We tune out HR in our
jobs. To understand why, think about Catbert, the evil director of human
resources made famous in the Dilbert comic strip. As employees we treat HR seriously
only at milestones such applying for a job, changing our benefits, and separating
(quitting, retiring, or being fired). But that’s because our employers devalue
HR while putting finance, operations, logistics, data analytics and other
corporate functions ahead of HR.
It’s no accident that
Fox News, CBS and other major corporations are paying a steep price for the
predatory behavior of unmanaged stars such as Bill O’Reilly and Charlie Rose. HR
was not even available for females who were harassed by O’Reilly and Rose. That’s
how America’s workplaces run—or run amok.
To better understand
why, let’s think about Vicky Crawford. She worked for 30 years in Nashville’s
large school district office. Gene Hughes, her boss— ironically, the head of
HR— was accused of sexual harassment. Ms. Crawford never made a formal
complaint. But in Ms. Crawford’s presence, Hughes occasionally made crude jokes
about his erection, and once pulled her head down to his crotch.
Someone else blew the
whistle on the boss. When the district investigated, three other women,
including Ms. Crawford, came forward with stories that corroborated the first charge
against the boss. Hughes kept his job. The three women? All were fired.
Ms. Crawford’s
lawsuit for unlawful retaliation under Title VII was thrown out at trial.
That’s because a conservative court read the law’s anti-retaliation clause by
applying a narrow dictionary definition. The judge ignored the legislative
intent behind Title VII. Congress plainly said the anti-retaliation clause was to
protect whistleblowers who participate in discrimination proceedings, and also those
who oppose discriminatory behavior.
The Supreme Court
reversed this decision. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (2009), a unanimous
Court ruled that opposition includes proactive speaking out and less
confrontational opposition—here, answering questions in a sexual harassment
complaint.
A common attack
against women who come forward with allegations is that they waited too long
and therefore their motives are questionable. But research on whistleblowers
shows over and over that organizations punish them—and less frequently, punish
the real wrongdoers. That’s a good start in explaining why women don’t report
or report reluctantly and belatedly.
How can the situation
be improved? Recent events mark a good beginning. We’re having a national
discussion about sexual harassment. But we had a similar conversation when
Anita Hill reported Clarence Thomas’s crude sexual remarks and misconduct in
her workplace. At the time, many of us thought that was a watershed. In reality,
it was a fleeting moment of recognizing the legal and moral hazards in ignoring
this problem.
Just as the Clarence
Thomas embarrassment passed, Catbert came into popularity. Part of a wonky,
left-leaning satire on the dehumanizing aspects of our work, Catbert helped us
devalue our HR colleagues and their mission. Conservatives did their part by
attacking “PC” as a civility code at work—as if that’s a bad thing. Boys will
be boys, according to this school of thought— meaning that work rules go too
far in legislating against crude jokes, come-ons to female colleagues, and
tales of male prowess.
As for Vicky
Crawford, her boss was the real-life, evil carnation of Catbert. His
braggadocio about the size of his erection was funny to him. But for Ms.
Crawford, talk of the boss’s erection amounted to a long and powerful yardstick
of his power over her and her livelihood. With these jokes, he silenced her for
years. The HR joke was cruelly turned against Ms. Crawford -- that is, until the Supreme Court
paved the way for the school district to pay Ms. Crawford dearly for protecting
a powerful man.
No comments:
Post a Comment