What role does perception play in sexual harassment?

In 1991 sexual harassment came to the forefront of public attention in America. United States Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas was accused of sexually harassing law professor Anita Hill. It was a case of her word against his and the evidence presented in the televised hearings did little to shed conclusive light on who was lying and who was telling the truth. On October 15, the United States Senate confirmed Thomas’ nomination by a vote of 52 to 48. The narrow margin in the vote tended to mirror American public opinion of the case. A poll conducted by Newsweek indicated that 39% of Americans believed Clarence Thomas was telling the truth, 22% thought Anita Hill was telling the truth, and 39% weren’t sure. How do so many people look at the same information and come to different conclusions? Simply put, the facts have no bearing on anything; it is your perception of those facts that is important.

How we judge the traits and characteristics of those around us is an essential part of our everyday lives. Social Psychologists call this “person perception” and it influences how we feel about individuals and groups, and how we act toward them in even our most routine daily interactions. The task involved in person perception is to form judgments about an individual’s personality, which will allow us to predict their behaviors and know how to interact with them. Needless to say, we frequently find ourselves with limited information from which to make those judgments. This limited information leaves our judgments vulnerable to a variety of errors and biases.  Nevertheless, we enter into every interaction with some preconceived ideas of that other person’s characteristics and act accordingly.

Our perception of other people as well as the world around us, our reality, is influenced by a variety of factors. Stated another way, we all live in our own subjective reality. We construct our version of reality from the knowledge and experience we gain through education and social interaction and from the values and beliefs we acquire through socialization. In photography, you can use a variety of filters to control and influence the types and amount of light that reaches the film (or these days, the electronic media used by modern cameras) and ultimately produces the image. In much the same way, our “reality filter” which is made up of our individual values, beliefs, knowledge and experiences, strongly influences the way we interpret the information we receive from our senses. Our emotional state may also exert considerable influence in our perceptions of individuals and situations.

As mentioned earlier, socialization begins virtually at the moment we are born and that lays the groundwork for most of the values and beliefs we carry throughout our lives. Specifically, gender socialization begins very early and strongly influences how we interact with the opposite sex. The very nature of our relationships with our male and female caregivers has a lasting impact on what we believe to be appropriate or inappropriate in those cross gender interactions. Our view of what is an acceptable or unacceptable gender role develops in much the same way. Human beings learn much of what they know about social norms by simply observing those around them. Much more is learned by early experimentation with a variety of behaviors and the resulting reaction of the others around them. Parents who encourage their sons to play football and their daughters to play with dolls do much to perpetuate traditional views of male and female stereotypes.

While much of our knowledge comes from formal education, our experiences interacting with others and our observations of the interactions of others also have a considerable impact on our view of our world. Still, the values and beliefs we hold tend to color our interpretation of these experiences and observations. While isolated experiences with individuals from other groups may tend to contribute to the development of stereotypes, typically these experiences only serve to confirm our previously held assumptions of those groups. Interpretations that conflict with or contradict our assumptions are frequently discounted or sometimes even ignored. This is especially true in emotionally charged situations. For instance, we often look for hidden motives when someone we dislike does something nice for us or ignore evidence that a loved one has been insensitive to our feelings.

Clearly, it is obvious that our perceptions are the result of a very complex and very subjective process. Not only are there considerable differences in the way men and women are socialized, there are also considerable differences between individuals within each gender that strongly influence our perceptions of reality. We are all different, possessing different sets of values and beliefs, knowledge and experiences, all of which makes our view of the world around us unique. Much of what we see as appropriate or inappropriate is a function of the cultural environment in which we live and fortunately, there is some consistency among individuals as a result. Still, while some similarities in perception exist, each individual’s perception in any particular instance is a result of the situation, the other individuals involved, and the emotions attached to the situation, all of which is viewed through that individual’s “reality filter”.

