SDSU Sub Cultures in Organizations Discussion

What is Feminist Standpoint Theory? Describe how Allen uses this method to analyze socialization. In what other organizational contexts could we productively use FST?

What are two specific examples of sub-cultures in organizations? How can sub-cultures enhance and conflict with dominant organizational culture?

Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, November 2004, pp. 293-317
I J Routledge
g ^
Taylor EiFranci) Croup
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture,
and Sexual Harassment
Debbie S. Dougherty & Mary Jeanette Smythe
While EEOC guidelines for managing sexual harassment prescribe a strong sexual
harassment policy and aggressive remedial action following complaints, a communication approach suggests a need for a more complex understanding of sexual harassment
as diffused throughout an organizational culture. The present case study uses a
sensemaking approach to explore the response of members of an academic department
to an alumnus donor’s serial sexual harassment of three of its members. Sensemaking
proceeded through three phases: the phase of discovery, the debriefing phase, and the
dispersal phase. Insights into the role of humor, white men, shared experiences, and
responding to sexual harassment are discussed.
Keywords: Sexual Harassment; Organizational Culture; Sensemaking
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website, “prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace”
(2002). The EEOC contends that the best means of prevention is by communicating
to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. This communication,
their fact sheet contends, should be in the form of the creation of formal grievance
processes and by immediately and appropriately pursuing complaints. While the
EEOC’s advice about communication is undoubtedly important, a far more nuanced
and cohesive understanding of communication is necessary if organizations are to
effectively prevent the occurrence of sexual harassment.
Organizational culture provides one way of understanding sexual harassment and
communication as part of a cohesive process (Keyton, Ferguson, & Rhodes, 2001).
As the number of class action suits levied against organizations attest, while sexual
harassment may be an isolated event, some organizational cultures are more prone
to sexual harassment than others. For example, recently Cheap Tickets, Caterpillar,
Debbie S. Dougherty (Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is Assistant Professor of Communication and
Mary Jeanette Smythe (Ph.D., Florida State University) is Associate Professor of Communication at the
University of Missouri-Columbia. Correspondence to: Debbie S. Dougherty, Department of Communication,
115 Switzler Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia MO, 65211-2310, USA. Tel: 573 882 0300;
Email: doughertyd@missouri.edu.
ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) © 2004 National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/0090988042000275998
294 D. S. Dougherty & M. /. Smythe
and Dial have all been involved at some level in class action law suits levied by the
FFOC, despite claims of zero tolerance discrimination policies by at least two of
these organizations (EEOC, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). Clearly while sexual harassment
may be an isolated event, it can also permeate an organizational culture. Cultures of
sexual harassment are particularly difficult to manage through traditional means
such as policy and off-the-shelf training because of the insidious nature of culture
and the unique norms regarding sexual behaviors that develop within organizational
cultures (Booth-Butterfield, 1986). Despite the recognition that culture plays a
substantial role in the perpetuation of sexual harassment, there remains an underdeveloped understanding of how culture perpetuates and resists these processes
(Wood, 1992). Consequently, it is important to provide a more holistic account of
sexual harassment in organizations (lansma, 2000; Zak, 1994). One way to explore
the complexities of organizational culture is through case studies. A case study is
ideally suited for a holistic exploration of sexual harassment due to its focus on an
entire event, not just the responses of the victims or the behaviors of the harassers.
Consequently, both internal and external factors can be explored.
Weick’s (1995) theory of sensemaking provides a theoretical lens through which
the relationship between an organizational culture and sexual harassment can be
examined. Sensemaking and culture are intertwined on multiple levels (Weick,
2001). Of key importance to the present analysis, however, is the way individuals
enact, justify, and negotiate the meanings of behaviors through processes of sensemaking. The theory of sensemaking suggests that organizational members attempt to
make sense of unexpected events through a process of action, selection, and
interpretation (Weick, 1995). Because sexual harassment tends to be unexpected,
even when it is a common occurrence within an organizational culture, sensemaking
provides a useful location from which to begin analysis.
The purpose of this case study is to examine how an academic department made
sense of the serial harassment of departmental members by an alumnus donor to the
department. The findings of the study provide organizational practitioners with
suggestions for shaping an organizational culture that is intolerant of sexual harassment. Before presenting the case, however, it is first necessary to highlight key
elements of Weick’s sensemaking theory and examine the literature as it relates to
culture and sexual harassment. The case will then be presented and lessons learned
will be explored.
Sensemaking
While sensemaking is typically classified as a systems theory (Weick, 2001), it is also
possible to make a link between sensemaking and culture. However, a sensemaking
approach to culture is somewhat unique. Weick (1995) takes issue with the notion
of shared meaning as a definitional necessity of organizational culture. He argues
that shared meanings are unlikely given that “meanings are idiosyncratic because
individuals have different prior experiences” (p. 188). Instead, Weick posits that it is
not shared meaning, but shared experiences through processes of sensemaking that
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 295
create the glue that holds organizational cultures together. By telling and processing
stories and experiences, individuals create and sustain organizational cultures. By
extension, these shared experiences are also likely to shape the role of sexual
harassment in the enactment of organizational cultures.
According to Weick (1995), there are seven properties of sensemaking. Each of
these properties can be used to better understand cultures of sexual harassment.
Identity suggests that organizational actors come to know themselves based on their
interactions with others. The ways in which individuals interact about sexual
harassment will infiuence how they understand themselves. Sensemaking is retrospective in that people make sense of events after they occur. However, sensemaking is
also prospective in that the sense made of an unexpected event is then used to
predict and make sense of future events (Weick, 2001). Consequently, sensemaking
about sexual harassment is unlikely to happen’until after sexual harassment has
occurred. This sensemaking will then prospectively shape expectations for future
occurrences of sexual harassment. Relatedly, like organizational culture, sensemaking
is ongoing, with the history and context of sexual harassment influencing the present
and fiature understanding of sexual harassment in a given organization.
The property of enactment suggests that organizational actors not only act within
an environment, but also that they are part of that environment. Consequently,
sexual harassment does not merely happen within an organizational context and
culture, but it is part of that organization’s context and culture. The property of
extracted cues suggests that organizational members orient toward, or attend to, parts
of their environment. Typically, organizational members orient toward those cues
that are consistent with past experiences. However, when an event is unexpected,
generally individuals will attend to the novel cue. Although individuals may attend
to unexpected events, they may also dismiss the event by placing it within a known
frame. For example, although individuals may orient toward cases of sexual harassment, they may also dismiss the event as a misunderstanding or as a romantic
overture. From a communication perspective, it is also important to note that
sensemaking is social. Sensemaking tends to occur with other people. In the absence
of others, sensemaking is based on expected interactions with others. Consequently,
it is a highly communicative process. Finally, sensemaking is based on plausibility
instead of accuracy. In other words, sensemaking about sexual harassment does not
have to be correct; it only has to seem reasonable within the historical and
contemporary context of the organization.
Sensemaking and Organizational Cultures of Sexual Harassment
It seems likely that sensemaking will be a significant factor in the cultural decision
to reinforce or reject sexual harassment within an organizational context. The
decision of organizational members to refiect on instances of sexual harassment, the
approach taken to the topic, and the role of the harasser and harassed in this process
should determine the future acceptability and function of sexual harassment. While
not directly utilizing sensemaking as a theoretical grounding, research supports the
296
D. S. Dougherty & M. } . Smythe
role of sensemaking in the development and sustenance of a culture of sexual
harassment.
