Business Ethics Assignment

Sexual Harassment in
the Corporate
Environment

The aim of this report is to discuss the contradictory
subject of sexual harassment in the corporate
environment. It will initially discuss the social
implications of the subject and to bring into play a
range of contrasting moral and ethical standpoints from
within the framework of European moral thought to
the extent of: what advice would these ethical
viewpoints give to the allowing or disallowing sexual
harassment in the workplace.

Sexual Harassment in the Corporate Environment

Contents

Executive Summary 2

Literature Review 2

Social Implications 3

A Cognitive Approach 3

What Advice the Differing Ethical Problems Would Offer 4

Immanuel Kant 5

Utilitarianism 6

Deontology 8

Conclusion 8

References 9

Code 1790 Business Ethics | Sexual Harassment in the Corporate Environment Page 1


Executive Summary
The aim of this report is to discuss the contradictory subject of sexual harassment in the

corporate environment. It will initially discuss the social implications of the subject and to

bring into play a range of contrasting moral and ethical standpoints from within the

framework of European moral thought to the extent of: what advice would these ethical

viewpoints give to the allowing or disallowing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Literature Review
In a paper written by Apodaca&Kleiner (2001), sexual harassment is one of the most

complex and emotional issues to burden employers and HR professionals alike. Since the

EEOC declared that sexual harassment is a violation of the Civil Rights Act 1964, law courts

have struggled to determine what constitutesas sexual harassment, when assessing cases of

claims have been brought to trial, where individuals have believed to have been the victim of

a sexual harassment lawsuit. And in turn to which circumstances have arisen to which

employers may incur financial liability, imposed by the judges whom have examined such

cases.

It is clear, then, that there is a financial imperative to eliminate improper conduct as well as a

moral one to their employees and contractors. Not doing so could result in significantly large

financial liabilities for employers.

In a study carried out by the European Commission, (1998) it revealed that there was an

association between incidents of sexual harassment taking place and the work situation: the

report suggested that cases of sexual harassment occurred more regularly in male dominated

work environments. However, Kohlman, (2004) put forward that sexual harassment both

occurred in male as well as female dominated work situations. Veale and Gold, (1998)



concluded that sexual harassment tends to be prevalent where there are significant power

differentials between colleges and subordinates.

The Social Implications of Sexual Harassment

A Cognitive Approach

Cognition means ‘knowing’. The study of cognitive psychology studies the way in which

humans process information, the treatment of information that comes to a human being and

how this treatment leads to responses. It is the study of internal processes, language, memory,

attention and thinking, (McLeod, 2007).

The subject of sexual harassment bears the problem if it’s perceptual nature, (Popovich,

1989; Tannen, 1990; Malovich and Stake, 1990). Men and woman differ in what they

perceive as sexual harassment, (Dunwoody-Miller and Gutek, 1985)

In literature research, there have been two key reasons as to why employers have been

finding it difficult to prevent sexual harassment occurring in their organisations: firstly there

has been the reason put forward by Gender Bias (1992), whom state that sexual harassment is

difficult to police because it contravenes man’s primitive desire to attract partners: men and

women will be attracted to each other just as easily in the working environment as anywhere

else. Social implications of sexual harassment bring about the conflicts of the evolution of

male and female reproductive interests (Arnquist and Rowe, 2005). Such conflict stems from

the males reproductive success limited by the access to females, whereas the females

reproductive success depends on the energetic resources available, (Emlen and Oring, 1977).

This, in turn, comes from the asymmetry of costs in males and females. In the case of females

these costs are energetic costs, feeding opportunity costs, risk of preditation as well as risks

of physical injury, thus it reduces the lifespan and increase the chances of mortality



(Meaderand Gilburn, 2008) These evolutionary forces will continue to fuel the sexual conflict

between male and female.

Sexual harassment leads to employers possibly facing large financial liabilities in

compensation claims but there are costs associated with such claims of which go beyond the

‘dollars and cents’ which are to burden employers. In a paper written by Pearce &DiLullo

(2001) workplaces which have seen cases of sexual harassment leads to lack of teamwork,

poorer productivity, higher turnover, absenteeism, damaged reputation, lawsuits as well as

recruiting problems. They further state that an employee who has fallen victim to sexual

harassment to feel disempowered, especially if there is no clear and acceptable avenue to

which to report such a case. Employer reputation is extremely important in today’s society

where people switch from one employer to another during their careers.

Michaels (1996), talks about the concept of the double society standard. This describes the

scenario that people cannot go about their daily routines, without encountering some sort of

sexual reference in advertising and media however subliminal this may be, therefore creating

a stimuli to encourage sexually-oriented behaviours between people. At the same time,

companies are required to, bylaw;maintain strict ‘Victorian’ standards of conduct between

employees and their peers and subordinates for fear of litigation.

Discuss the ethical problem that you have identified and what advice the

different perspectives would offer.

