this study are significantly less likely to be supervisors,
are in lower status positions, and have less tenure.11 Furthermore, the atti-
tudes of older male workers suggest that gender roles related to sex may well
be spilling over into the workplace as formal policy mechanisms are
eschewed, because the mind-set questions whether sexual advances were
really unwelcome. These attitudes about gender roles then open the door
for sexualized interactions between employees that keep female employees

in a subordinate position. The fact that younger workers, both male and
female, seem more unaware or accepting of sexualized behavior in the work-
place, not defining it as harassing, suggests that these ingrained roles are
unlikely to change dramatically over time and that intrinsic power imbal-
ances may remain unaddressed. Solutions to sexual harassment then may lie
not as much in training, which may be necessary but not sufficient, but
rather in more dramatic societal and organizational changes that focus spe-
cifically on gender-based power imbalances. The most realistic conclusion
from this analysis may be that neither training nor policy is enough to
address workplace sexual harassment during the long term.
NOTES
1. A single-state focus was chosen for several reasons. First, examination of municipal
policies within one state controls for enabling legislation. Michigan has a strong tradition
of municipal home rule, and local governments have independence in creating and imple-
menting personnel policies, such as those related to sexual harassment. Second, a single-
state focus allows for a more comprehensive examination of policies, implementation
issues, training, and the like across a number of local governments. Third, ensuring the
cooperation of local governments and stimulating response rates requires working through
state municipal associations. Michigan as a case study represents several ideal factors that
permit generalizing survey results. Although often characterized as a classic rust belt state,
there are many areas of Michigan that remain rural and where the primary source of income
is tied to tourist dollars and agriculture. Michigan also has a high percentage of minorities
or ethnic groups concentrated in distinct geographical regions of the state. There are areas
of the state that are distinctly more liberal, whereas others are conservative in both political
and lifestyle preferences. Many blue-collar communities in Michigan experienced in-
migration from the South only a generation or two ago and remain distinctly blue-collar
communities, whereas other areas in Michigan have seen a suburban explosion of middle-
class and upper middle-class wealth. Thus, Michigan presents a microcosm that is
sufficiently heterogeneous to provide a good snapshot of public sector practices in high-
profile policy areas, such as sexual harassment.
2. Scores on the policy and training indexes were converted to standardized scores (f
scores) to assure that all responses were comparable. The cut points identified in the text
were chosen because they represented visible breaks or skips in the data and, hence, seemed
to best distinguish between cities with poor policies below the cut and those with exception-
ally good policies above it. For the good policy index, there was a jump from 2 cities to 12
cities at .89, and there were 35 cities identified as having highly codified policies. Another
large group of 54 did not have any of the effective policy elements. For training, there was a
large jump from 21 cities to 1 city at .62, and this was chosen as the dividing line between
good and bad training. This resulted in 106 cities with poor training and 85 with good
training.
3. It only made sense to survey employees in cities that had relatively large numbers of
employees. For example, if a city had only 20 employees, it would be difficult to get a