Most of our perceptions are subject to a variety of errors and biases, at least to some degree. Sometimes our judgments of others depend as much on preconceptions and prior knowledge as upon objective information. In other words, our perceptions of others are not always based on facts, but are sometimes based on what we expect to see. To complicate matters further, our perceptions of others affect our behavior toward them, which may well influence their behavior toward us. For example, if you perceive someone as cold and aloof, you will likely interact with him or her accordingly and their response to you will tend to confirm your perception of them as cold and aloof. In this way, our perceptions tend to have a self-fulfilling quality and we tend to see what we expect to see.

When we look at the issue of sexual harassment, it is clear to see that it is a complex issue that is very strongly tied to each individual’s perception of the situation. Each situation is different and seemingly identical facts in separate situations can lead to totally different interpretations by the parties involved. For example, an individual is likely to perceive sexual advances in a more positive light if those advances come from someone they see as a potential mate. On the other hand, if those same advances come from someone they dislike, they are much more likely to be perceived as sexual harassment. Add in the respective gender of the individuals involved, the relative power differentials between those individuals, and the relative severity of the behaviors involved and the issue becomes increasingly more complex and difficult to interpret.

The legal implications of sexual harassment exert increasingly more pressure on managers to investigate and appropriately deal with sexual harassment complaints. If clear agreement on interpretations of each situation is difficult for the individuals involved, it is doubly difficult for individuals who are not directly involved in the situation. In addition, these incidents often boil down to a question of one individual’s word against another’s. It becomes clear that the involvement of another individual adds to the complexity of the problem and the ultimate resolution of the complaint becomes tied to the perceptions of the individual asked to investigate and resolve the complaint. That individual’s view of the situation, knowledge of the law, impressions of the individuals involved and personal views of sexual harassment in general, have considerable impact on the outcome of their investigation. In short, their perceptual errors and biases may well become the issue in subsequent litigation. This tends to underscore the importance of effective evaluation and training programs for managers who are in a position to have to deal with sexual harassment complaints. If we take this line of thinking one step further, it is easier to understand why there is so much inconsistency in the rulings of the various courts that get involved in these cases.

What do you do about third party sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment by a third party, contractor, customer, etc. can be just as detrimental to an organization as inappropriate behavior by a manager or other employee. But what if the accused harasser is a key contractor or perhaps, your best customer? In difficult business times like those we are going through right now, it is understandable that companies may be reluctant to do anything that may alienate any customer, but that reluctance may be magnified greatly if that customer is perceived as vital to the survival of the company. How much risk do you expose yourself and the company to if you tell that employee that just came to you with a sexual harassment complaint that you just can’t afford to protect them right now? Even as you read those words you know the answer to that question is more risk than you can afford.

Failure to act upon a sexual harassment complaint for any reason is inexcusable in the eyes of the EEOC. It doesn’t matter that this particular harasser is the one holding the purse strings for that multimillion dollar account. It doesn’t matter that the company is struggling financially and that account could save it. It doesn’t matter how many people might lose their jobs if you don’t get that account. The bottom line is sexual harassment violates Title VII and if you don’t do everything possible to prevent it and remedy it once it occurs, you can be held liable for damages. The Supreme Court was very clear that employers have a responsibility to protect employees from unwanted harassment.

At the end of the day we all know that these laws are here for a reason. Even if it is inconvenient or costly for us to provide the training for our managers and employees, or fire a valuable employee because he or she doesn’t know how to act at work, or confront our best customer who is harassing one of our employees, we have to take the right steps. As, Sara Decker, one of my new friends on LinkedIn says, “The legwork upfront is nothing compared to the fire drill on the back end…”

While we may be inclined to ignore it and hope for the best, third party harassment is no different than any of the more common versions of sexual harassment and we have to deal with it in exactly the same way. We may have to be a bit more creative in how we investigate and resolve the complaints because we may not be able to require the harasser to submit to an interview and we likely have no authority to take any disciplinary action. If the harasser is in your workplace in a business capacity, such as a contractor doing work for you, (you are the customer) you may have to collaborate with that company’s HR department.