Historically, research on sexual harassment has focused on the victim and the
perpetrator of the behavior (Jansma, 2000). For example, Clair (1993b) discovered
that the ways victims tend to frame their experiences often lead to hegemonic
resistance. Other victim focused research has discovered that response strategies do
not tend to be perceived as particularly effective at stopping sexual harassment
(Bingham & Burleson, 1989), and regardless of the label victims use, sexual harassment victims tend to experience similar consequences (Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, &
DeNardo, 1999). Perpetrator focused research has discovered that a number of
factors—such as goal setting—can motivate a sexual harasser’s behavior (O’LearyKelly, Paetzold, & Griffin, 2000), while others argue that sexual harassment is an act
of power (Conrad & Taylor, 1994). This body of research has been incredibly
important in advancing our understanding of sexual harassment in the workplace,
generating a much deeper understanding of the behaviors of those directly involved
in sexual harassment incidents. However, despite the rich findings from these and
other scholars, if researchers are to have input into mitigation efforts by organizations, then a more holistic approach to the study of sexual harassment is warranted
(Jansma, 2000).
Supporting the need for a more holistic approach to understanding sexual
harassment, scholars are beginning to recognize that sexual harassment is multidimensional and highly complex (Jansma, 2000). Culture provides one lens through
which this complex construct can be explored. Organizational culture plays an
important role in how sexual harassment is defined, interpreted, and responded to
in any particular organizational context (Keyton et al., 2001). For example, Firestone
and Harris (1999) conclude that because military culture is highly masculine and
aggressive, military culture may be more conducive to sexual harassment than
civilian organizational cultures, actually sanctioning behaviors that would be considered clearly illegal elsewhere. Bowes-Sperry and Powell (1999) found that observers of sexual harassment who worked in a highly sexualized environment were more
likely to report the behavior than those who did not work in a sexualized environment. Further supporting the notion that sexual harassment is related to organizational culture, Dougherty (2001b) contends that sexual harassment is constructed by
all members of an organization, not just those involved in a harassing situation.
According to Zak (1994), managing sexual harassment becomes even more complex
and difficult as a workplace culture becomes increasingly diverse. Additional research
concurs, suggesting that white women and black women tend to perceive sexual
harassment toward black women differently depending on the race of the harasser
(Shelton & Chavous, 1999). Specifically, it was considered more appropriate and
humorous for black men to sexually harass black women than it was for white men
to sexually harass black women. Clearly, culture, in all its myriad forms, shapes the
performance of sexual harassment in organizations. The role of culture, however, is
particularly apparent in academic organizations.
Academic organizational cultures are shaped such that they are particularly
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 297
susceptible to chronic sexual harassment. In fact, in a review of sexual harassment
statistics in the academy, Hawkesworth (1997) reports that as many as 49% of
untenured women faculty experience sexual harassment. These findings are not
particularly surprising given that “the academy is ‘infected’ by traditional sex-roles
which allocate formal and informal power to men, who subsequently sexualize,
objectify and marginalize women through a variety of practices” (Taylor & Conrad,
1992, p. 412). Specifically, scholars argue, academic organizations are dominated by
white men, utilize a pattern of career advancement that favors men’s life cycles and
work schedules, and reinforces “masculinist norms for organizing and reproducing
academic culture” (Townsley & Geist, 2000, p. 194). These structures are then
enacted hegemonically by harassers (Taylor & Conrad, 1992), by victims (Townsley
& Geist 2000), and through the bureaucratic policies and publications regarding
sexual harassment (Clair, 1993a). While research suggests that U.S. academic cultures are ideally situated to perpetuate sexual harassment, it is also important to
identify the factors that ultimately determine how individual cultures manage sexual
harassment.
One possible determinant of a culture of sexual harassment is the way in which
an organization responds to unwanted sexual behavior (Clair, 1993a). Not only will
the organization’s policy influence sexual harassment, but the ongoing interactions
between organizational members and the sense that is made of sexual harassment
will likely influence the acceptance of sexual harassment in that organization. For
example, the way in which victims make sense of and respond to sexual harassment
may inadvertently perpetuate the behavior by privatizing sexual harassment (Clair,
1993b). Responses by nonharassed members can also increase the likelihood that
sexual harassment will recur. For example, within a cultural context, organizational
members may construct sexual behaviors as functional and therefore as acceptable
(Dougherty, 2001b). Furthermore, nonharassed members of an organization may
distort the impact of sexual harassment by minimizing the effects of sexual harassment on victims. For example, women who resist or complain about sexual
harassment are belittled and isolated (Braun, 1993). They can’t take a joke, misunderstood, or fabricated the behavior. Women specifically can also actively participate in
the process of minimizing the effect of sexual harassment on victims. For example,
despite the fact that their greatest fear related to sexual harassment was that they
would not be believed if they were harassed, women in one organization did not
tend to believe other women’s claims of sexual harassment (Dougherty, 2001a). In
this way they decreased the likelihood that they would be believed if they were
harassed. Each of these studies can be understood from a sensemaking perspective.
Organizational members focus on an unexpected event, but then use extracted cues
that allow them to dismiss the event in a way that is consistent with their identity.
Their interpretation is plausible given the organizational culture. So, for example, a
person may observe a coworker being sexually harassed. However, the observer may
interpret the behavior as a friendly interaction. By labeling the behavior as a friendly
interaction, the observer can then dismiss the interaction as appropriate in a
professional context.
298
D. S. Dougherty & M. } . Smythe
Clearly sensemaking provides a lens through which the relationship between
organizational culture and sexual harassment can be understood. Consequently, the
present study explores the sensemaking process utilized by an academic unit of a
large university after an outside financial donor sexually harassed three of the
women faculty: a graduate student, a junior faculty member, and a senior faculty
member. The following research questions were explored:
RQl: How did the faculty make sense of the alumnus donor’s harassment of three members of
the department?
RQ2: How, if at all, did the faculty’s sensemaking perpetuate and resist sexual harassment?
Method
A case study method was utilized to explore the sensemaking processes that occurred
after an alumnus donor visited an academic department at a large university where
in two days he sexually harassed three women.’ This approach is essentially “the
study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its
activity within important circumstances” (Stake, 1995, p. xi). A case tends to be
bounded in time and has unique qualities that can be used to help understand social
processes.
The case was bounded in the following ways. First, while other individuals, such
as university financial officers, interacted with the alumnus donor, the focus of this
case is on members in one academic department. Consequently, only members of
the department who interacted with the donor and then engaged in subsequent
interactions about the donor were invited to participate. The only graduate student
to participant in the study was Rose—one of the three victims of the donor’s
harassment—because she was the only graduate student to meet the previously
mentioned case criteria. The graduate student who participated expressed comfort
with this arrangement. Seven of the 11 participants in this study were white men.
The remaining four participants were white women.
Triangulated methods of data gathering were used to increase the accuracy of the
events in question. Triangulation is an essential component of case study research
because it provides a systematic means of questioning researcher assumptions and
expectations (Stake, 1995). Triangulation expands the interpretive base, providing a
more interesting and nuanced understanding of the case. Triangulation in this study
involved the use of focus groups and individual interviews. These methods were
selected because of the unique types of data provided by each method and because
focus groups and interviews address the limitations inherent in the other method
(Morgan & Spanish, 1984). The triangulation of focus groups and interviews has
been successfully used in previous sexual harassment research (Dougherty, 2001b).
Each of the 11 participants, all from the same department (10 faculty and one
graduate student), participated in both an open-ended interview (Appendix A) and
a focus group (Appendix B). Two focus groups, one with the seven male participants
and one with the four female participants, were conducted. Interviews and focus
groups were conducted two months following the event. The delay was due to the
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 299
length of time it took to obtain IRB approval for the study. Focus groups and
interviews provided different types of data from which analytical insights were
drawn. In this study we found synergistic accounts of events during the focus groups.
In some ways, the focus groups gave us a glimpse of the sensemaking processes used
by departmental members. For example, there was a great deal of laughter, humorous renditions of the previous sensemaking, and free-flowing conversation. The
interviews, on the other hand, provided a more self-reflective space for the participants. While there was some laughter, participants processed the events in a more
systematic manner. The interviews also gave each person an opportunity to provide
a longer, more personal account of the sensemaking processes. While there was
overlap between the two types of methods, each provided unique insight into
departmental sensemaking.
