SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE 

IS IT A PROBLEM? 

March 1981 

A REPORT OF THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

OFFICE OF MERIT SYSTEMS REVIEW AND STUDIES 

 

 
 

 

 

THE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

Washington, D.C. 20419 

March 1981 

THE PRESIDENT 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE 

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Dear Sirs: 

The Merit Systems Protection Board presents this report pursuant to a request by 

the Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 

United States House of Representatives. 

This report conveys the findings of a survey of the extent of sexual harassment in 

the Federal workplace conducted by the Board's Office of Merit Systems Review 

and Studies. 

We urge your consideration of the facts presented here and the use of your good 

offices to ensure that the Federal personnel system is free from prohibited 

practices and honors merit principles. 

Respectfully, 

FOR THE BOARD 

Ruth T. Prokop, Chairwoman 

PREFACE 

A little over a year ago the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House 

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service asked the Merit Systems Protection 

Board to conduct a study to determine the extent, if any, of sexual harassment in 

the Federal workplace. This task was assigned to the Board's Office of Merit 
Systems Review and Studies (MSRS) which, at that time, was in its infancy--

barely two months old with a staff of four. 

The study of sexual harassment was to become a landmark study of a complex 

social issue with Federal-wide implications. To conduct such a study, MSRS had 

to develop systems to address the issues at hand and survey the entire Federal 

population in a manner honoring the scientific standards for a study of such 

scope. 

My colleagues and I began to shape the project along the lines of the 

Congressional mandate in late December 1979. Daniel Wojcik, Associate 

Director for Operations, brought to the assignment his multi-discipline experience 

in personnel research, survey design and personnel operations. George Raub, 

the office's newly recruited Statistician-Computer Scientist was able to borrow 

from his previous Federal experience in analyzing complex data bases and 

began to set in place the myriad of systems required to ensure an unbiased 

analysis. Cynthia Shaughnessy was chosen to coordinate the day-to-day 

operations of this project, to contribute her substantial knowledge of Federal 

women's issues which had grown out of her leadership in the Federal Women's 

Program, and to oversee the drafting of the final report. 

Our initial task was the development of a questionnaire to search out answers to 

the concerns raised by the Congress. Although several informal studies had 

been conducted in recent years, none of them met the standards we believed we 

must honor to ensure a balanced and objective review of this area of human 

behavior. 

With this pioneership much in mind we sought the counsel of those experts we 

believed could contribute to our understanding. At the time we developed the 

questionnaire, Dr. Sandra Tangri, Dr. Martha Burt, and Dr. Leanor Johnson were 

identified as expert researchers in various aspects of sexual behavior and they 

took a brief leave of absence from The Urban Institute to help us identify the 

critical issues and develop the questionnaire. During this phase of the project, Dr. 

Suzanne S. Ageton of the Behavorial Research Institute of Boulder, Colorado, 

Dr. Hubert Feild of Auburn University and Dr. Barbara Gutek of the University of 

California at Los Angeles gave us the benefit of their research experiences as did 

many others. 

Over 20,000 Federal employees completed the questionnaire--an 85% response 

rate which far exceeded the minimum standards for reliability. Once the results 

were tabulated and analyzed a preliminary report of the statistical results was 

presented to the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee on 

Post Office and Civil Service on September 25, 1980. 

Our final report identifies sexual harassment as an important concern in the 

workplace. Although we know of no comparable research in the private sector, 
our findings in the Federal study--that people of all ages, salary levels, education 

backgrounds and hometowns are potential victims--lead us to the observation 

that sexual harassment cannot be uniquely associated with Federal employment. 

We encourage private sector understanding of other employee experiences with 

sexual harassment and encourage private sector leaders to pursue a comparable 

course of self-analysis as the first step in eliminating this form of sex 

discrimination. 

Patricia A. Mathis 

Director, Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The senior group identified in the Director's Preface was supported by dozens of 

Federal employees and private citizens who contributed their experiences and 

ideas. 

The National Institute of Mental Health provided its early support by helping us 

enlist able researchers and by providing the initial funding support for the 

questionnaire development. 

