In “The Effects of Sexual Harassment on Job Satisfaction, Earnings and Turnover Among Female Lawyers” by David Laband and Bernard Lentz (1998), the authors analyzed the results of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) 1990 National Survey of Career Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction for evidence of whether women were still experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace and how this was affecting their careers. The study begins with a hypothesis that, despite legislation to reduce incidents, sexual harassment within the workplace was an ongoing problem experienced by many professional women. More than simply determining whether or not sexual harassment was still a factor within today’s legal institutions, though, this study was designed to identify the various ways in which sexual harassment might affect the long-term career tracks of women even when they remain within their chosen profession. Therefore, the objectives of the study were expanded to determine whether women’s job satisfaction overall was lowered as a result of sexual harassment, whether their earnings potential was weakened by such conditions and whether sexual harassment actually does increase a woman’s determination to leave her firm in search of a less hostile workplace. As part of this investigation, the authors included a consideration of the general characteristics and gender distribution within the respondent’s organizations as a means of determining whether any correlation could be made between those environments that either tended to contribute to or decrease the likelihood of reports of sexual harassment in the workplace. To more completely understand the study, its conclusions and its ramifications, it is necessary to assess its viability based upon the methods and materials used, the results reported and the conclusions that are drawn from this.
The study is recognized as being quite limited from its opening lines as it becomes clear that it is limited to female lawyers within the American Bar Association in the year 1990. It does not address concerns of how or why this particularly small demographic would be universally applicable to the experiences of women in general within the greater workforce. Neither does it address concerns that this demographic might not be particularly representative given the highly educated, professional nature of their work. It can be argued, for instance, that most women are employed in less professional positions that may place them in more vulnerable positions in which sexual harassment may occur. This idea is supported by the fact that many women indicate being reluctant to report incidents of sexual harassment out of concern that they will lose their jobs or otherwise damage their careers (Fitzgerald, Swan & Fischer, 1995: 117). While these concerns are easily within the realm of the white-colour profession of the American female lawyer, it is argued that those women who have traditionally earned much less than the lawyers are more dependent upon their jobs than women with greater education, access to professional assistance and greater flexibility in terms of supporting themselves and family. However, it is also recognized that every occupation is susceptible to sexual harassment possibilities. In addition, it has been reported that women in workplaces that have been difficult for women to enter, such as blue-collar jobs like mining or construction work and white colour positions like becoming members of the upper levels of the medical or legal system, actually experience higher incidences of sexual harassment in the workplace than those women employed in positions traditionally more accepting of women (Fitzgerald, 1993: 1070). The fact that these women have greater access to legal recourse is also suggested to increase the likelihood that cases of sexual harassment will be reported, leading to an inflated concept of the greater incidence within this profession.
Whether women in the legal profession are more likely to be victims of sexual harassment than women in other professions or they are simply more likely to take legal action when these events occur, female lawyers are thus shown to be symbolic of the actual scenario regarding the possible prevalence of sexual harassment (Fogg & Donner, cited in Laband & Lentz, 1998: 595). In addition to their likelihood of being exposed to sexual harassment at least as often as their less-well-employed female counterparts in other professions, the number of women who responded to the survey used as principal evidence for this study was deemed by an outside agency to sufficiently represent the entire American legal profession. From these arguments, it can be determined that the study is at least representative of the legal profession and probably provides a relatively accurate reflection of the true nature of the problem within the American workforce. Specifically, the authors indicate there were 176 female respondents within the sample size for which they had complete data to be compared. More than half of these (60 per cent) were married. The mean number of years these women had been in the legal field since graduating from law school was eight years and 90 per cent of the respondents were involved in some sort of internship program. The authors report that about 11 per cent of the respondents worked within corporate settings, another 25 per cent worked within the public sector and the remaining sample was employed by private firms.
The study was conducted by analyzing the responses provided in a general survey of the legal population, which included a single question that specifically addressed the issue of sexual harassment. Analyzing the responses given in this way enabled the authors of this study to compare responses given by men as compared to those provided by women, highlighting the concept that women were typically more exposed to sexual harassment than had been reported and that women and men had different ideas of what could or should be considered sexual harassment. This disparity establishes the claim made by the authors that sexual harassment remained an issue partially because of a discrepancy between what was considered sexual harassment by men and what was recognized as harassment by women. The statistics reported here are consistent with evidence found in other studies that explore many other professions. These include Eisaguirre (1993) who explores the prevalence of sexual harassment in a variety of settings as well as offering a chronology of events and statistics regarding legislation, Gutek (1985) and MacKinnon (1979), in which the topic is explored as a greater social issue pervading all aspects of the community. This analysis also indicated that women working in private firms often reported experiencing sexual harassment more often than their counterparts working within governmental institutions and that the most prevalent form of sexual harassment experienced in either scenario was in the form of sexual jokes, teasing or remarks. In this instance, there are some presumptions made regarding the reasons why more women in private settings reported sexual harassment more often. These included the concept that private organizations are not as highly regulated in this respect and the possibility that women working within governmental institutions are more reluctant to report sexual harassment out of concern for their future advancement or continued employment.