It is important to indicate that the donor’s sexual harassment of the three women
is not the focus of this case study. The focus for this case is the departmental
sensemaking about the sexual harassment. The three women’s experiences are
provided as context for the sensemaking that occurred. A three step process was used
to identify and analyze the departmental sensemaking. First, significant events of the
case were established by identifying the events that were listed as important across
participants and data types. In other words, to be included, a majority of the
participants in both the individual interviews and focus groups needed to identify
the event as significant. For example, a majority of the participants mentioned a
faculty meeting as a significant event for this case. This type of data and participant
triangulation is important to ensure that we accurately represent the events as they
were experienced by the participants (Stake, 1995). Second, sensemaking processes
that emerged across participants and data types were included as significant to the
events of the case. For example, both humor and the development of community
were identified as significant by all of the participants in both the individual
interviews and the focus groups. Five participants served as member checkers. A
member checker’s role is to read the results of a qualitative study to ensure that the
authors’ analysis accurately reflects the participants’ experiences. All of the member
checkers concurred that the case presented below accurately refiects the events in
question. However, one individual expressed concern that the case provided too
many details that may reveal the identity of the department. To address this concern,
some peripheral details were deleted from the analysis. Finally, using sensemaking
theory as a guide, four lessons that can be learned from this case are identified and
discussed.
When a Stranger Comes Calling: A Case Analysis
It was fall of 2001 at a large public university. Public institutions were coming to rely
more on private donations to maintain and enhance key academic goals. One of the
strategies that universities routinely engaged in was the active solicitation of funds
from wealthy alumni. It was this sort of enterprise which led to the events described
in this case.
300
D. S. Dougherty & M. } . Smythe
A small department of the university was the unlikely beneficiary of such a gift.
The department consisted of approximately 12 faculty and over 20 actively enrolled
graduate students. Two of the faculty were instructors and did not participate in the
daily interactions with the tenure-track and tenured faculty. The department was
offered a cash bequest by a wealthy alumnus whose ties with the program had been
limited. The donor was targeted originally by the university’s development office. So
while he was actively pursued by the university, he was not actively pursued by the
department. Indeed, this seemed to represent typical university practice in that
contacts with potential financial donors were routinely made by professional fund
raisers. Only when interest was expressed in response to those contacts were
individual units asked to participate. This particular alumnus donor was a successful
executive and the owner of several discipline-related businesses. None of the
businesses was local.
The donor had promised to donate a total of $27,000 over a four-year period and
stipulated that these funds were to be used in ways designed specifically to enhance
undergraduate education. The donor was invited to campus for a formal presentation of the award to the unit. His visit lasted two days and included two public
presentations for students and faculty, private mentoring sessions with undergraduates, and formal luncheons and dinners with administrators, faculty, and interested
alumni. He brought along a number of lower-level executives to assist him with his
public presentations.
The Sexual Harassment
During his visit, the donor engaged in what most organizations would view as
inappropriate sexual behaviors toward three members of the unit: a senior female
faculty (Lisa), a junior female faculty (Abigail), and a female graduate student
(Rose).^ These events triggered the sensemaking by the faculty and are therefore
described here to provide a context for the faculty interactions. Proceeding chronologically, the harassing events are described below.
The graduate student
Rose was selected to act as an informal guide for the donor and his entourage during
their visit. She was selected because she was an advanced doctoral student whose
research interests paralleled the business interests of the donor. After suggesting, on
more than one occasion, that Rose leave her husband and come to work for him, the
donor and Rose ended up alone on an elevator together. Rose recounted the events
of that elevator ride:
Rose: And so I went to the elevator, I punched the elevator [button], and here comes
[donor]. And he comes, jogging over, he goes, “Where are you going?” And uh, I said,
“Well, I’m going up to get Dr. Tom [senior male faculty].” And he goes, “Where’s Dr.
Tom?” And I said, “Well he’s on the second floor with uh, in his office.” And he goes,
“Can I come?” And I said, “Well have you seen the second floor? I’ll give you a mini
tour.” . . . And he goes, “Do you trust me getting on the elevator with you?” And by
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 301
now it’s like, “I don’t want to be absolutely rude to you but you’re really getting on
my nerves,” and so I just looked at him and said, “I think I can handle you.” And so,
when I got into the elevator, I was nervous, I was very very nervous.
Rose clearly expressed anxiety about being alone with the donor. When the
interviewer asked why she was nervous, Rose indicated that she sensed something
was wrong with the situation. As it turns out, her instincts were correct. Rose and
the donor stepped onto the elevator and the doors closed.
Rose: I was looking at the buttons . . . and he LEAPS and grabs me and he, uh, you
know, he doesn’t grab anything private but, he puts his arm around my shoulders and
goes, “See there? You weren’t ready.” And uh, I, uh, I mean I was just startled because
I was like, “I don’t know what to do,” you know? And uh, so the only thing I could
think of was, I said to him, “Well I certainly didn’t want to hurt ya.” And he starts
laughing, you know, “Ha ha ha.” And he starts saying, “You liked that,” and I said,
“No.”
This incident was incredibly frightening for Rose for two reasons. First, the donor
was a large man who could easily have hurt Rose. In fact, the entire incident seems
to have been the donor’s reminder that he could indeed hurt Rose if he wished.
Second, like an effective horror film, the incident was both expected and unexpected.
Rose indicated that she was very nervous when the donor got on the elevator with
her. Similarly, the horror film genre requires a building of tension prior to the
sudden attack by the evil entity (Beard, 1994). If anything, the building of tension
makes the attack more frightening than if it had been entirely unexpected. However,
also like any effective horror film, the evil entity always waits until the audience and
intended victim are momentarily distracted or unprepared before launching an
attack. The donor’s language indicated that he clearly intended to surprise Rose
when he said “See there? You weren’t ready.” This sequence of events had the
intended effect of horrifying and scaring the victim.
Senior female faculty
Lisa had little contact with the donor until the second day of his visit. The first direct
encounter took place at the formal dinner held in the donor’s honor at an upscale
local restaurant. When Lisa arrived, the donor was already present. After a short time
the donor approached Lisa:
Lisa: He very purposefully walked right up to me. . . . approached very close and stood
very close and said, “I’ve been waiting to have an opportunity to talk to you,” and I
said, “Oh, hi, I’m Lisa, it’s nice to meet you. I enjoyed your session this morning.” .
. . And so, he proceeds to start this conversation in which it’s as if at every turn, trying
to in some subtle way to sexualize the interaction. And right off the bat he just sort
of reaches out and takes my hand and I’m thinking, “Why are you taking my hand?”
The donor continued to move closer, eventually backing Lisa into a support column
situated in the middle of the room.
Lisa: And he said, “You really asked some hard questions this morning.” And I said,
“Oh?” being really quick [interviewer laughs], and he said, “But you know it’s alright.
302
D. S. Dougherty & M. ]. Smythe
you have a wonderful mouth” . . . and I said something meant to be smart about, oh,
yeah, “I was raised in the South and women there have to have fast mouths but move
slowly,” words to that effect, and oh boy, he thought that was funny. And finally at
about this point, this conversation, which I don’t remember that clearly, probably went
on for about six or seven minutes, you know, was way way way too long. I had really
decided that I was annoyed that [male friend] nor anyone else had come to my rescue,
but, blessed, up comes Tom [senior male faculty], who taps me on the shoulder and
says, “We’re about ready to sit down now.” So I’m trying to get my hand away from
]donor] at this point, and he’s saying, “Oh God,” and I looked at him oddly, and he
said, “They’re going to make me sit with the Dean,” and I said, “Well you are the guest
of honor.” And he said, “Don’t leave me.” And I said, “Oh we’re not at the same
table,” smiling cheerfully ]laughs] . . . and he said, “That’s alright, we can move the
note cards.” And with that, I just lifted my hand out of his and said, “Enjoy your
dinner,” and made my way off to my table.
