An Uncomfortable Encounter

NA0419
An Uncomfortable Encounter:
Perceptions of Sexual Harassment
Katherine Breward, University of Winnipeg
Colleen Sharen, Brescia University College
A
nastasia reread the e-mail messages she had received from two of her students.
Each message presented a different perspective of an awkward and uncom-
fortable interaction that had occurred in her human resource management
class the previous evening. Before yesterday, Anastasia would not have believed that it
was possible to be sexually harassed while delivering a lecture about respectful work
environments! Even now, she found herself questioning her own perceptions, wonder-
ing if she overreacted. And yet here, right in front of her, were the messages from her
students confirming that at least one person had been deeply offended by what had
happened and the other had lesser, but significant, concerns.
Anastasia remembered the confusion and chagrin she had felt when one of her
male students had pressed his entire body against hers in front of the class. It had just
been so completely unexpected, so . . . weird! The situation left her concerned about
her professional reputation as a human resource management expert. After all, how
can you teach people about preventing harassment with any degree of credibility when
they have just witnessed you being harassed? That said, Anastasia was not confident
that the male student had acted with deliberate intent, which led to some confusion
on her part about how to respond.
Anastasia knew far too many women who had suffered escalating harassment after
ignoring “minor” incidents. In fact, she had experienced problems herself earlier in her
career. There had been two separate incidents in which she ignored sexually suggestive
behaviour in the workplace, once from a colleague and once from her boss. In both
cases the behaviour had started out relatively innocuously as “compliments” about her
physical appearance or wardrobe and slightly sexual “jokes,” but then it escalated. As a
result of that escalation, she had lived through mandatory meetings held in strip clubs,
unwanted touching, and even attempted sexual assault.
This personal history, combined with her academic knowledge about the pervasive-
ness of harassment and rape culture, meant that she did not want to be complacent.
But she didn’t want to blow something small out of proportion either. She thought
back to the events of the previous night, reassessing them over and over again. She
reread the messages from the two students who had commented on the incident. She

Copyright © 2017 by the Case Research Journal and by Katherine Breward and Colleen Sharen. All rights
reserved by the authors and NACRA. This case was prepared as a basis for class discussion and not an an
illustration of effective or ineffective management. The facts in this situation are real. The organization
and individuals in the case have been disguised. The authors would like to thank the three anonymous
reviewers and editor John Lawrence for their thorough and invaluable feedback throughout this process.

An Uncomfortable Encounter: Perceptions of Sexual Harassment 1
This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Surya Prakash Pati's Human Resources Management- Sec C at IIM Kozhikode - EPGP Kozhikode Campus from Sep 2021 to Mar 2022.
needed to decide whether to launch a formal complaint against the male student,
attempt to resolve the issue informally, or simply ignore it. It was not an easy decision.
Anastasia
Anastasia had an informal and casual teaching style. She actively sought to be a nurtur-
ing, empathetic, but challenging instructor. She encouraged students to question her,
discuss topics amongst themselves, and present their own perspectives. Unfortunately,
her efforts in this direction were sometimes hampered by her natural personality, which
tended to be dominant and very assertive. Most of the time her students’ reviews were
very positive, with comments indicating that she succeeded in fostering a nurturing
and challenging classroom environment. Sometimes, however, she failed to rein in
her natural assertiveness adequately during class debates and a small minority of stu-
dents complained that she was aggressive or even bullying. Anastasia had read research
documenting that female teachers were more likely to be perceived an inappropriately
aggressive since dominant behaviours are less gender role congruent for women,1 so
she worried about how many of the complaints were due to her actions and how many
were due to gender role stereotyping. It was an ongoing issue that she struggled with,
creating some insecurity and anxiety on her part.
Anastasia held the rank of assistant professor in the business department of a small
university in Quebec. The school was known for being inclusive and socially progres-
sive, and her department was somewhat unique among business faculties in that it
was gender balanced, with equal numbers of male and female faculty members. She
enjoyed the inclusive atmosphere and appreciated that women were clearly able to
succeed in this organizational culture. After all, both the chair of the department and
the dean were women. Anastasia had been working there for four-and-a-half years and
would be required to apply for tenure within the next six months.
The Stakes
The tenure process at a university was similar to the promotion process at a traditional
company, except that it was mandatory (you could not choose to simply remain in an
assistant professor role) and there was no need to wait for a more senior position to
become available. Anastasia could be promoted from assistant to associate professor
regardless of how many associate professors already worked in the department. If she
failed to gain the promotion, however, she would be asked to leave the organization
entirely (another important difference from promotions in the corporate world).
The tenure application process consisted of a review of Anastasia’s published
research, her service work on university committees, and the caliber of her teaching.
Since she was at a small institution that focused heavily on providing a nurturing
learning environment, teaching was a very important component of the review pro-
cess. For tenure purposes, competency in teaching was measured exclusively through
student course evaluations and other forms of student feedback including formal com-
plaints, since the Tenure Review Committee did not have an opportunity to actually
observe Anastasia’s teaching. This meant that student feedback could have a significant
impact on her future career.
The Tenure Review Committee consisted of five faculty members who would assess
Anastasia’s performance over the past five years. Efforts were made to be balanced