Specifically, the study focused on determining how sexual harassment affected job satisfaction levels among women within a variety of settings and from a variety of sources, how it affected their earnings potential and how it affected the probability that these women would remain with their present employer or seek employment elsewhere. These variables included three possible sources of sexual harassment, including the supervisors, the colleagues and the clients; two major employment settings as being either private or government although some consideration was given for the corporate settings and five types of recognized sexual harassment which were rated individually within the original questionnaire. These five types of sexual harassment included unwanted sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions; unwanted pressure for dates; unwanted sexual looks or gestures; unwanted deliberate touching, leaning over or cornering; and ‘other’ types of sexual harassment. The three categories of sources – supervisors, colleagues or clients – were also individually addressed in analyzing whether sexual harassment had an impact on a woman’s decision to find a new place of employment.
To determine whether job satisfaction was affected by sexual harassment, the authors of this study utilized the ordered logistic regression procedure. This is considered to be an appropriate means of producing data because it is specifically designed to provide easily comparable results using multiple response choices (High, 2006). The question entailed ratings given to five different forms of sexual harassment on a rating system that ranged from 0 for those who were very unsatisfied with their current job to 4 for those who were very satisfied. In addition, job type variables had to be considered regarding whether a woman working in the private, public or in corporate setting. Because of the way the Title VII law is written, those women working in law firms with fewer than 10 lawyers were excluded from the results as they would be excluded from coverage under the statute. Finally, the study attempted to determine whether women were being harassed by superiors, colleagues or clients. Here, too, a number of respondents were excluded from the final results because of the nature of their firm. For example, those who worked in firms with only one lawyer had, hypothetically, no colleagues within the firm and were therefore excluded from the study of sexual harassment among colleagues. For the same reason, those respondents from firms with solo lawyers or were part of a partnership could not be considered in the study regarding sexual harassment experiences from superiors.
The results of the ordered logistic regression procedure into the question regarding job satisfaction produced predictable results in that those women who had experienced even one incident of sexual harassment with their male colleagues or superiors in the workplace were more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs than those women who did not report any sexual harassment experiences. The significant variables produced in these categories were, surprisingly, not necessarily reflected in the overall job satisfaction levels of women. Results for total overall job satisfaction even among women who had experienced sexual harassment with their employers were reported as being only two-thirds of what was expected. The results also showed that sexual harassment from clients had very little effect upon women’s overall job satisfaction while sexual harassment from superiors had the largest impact. It was found that those women who experienced sexual harassment from their supervisors also had a greater incidence among their colleagues. It is argued that this is due to a supervisory example being set for others within the office setting. While analyzing the data for these groups, it was also found that those women who had greater monetary earnings expressed less dissatisfaction with their jobs than their counterparts who were not given such wonderful compensation, but the impact of poor compensation was less than half of the effect of sexual harassment on job satisfaction.
The study revealed that women reported less satisfaction with more experience, but with less inclination to do anything about it. The reasons for this are discussed in common sense logic as being the normal disillusionment that comes with being a lawyer and attempt to convince, according to the same common sense logic, that increased experience should increase overall job satisfaction as the work becomes more interesting, the pay begins to increase and the individual gains increased control over their own life. In addition, it is pointed out that those individuals with the highest levels of dissatisfaction will have dropped out of the profession before gaining much experience. In making this assumption, the authors make a flimsy connection with the concept that sexual harassment is, by process of elimination, the only reason left for these women to continue to express declining job satisfaction levels. Although their own statistics indicate that qualification under Title VII does not emerge as having a significant impact on the job satisfaction of female lawyers specifically, this is determined to be the result of the cunning of employers in finding other means of discriminating against female employees that tend to fall outside of the formal laws and thus also serve to deceive the women themselves. The use of their own previous studies to prove that women are still discriminated against through more subtle means weakens the report in that no corroborating evidence was found that had been conducted by other researchers.
However, the authors do acknowledge weaknesses in their study. Rather than providing any definitive answers, the presentation of unexpected results regarding job satisfaction among women in the legal professions overall seems to provide direction for a new study regarding the reasons for the unexpected differences in job satisfaction that would include investigation of other possible causes for satisfaction levels to decline. Further efforts to investigate the effects of sexual harassment on job satisfaction levels caused the researchers to establish a control group made up of those female respondents who felt levels of sexual harassment had remained the same during the past five years in order to determine the overall perception of harassment and its relationship to job satisfaction. This revealed expected results that those individuals who felt sexual harassment had increased during the past five years had much lower job satisfaction levels than those women who felt it remained the same. Those women who felt harassment levels had remained the same had lower levels of job satisfaction than those who felt it had never been a problem, to begin with.