There may be some confusion about who is or could be held liable in these cases. One example I heard recently was a case where the company had a temporary clerical worker from a temp agency who was being harassed by a contractor that was doing some work for the company. Who is actually liable in this case? While you could make an argument that the contractor’s employer is liable, the harassment occurred on your premises. Consequently, both companies could ultimately be held liable should this result in an EEOC complaint or civil suit. If you handle the situation before it escalates to that level then you don’t have to argue about who is liable.

What does your sexual harassment training program look like?

While it is clear that a comprehensive and well-written sexual harassment policy is essential for an employer to have a good defense against litigation, it won’t be effective if employees are not aware of it. The policy must be disseminated to all employees, regardless of their relative position within the company, and records to this effect must be kept.  These records should include a signed statement indicating that they have received and read the policy.

However, simply handing employees a copy of the company’s sexual harassment policy and getting a signature does not ensure they will read it, let alone understand it. Sexual harassment awareness training should be provided to all employees and, once again, records to that effect should be kept. This will provide another piece of tangible evidence to support an employer’s claim that they have made a reasonable effort to prevent or promptly correct sexual harassment should they be faced with litigation.

Unfortunately, a single lecture or workshop is unlikely to be viewed by the courts as a good faith effort on the part of the employer. This becomes especially true as the length of time since the lecture or workshop increases. The general consensus among legal experts seems to be to recommend at least one (and some say two) mandatory sexual harassment awareness training sessions per year for each employee. While this certainly entails what could be a sizable investment, depending upon the number of employees, the costs are negligible when compared to the potential cost of sexual harassment litigation even if the company is not held liable.

Other than proving to the courts that your company has made a reasonable effort in sexual harassment prevention, what else can good sexual harassment training provide?

• It will provide employees and supervisors alike with clear descriptions of the types of behaviors that are appropriate and inappropriate. In the absence of this type of training, most people have only a vague idea of the types of behaviors that constitute sexual harassment.
• It can ensure the effective communication of the sexual harassment policy to all employees and emphasize the employer’s position on preventing sexual harassment.
• It can provide employees with a clear understanding of the established complaint procedure and what they can expect from the company should they file a complaint.
• It can educate members of management in the appropriate steps to take when confronted with a sexual harassment complaint. (Additional training should be provided for managers to ensure they understand how to handle complaints and the importance of doing so.)

Taken together, training in these areas can go a long way toward preventing or eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace. Should sexually harassing behavior occur in spite of the training, it is still more likely that management will react appropriately which, in turn, should reduce the likelihood of litigation.

Many larger companies use their in-house training or human resources staff to provide this training.  Some smaller companies have managers conduct this training.  Many times both large and small companies rely on outside training professionals to handle this sensitive training.  This sometimes helps to provide that important third-party unbiased tone.  However, if an outside party provides the training, the company should show its commitment to the training by having a senior executive come in at the beginning to introduce the session and emphasize how important it is.

While there has been a growing trend over the last ten years toward video, computer-based and Internet-based training for sexual harassment (and virtually every other training topic), my experience has been that this is the least effective approach to educating employees and managers about sexual harassment. While many of these programs, especially the more recent ones, are very well done, their effectiveness is directly proportional to the level of motivation of the viewer.

Typically what I have found is once people find themselves in trouble they are much more interested in the topic. I recently did some remedial training with an individual that had been accused of hostile work environment sexual harassment. His company uses a video training program and part of his remedial training was to view this video (again) and go through one-on-one sexual harassment counseling. When I asked if what he got out of the video he told me that he “got a lot more out of it this time because I paid attention this time.”