2 Case Research Journal • Volume 36 • Issue 3 • Summer 2016
and fair; however, the criteria for promotion had some subjective elements. It was
comparable to performance reviews for corporate managers in that there was room
for opinion about what traits an “ideal manager” or a “high potential researcher and
excellent teacher” should have. The subjectivity embedded in the process meant that
decisions might be influenced by memorable (but atypical) incidents that occurred
recently enough to be top-of-mind. Student complaints could easily fall into that
category.
After applying for tenure, she would either be granted tenure or be asked to leave
the institution, so it was an anxious time for Anastasia. She loved her job and didn’t
want to move or have to find alternate employment, so she was very concerned about
her perceived performance. She had worked hard to get this far, including ten years of
postsecondary schooling. She had also relocated her entire family thousands of miles
across the country to work at the university, a move which had required her husband
to give up a lucrative job he had enjoyed in favour of a lower paying one, so the per-
sonal stakes were high. If she failed to earn tenure, his sacrifice would be in vain.
The Incident
Anastasia taught various courses in human resource management and was widely con-
sidered the diversity expert within the department. The previous evening she taught
a course on strategic human resources which was part of a professional development/
continuing education diploma program. Most of the learners in the class were mature,
working students studying part-time to improve their skills and/or recently arrived
immigrants with work experience in their own countries, now seeking Canadian cre-
dentials. Her lecture that night focused on the creation of a respectful culture and
environment, which complimented her lecture from earlier in the week about sexual
harassment.
In her sexual harassment lecture, she had noted that sexual harassment was still
an ongoing problem; for example, a recent Angus Reid survey showed that 28 per-
cent of Canadians had experienced sexual harassment and 14 percent had experienced
unwanted sexual touching or more aggressive unwanted sexual contact in the past
twenty-four months.2 Roughly 40 percent of women and 12 percent of men had expe-
rienced some form of sexual harassment.3 One of the key discussion points in that class
had been the idea that harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Something that one
person does not find offensive, such as a joke or pinup calendar, may be offensive to
another person whose sensibilities should be respected so that the working environ-
ment feels safe for all.
As Anastasia began the lecture on respectful workplaces, she walked down the nar-
row aisle between the two rows of desks in her small, cramped classroom, making eye
contact with each student as she began. She frequently used this approach to start a
class since she found this improved attentiveness. One of her students, Pierre Lamothe,
arrived a couple of minutes after the lecture began.
Pierre was a mature student about ten years older than Anastasia. She knew from
comments he had made during class discussions that he owned a construction com-
pany, had worked in the trades all his life, and he was required to take this class as
part of a project management diploma he was seeking. He told her that he felt he had
sufficient knowledge in this area and did not think that the class would benefit him
much, but that it was a mandatory program requirement. Anastasia’s impression was