Lisa’s physical and psychological space was violated when the donor backed her into
the support column, took her hand and made some rather odd comments about her
body. She felt as though the donor was aggressively focusing on her physical
appearance to punish Lisa for daring to ask tough questions. While Lisa was not
afi-aid, she was clearly uncomfortable. As with many victims of sexual harassment,
Lisa began to question her own behavior:
Lisa: I had become uncomfortable. He was standing too close, he was taking my hand,
he was really coming on to me. I was thinking . . . “This is a very silly situation, why
is this happening?” And there was in part a feeling, believe it or not, of disbelief,
because this was not anything I had expected from this interaction. And I found myself
thinking, “Did I do something that invited this?” [laugh]
It is particularly illuminating that Lisa would second-guess her behavior. She is a
senior faculty woman with a reputation among her peers for being able to take care
of herself. Yet when confronted with the donor’s behavior, Lisa questioned her own
behavior in a way that she would never question other women in the same situation.
Junior female faculty
Abigail had seen the donor briefly during his visit to the departmental offices. She
had nodded and smiled at him as she left the departmental building to teach a class.
Her encounter with him took place after the formal dinner. The nature of the
donor’s businesses provided a prime research opportunity for Abigail, who, ironically was working on a sexual harassment research project. Consequently she
approached him after dinner about the potential for a research and training
partnership.
Abigail: I was nervous because during dinner he kept looking at me. Twice he came
over to my table to chat with me. I don’t know why 1 was nervous, but I was. And
at the end of dinner he came over and, I said, “I want to talk to you about my
research.” . . . and he said, “Well OK that’s all you had to say. That’s all you had to
say.” So he grabs my hand and he pulls me close and . . . starts dragging me over to
the other side of the room. Because I want to talk with him about my research, I go.
But my heart’s pounding. And it was really, there was a room full of people, so I wasn’t
afraid of him, but it just seemed so awkward. He was invading my space.
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment
303
Slowly the guests filtered out of the room and the donor sent his employees to fetch
his car, leaving Abigail and the donor almost completely alone in the room. Only the
department chair remained—on the other side of the dining room—settling the bill
with the restaurant proprietor. Despite her nervousness, Abigail continued the
conversation:
Abigail: I said, “I want to talk to you about my [sexual harassment] research, here’s
basically what it is.” He says, “Why don’t we sit down?” So there’s two chairs that are
a good social distance apart, not too far, but a good social distance apart. . . . And I
sat down on one chair, and he takes his chair, he drags it up so his knees are touching
mine. Um, and I’m I’m just in my chair, like, all the way in the corner of it and I’m
trying to scoot away without being obvious. My butt’s hanging off the edge [of the
chair[, trying to create some more social spacing . . . and he’s inching forward, you
know, it’s so weird, and he’s in my face. . . . I said, “Well my research has been known
to be very practical for organizations. I’ve helped other organizations with their sexual
harassment issues.” I don’t remember exactly what he said next, but at this point he
leans over to me and he starts talking about conversations [with female employees]. .
. .”You probably don’t know this, most of my executives are women,” he says, “because
I feel I have a better rapport with women.” And he’s doing this with his hand, moving
it back and forth between our noses, which was very odd. And he’s saying “I have a
much better rapport with them, I get along, I feel more comfortable with women.”
And I’m sitting there thinking, “Yeah, but how do they feel with YOU?”
At this point the donor became more direct in his overtures toward Abigail.
Apparently referencing the nod and smile she had given him earlier in the day, the
donor began to discuss a “connection” between himself and Abigail:
Abigail: He goes—doing this hand thing [moving his hand between his nose and hers],
“Whether it be because [of a] sexual woman-man thing, or professional thing, or
spiritual thing, I don’t know what it was but I knew there was some kind of connection
[between us], we had to talk before the evening was out.” And [I was thinking], “I
can’t believe this is happening.”. . . Finally his people came back in and said, “The car’s
outside waiting for you.” And so he stood up, and I said, “You know and I’m good
at doing stuff in organizations and I could help you. I could do some sort of exchange.
I have a lot of areas of expertise so I could really maybe provide some insight.” He
goes, “I doubt it, I doubt anything you do would help.” And I looked at him and said,
“So do I.” And I don’t think he got the sarcasm.
As the conversation about sexual harassment continued, the donor indicated that he
aggressively pursued claims of sexual harassment. However, this pursuit certainly
was not in the direction recommended by the EEOC:
Abigail: He said, “Anyone who files charges of sexual harassment against my employees
had better be able to prove it or I will take them to court.” I was surprised and asked
him if he sued them [victims of sexual harassment] and he said yes.
Given the nature of Abigail’s research and the purpose of her conversation with the
donor, her experience may have been the most bizarre of the three victims. She was
sexually harassed while attempting to talk about sexual harassment. Following this
interaction Abigail felt isolated and sick. She had studied victims of sexual harassment before, but being the victim herself was illuminating. She was in a fairly new
304 D. S. Dougherty & M. }. Smythe
academic position and had not yet developed strong relationships with her peers. She
felt extremely Aoilnerahle hecause of her untenured status and the oft-stated need for
financial donations to the university.
Sensemaking Phases
Consistent with Weick’s theory, departmental sensemaking was retrospective in that
it did not hegin until after the three women’s stories started to become public. Weick
(1995, 2001) contends that shared experience provides the glue for organizational
cultures. In this case, it was the sensemaking about sexual harassment that provided
the shared experience for this group of people. Departmental responses to the sexual
harassment emerged in three distinct phases. These phases represent the processes
faculty members used to make sense of the donor’s harassment and therefore
respond directly to research question one. The phases emerged from the data as
points in which the tenor and tone of the sensemaking shifted in some important
way. These phases do not represent sharp divisions in the data, but rather should be
understood as periods of transition. Weick’s seven properties will be highlighted at
various points to illustrate the ways in which sensemaking occurred.
The phase of discovery
Not all of the individuals involved in the events surrounding the donor’s visit were
aware of Rose, Lisa, and Abigail’s experiences. So the way in which these events
became public knowledge within the department was noteworthy for several reasons.
First, and perhaps most importantly, none of the women took any immediate action,
corrective or otherwise, in response to the donor’s behaviors. While each perceived
his behaviors toward her as inappropriate and offensive, their responses were muted
by the social constraints of the situation.
Rose: I mean I didn’t care anything about hurting him, but I didn’t want to hurt the
department or disrupt anything. . . . But, I mean, [when you face a situation] like that,
you know, your first inkling is “I’ve got to keep being polite.”
Lisa: And I realize, because I was so well schooled . . . that the one unforgivable sin
is to do anything that will offend the donor . . . how important it was to really stroke
these people, make them feel comfortable, and you know, pretty much give in to them.
Abigail: I wonder what that is, you know, where we continue, the victim, continues to
display the faijade of polite human interaction, you know, I think we’re not alone [in
our responses], this is a very typical kind of reaction.
Surprisingly, none of the three women were initially aware of one another’s
experiences with the donor. While Rose’s encounter took place in an enclosed space.
Lisa and Abigail were accosted in a public, well-lit, and moderately crowded private
dining room at a local restaurant. Thus, the ways in which the information was
disseminated and the awareness of these incidents spread through the department
illustrates the social nature of sensemaking. Rose indicated that she informed one of
the male faculty members almost immediately after her encounter while Abigail
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 305
discussed her episode with the donor with the department chair at the restaurant,
following the donor’s departure with his retinue. Lisa, however, claimed that she
complained only to her escort, who was not a member of the department. She
learned of the other women’s experiences the following day, while having lunch with
Abigail.