According to Hunt, et al (2010) there is a lack of consensus as to what constitutes as sexual

harassment and is particularly the case when the examining of behaviours and circumstances,

in which sexual harassment has believed to have occurred, comes under the microscope

(Bimrose, 2004)



Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination as a violation of the Title VII of the Civil

Right Act 1964. It is a form of unwanted behaviour conducted by one person towards another

and is generally focused on gender as supposed to their professional qualifications.

Sexual harassment comes in two forms: these are quid pro quo and the ‘hostile working

environment’. The case of Mentor v. Vonson 1986 set the standard for quid pro quo. Quid

pro quo describes the scenario of an individual putting a certain condition, or a desired

outcome, in place in return for something of a sexual nature i.e. promotion, retention. In a

paper written by Hunt et al, (2010), quid pro quo is a form of sexual harassment whereby an

individual in a corporate setting will make either an implicit or explicit move towards another

individual in return of a desired outcome, whereas the hostile working environment occurs

where individuals within a work environment make suggestive remarks of a sexual nature,

jokes of a sexual nature, or making comments, drawings, cartoons of a sexual nature towards

a certain individual such as a colleague. Smolensky and Kleiner, (2003) state that the subject

of the HWE has been widely debated upon in terms of what constitutes as the HWE. This

form of sexual harassment is more subtle than its counterpart and is often seen as a ‘grey

area’ of sexual harassment when examining cases of this nature.

Sexual Harassment from the Perspective of Immanuel Kant

Kant’s philosophy was that ‘each person thinks of themselves as a rational creature who is

entitled to dignity and respect (Bowie, 2000). The Employment Equality (Sex

Discrimination) Regulation defines sexual harassment as unwanted conduct (weather verbal

or non-verbal or physical contact) that has the cause or effect of violating an individual’s

dignity. It could be argued that this scenario contravenes Kant’s view on sexual gratification.

In a paper written by Schrage (2005), Kant argues that sexual desire is an appetite for another

human being, or, is an object of appetite for another. In writing, he stated that:



a person becomes a thing and can be treated and used as such by every one. This

is the only case in which a human being is designed by nature as the Object of

another’s enjoyment. Sexual desire is at the root of it; and that is why we are

ashamed of it, and why all strict moralists, and those who had pretensions to be

regarded as saints, sought to suppress and extirpate it. (Kant, 1963: 163–4)

His philosophy is that any sexual act reduces another human being to an object for another

person’s enjoyment violates the rule for morality. The rule of morality encourages us to treat

others as ends in themselves and not as mere instruments. The Employment Equality (Sex

Discrimination) Regulations further defines sexual harassment as an act with the effect of

creating a degrading, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment for the victim.

Kant then goes on to say that there is one condition to which one is free to make use of their

sexual desire. He says that this depends on the right to dispose over the other person as a

whole but questions how one obtains these rights. He answers this questions that by giving

the other person the same right over one’s body in equal measure. However, this happens

only in marriage in the form of a matrimony agreement, by which they grant each other right

to the other person, by surrendering their body to the other person, with the complete right of

disposal over the other person’s body, (NYtimes, 2012)

The Case of Sexual Harassment from a Utilitarian Perspective

The Utilitarianism view is a consequentialist branch and is one of the better-known views of

consequential ethical viewpoints. Utilitarianism is the doctrine that the morally correct course

of action that results in bringing about the greatest good for the greatest number, regardless of

the distribution of benefits and burdens, should be chosen over alternative paths.



Utilitarianism is a theory that defines morality by net maximization of expected utility of all

parties affected by the decision or action initiated by the agent (Wofford, 2012).

Utilitarianism, as defined by Utilitarian, (2012), is the philosophy that has the policy that an

action or a decision carried out by an agent is the ‘right’ decision if it creates as much or

more of an increase in happiness to all those affected than it would have by an alternative

action, and is the wrong decision or action if it does not have this affect.

Further literature reviews by The Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia (2007) states that the

theory of utilitarianism is the theory that the rightness or the wrongness of an action is

determined by its effect on bringing about the most happiness to the maximum amount of

people affected by that decision.

It was John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) who developed the definition of utilitarianism as that:

actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest

number of people. Utilitarianism as a place in ethics looks at the consequences of the act and

not on the motives or nature of the agent, (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 2008)

The utilitarian viewpoint allows us to consider the immediate and less immediate

consequences of the agent’s actions and to look beyond the self-interests and to consider the

impartial interests of all persons affected by ones actions. The utilitarian viewpoint offers a

simple way of deciding the morally right course of action to take, which is to choose the

course of action which gives the greatest amount of benefits once costs have been taken into

account.

Carrying out a sexual harassing act may not be the best course of action when the act of

refraining from carrying out such an act towards an individual may have better results bas

better consequences for the team.



A Deontological Perspective

The deontological theory of philosophy goes that people should maintain their obligations

and duties to others when analysing an ethical dilemma. (Ridley, 1998). Kant’s theory is said

to be an example of deontological philosophy as it examines the nature of the actions the

agent initiates rather than the outcomes of those actions: deontology looks as the inputs rather

than the outcomes versus utilitarianism (which focuses on the consequences) (Wofford,

2012).