that he resented having to take the class, and this resentment seemed to come out in
small ways, such as frequent lateness and having loud, disruptive conversations with
peers during lectures. At one point, much to her embarrassment, Anastasia actually
had to ask him to quiet down during class. That sort of thing was almost unheard of
among mature students, who wanted to be treated like adults and whose behaviour
generally reflected that desire.
On the plus side, Pierre was the type of student Anastasia enjoyed having in the
classroom precisely because he was skeptical and challenging. He asked good ques-
tions, often demanding hard empirical evidence to justify the best practices she
recommended. He also speculated about contexts in which best practices may be con-
traindicated, providing a valuable alternate perspective. Anastasia felt that his queries
were often slightly sarcastic and asked in a way that seemed to question her knowledge
as an instructor, but she didn’t mind being challenged because she was confident in her
expertise and believed that the conversations Pierre initiated contributed to learning
for everyone.
Today, since her back was to him, Anastasia did not see Pierre enter the room late
and thus she was not aware of his presence. Pierre habitually sat in the first row and
just as he tried to get past Anastasia to get to his seat she stepped back, inadvertently
slamming into him. It had clearly been an accident, but what happened next was not.
Instead of jumping away, Pierre continued to move towards his seat, pressed his entire
6'1" body against Anastasia’s 5'2" frame (which was blocking him) in the process. She
could feel contact all along her back, buttocks, and head. In fact, he was so close she
could feel the fly of his jeans pressing into her lower back. Feeling surprised, awkward,
and slightly panicked, she tried to move away to let him pass. She shifted quickly
twice in different directions, but the desks restricted her movements enough that she
couldn’t really get any distance from him. It felt to her as if Pierre continued to move
with her, still pressing his full body against hers while she struggled to extricate herself.
The entire incident was over in seconds and he sat down.
Anastasia’s mind was racing. The entire class has seen what had just occurred. It
had happened while she was introducing a lecture on respectful workplaces—she felt
that if she didn’t address the situation immediately she would lose all professional cred-
ibility. This was a particular concern, since at thirty-six she was younger than most of
her students, so she already felt like she had to assertively establish her credibility. This
would not help.
Anastasia decided to challenge Pierre’s behaviour immediately and use it as a
teachable moment. She said calmly that his behaviour had made her personally uncom-
fortable (she did not label it harassment, merely said it made her uncomfortable), and
that people needed to be attentive to how others could interpret their actions. He
responded with a quick laugh, stating that, “you moved into me,” to which Anastasia
replied “yes, but that didn’t mean you had to continue pressing in instead of moving
away.” He shrugged dismissively, made a noncommittal noise, and then a comment
that she didn’t quite hear. She could have continued to pursue the matter, but it was
clear that further discussion would lead to a very public battle of wills that would
humiliate Pierre, humiliate her, and/or undermine her authority.
Anastasia felt that the point has been made so she continued with the class. She
noticed that several students of both genders seemed visibly uncomfortable, shifting
in their seats and avoiding eye contact. Three others, all female, smiled at her and one
gave her a discrete “thumbs-up” gesture of approval. A few men and women looked