By noon of the day following the donor’s visit, most of the faculty in the
department had heard about one or more of the incidents involving the three
women. Almost without exception, the responses voiced were centered on utter
disbehef.
Robert [junior male faculty]: But I remember thinking, “I can’t believe this.”
Joseph [senior male faculty]: I mean I sort of uh kicked myself, ’cause I felt like, “Boy,
I wish I would have sized this up sooner,” I hate to be ignorant on something like that.
And so I felt bad for having missed out on that. Here’s this guy going around harassing
these people and whatever you want to label it as, and I hadn’t been aware of it.
Weick (1995) posits that sensemaking is social. However, the present case further
suggests that there may be a form of social optimization or the point at which
sensemaking processes are optimized. In this case, social optimization occurred
when these women’s stories were public but had not yet been the focus of intense
social interaction. Unexpected events had occurred and been relayed to a social
audience. This group of individuals was poised for an explosion of sensemaking.
Reactions to these women’s stories were immediate and intense, creating an unusual
flurry of activity propelling the unit into another level of awareness.
The debriefing phase
This phase of the departmental response focused on an explication of the troubling
events during the donor’s visit. What ensued was an intensive series of retellings of
Rose, Lisa, and Abigail’s experiences—retellings occasioned by different individuals
in different settings. Telling and retelling the stories illustrates Weick’s (1995)
property of enactment in which departmental members became the environment
within which sexual harassment was understood. Instead of merely listening to the
stories, these individuals actively retold the stories, adding perspective and a unique
flair with each telling.
Informal, water-cooler type conversations are the stuff of organizational culture
anecdotes. The sort of informal discussions that colleagues share in public settings,
open to participation of passers-by, is revealing. In this case, members of the faculty
indicated that the first major public debriefing regarding the donor’s visit was this
sort of event, taking place in a large reception area leading to the faculty offices and
a conference room. What began as a conversation between Rose and her faculty
advisor quickly became a boisterous event, incorporating five male faculty members
and all three of the victims in a narrative of the preceding day’s events.
Robert [junior male faculty]: I don’t know that I heard about the actual sexual
harassment until the gathering upstairs that occurred where, I think Rose and I were
talking initially . . . and then Tom [senior male faculty] hears and he comes out and
306
D. S. Dougherty & M. J. Smythe
then Mark [junior male faculty] comes out, and then, you know, there’s a series of
other individuals, Abigail was there and Lisa was there . . . and it just went on and on.
Um she [Rose] was essentially conveying what happened and then we started just, you
know, the group of us that had gathered, and I don’t know how many were there at
that point, started talking, and then sure enough Lisa walks by and peers in and we
started laughing because there she is. And then she comes in and shares her experience,
and then eventually Abigail came by and she shared her experience and it might have
been in reverse order, I don’t remember.
Tom [senior male faculty]: I thought it was interesting how animated everyone was.
Um I thought it was interesting how much they enjoyed re-telling the story. [It] almost
ended up taking on mythic proportions, epic proportions. It was kind of interesting in
terms of recounting stories I think. I, I felt a sense of, of kind of group cohesion.
Another brief episode of public debriefing occurred later in the afternoon following
the donor’s departure. At a departmental colloquium attended by graduate students
and faculty, one male faculty member made a wisecrack about Lisa’s “wonderful
mouth” accompanied by an exaggerated kissing noise and facial expression. A mild
ripple of laughter moved across the room, but most people simply appeared
confused at the non sequitur. Neither the male faculty member nor Lisa made any
further comment at the time. This was the one incident that created some discomfort among at least two of the women faculty because of the missing context for
the rest of the audience. Still, this episode, like the hallway gathering, illustrated the
early reaction of the unit to the situation. The predominant response was humor.
Ridicule was directed toward the donor and his behavior, which seemed to at once
reassure and unify department members. As one male faculty member explained:
Ronald [junior male faculty]: It was interesting ’cause we were kind of laughing, I
mean we were laughing about it. And I found myself wondering if that was the
appropriate response or not. . . . So, I was kind of puzzled by that a little bit. . . . But
everyone seemed to laugh . . . and I think it was just because we we just, you know
you laugh when you’re puzzled by somebody that is just so inappropriate.
From a sensemaking perspective, the humor seemed to help departmental members
extract cues that served to orient their processing of the reported sensemaking about
sexual harassment incidents. The extracted cues were typically a negative translation
of the harasser’s behavior, establishing the ground work for the construction of a
culture that is intolerant of sexual harassment. The use of humor and generally
supportive and caring interactions about the events created a sense of cohesiveness
and community. As Abigail later explained:
Abigail: I think we [faculty] bonded. When we [scholars] think about sexual harassment, a lot of times . . . women who are sexually harassed are isolated and [they are
afraid] that people won’t believe them, that somehow this will make them . . . appear
less, or be blamed or whatever and that wasn’t the case at all. In fact, it seemed like
it was the opposite. It was a moment of coming together.
The cohesiveness mentioned by Abigail was noted by a number of individuals as a
feeling of “family” or “unity.” While Weick’s (1995) property of identity indicates
that organizational members come to understand themselves based on their interac-
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment
307
tions with others, the present analysis further suggests that sensemaking can also
establish or enforce cultural identity within an organization. In other words,
sensemaking not only influences individual member identity but a cultural identity
as well. Members of this department clearly developed a sense of cohesiveness
around their conversations about sexual harassment.
Debriefing episodes varied in terms of formality and participation. According to
the focus group and interview transcripts, the most structured event transpired
during a regularly scheduled faculty meeting during the week immediately following
the donor’s visit to the campus. By now, virtually all the faculty members in the
department were aware of the incidents involving Rose, Lisa, and Abigail, but this
was the first occasion at whicb the matter was given formal consideration. There is
general agreement that the chair began the discussion by describing the donor’s visit.
Included in this discussion was the revelation that the donor had demanded that the
faculty change the department curriculum to the donor’s specifications and provide
annual updates regarding these “improvements.” The participants indicated that
what followed was a transforming event which shifted the mood of the department
from the comparative detachment of disbelief and amused contempt at the donor’s
antics to a sense of outrage and self-righteous indignation. No sooner had the chair
revealed that the donor expected to receive progress reports on the department’s
attention to his recommendations for improvement in curriculum and general
operating procedures than Abigail exploded.
Abigail: I couldn’t believe it. How dare this asshole think we should answer to him in
some way. He should be answering to US.
Swiftly, the other members of the department chimed in, focusing on the presumptuousness of the donor in asserting his privilege to review departmental progress,
especially when he could not even manage his own behavior during his two-day visit
with the department. It seemed clear that during that faculty meeting the stakes had
changed. As the chair put it:
Chair: I think the intensity of the emotion [there was] a lot of anger. Because it made
me have to start thinking in problem-solving mode. . . . I know from the discussion
with [male faculty members] that there, there are some of ’em who never want him
[donor] to step foot on this campus again. And in some ways, that, uh, puts me in the
middle because I have a dean and a director of development who want very much to
pursue this relationship. That they at least want to keep that money, and you know,
I have some people on the faculty who want to write him [donor] a check [returning
his donation] and say “don’t ever darken our door again.” [laugh]
Although various dire predictions, threats, and proposals to deal with the problem
were apparently exchanged during this departmental meeting, everyone present
seemed aware that this was a matter that was going no further. Opinions and, more
importantly, emotions were openly shared but discretion was deemed the better part
of wisdom. In this sense, the department was moving inevitably toward a return to
normalcy, a phase we describe as dispersal.
308 D. S. Dougherty & M. }. Smythe
The dispersal phase
Beginning with this rather cathai’tic faculty meeting, the unit embarked upon a
course designed to restore a sense of control and predictability in dealings with
external stakeholders, whether donors or university administrators. But it is important to note that no formal protests from the department emerged. There were no
rebukes to the donor, no irate or indignant letters to the dean or the director of
development. Indeed, by the end of the meeting, the discussion had shifted to how
future visits from this and other donors might be handled more strategically.