Despite efforts to portray an important comparison or revealing image, the findings of this analysis do little to illuminate the issue, which is admitted by the study’s authors. As it is based upon subjective interpretations of emotional reaction to the subjective perception of harassment, it provides little that could not be anticipated or explained with basic psychology. To prove that there is a general agreement between men and women regarding the subjective definition of what sexual harassment is, the authors point out that the relative percentages of women who reported witnessing acts of sexual harassment correlate closely with men who reported witnessing acts of sexual harassment. The statistical figure is given as 0.9125, much lower than the difficult to achieve 0.01 level that would indicate only a 1 per cent chance that the correlation could have happened by accident (“Statistics”, 2007). Yet, the fact that men and women have generally agreed upon conceptions of what sexual harassment does little to explain how or to what degree this might affect job satisfaction levels, particularly when numerous other factors such as wage levels, autonomy or other factors are considered.
Although differences were found in earnings among women working in the legal profession, these differences were consistent with the patterns already familiar within this context as applied to the profession. For example, the study found that women working in larger private practices made more money than those working in smaller firms who still made more money than those working within government organizations. It is indicated that the earnings differential within the study was not overly expansive to provide wide ranges of extremes making differences in pay based upon sexual discrimination difficult to assess. In addition, discrimination in wages based upon gender is specifically addressed within the law books that could contribute to the idea that women are not paid differently based upon sexual discrimination. Again, the authors point to their own previous research in this area to indicate that while there are few discrepancies noted in the actual pay figures, there are issues in the ‘margins’ that indicate some level of discrimination occurring. According to the authors, this result proves that the question is too complex, involving too many independent factors, to be statistically meaningful.
There was, unsurprisingly, a correlation found between sexual harassment and a woman’s intention to quit her current employer within the next two years. As in the question of job satisfaction, it was investigated whether the intention to quit was greater when the woman experienced sexual harassment from her supervisor, her colleagues or her clients. These findings correlated closely with job satisfaction levels, indicating that women experiencing sexual harassment from their supervisors or colleagues were more than twice as likely to quit in the next two years as those who had not experienced sexual harassment. Like the discussion regarding job satisfaction levels, it is suggested that women who have experienced sexual harassment from their supervisors are at an even greater risk of quitting because this often leads to an environment in which colleagues begin to participate in unwanted behaviour as well, however, little to no evidence regarding this possibility is brought out. However, and also reflecting the results found in the job satisfaction study, sexual harassment by clients does not appear to affect women’s decisions to quit or to remain with their current employer. Consistent throughout, women who reported feeling that levels of sexual harassment had not changed much over the past five years were more likely to quit than those who felt it had never been a problem and women who felt it had increased in the past five years were twice as likely to quit as those who felt it had remained the same. While the figures are available upon request, much of this analysis is not presented within the published report, so it is difficult to test the analysis for accuracy or reliability.
The discussion segment of the report points out several of the issues that were not addressed in earlier sections of the report, such as the increased probability that female lawyers, being highly educated and having close connections to the legal system, would be more likely to both recognize and report incidents of sexual harassment. While the study concludes that sexual harassment happens to various degrees in a variety of settings, many of which are not sanctionable under the law, the authors are not able to demonstrate the degree or severity of the problem as it relates to women’s job satisfaction levels or determination to remain with their current employer. While there are numerous subtle actions and words that can be used to denote sexual harassment, many of this fall, to use the authors’ favourite term, ‘within the margins’ of the law but nevertheless can have an effect upon a woman’s feeling of comfort and ability within a particular organization.
This failure to draw any truly significant or meaningful conclusions beyond what can be found through common sense and basic psychology illuminates one of the most distressing limitations of the study in that it is based upon a single, very broad survey regarding a variety of workplace issues and contained only a very small number of questions relating to sexual harassment specifically. The study does acknowledge its limitations and admits that the findings are highly conditional on the types, severity, persistence and prevalence of sexual harassment within a specific setting as it is interpreted by the individual woman and as she is further influenced by her alternatives – i.e. other job prospects, independent financial support, etc. As a general glimpse of the issues that might be affected by sexual harassment in the workplace, the study provides several statistically important correlations. One of these is the proven idea that women and men typically define sexual harassment in the same way although women are much more aware of it occurring. Another is that women experiencing sexual harassment from their superiors is much more distressing than women coping with the same sort of harassment from their clients. However, much further study is necessary to prove that decreased job satisfaction and increased intention to quit is directly the result of sexual harassment to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
References
- Eisaguirre, Lynne. (1993). Sexual Harassment: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
- Fitzgerald, Louise F. (1993). “Sexual Harassment: Violence Against Women in the Workplace.” American Psychologist. Vol. 48, pp. 1070, 1071.
- Fitzgerald, Louise F.; Swan, Suzanne & Fischer, Karla. (1995). “Why Didn’t She Just Report Him? The Psychological and Legal Implications of Women’s Responses to Sexual Harassment.” Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 51, pp. 117, 122.
- Gutek, Barbara A. (1985). Sex and the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- High, Robin. (2006). Data Coding for Logistic Regression. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
- Laband, David N. & Lentz, Bernard F. (1998). “The Effects of Sexual Harassment on Job Satisfaction, Earnings and Turnover Among Female Lawyers.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 51, N. 4, pp. 594-607.
- MacKinnon, Catherine A. (1979). Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Discrimination. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- “Statistics.” (2007). American Association for Cancer Research.