angry, mouths pressed down into tight lines and foreheads knotting. A couple of peo-
ple looked like they were enjoying the show, their eyes darting about the room to see
what would happen next. The remainder of the students seemed indifferent, taking
their notes as usual.
There was an awkward tension in the room as she returned to her lecture. After
about ten minutes, however, the overall tone seemed to return to normal. She chose
to conduct the first discussion of the evening in small groups instead of one large
group so that any residual tension would be less likely to hamper the conversation. It
seemed to work. The remainder of the class passed uneventfully, with average levels of
participation. Even Pierre asked several pointed but relevant questions. For example,
he questioned the degree to which diversity training would actually result in behav-
ioural change in the workplace and he asked if there were contexts in which permitting
somewhat inappropriate jokes in the workplace could enhance rather than diminish
the organizational climate.
The Quandary
As she had driven home after class that evening, Anastasia wondered if she had done
the right thing. Had she been right to use the incident as a teachable moment and
mention her discomfort to the entire class? Had she overreacted? Had she under-
reacted? Should she formally report Pierre? Maybe this was part of a broader pattern
of harassment and he’d always gotten away with it because nobody reported him.
Anastasia didn’t know what to do, but she knew that if she was going to make a formal
complaint, she should do it as soon as possible while the incident was still fresh in her
mind.
There were good reasons for her hesitation. She was concerned that she would
look somewhat hysterical, oversensitive, or even weak if she admitted to having been
harassed while teaching, which may impact the Tenure Committee’s perception of
her competence when her tenure review rolled around. That said, the members of
the Tenure Committee were her peers and colleagues, three of the five members were
women, and the department chair and dean overseeing the process were both women.
As a result, she thought it might be less likely that she would be blamed for her own
harassment. While Anastasia knew that some men experienced similar problems, she
also knew that women were statistically more likely to experience harassment. She felt
that having this shared experience created empathy such that women tended to be
more understanding (although not always.)
That said, Anastasia’s area of expertise was stereotyping and nonconscious bias. She
was painfully aware that decision makers often make biased attributions about others
without even being aware of it. Harassment complainants did not always benefit from
appropriate institutional responses; some complainants were harmed by the social
response to their grievance or victimized by processes that scrutinized them, rather
than the alleged perpetrators. She was wary. Getting a reputation as a high main-
tenance troublemaker or as someone who can’t manage their own classroom could
interfere with her career goals, yet as a diversity professor she felt she had a moral
responsibility to lead by example and not tolerate harassment. She also still questioned
Pierre’s intent and awareness of what he had done. She felt highly conflicted about the
whole thing.

Institutional Policies and Processes
Her conflict was heightened by her uncertainty surrounding her organization’s practices
and processes related to complaints. Anastasia was not aware of any specific incidents
involving her employer mistreating harassment victims; however, this did not mean
that there were no issues with the way complainants were treated. A recent report in
the national newspaper the Globe and Mail suggested widespread problems managing
complaints. For example, on average at universities in Canada, only 10 percent of stu-
dents who experienced sexual harassment reported it and only 10 percent of the sexual
harassment complaints reported were subsequently resolved through the institution’s
formal complaints mechanism.4 At her institution all complaints were handled con-
fidentially (at least in theory, as with all large, bureaucratic organizations there were
occasional breaches by individual employees and the rumour mill was always alive and
well), so she had no idea how many prior issues had been reported. She also had no
personal knowledge about how complainants had been treated or the outcomes of any
investigations. She did know that the University administration had just introduced a
new, untested complaint resolution process a mere six weeks previous precisely because
the former process was ineffective.
The new policy called for a designated departmental human rights officer to handle
all complaints, assisted by an investigator when relevant. These were not full-time
roles. The human rights officer and investigators were to be drawn from existing senior
administrative staff—the people who helped with a broad range of program support
tasks such as student intake, managing sessional instructor contracts, and performing
academic misconduct reviews. Only one person in the department’s administrative
support team had been trained as a human rights officer under the new process. Unfor-
tunately, the human rights officer was on vacation for two weeks, leaving uncertainty
and confusion in her absence since none of the other administrative staff were knowl-
edgeable about the new way of doing things.
It is worth noting that at Anastasia’s university, department chairs and deans did
not involve themselves directly in sexual harassment complaints. Deans in particular
were quite far removed from human resources responsibilities; instead, they focused on
strategic planning and outreach with outside stakeholders. Chairs engaged in perfor-
mance monitoring, but would only get directly involved in a complaint of this nature
if formal disciplinary action against a professor was determined to be required by the
human rights officer. The dean and particularly the chair may, however, be informed
about the proceedings or be asked for their opinions when there was a valid reason to
do so. As such, it was reasonable to anticipate that they could hear about an incident
despite not being formally involved in an otherwise confidential process. Valid reasons
for this to occur could include gaining perspective on the character and reliability of
a complainant, identifying whether patterns of negative behaviour or false allegations
exist, or to engage in corrective action when a professor under their oversight has been
found to be remiss, negligent, or incompetent in fulfilling their duties.
The new policy explicitly gave Anastasia the ability to evaluate students, manage
inappropriate student behaviour, and maintain classroom order. The policy granted
instructors the right to ask those who were disruptive to leave the classroom. Admin-
istration was granted the right to manage and evaluate employees. Both of these rights
must be executed within the framework of the law, any collective agreements, and
university policies and procedures.