Mark [junior male faculty]: I think that we’ve now raised it to the level where we can’t
ignore it. You know, [in the past people] noted it and thought, “Oh that’s just too bad,
we wish we didn’t have people like that we had to deal with,” [but] now I think we
have gone beyond that level. . . . I think some of us have thought, “Well that’s not
straight forward enough or that’s skirting the issue,” and I think those things come
about due to this power dimension we’ve all acknowledged in terms of a donor and
money involved and wanting to try to “keep it in perspective” . . . and that’s where
I see, you know suggestions of maybe more indirect ways of addressing it.
The use of the term “it” by this male faculty member is an interesting choice of term,
particularly given that despite the sense of cohesiveness of the members’ reactions,
there was ultimately little agreement as to whether or not the events in question
constituted sexual harassment. With one notable exception, the male faculty members viewed the behaviors as inappropriate but not as sexual harassment. They
suggested that the behaviors did not rise to the level of sexual harassment for a
variety of reasons. For example, during their focus group the men listed the need for
a pattern of behavior and a clear response from the victim that the behavior was
unwelcome before the behavior could be labeled sexual harassment. The men also
agreed, however, that there were some rather obvious exceptions. On the other hand,
when asked during their focus group if the donor’s behavior rose to the level of
sexual harassment, the women unanimously agreed that the behavior clearly constituted sexual harassment:
Lisa: The advances were unwelcome. He created a threatening atmosphere for me, so
yes, I would say so.
Interviewer: So you all agree then that it was sexual harassment?
Beth [senior female faculty]: Yeah, I think that it was, very clearly.
[General agreement followed]
Although a greater feeling of unity emerged from sensemaking about these events,
these faculty members did not develop a shared meaning. These findings support
Weick’s contention that culture is formed around shared experiences and not
around shared meaning. The shared experiences of story telling and sensemaking
seemed to be key to the cultural cohesion experienced by departmental members.
Gradually, the importance of the events surrounding the donor’s visit began to
recede. The faculty indicated that, publicly, there was no disruption in departmental
function; classes continued to meet, and an unspoken yet scrupulously observed
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 309
contract among this group of colleagues emerged. There was support for each of the
three women affected by the donor’s behavior. The three women were accorded
sympathy and respect for their dignified and professional response to their particular
encounters. The departmental faculty united in a show of solidarity against the
predations of the donor tempered by a pragmatic assessment of the political and
economic realities of the situation. There was an almost palpable sense of relief and
a readiness to put these troublesome events aside apparent in the comments of
departmental members. The disquiet generated by the donor’s visit was unwelcome
and the uncertainty created, in terms of concerns about departmental image in the
eyes of higher administration, made a speedy resolution extremely attractive to the
unit as a whole.
The graduate students in the department, though arguably the least involved
participants (with the notable exception of Rose), were only mildly aware and
disquieted by the events of the visit. A brief statement which described neither the
individuals involved nor the specific nature of the events was made by the chair at
the first weekly symposium following the debriefing faculty meeting. In all, these
events illustrated the familiar and well-ordered roles and processes of academic units
everywhere. The data transcripts indicate that within two weeks, this topic faded
from conversational focus as the department moved into. the final stages of the
semester. While this event was over, as Weick (1995) notes, sensemaking is ongoing.
The ways in which this department made sense of the donor’s behavior toward the
three women will continue to influence the culture regarding issues of sexual
harassment.
Lessons Learned
It is important to identify lessons from the present case that practitioners and
scholars can use to understand better the cultural development or rejection of a
culture of sexual harassment in other cases. Using sensemaking theory as a guide,
four lessons are identified and discussed: humor, white men white knights, sexual
harassment contested, and victim response. Together, these lessons respond to the
second research question which asks how the faculty’s sensemaking perpetuates and
resists sexual harassment.
Humor
While it is not inevitable that organizations acquire new insights or understandings
from unexpected incidents like the one described in this case, it was apparent to
participants and observers alike that this episode had such an impact. Perhaps the
most immediately apparent lesson for practitioners and scholars concerns the role of
humor as a device serving different functions as this department dealt with the
incident. From a sensemaking perspective, the property of enactment provides the
greatest insight. Humor was an important device in the enactment of sensemaking
about the donor’s visit. And in fact, consistent with this property, humor became an
310
D. S. Dougherty & M. J. Smythe
important part of the environment for members of this department. Humor
operated as a coping response for departmental members and, ultimately, as a means
of facilitating the unit’s inherent need to restore a sense of normalcy to departmental
life. The use of humor was an effective response for this group of individuals
primarily because the harasser was an outsider. Had the harasser been a department
member, the context may have required a much more sober response.
Given the seriousness of the donor’s behaviors and the topic of sexual harassment
in general, both the authors of this study and the departmental members found the
prevalence of humor to be a bit surprising. However, in light of the events of this
case, humor seemed to be a highly effective way for members of this culture to cope
with the hit-and-run aspect of the incident. Indeed, humor was a central means of
coping with the crisis as the department processed the events and their significance.
From the raucous laughter that accompanied the telling and retellings of the
women’s stories in the hallway on the day following the donor’s departure to the
more reflective, bemused recountings of individual faculty members, humor provided a means for the faculty to cope with the unexpected sense of powerlessness and
puzzlement created by the donor’s behaviors.
Humor also functioned to enable the department to restore a sense of order and
predictability and to move forward with their research, teaching, and service
responsibilities. Humor about the donor was an inside joke, guaranteed to prompt
a knowing laugh or groan. Consequently, through humor, the donor’s visit continued to be used to sustain the shared events that provided the cultural glue (Weick,
1995) for organizational members. At the same time, the social balm of laughter
eased the faculty from their initial position of indignation, uncertainty, and anger
toward a more comfortable position with the events and their various roles in
them—wiser perhaps, and in an ultimate irony, wealthier in both fiscal and political
resources. More by accident than intent, the faculty not only retained the donor’s
largesse but also discovered a richer lesson about departmental unity and shared
understandings in response to a classic instance of Weick’s (1995) unexpected event.
White Men White Knights
White men have been much maligned by sexual harassment scholars, particularly
middle class, heterosexual white men. There is a reason for the negative focus on
white men; it is the patriarchal structure privileging this group of individuals that
allows for the perpetuation of sexual harassment, particularly in an academic setting
(Townsley & Geist, 2000). As Weick’s (1995) property of identity suggests, however,
it is also important to remember that there is no monolithic white man. Most white
men (most men for that matter) do not directly engage in sexual harassment
(Dougherty, 1999). Weick suggests that identity is created during sensemaking. As
the group of men in this study demonstrates, white men can and do actively
participate in creating an organizational identity in which inappropriate sexual
behavior is not tolerated and victims of sexual harassment are treated with care and
support.
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 311
The primary support offered to these women was a sense of community, which is
drastically different from the experiences of most women who are sexually harassed.
As mentioned previously, women who are sexually harassed are typically isolated
from their colleagues. However, instead of isolating the victims of the harassment,
these men reinforced the women’s membership in this academic unit. The way that
these men made sense of the donor’s behavior created a strong sense of community
for themselves and for their women colleagues. This was undoubtedly easier to do
given the outsider status of the donor, made even more prominent by his bizarre
behavior, than if it had been one of their male colleagues.