When developing a sexual harassment training program, the following general objectives should be considered. The training should provide:

• A clear understanding of the company’s written sexual harassment policy.
• Clear definitions of the different forms of sexual harassment with several examples to illustrate each.
• A working knowledge of the mechanisms provided in the written policy for reporting incidents of sexual harassment (including to whom incidents should be reported) as well as the mechanisms provided to protect employees who make such complaints.
• Specific elaboration on the company’s discipline policy as it applies to sexual harassment.
• Written evaluations of each individual employee’s understanding of the company’s written sexual harassment policy, what constitutes inappropriate conduct, the disciplinary consequences for such behavior, and the mechanisms in place to report such behaviors. This can generally take the form of a short test.
• Detailed instructions for managers and supervisory personnel for handling sexual harassment complaints and the subsequent investigations.

With the exception of the final one, the objectives listed above could provide the practical basis for a training program for all employees including management and supervisory personnel. However, it is clear that management and supervisory personnel require additional training that does not necessarily apply to employees in general.

These individuals are directly responsible for implementing and enforcing the employer’s policy as well as being the first line of defense against sexual harassment litigation. Consequently, additional training should be provided to individuals who manage/supervise employees to ensure that they:

• Have a clear understanding of what constitutes inappropriate behavior, how to spot those behaviors and how to stop them.
• Refrain from engaging in inappropriate behavior at all times and understand the disciplinary consequences for failing to do so.
• Clearly understand what the legal implications of sexual harassment are for the company.
• Respond immediately to every employee complaint of sexual harassment.
• Understand the importance of appropriately handling an initial employee complaint.
• Know the requirements for reporting employee complaints or incidents of inappropriate behavior.
• Take every step necessary to safeguard the confidentiality of each report and to protect the employee making the report from possible retaliation.

Research in this area suggests that many of the more minor forms of sexually harassing behavior can be prevented or eliminated simply by making employees aware that these behaviors constitute sexual harassment. The research also suggests that the likelihood of the more serious forms of sexual harassment can be reduced through training and the presence of proactive mechanisms for dealing with these behaviors.

Therefore, it should be clear that a well-developed, properly implemented and documented sexual harassment awareness training program, combined with an effective sexual harassment policy with mechanisms to protect employees, will contribute significantly to maintaining a sexual-harassment-free workplace. At the very least, they will provide the employer with tangible evidence that they have made a reasonable effort to prevent or promptly remedy any incidents of sexual harassment.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 1998 (See Ellerth and Faragher), which clarified the liability of employers in sexual harassment cases, most responsible companies have instituted some form of regular sexual harassment training program for their employees and managers. In 2004, California passed Assembly Bill 1825, which requires companies with more than 50 employees conduct at least two hours of sexual harassment training for each of its supervisory employees every two years. This law also sets a specific quality standard for the training (requirements listed in California Government Code 12950.1). Connecticut and Maine have similar laws requiring sexual harassment training, but they do not have specific requirements for how the training should be delivered.

What More Can I Do?

I was recently thinking of ways I might generate more business. Since I have always operated on the premise that it is many times easier to keep an existing client than it is to find a new one, I started thinking about how I may be able to do more for one particular client. Basically, I like them and would like to work with them more than I already am. They are a local, family owned business with about ten locations and have been in business for about thirty years. Most of their managers have been with them for the majority of that time. They are the kind of client I really enjoy working with. They are genuinely nice people and they seem to legitimately want to do the right thing for their employees.

I have been working with them for almost a year now. They were referred to me by their attorney because they had just had a sexual harassment complaint filed against them with the EEOC. That is not the kind of thing you want to see happen to nice people. When they first contacted me we discussed the details of their case and I asked for a copy of their anti-harassment policy, how it was disseminated, and what their training program looked like. After that, it was pretty clear why their attorney had referred them to me. Their policy was a list of inappropriate behaviors (about 6 as I recall), a statement saying you could be fired if you engaged in any of those behaviors and a place for the employee to sign. All employees signed this during their initial orientation and there was no other training for management or staff.