generalizable sense of the effects of their policies. Although the initial preference was to
include only municipalities with 100 or more employees, this would have resulted in only
one or two cities in some of the quadrants. By using a minimum employee size of 70, a rea-
sonably large set of eligible cities resulted for each quadrant. The analysis was limited to cit-
ies not only to control for form of government but also because villages tended to have
substantially fewer employees.
4. The response rate for the individual cities is below. Response rates do not appear to
vary systematically with city characteristics, such as size of workforce or nature of policy.
Cities are identified by color only to protect confidentiality.
Light blue city: 210 surveys distributed, 50 returned = 24% response rate
Light green city: 84 surveys distributed, 21 returned = 26% response rate
Yellow city: 332 surveys distributed, 135 returned = 41% response rate
Cream city: 118 surveys distributed, 28 returned = 24% response rate
Pink city: 118 surveys distributed, 43 returned = 36% response rate
Orange city: 111 surveys distributed, 44 returned = 40% response rate
Dark blue city: 82 surveys distributed, 13 returned = 16% response rate
Purple city: 154 surveys distributed, 48 returned = 31% response rate
Red city: 197 surveys distributed, 51 returned = 26% response rate
Brown city: 107 surveys distributed, 39 returned = 36% response rate
Orchid city: 180 surveys distributed, 33 returned = 18% response rate
Dark green city: 140 surveys distributed, 44 returned = 31% response rate
Gold city: 164 surveys distributed, 46 returned = 28% response rate
5. The 13 cities surveyed differ significantly on only a few respondent traits. Respon-
dents from the pink city are significantly younger and are more likely to be non-White
(mirroring the population profile in the community, roughly 50% non-White). Respon-
dents from the cream city were significantly more likely to be female and less likely to be
supervisors. Respondents from the orange and red cities were significantly more likely to be
male (and older in the latter city). Finally, respondents from the orchid and light blue cities
were significantly younger.
6. These policy and attitudinal variables have been used in previous research (Adams,
1997; DuBois et al., 1999; Gutek, 1997; Reese & Lindenberg, 1999).
7. Table 1 notes significant relationships at the .01, .05, and .10 levels. Relationships sig-
nificant at .10 are included because of the relatively small numbers of respondents in each
age group and because 2 is sometimes deflated because of uneven values in table cells. It
should be remembered that 2 values do not indicate the direction of relationships. Cross-
tabulations were run on all significant relationships to assess direction. These are available
from the authors by request.
8. The correlations for publicizing punishments, training effectiveness in maintaining
confidentiality, and whether complainants were overreacting weakened when controlling
for supervisory status but were not significant at .05.
9. Because women in the 39-and-younger age group tend to not be supervisors, any sig-
nificant correlations between the supervisor-only questions and age are not discussed. It is
expected that any significant correlations (almost consistently negative) are due to the small
number of supervisors in the cells for younger women.

10. Several of the initial .10 relationships weakened (e.g., gray area harassment experi-
ence and knowledge of sexual harassment process).
11. Correlation coefficients with gender are as follows: tenure (.17), job (.12), and
supervisor (.24), all significant at the .01 level.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. H. (1997). Sexual harassment and black women: A historical perspective. In W.
ODonohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment (pp. 213-224). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
American Association of University Professors. (1995). Sexual harassment suggested policy
and procedures for handling complaints. Academe, 81, 62-63.
Biaggio, M. K., Watts, D., & Brownell, A. (1990). Addressing sexual harassment: Strategies
for prevention and change. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Ivory power: Sexual harassment on cam-
pus (pp. 213-230). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Blakely, G. L., Blakely, E. H., & Moorman, R. H. (1998). The effects of training on percep-
tions of sexual harassment allegations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 71-83.
Blaxall, M. D. C., Parsonson, B. S., & Robertson, N. R. (1993). The development and eval-
uation of a sexual harassment contact person training package. Behavior Modification,
17(2), 148-163.
Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
DuBois, C. L. Z., Faley, R. H., Kustis, G. A., & Knapp, D. E. (1999). Perceptions of organi-
zational responses to formal sexual harassment complaints. Journal of Management
Issues, 11(2), 1-11.
Fain, T. C., & Anderson, D. L. (1987). Sexual harassment: Organizational context and dif-
fuse status. Sex Roles, 5/6, 291-311.
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1990). Sexual harassment: The definition and measurement of a con-
struct. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus (pp. 21-44).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Frazier, P. A., Cochran, C. C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science research on lay defini-
tions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21-37.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B. A. (1997). Sexual harassment policy initiatives. In W. ODonohue (Ed.), Sexual
harassment (pp. 185-198). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gutek, B. A., & OConnor, M. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman stan-
dard. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 151-166.
Kazmierczak, K. (2002, Apirl). Training in vain: Sexual harassment prevention for municipal
governments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Associa-
tion, Chicago.
Knowles, M. S. (1988). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Book Company.
Moyer, R. S., & Nath, A. (1998). Some effects of brief training interventions on percep-
tions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 333-356.
OHare Grundmann, E., ODonohue, W., & Peterson, S. H. (1997). The prevention of
sexual harassment. In W. ODonohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment (pp. 175-184). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Orlov, D., & Roumell, T. (1999). What every manager needs to know about sexual harass-
ment. New York: Amacom.
Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Schmidtke, J. M. (1998). Individual differences in the effective-
ness of sexual harassment awareness training. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,
698-723.
Pickerill, J., Mitchell, J., Jackson, R., & Newman, M. A. (2003, June). How the workplace
became sanitized: Changing perceptions of sexual harassment in the federal workplace,
1987-1994. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Pierce, E. R., Rosen, B., & Hiller, T. B. (1997). Breaking the silence: Creating user-friendly
sexual harassment policies. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10, 225-243.
Reese, L. A., & Lindenberg, K. E. (1999). Implementing public sector sexual harassment poli-
cies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reese, L. A., & Lindenberg, K. E. (2002a). Assessing local government sexual harassment
policies. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(3), 295-311.
Reese, L. A., & Lindenberg, K. E. (2002b, April). Its the training stupid. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Reese, L. A., & Lindenberg, K. E. (2003). The importance of training on sexual harassment
outcomes. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23, 175-191.
Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. (1982). The factorial survey: An approach
to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 99-109.
Remick, H., Salisbury, J., Stringer, D., & Ginorio, A. B. (1990). Investigating complaints
of sexual harassment. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus
(pp. 191-212). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Riger, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. American
Psychologist, 46, 497-505.
Rudman, L. A., Borgida, E., & Robertson, B. A. (1995). Suffering in silence: Procedural
justice versus gender socialization issues in university sexual harassment grievance pro-
cedures. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 519-541.
Saal, F. E. (1996). Mens misperceptions of womens interpersonal behaviors and sexual
harassment. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace (pp. 67-84).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stringer, D. M., Remick, H., Salisbury, J., & Ginorio, A. B. (1990). The power and reasons
behind sexual harassment: An employers guide to solutions. Public Personnel Manage-
ment, 19(1), 43-52.
Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1992). Outcomes of federal court decisions on sexual
harassment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 181-190.
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is
it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace:
Trends, progress, and continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Print-
ing Office.
Winkel, F. W., & De Kleuver, E. (1997). Communication aimed at changing cognitions
about sexual intimidation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 513-529.