Kant stated that the consequences do not matter as far as moral evaluation is concerned. One

categorical imperative focuses on the respect for human beings – that they should never be

merely used because their value is never merely instrumental. Of course, they can be useful

but must always, at the same time, be treated with respect also as an end, (Wofford, 2012)

Conclusion
Feary (1994) states that ‘sexual harassment will only be resolved when the corporate world

recognises that such behaviour is a moral problem and provides moral education for

employees’. Hunt et al (2010, p 667) state that organisations must undoubtedly adapt a

culture which does not tolerate such acts between individuals within their corporate setting.

Further supported by Dougherty and Smythe (2004), says that the EEOC argue that the best

way to prevent sexual harassment is by communicating to all employees that sexual

harassment is an unacceptable way of personal conduct and to ensure an organisational

culture that does not promote such behaviour is fully implemented in all areas of the

organisation.



References
Apodaca, E. and Brian H, K. (2001) Sexual Harassment in the Business Environment.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21 (8/9/10), p.3-13.

Arnqvist, G. and Rowe, L. (2005) Sexual Conflict. Pricetown University Press.

Berdahl, J. and Moore, C. (2006) Workplace harassment: double jepordy for minority
women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 p.426-36.

Bimrose, J. (2004) Sexual Harassment in the workplace - an ethical delemma for career
guidence practice..British Journal for Guidence and Councelling, 32 (1), p.109 - 21.

Bowie, N. (2000) A Kantian theory of leadership.The Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, 21 (4), p.185 - 193.

Chapman, T. et al. (2003) Sexual Conflict.Trends Ecol. Evol, 18 p.41-47.

Dougherty, D. and Smythe, M. (2004) Sencemaking, organizational culture, and sexual
harassment.Journal or Applied Communication Research, 32 (4), p.293 - 317.

Emlen, S. and Oring, L. (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating
systems.Science, 197 p.215-223.

Feary, V. (1994) Sexual harassment: why the corporate world doesnt ''get it''. Journal of
Business Ethics, 13 (8), p.649 - 663.

Fitzgerald, L. and Ormerod, A. (1991) Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: the influence of
gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15 p.281 - 94.

Fitzgerald, L. et al. (1995) Measuring Sexual Harassment: theoretical and psychometric
advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17 p.425 - 445.

Gutek, B. (1985) Sex and the Workplace. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass, p.NK.

Hunt, C. et al. (2010) Reviewing sexual harassment in the workplace - an intervention
model.Personnel Review, 39 (5), p.655 - 673.

J.W, M. (1996) Sex and Work. Forbes, Iss. 157 p.10.



Kohlman, M. (2004) Person or Position?The Demographics of sexual harassment in the
workplace.Equal Opportunities Internaltional, 23 (3-5), p.143 - 62.

Meader, S. and Gilburn, A. (2008) Asymmetrical costs of sexual conflict in the seaweed fly.
Coelopafrigida.EcolEntamol, 33 p.380-384.

Moore, A. et al. (2003) Females avoid manipulative males and live longer. J. Evol. Biol, 17
p.523-530.

Notes on Utiliarianism (2012) Notes on Utiliarianism. [online] Available at:
http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/tuil.htm [Accessed: 20th March 2012].

Nytimes.com (2011) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/craig-routledge.html [Accessed: 20 Mar 2012].

Pearce, J. and DiLullo, S. (1996) A Business policy statement model for eliminating sexual
harassment and related employer liability. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66 (2), p.12.

Popovich, P. and Licata, B. (1987) Preventing sexual harassment: a proactive approach.
Training and Development Journal, nk (nk), p.34 - 8.

Ridley, A. (1998) Beginning Bioethics. New Yorn: St. Martins Press.

Scu.edu (2011) Page Cannot Display - Santa Clara University Web Site. [online] Available
at: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1/calculating.htm [Accessed: 20 Mar 2012].

SimplyPsychology (2007) Cognitive Psychology. [online] Available at:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive.html [Accessed: 20 Mar 2012].

Smolensky, E. and Kleiner, B. (2003) How to prevent sexual harassment in the
workplace.Equal Opportunities International, 22 (2), p.59 - 66.

Stockdale, M. and Hope, K. (1997) Confirmatory factor analysis of US merit systems
protection board's survey of sexual harassment: the fit of a three-factor model.Journal of
Vocational Behaviour, 51 p.338 - 57.

Unknown.(2012) Introduction to untiliarianism. [online] Available at:
http://www.utilitarian.org/utility.htm [Accessed: 20 March 2012].

Veale, C. and Gold, J. (1999) Smashing into the glass celing for woman managers. The
Journal of Management Development, 17 p.17-26.



Webs.wofford.edu (1997) Notes on Deontology. [online] Available at:
http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/deon.htm [Accessed: 20 Mar 2012].


Business Ethics Assignment

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Business Ethics Assignment

Similaire à Business Ethics Assignment (18)

Plus de University of East Anglia/CCN

Plus de University of East Anglia/CCN (8)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Business Ethics Assignment