Sexual Harassment Contested
As previously discussed, Weick (1995) argues that organizational culture is not
sustained by shared meanings; it is sustained through shared experience. Indeed, this
seems to have been the case for members of this academic unit. By telling and
making sense of stories about the donor’s visit, these individuals were able to sustain
and even strengthen their organizational culture. However, sharing these experiences
did not necessarily create shared meaning among the men and women in the
department. There were clear differences between the men and women as to whether
the donor’s behavior was sexual harassment. The men were less inclined than the
women to label the donor’s behavior as sexual harassment. These findings are
consistent with previous work suggesting that men and women make sense of sexual
harassment differently (Dougherty, 1999, 2001b) and that women tend to label more
behavior as sexual harassment than men (Berryman-Fink & Riley, 1997; Booth-Butterfield, 1989; Garlick, 1994; Hemphill & Pfeiffer, 1986; Mongeau & Blalock, 1994;
Thacker & Gohmann, 1993).
Consistent with Weick’s (1995) argument that shared experience and not shared
meaning is the glue for organizational culture, the present case demonstrates that it
is possible for members of a cohesive culture to have significant interpretational
differences. Given the labeling differences for the donor’s behaviors, the outcome for
this case had the potential to be far less positive. What seemed to make a difference
for this group were a desire to remain cohesive and a general attitude of care toward
departmental members. It was as if there was a desire for a group version of the
events that everyone could agree on, even if there were differences in the details.
Victim Response
There have been a number of studies exploring victim response to sexual harassment
(Jansma, 2000). These studies often take a critical stance, demonstrating the hegemonic nature of these responses (e.g. Glair, 1993b). Furthermore, research suggests
that many women do not believe that any response to sexual harassment would be
effective (Bingham & Burleson, 1989). The three victims’ responses to their harasser
provide particularly interesting insight. By all accounts these are tough women who
readily accept the feminist label. Despite their strength, however, these women
312
D. S. Dougherty & M. } . Smythe
resorted to standard politeness norms in their interactions with the donor. This was
not the ideal response for any of these women. In fact, during the focus group they
indicated a strong desire for a “do over,” although Lisa contended that even given
a chance to do it again, they would most likely continue to use social politeness
norms to guide their responses. In other words, their responses may have been
appropriate for this particular situation. These findings suggest that there are no
universally appropriate responses to sexual harassment. Instead, the appropriateness
of responses to sexual harassment is contextually bound.
Conclusions
Using sensemaking as a theoretical lens, a case study of sexual harassment was
explored. The case was particularly interesting for two reasons. First, the sexual
harasser was a donor to an academic department. Given the financial problems
facing academic organizations, donor contributions are becoming increasingly important to the continuing success of many departments. Consequently, donors have
a coercive power that is both similar to and unique from other members of an
academic unit. Second, this case study looked beyond the harasser and victim by
exploring the response of the faculty as a whole. Consequently it is possible to
understand how sensemaking can create an organizational culture that is intolerant
of sexual harassment.
Two research questions were asked. The first research question sought to identify
how faculty members made sense of the donor’s behaviors. Following the donor’s
visit, members of the academic department went through three sensemaking phases:
the phase of discovery, the debriefing phase, and the dispersal phase. During the
discovery phase, department members oriented toward a series of unexpected
events—specifically the sexual harassment of three of its members. By acknowledging the behavior, these individuals created a discursive space in which sensemaking
could occur. In the debriefing phase, departmental members extracted cues regarding the visit that allowed the donor’s visit to be interpreted negatively. It was at this
point that cohesion was created. Finally, during the dispersal phase, department
members attempted to regain a sense of normalcy by integrating their new understandings about sexual harassment into the fabric of their daily interactions.
The second research question asked how the faculty’s sensemaking perpetuated
and resisted sexual harassment. Through the use of humor, by creating a sense of
community, and by seeking a group version of the events—despite differences
between the men and women as to whether or not the events constituted sexual
harassment—members of this academic unit were able to create and sustain a
culture that was intolerant of sexual harassment. This culture was strong enough that
there was general agreement among participants that it was inconceivable that any
among them would sexually harass another. Herein lies a paradox that is suitable for
future exploration. By creating a culture in which it was inconceivable that sexual
harassment would occur, it seems unlikely that members would believe a victim who
claimed that a member of the unit had sexually harassed them. Consequently,
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 313
cultures that resist sexual harassment may simultaneously open the doors for its
perpetuation. Not only does future research need to continue to approach sexual
harassment from a holistic perspective, but scholars need to explore carefully the
potential paradox of a sexual harassment-resistant organizational culture. In the
meantime, organizational members need to be made aware of the paradox with the
hope that knowledge of the paradox will reduce the likelihood of sexual harassment
occurring within this type of environment.
Practical Applications
This case study and the related lessons learned support a number of practical
applications that can be used by both organizational practitioners and scholars as we
work to prevent sexual harassment. These practical applications are closely tied to
the four lessons learned highlighted in a previous section.
Applying Humor
There are important implications of the humor lesson for organizational managers
and trainers: Laughter may serve important functions for both reinforcing and
preventing sexual harassment. Once again, enactment is the key property to understanding this lesson. Managers and trainers need to understand that organizational
members are active participants in their environments. Training should encourage
members’ active participation in the creation of a culture in which sexual harassment
is unacceptable. Shared laughter can create active involvement on the part of
organizational members. It seems likely, then, that by encouraging humor oriented
against harassment and favoring victims, managers and those assigned with the task
of training organizational members about sexual harassment can help create a
culture in which sexual harassment is unlikely to occur. In this way, humor can be
used to create a sense of community that is warm and caring for all members.
A strong word of caution is required. It is likely that humor can also be used to
create a community that is exclusive and divisive if the humor belittles victims of
sexual harassment or focuses on the sexual nature of the behaviors. An example of
this type of humor was the public reference one male faculty member made to Lisa’s
lips. Those who heard the comment laughed, even though they did not fully
understand the context. Sexual humor is often easy humor, which ensures laughter
from the audience. It also tends to be divisive with a hero and a victim. It seems
likely that some sexual harassers would invite this type of humor, so it is critical for
trainers to avoid divisive humor altogether. It is important for practitioners to target
their humor to favor victims and against sexual harassment. Sexual harassment
training provides an ideal situation for the use of humor. Trainers can situate the
harasser as an outsider, much as the donor was an outsider to members of the
department in this case. By generating laughter at the harasser as outsider, trainers
can also encourage a cultural climate that rejects harassment as something that other
people do.’
314 D. S. Dougherty & M. }. Smythe
White Men and Sexual Harassment
The white men white knights lesson is particularly important for scholars, but also has
implications for organizational trainers and managers. Instead of treating white men
as the enemy, it would be far more productive to attempt to understand how they
may be part of the solution to sexual harassment. While acknowledging that it is the
dominant white male privilege that often encourages sexual harassment in organizations, it is also important to identify ways that white men can participate in
preventing sexual harassment. Scholars and practitioners should start with the
assumption that white men want to do what is right. They have a human capacity
for love and care and should be given an opportunity to protect their colleagues.
White men are privileged as organizational insiders and therefore have an opportunity to confront sexual harassers in unique ways. These unique means of confronting sexual harassment should be one goal of both research and training
exercises. This is not to suggest that training should segregate members of an
organizational population by race, or that the white men white knights lesson should
be limited to organizations in which all of the men are white. Instead, we propose
that trainers need to recognize the unique possibilities for all social groups, including
the much maligned white male.
Identifying Sexual Harassment
The primary application from the sexual harassment contested lesson is for human
resource personnel and trainers. The focus of sexual harassment policy and training
has typically been on ensuring a common understanding of what constitutes sexual
harassment. However, the results of this study suggest that a common understanding
of what constitutes sexual harassment is not necessary—or even possible—when
attempting to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. It may be more productive
to focus on common experiences that can be shared through stories and informal
conversation. Humor, as previously discussed, may serve as a conduit for this sort
of conversation. In this way a common emotion-centered connection can be created
among employees, even if there is little cognitive acceptance of what constitutes
sexual harassment.