The first thing I did was provide a four hour training session for each of their 60 plus managers on how to prevent sexual harassment and what to do about it should it occur. During that process, we rewrote their anti-harassment policy and outlined a new procedure for delivering it. In the past, whichever manager hired the employee conducted the new hiring orientation and while all of their managers claimed to go over their original policy in detail, I suspect that the majority of the time it was something akin to “here, read this and sign it.” I created talking points for going over the policy with new hires. Finally, I developed a training presentation for sexual harassment awareness training for all employees and conducted a train-the-trainer session with each of their general managers to teach them how to do the annual awareness training for their location. In the fall, I will provide the training for all of their managers again as a part of the ongoing training program.

In essence, I took them from being totally defenseless and vulnerable to sexual harassment litigation to a point where now they at least have a fighting chance if another harassment complaint should arise, as it most likely will. (It would be nice if we could say that we prevented any future complaint from happening but that is unrealistic.) So, what more can I do? They have a good policy in place. They provide that policy in an effective way to all new employees. They have an annual awareness training program for all employees. I just did a training session for the new managers who were not here for the training done initially. They have an annual training program for all of their managers.

I suppose the only weakness in what they are doing now is the number of people involved in delivering the training. The more people involved, the more the message could be diluted. If I could go over the policy with every new hire, deliver every awareness training session, and deliver all of the management training then I could guarantee that the message each employee gets is consistent regardless of which the location where they work. Their argument against that approach is the cost involved and, frankly, I am not sure that I could say with any certainty that they would be any less likely to have a harassment complaint filed against them if I were doing all of that. It may just be that I have done what they need me to do and I should be content to deal with things as they come up and continue to provide their management training as needed. If anyone has any other suggestions, I am certainly open.

Remedial Sexual Harassment training has its place.

While I tend to see myself as more of a generalist in terms of my consulting work with organizations, the last five or six years has seen my business move away from the general people skills training that characterized my practice early on. I still do some executive coaching but the majority of my time seems to be focused on providing sexual harassment training in one form or another. My niche seems to be in providing remedial one-on-one training for individuals who have gotten themselves in trouble in one way or another. For whatever reason, there doesn’t seem to be very many people out there offering this particular service. Granted, that may be because in most sexual harassment cases the resolution probably results in termination, therefore, no remedial training is needed. Still, there are situations where termination is not warranted and a good slap on the wrist is not enough to show that the company has done “due diligence” in remedying the harassment.

Most of the cases I have been involved in are situations where the offense was either not severe enough to justify termination or there simply wasn’t enough evidence to support the claim of harassment. In such cases, a written warning with a threat of termination for continuing or repeating inappropriate behavior may well be sufficient to show that the company took the necessary steps to put an end to the harassment. Still, attorneys seem to be recommending that their clients take the additional step of requiring the accused harasser to go through some form of remedial training in order to show due diligence.

When I do remedial training in these cases, I generally spend somewhere between three and five hours with the individual in question. A big portion of that time is spent in exploring the situation that resulted in the complaint initially. My purpose is to assess the individual’s understanding of the laws and how they got themselves in trouble. This goes a long way toward being able to assess the likelihood of whether they will repeat the offense or not. It also helps in developing the rapport necessary to allow these assessments. I have found that most of the individuals I have had to deal with feel as if they never had an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Unfortunately, that seems to be the due to the adversarial nature of the investigative process.

I spend some time covering the specifics of sexual harassment law and the company’s anti-harassment policy to the extent necessary, based on the individual involved. The last portion of the training is spent in developing specific strategies to help them avoid situations that would put them at risk for future complaints. Most of the time, this simply involves raising their level of awareness of the need to think before speaking or acting. Generally, I find myself sitting in front of an average person who spoke/acted without thinking or fell victim to the variation in perception of what is or isn’t offensive.