Before the questionnaire was developed, an advisory panel was convened to 

define critical issues and explore' alternative study approaches. These advisors 

included: Mr. Louis Nunez, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Ms. Ellis McNeil, 

Office of Personnel Management; Mr. Robert Walker, Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission; Dr. Hubert S. Feild, Jr., Auburn University; Ms. Stewart 

Oneglia, U.S. Department of Justice; Mr. Willard Mitchell, U.S. Department of the 

Air Force; Ms. Louise Smothers, American Federation of Government 

Employees; and Ms. Freada Klein, Alliance Against Sexual Coercion. 

Assistance in the preparation of the preliminary report to the Congress of the 

results of the study in September 1980 was provided by Dr. Barbara Kaster of 

Bowdoin College and Dr. Carol Duncan of Maine Medical Center. 

The legal commentary of current case law for this report was prepared by Susan 

Cornelius under the supervision of Stewart Oneglia, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Additional research, writing, and editing was provided by Sherrell Varner and 

Carolyn Heinrich of the Blue Pencil Group, Reston, Virginia. 

Several members of the Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies were 

central players at various stages of this project. Dr. Joel D. Chananie developed 

the model for estimating the cost impact of sexual harassment; a team of support 

staff headed by Gene Browning, included Elaine Latimer, Margaret Wilson, 

Sandra Stewart and Karen Elliott; Mercer Jones of the Board 's Office of 
Legislative Counsel provided audio-visual assistance for the Congressional 

testimony. 

We were also assisted by the following individuals who gave us their advice and 

assistance in the design, implementation, and reporting of this study: Daniel M. 

Geller, Department of Psychology, George Washington University; William A. 

Blakey, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Emilio Abeyta, U.S. 

Department of Justice; Rosemary Storey and Todd Buchta, Committee on Post 

Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives; Dr. Nancy Barrett, U.S. 

Department of Labor; Diane Herrmann, Office of Personnel Management; Donald 

Moore, U.S. Department of Treasury; Dr. Philip A. D. Schneider, Office of 

Personnel Management; Dr. John Dirkse, George Washington University; Mary 

Jo Aagerstoun, Small Business Administration; Betty Hart, Connie Price, and Dr. 

Sandra Carey, U.S. Department of the Navy; Mary Ann Largen, New Responses, 

Inc.; Dr. Gloria Levin, National Institute of Mental Health; and Leonard Slobodin 

and Betty Caplis of the MSPB Chicago office. 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

Review of Relevant Case Law 

Survey of the Literature

Major Views of Sexual Harassment

Study Design

Disclaimers and Cautions in Interpreting the Data

Presentation of the Report

2. VIEW OF FEDERAL WORKERS TOWARD SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Federal Workers' Definition of Sexual Harassment 

Motives and Sensitivity to Sexual Overtures

Different Behavior Is Expected of Supervisors

Federal Workers' Attitudes Toward Sexuality in the Workplace

Conclusion

3. EXTENT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE

Sexual Harassment Is Widespread

Women Are Sexually Harassed More than Men

Most Forms Of Harassment Are Common

Sexual Harassment Occurs Repeatedly

Incidents May Last Several Weeks or More
Sexual Harassment Is No Worse in Federal Workplace

Conclusion

4. VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Several Personal Characteristics Are Related to Sexual Harassment

Several Organizational Characteristics Are Related to Sexual Harassment

Other Organizational Characteristics Showed Little Relationship with Sexual 

Harassment

Victims See Their Work Environments Differently Than Non victims

Conclusion

5. PERPETRATORS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Harassers of Women Are Strikingly Similar

Harassers of Men Also Are Similar

Experiences of Men and Women Differ

Some Harassers Reported on Themselves

Conclusion

6. INCIDENTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Fear of Penalties and Expectation of Rewards

Assertive Responses Are the Most Effective

Talking with Others

Few File Formal Complaints

Response of Management

Conclusion

7. IMPACT AND COST OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Sexual Harassment Is Costly to the Federal Government

Work Situation of Most Victims Did Not Change

Well-Being and Morale of Many Victims Suffered

Victims Judged Their Own Work Performance and Productivity to Be Unaffected 

Victims Also Judged Their Workgroups to Be Unaffected

Conclusion

8. AWARENESS OF REMEDIES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

Awareness of Formal Remedies Is Not Great

Formal Remedies Are Not Seen as Effective 

Assertive Informal Remedies Are Seen as Most Effective

Management Can Help

Conclusion 
9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings 

Conclusions

What Is the Nature of Sexual Harassment? 