LAURA A. REESE, a political scientist, is a professor in the Urban Planning Program at Wayne
State University. Her recent books include The Civic Culture of Local Economic Develop-
ment (with Raymond Rosenfeld) and Equity in the Workplace (with Heidi Gottfried).
KAREN E. LINDENBERG is a professor emeritus of political science at Eastern Michigan

University. She has more than 25 years of experience as a grievance and arbitration advocate and
is a trained mediator. She coauthored Implementing Sexual Harassment Policy (with Laura
Reese).

0075 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

0075 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Review of Public Personnel Administration

Gender, Age, and Sexual Harassment

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rop.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Gender, Age, and Sexual Harassment

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

ATTITUDES ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Gender and Definitions of Harassment

Research has found a variety of gender differences that appear important

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

and dissatisfaction: Confidentiality and perceiving the process as fair to all

Do Age or Other Traits Play a Role?

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

nitions of sexual harassment (Reese & Lindenberg, 1999). Thus, although

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

surveys have been conducted on volunteer participants of training pro-

Women and Age

To provide an initial assessment of possible patterns by gender and age

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Table 1. Age Correlations for Women

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Publicize possible punishments .02 6.66* 1.72 3.34 6.29*

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

deterrent to harassment and do not see complainants as overreacting to

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

on how they handle sexual harassment complaints, do not think dismissal

Men and Age

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Table 2. Age Correlations for Men

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Publicize possible punishments .00 0.64 1.67 4.04 5.69

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

In concluding, it is useful to revisit the questions posed at the beginning

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

The obvious answer to lack of awareness of current policies, confusion

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

been deemed effective in addressing these issues in previous research

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Lindenberg, 2002a). Consideration should be given to the messages inher-

focusing on pedagogies informed by theory on how adults learn (i.e.,

Surfacing the Issues

For employees to participate in the development of training that meets

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

too burdensome as part of annual evaluations, surveys of employees every 3

One other way to address implementation concerns is to reexamine the

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

KAREN E. LINDENBERG is a professor emeritus of political science at Eastern Michigan

Downloaded from http://rop.sagepub.com by Clara Fonseca on April 2, 2009

Você também pode gostar