Responding to Sexual Harassment
If, as the victim responses lesson suggests, the appropriateness of responses to sexual
harassment are contextually bound, then researchers and practitioners need to
consider changing their strategy. Instead of seeking a universal right response to
sexual harassment, sensemaking theory would suggest that scholars and human
resource personnel should begin to respect the contextual acuity of women who are
faced with the behavior. From a sensemaking perspective, sexual harassment tends
to be unexpected and outside of the interaction cues typically used by organizational
members. Instead of criticizing or advocating particular victim responses, it may be
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 315
more productive to explore how victims make response choices and then to suggest
strategies for improving sensemaking processes. In this way practitioners and
scholars can shift their focus from outcome (response) to process (responding).
Notes
[1]
The alumnus donor had indicated during his discussion with Abigail that he took a rather
aggressive approach to those who accuse him or his male colleagues of sexual harassment.
To avoid potential lawsuits and to protect the reputational position of the department within
the larger university, it was particularly important to protect the identity of the individual
participants and the department as a whole. The Institutional Review Board mandated the
following protective strategies. First, the names of the participants have been changed to
protect their identity. Second, the name and function of the department has been omitted
from the paper. Third, some identifying details of the case have been minimally altered or
omitted. Fourth, the exact nature of the relationship between the researchers and the
department in the case study has been obscured.
[2] The first author became aware of the case immediately following the alumnus donor’s visit.
The first author and Abigail have developed a friendship over discussions of their common
research interest in sexual harassment. Abigail contacted the first author the evening
following the donor’s visit. In subsequent conversations, the faculty in Abigail’s department
gave permission for the authors to conduct a case study under the condition that the identity
of the department was aggressively protected. The original goal was for Abigail to coauthor
the paper, but she eventually dropped out for personal reasons.
[3] The sexual harasser as outsider approach to training may only be effective in preventative
training programs. If training a person accused of sexual harassment, this type of humor may
be ineffective.
References
Beard, W. (1994). The Canadianness of David Cronenberg. Mosaic, 27, 112-133.
Berryman-Fink, C, & Riley, K. V. (1997). The role of gender and feminism in perceptions of
sexual and sexually harassing communication. Women’s Studies in Communication, 20,
24-44.
Bingham, S. G., & Burleson, B. R. (1989). Multiple effects of messages with multiple goals: Some
perceived outcomes of responses to sexual harassment. Human Communication Research,
16, 184-215.
Booth-Butterfield, M. (1986). Recognizing and communicating in harassment-prone organizational climates. Women’s Studies in Communication, 9, 42-51.
Booth-Butterfield, M. (1989). Perceptions of harassing communication as a function of locus of
control, work force participation, and gender. Communication Quarterly, 37, 262-275.
Bowes-Sperry, L., & Powell, G. N. (1999). Observers’ reactions to social-sexual behavior at work:
An ethical decision making perspective. Journal of Management, 25, 779-802.
Braun, M. J. (1993). Fallongate: The ad agency; the feminist; and the $10 million dollar case of
sexual harassment. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications
(pp. 90-106). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Clair, R. P. (1993a). The bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse: A study of the big ten universities. Management
Communication Quarterly, 7, 123-157.
Clair, R. P. (1993b). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: Hegemony
and harassment. Communication Monographs, 60, 113-136.
316 D. S. Dougherty & M. /. Smythe
Conrad, C, & Taylor, B. (1994). The contest(s) of sexual harassment: Power, silences, and
academe. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice
(pp. 45-58). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dougherty, D. S. (1999). Dialogue through standpoint: Understanding women’s and men’s
standpoints of sexual harassment. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 436-468.
Dougherty, D. S. (2001a). Women’s discursive construction of a sexual harassment paradox.
Qualitative Research Reports, 2, 6-13.
Dougherty, D. S. (2001b). Sexual harassment as [dys] functional process: A feminist standpoint
analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 372-402.
Firestone, J. M., & Harris, R. J. (1999). Changes in patterns of sexual harassment in the U.S.
military: A comparison of the 1988 and 1995 DoD surveys. Armed Forces and Society: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 613-632.
Garlick, R. (1994). Male and female responses to ambiguous instructor behaviors. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 30, 135-158.
Hawkesworth, M. (1997). Challenging the received wisdom and the status quo: Creating and
implementing sexual harassment policy. NWSA Journal, 9, 94-118.
Hemphill, M. R., & Pfeiffer, A. L. (1986). Sexual spillover in the workplace: Testing the
appropriateness of male-female interaction. Women’s Studies in Communication, 9, 52-56.
Jansma, L. L. (2000). Sexual harassment research: Integration, reformulation, and implications for
mitigation efforts. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 23 (pp. 163-225).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Keyton, J., Ferguson, P., & Rhodes, S. C. (2001). Cultural indicators of sexual harassment.
Southern Communication Journal, 67, 33-50.
Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M. (1999). Outcomes of self-labeling
sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 390—402.
Mongeau, P. A., & Blalock, J. (1994). Student evaluations of instructor immediacy and sexually
harassing behaviors: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 22, 256-272.
Morgan, D. L., & Spanish, M. T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative research.
Qualitative Sociology, 7, 253-270.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Sexual harassment as aggressive
behavior: An actor based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25, 372-388.
Shelton, N., & Chavous, T. M. (1999). Black and white college women’s perceptions of sexual
harassment. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 40, 593-615.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, B., & Conrad, C. (1992). Narratives of sexual harassment: Organizational dimensions.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 401-418.
Thacker, R. A., & Gohmann, S. F. (1993). Male/female differences in perceptions and effects of
hostile environment sexual harassment: “Reasonable assumptions?” Public Personnel Management, 22, 461-472.
Townsley, N. G., & Geist, P. (2000). The discursive enactment of hegemony: Sexual harassment
and academic organizing. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 190-217.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2002, June 27). Facts about sexual harassment.
Retrieved September 5, 2003, from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2003a, April 24). Judge in Dial sexual
harassment case denies soap makers ‘eve of trial’ bid on punitive damages issue. Retrieved
September 5, 2003, from http://www.eeoc.gov/press
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2003b, August 7). EEQC and Cheap Tickets
reach $1.1 million settlement in sexual harassment suit. Retrieved September 5, 2003, from
http://www.eeoc.gov/press
Sensemaking, Organizational Culture, and Sexual Harassment 317
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2003c, August 13). EEOCfilestwo suits against
Caterpillar for harassment at Illinois facilities. Retrieved September 5, 2003, from http://
www.eeoc.gov/press
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Wood, J. T. (1992). Telling our stories: Narratives as a basis for theorizing sexual harassment.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 349-362.
Zak, M. W. (1994). “It’s like a prison in there”: Organizational fragmentation in a demographically
diversified workplace. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, 281-298.
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
1. Describe your expectations for the donor’s visit.
2. Describe your role for his visit.
3. How did you prepare for his visit?
4. Describe your meeting with the donor.
(a) What were your impressions?
5. (For the women who were harassed). Describe the incident.
(a) How did you feel?
(b) How did you react?
(c) Who did you first tell?
(d) How did they react?
6. Describe the situation when you discovered the harassment.
(a) Describe the conversation.
(b) How did you feel?
7. Describe any subsequent interactions related to the event.
8. What is your overall impression of the incident?
9. Is there anything else?
Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol
1. Discuss your impressions of the donor.
2. Discuss your reactions to the event.
3. What do you think are the implications of the donor’s visit and his behaviors?
(a) Eor the department.
(b) Eor the academy.
4. If you had it to do again, how would you react?
(a) As a department?
(b) As an individual?
Received March 25, 2003
Einal revision received October 27, 2003
Accepted February 9, 2004
Feminist standpoint theory: A black woman’s (re)view of organizational socialization
Allen, Brenda J
Communication Studies; Winter 1996; 47, 4; ProQuest Central
pg. 257
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.