Other Perspectives
The morning after her uncomfortable encounter, Anastasia still had not decided what
to do. She opened her e-mail and found a message from a student in the class waiting
for her. It said:
11:34 pm
Dear Anastasia,
I needed time to process the situation that occurred in tonight’s class with the gentle-
man who arrived late blatantly crossing a physical boundary with you in front of the
class. You addressed it immediately as inappropriate.
It strikes me in a very particular way, we are in a human resource management course
and this guy who shows up to all the classes, in essence fails the course when in a few
moments in front of all to see. . . . commits a fundamental faux pas—he invites himself
into your personal space as you are addressing the start of the class. I for one was very
uncomfortable with his exchange and then further insulted when he made light of the
situation in ear shot. He made it out as though you over reacted and that he had to be
on the lookout for you going forward.
I have just concluded a sexual harassment investigation with an employee at my work-
place. In the interview he saw nothing wrong with his behaviours. Seated behind the
male student tonight left me with the same raw distain I felt with that employee.
Anastasia, I find myself hard pressed to see past the physical exchange I witnessed
in class today. I am reiterating . . . this is a human resource management course . . .
what he did violated the conduct code, what we were taught in course material and in
legislation. Had he simply understood his error that would have been fine . . . but to
have him laugh and turn it around as though you were neurotic and over reactive was
unacceptable. I am upset. Upset at the display and exchange that occurred, upset for
not intervening, upset for his lack of understanding that HE crossed your boundary. I
left class at the break as I thought I would “lose it” on him. I did everything to keep my
mouth shut as I knew I would be too reactive. I for one have to say as an observer, I was
affected by the exchange in a very negative and hurtful way. It did not and continues
not to sit well with me.
I would ask that you submit this email to the Dean or head of the program for review
and consideration. I do not feel this student can walk away from this unfortunate
exchange, seemingly unaffected, while I came away deeply disturbed. I can only imag-
ine your sense of the situation. I saw your face, it went flush during the exchange and as
you gathered yourself and when you spoke to him. I have to say, you handled yourself
in a very professional manner given the situation. I am NOT comfortable with this
male student and very offended from the whole situation.
Eloise
Wow, thought Anastasia. I guess I didn’t overreact and it wasn’t just me. Even so,
Anastasia was still hesitant about the whole situation. She decided to take an uncon-
ventional step. She knew that one of the students in her class had twenty years of
experience as a professional counselor. That student (Ming) worked for the same uni-
versity in the counseling department, so she was an insider within the institution.
Given Ming’s expertise and the fact that she had seen the situation first hand, Anastasia
asked for her opinion on the incident and whether she thought a formal complaint was
warranted. This is the e-mail reply that she received a couple of hours later:

10:46 am
Hi Anastasia,
I think that if he was taken aside and spoken to—that this would suffice. In situations
like this, more often than not, the person with the questionable behavior (and I believe
he has a good heart) doesn’t realize how his behavior is affecting other people. I think
he works in a predominantly male environment leading to even further oblivion. I am
of the mind that it is really unfair to a person that is oblivious to their behavior to be
chastised harshly. If after he is spoken to he decides that he will continue to conduct
himself in this manner, then I would definitely go forward with a more formal process.
I don’t think there was any other intent behind it than playfulness and complete obliv-
ion to what he was doing. I think that he has a problem with understanding/recognizing
boundaries. I think that he needed to not only respect you as a woman, but you are very
deserving of respect as an instructor. We all have roles on the planet and in your role as
our instructor you should be perceived as an authority figure due respect and I think he
was trying to treat you more as a friend than an instructor because he is a boss and in
a position of authority in his work, but has to understand that your classroom is your
arena. You earned that respect and that right.
Having said that I do think that you publicly “calling him out” on his behavior was
very appropriate and a very good “teaching opportunity” for everyone in the room.
And yes I agree with you that subtle harassment should not continue unchallenged, but
I do think he should be given the chance to explain himself. One might even suggest
some kind of sensitivity training for him.
I hope I’ve helped.
Ming
The Decision
Anastasia reviewed the e-mail several times while pondering what to do next. She
needed to decide whether to ignore the incident, make a formal complaint against
Pierre, or attempt an informal resolution by contacting Pierre directly. The two e-mails
she had received from students clearly indicated that Pierre’s behaviour had been ques-
tionable, but they expressed very different perspectives on the intent behind his actions.
This increased the ambiguity of the situation, further heightening her uncertainty.
Anastasia had serious concerns about all three courses of action available to her.
Ignoring the incident had some appeal. She didn’t want to add unnecessary stress
to her own life or that of her students by pursuing a small, inconsequential matter
if Pierre’s behaviour had been misconstrued. But, she didn’t want to tacitly support
harassment by tolerating it.
Making a formal complaint also had pros and cons. She worried that an untested
process could result in excessively harsh penalties for Pierre, impacting his ability to
continue his education or his social standing among his classmates in a manner dis-
proportionate to the actual incident. Initiating a formal process had other pitfalls,
including possibly labeling her weak or less capable of managing her classroom,
especially if word reached her chair and dean. Despite confidentiality measures, she
couldn’t be completely certain that it wouldn’t. There was at least a slight possibility
that her tenure review could be impacted, even if only on a subconscious level. She also
had Eloise’s formal request for follow up to consider. While Eloise was mistaken in her

belief that the issue should be directed to the dean, she still clearly desired some form
of formal action and her opinion mattered.
A private conversation with Pierre was a third option that Anastasia could pur-
sue. After all, she had extensive mediation training in this area, but she also worried
that addressing it informally herself could end badly. What if she was overestimating
her communication skills? If Pierre misunderstood her intent she might inadvertently
escalate the situation, leading to claims by Pierre that she was bullying and micro-
managing him in a way that exceeded her authority. Alternately, by failing to create
a formal paper trail, she could potentially allow problem behaviours to continue
undocumented, enabling more harassment in the future. Furthermore, Eloise could
complain that her need for a respectful learning environment was not being addressed
and that harassers were being protected from the consequences of their actions.
As Anastasia pondered this tricky decision, she realized that whatever she decided,
she needed to act quickly, before the situation escalated further.
Notes
1. Boring, A. (2015, April). “Gender Biases in student evaluations of teachers.”
Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/fce/doctra/1513.html.
2. Korzinski, D. (2014, December 5). “Three-in-ten Canadians have experienced
sexual harassment at work.” Angus Reid Institute Public Interest Research.
Retrieved from http://angusreid.org/sexual-harassment/.
3. Ibid.
4. Chiose, S. (2016, April 1). “Harassment on campus: 90 percent of cases kept
quiet.” The Globe and Mail. Retrieved June 11, 2016, from http://www.
theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/canadian-universities-
under-pressure-to-formalize-harassment-assaultpolicies/article29499302/.


An Uncomfortable Encounter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Uncomfortable Encounter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NA0419

You might also like