I have found that no one is as innocent or as guilty as they may seem. When people complain, they almost always embellish the facts so that it does not seem that they are complaining about something trivial. On the other hand, when people are accused of something, they always try to present themselves in the most positive light possible. The truth of the matter typically lies somewhere in between those two extremes.

Remedial training of this type benefits everyone involved. The company benefits in that it has additional justification to support their claim of having done everything possible to remedy the harassment, plus they will have at least a reasonable expectation of the likelihood of this behavior being repeated. The accused benefits by gaining a better understanding of how he or she got in trouble initially and how to avoid that in the future. I benefit by seeing one more set of circumstances that may help me be more effective consulting with my clients to help them avoid a harassment complaint in the future.

How are companies addressing cross-cultural issues in their sexual harassment training?

In Texas and throughout the Southwest part of this country, we have a large percentage of the workforce who speak Spanish first and speak enough English to get by. I am sure that in other parts of the country (as well as here) there may also be large numbers of employees who speak some other language primarily. So how are organizations addressing this issue when it comes to “doing everything possible to prevent sexual harassment” in their workplaces? When we provide training for these workers in English only, are we  really doing everything possible or are we just checking off the box on our to do lists and hoping for the best?

If an organization is truly committed to preventing harassment, they have to take that additional step to ensure that all of their employees understand the training provided. Granted, taking that next step to prevent harassment adds additional expense to a program that most companies feel is already far too expensive. In today’s economy that translates as “we are already doing all we can afford to do.” While that certainly makes sense from an accounting standpoint, looking at it from a cost vs. benefit standpoint may change your opinion on this.

How much would it actually cost to provide this training in Spanish as well as English? For most organizations, that would mean adding the cost of an additional workshop or two plus the services of a translator. If you can typically handle your annual training in one session, then it more than doubles the cost. Conversely, if you typically have to hold a number of sessions in order to train all of your employees, the increase in cost is proportionally smaller. Still, it is a finite amount of money in either case.

So what do you get for this extra expenditure? To start with, you decrease the likelihood even more of having a complaint that escalates to the level of an EEOC complaint or civil law suit. It is easy to look at that as an abstraction because you may go a long time without a complaint anyway. That sounds a lot like the same argument organizations are using today to justify not offering sexual harassment training at all. If you have fifteen employees who have all been with you for ten years or more you are probably fairly safe. Otherwise, it is much more like driving in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex or any other large metropolitan area without car insurance.

The other benefits from spending the extra money are equally abstract but no less important. Just think of the message this sends to your employees. It tells them in general that this is a very important topic for everyone to understand. It also tells them that the organization is committed to providing a respectful workplace for all of its employees. In particular, it tells the Spanish speaking employees that they are also valued by the company, a feeling most of them may not have experienced as employees in this country. How do you put a value on that?

When we look at the things that make an organization vulnerable to sexual harassment complaints, we see clearly that employee perception concerning the level of commitment of the organization to providing a respectful workplace for all employees is the key piece in any prevention program. Without that, no amount of training is going to protect the organization.

What exactly is a proactive approach to sexual harassment in the workplace?

I participate in a lot of online discussion groups that discuss sexual harassment in the workplace. Frequently in the course of these discussions, labor law attorneys, HR professionals and other experts in this area speak to the need of taking a proactive approach to workplace harassment. I strongly encourage all of my clients to take a proactive approach. So just exactly what does that mean? While there will obviously be slight variations in how all of us involved in this field might describe it, I think it is safe to say that what I will describe in the following provides  a sufficient level of understanding of this approach.

It is surprising to me in our world today, as litigious as our society is that so many companies are still taking a reactive approach to sexual harassment in the workplace. They have a policy that was written in the 1990’s, that is if they have a policy at all, and they have no regular training program for their employees or their managers. To me, this evokes an image of playing Russian roulette with one empty chamber in the gun. It is no longer a question of will you be sued but when will you be sued. While the idea of a proactive approach would suggest that an updated policy and a regular training program are necessary, those alone are not sufficient to protect an organization against an EEOC complaint. A comprehensive anti-harassment policy with an effective complaint procedure is obviously essential pieces of this approach but once that is done, it is done. The rest of the approach is an ongoing process.

