Sexual misconduct reporting: the silencing effects of hegemonic masculinity

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2022-0179
• Published date: 12 December 2022
• Date: 12 December 2022
• Pages: 398-415
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
• Author: Chelsie J. Smith,Kathryne E. Dupré,Angela M. Dionisi

Sexual misconduct reporting:

the silencing effects

of hegemonic masculinity

Chelsie J. Smith

Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Kathryne E. Dupr

e

Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, and

Angela M. Dionisi

Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Abstract

Purpose –Drawing on hegemonic masculinity theory, this study provides evidence supporting how gender,

race and sexual identity, may shape the rates of sexual misconduct reporting, by keeping those targets who

traditionally enjoy positions of power (i.e. white, cisgender men) silent.

Design/methodology/approach –Across 3,230 gender harassment, 890 sexual advance harassment and

570 sexual assault incidents that occurred within a traditionally masculine organization, the authors conducted

tests of independence and hierarchical regression analyses to examine whether targets’social identity

characteristics (i.e. sex, race, sexuality and gender alignment), predicted the reporting of sexual misconduct.

Findings –Although reporting rates varied based on the type of incident, white men were less likely than their

colleagues to report workplace sexual misconduct. In general, men were approximately half as likely as women

to report. Lower rates of reporting were similarly seen among all white (vs BIPOC) targets and all cisgender and

heterosexual (vs LGBT) targets, when controlling for other identity characteristics.

Originality/value –Research on sexual misconduct has largely privileged the experiences of (white, heterosexual)

women, despite knowledge that men, too, can experience this mistreatment. Thisresearchbroadensthislensand

challenges the notion that sexual misconduct reporting rates are uniform across employee groups. By articulating

how the pressures of hegemonic masculinity serve to silence certain targets –including and especially white,

cisgender men –the authors provide means of better understanding and addressing workplace sexual misconduct

underreporting.

Keywords Sexual misconduct, Hegemonic masculinity, Employee voice, Organizational culture

Paper type Research paper

Sexual harassment and sexual assault remain staunchly embedded in modern workplaces,

despite the efforts of activists, researchers and policy makers. Moreover, the bulk of research

on this problem has been directed towards understanding sexual misconduct as it relates to

the reactions of heterosexual, white women, largely overlooking the experiences of men and

their diversity (Cortina and Areguin, 2021). This reality limits the potential to address and

eradicate workplace sexual misconduct for all those who encounter it. The current study

sought to address this limitation by considering how gender –and other identity factors

(i.e. race and sexual identity) –may shape the rates of sexual misconduct reporting. More

specifically, using a sample of employees in a male-dominated work environment and

EDI

42,3

398

This research was supported by funds to the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN) from the

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institute for Health Research

(CIHR), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and Statistics Canada.Although the research and

analysis are based on data from Statistics Canada, the opinions expressed do not represent the views of

StatisticsCanada.Portions ofthis work contributedto the firstauthor’sMaster’sthesis, whileother portions

were presented in a paper session at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (2021).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 15 July 2022

Revised 3 November 2022

Accepted 17 November 2022

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 42 No. 3, 2023

pp. 398-415

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-07-2022-0179

drawing on the theory of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995;Connell and Messerschmidt,

2005), we aim to showcase how dominant conceptualizations of manliness may silence targets

who traditionally enjoy positions of power (i.e. white, cisgender men).

We believe this investigation is important. First, if organizational leaders wish to understand

the scope and impact of sexual misconduct within their workforce and act to ameliorate these work

conditions, incident reporting is an important first step (McDonald et al., 2015). However, the

underreporting of sexual misconduct is a known problem –one that researchers have sought to

address (e.g. O’Brien et al., 2015;Vijayasiri, 2008). Even still, scientific understandings of the role

that target identity plays in reporting (or not reporting) sexual misconduct, remain incomplete. By

theoretically and empirically demonstrating that sexual misconduct targets with social privilege

may, in fact, be less likely than their peers to report their experiences, more will be learned about

obstructions to sexual misconduct reporting, among a group of employees not often considered.

Second, the dominant myth that sexual misconduct is solely a “women’s issue,”is

arguably hampering progress in the fight against this social problem. On the one hand, this

narrative reinforces the problematic and dangerous misconception that women carry the

burden of responsibility when it comes to sexual misconduct awareness and prevention

(Lonsway et al., 2008). Moreover, this falsehood ignores that men also suffer from sexual

misconduct (Cortina et al., 2020). To the extent that this myth is perpetuated within modern

culture, eradicating sexual misconduct will remain untenable. Thus, additional research is

greatly needed to counteract these myths via the acknowledgment of male experiences.

Finally, men as a group are not monolithic. When “all men”are investigated as a unified whole,

this ignores that all men do not hold the same privileges within the gender hierarchy (Connell, 1995;

Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005). We draw attention to this reality by further investigating the

relationships between targets’gender, race and sexuality, and their sexual misconduct reporting

behaviour. Past employee voice research (of which sexual misconduct incident reporting is a part;

McDonald et al., 2015) has largely ignored the experiences of employees of colour and LGBT

employees (Syed, 2020). Additionally, the reality that individuals belonging to underserved groups

are at higher risk of experiencing sexual harassment than their white, cisgender and heterosexual

counterparts (Berdahl, 2007;Holland et al., 2016), further stresses the necessity of this study.

When taken together, this research has the potential to contribute to both theory and

practice, revealing more about the identity-based correlates of sexual misconduct reporting,

highlighting the experiences of individuals not traditionally considered in sexual misconduct

researchand suggestingrecommendationsthat can beemployed by organizations tocounteract

this social problem –ultimatelyfostering healthier,more inclusive workplace environments.

Workplace sexual misconduct

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are forms of mistreatment that together denote a

spectrum of sexualized conduct. Sexual (or sex-based) harassment represents behaviour that

derogatesor humiliates an individual based on thatperson’s sex (Berdahl, 2007, p. 641)andis

comprised of three underlying constructs. Gender harassment involves sexist,rude or belittling

behaviours, jokes,insults and/orcomments that degradeor demean someonein light oftheir sex

or gender(Cortina and Areguin, 2021;Fitzgerald et al., 1995). Unwantedsexual attentionincludes

all sexual advances that a target does not reciprocate and finds unwanted and offensive

(Fitzgeraldet al., 1995). In turn, sexual coercion constitutes caseswhen a perpetratoruses threats

or incentives to elicit sexual activity (Fitzgeraldet al., 1995). At times, unwantedsexual attention

and sexualcoercion arereferred to jointlyas sexual advance harass ment (e.g. Holland et al., 2016)

–a term that further aids in describing theseforms of behaviour, and onethat we will employ

herein. On the other hand, sexual assault is a criminal offence that involves physical sexual

activity or sexual contact that is forced upon a target against that person’s will and without

consent (Watkins et al., 2017). Thus, sexual harassment and sexual assault are distinct

Sexual

misconduct

reporting

399