There is a relatively large body of research into what makes an organization vulnerable to sexual harassment complaints. That research points directly to the perceptions held by the employees about whether the company will tolerate inappropriate behavior and whether there are consequences to participating in those behaviors. Both of these perceptions are tied directly back to two issues: (1) the level of commitment of the organization’s managers to effectively deal with harassment and (2) the presence or absence of regular training for employees and managers. While these two issues are inextricably intertwined, they are still separate issues.

The level of commitment of the organization’s managers has to start at the top. Until the owners of the company or the top executives come to understand and believe that the laws governing sexual harassment are stacked against employers and employers are guilty until they prove their innocence, the organization will never have the level of commitment necessary to protect the company. This underlying assumption is necessary to foster that level of commitment in the front line managers who hold the fate of the organization in their hands. Unfortunately, most companies don’t fully embrace that assumption until they have had to try and defend themselves against a sexual harassment complaint with the EEOC. That lesson is always expensive.

As this level of commitment starts to spread through the management ranks, it becomes increasingly obvious that sexual harassment has existed in the organization all along and has been ignored. In fairness, the daily demands of front line managers require their total attention in most cases, and it is easy to see why they did not see or recognize inappropriate behavior when it occurred right in front of them especially if they haven’t been trained to look for it. Unfortunately, this inattention to these issues is what perpetuates the perception that harassment is tolerated within the organization. As the level of commitment increases, managers stop turning a deaf ear or a blind eye to inappropriate behaviors and start dealing with those behaviors before they escalate to the level of a complaint. Upper management also becomes less tolerant of managers who don’t become more committed to preventing harassment. Complaints will still occur because there will always be situations where individuals will engage their mouths without engaging their brains.

But with that increased level of commitment, comes an awareness of how critical it is to handle that initial complaint promptly and correctly. Most people don’t complain in order to sue someone, they complain to get the harassment to stop. When I do management training in this area, I emphasize the fact that when someone comes to you with a complaint, you have absolutely nothing to do that is more important than dealing with that complaint. Failure to do so can cause that complaint to result in a law suit.

A regular training program also feeds into the perceptions of the company’s employees. Simply having a training program is not sufficient. It needs to be an effective training program. That suggests that someone needs to be monitoring the program’s effectiveness. You can’t just do training once a year and forget it. Granted, most people know the difference between right and wrong and yearly training serves as an effective reminder that inappropriate behaviors are not tolerated. While that will typically eliminate the majority of problem behaviors, some will persist.

The type and quantity of complaints that occur following the training say a lot about the effectiveness of the training. If a particular type of complaint keeps arising then the training is not effectively addressing that issue. The only way to know that is to be constantly monitoring what is going on in the organization. Here is where having an outside provider for the harassment training is helpful. An internal trainer may not have the time to monitor complaints. With the companies I provide training for, I interact regularly with the HR professionals and/or top management to see what type of issues they are dealing with. I can then adapt the training as necessary in order to more effectively address the specific issues faced in this organization. It also gives me a good idea about the level of commitment of the organization’s managers to effectively deal with harassment.

So what exactly is a proactive approach? It is all of these things in combination with one another and it almost always involves an ongoing process with the purpose of changing the attitudes of a company’s management, which will in turn, alter the perceptions of the organization as held by the employees over time. The problem most organizations have is they want all of that change to take place immediately and it just doesn’t work that way. A painfully expensive battle with the EEOC will go a long way toward changing the attitudes of management in a hurry, but changing the perceptions of the organization almost never happens fast. In essence, you didn’t get this way overnight and you won’t change overnight