Implications

Recommendations

APPENDICES 

A. Methodology

B. Definitions of Terms

C. Survey Questionnaire and Cover Letters 

D. Additional Statistical Analyses

E. Official Policy Documents

1. Memoranda of Understanding

2. Office of Personnel Management Policy Statement and Definition of Sexual 

Harassment

3. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines on Discrimination 

Because of Sex

4. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Instructions for Prevention of 

Sexual Harassment in the Workforce Plans

F. Agency Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment

G. Survey of the Literature

H. Annotated Bibliography

TABLES 

2.1 Sexual Attitudes

4.1 Characteristics of Federal Workers Most Likely To Be Sexually Harassed On 

the Job 

4.2 Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment In Each Agency

4.3 Perceptions of Work Environment

7.1 Costs of Sexual Harassment

F.1 Summary of Agency Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment as of September 

1980

F.2 Summary of Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment Taken by 17 Agencies 

Named in Survey Questionnaire as of September 1980

FIGURES 

2.1 Definition of Sexual Harassment

3.1 Overall Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment

3.2 Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment Among Women and Men
3.3 Incidence Rate Among Various Forms of Sexual Harassment

3.4 Frequency of Sexual Harassment Incidents

4.1 Age of Victims

4.2 Marital Status of Victims

4.3 Education Level of Victims

4.4 Racial and Ethnic Background of Victims

4.5 Geographic Locations of Victims

4.6 Annual Salary of Victims

4.7 Job Classification of Victims

4.8 Traditionality of Jobs of Victims

4.9 Sex of Supervisor(s) of Victims

4.10 Sexual Composition of Victims' Work Groups

5.1 Sex of Harasser

5.2 Age of Harasser

5.3 Marital Status of Harasser

5.4 Ethnic Status of Harasser 

5.5 Organizational Level of Harasser 

5.6 Has the Harasser Bothered Others at Work? 

6.1 Perceived Penalties for Not Going Along

6.2 Perceived Benefits for Going Along 

6.3 Narrators' Informal Responses to Sexual Harassment 

6.4 Parties Contacted by Narrators

6.5 Narrators' Formal Responses to Sexual Harassment

6.6 Organizations' Responses to Formal Actions Taken by Narrators

7.1 Changes in Narrators' Work Situations as a Result of Sexual Harassment

7.2 Impact of Sexual Harassment on Narrators 

7.3 Impact of Sexual Harassment on the Morale and Productivity of Narrators' 

Immediate Work Groups 

8.1 Awareness of Formal Remedies

8.2 Reasons For Not Taking Formal Action

8.3 Perceived Effectiveness of Formal Remedies

8.4 Perceived Effectiveness of Individual Actions

8.5 Perceived Effectiveness of Management Actions

Executive Summary 

This Executive Summary provides in condensed form a summary of major 

recommendations and a review of the major findings on the views of Federal 

employees about sexual harassment, the extent of sexual harassment in the 

Federal workplace, a description of characteristics of victims and perpetrators of 

sexual harassment, a discussion of the perceptions and responses of victims to 

their incidents of sexual harassment, the impact of the behavior on the victims 

and the estimated dollar cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government, 

and views of Federal employees about potential remedies and their 

effectiveness. 
The full Final Report represents the culmination of approximately one year of 

original research and evaluation of the nature and extent of sexual harassment in 

the Federal Government. This study is the first scientifically controlled survey of 

this depth and breadth ever to be conducted on the subject of sexual 

harassment. To our knowledge it is also the first of its kind to be conducted with 

the full cooperation of the employer--in this case the Federal Government. 

The full report contains many recommendations that can be implemented by 

agency heads quickly and at relatively minimum cost. Copies of this study should 

be made available to all agency personnel offices, training officers, Equal 

Employment Opportunity officers and Federal Women's Program managers, to 

aid implementation of the recommendations. 

Background 

" Managers should be put on notice that a 'boys will be boys' atmosphere will not 

be condoned in any Federal agency. " James M. Hanley, former Chairman, 

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives. 

In recent years there has been growing discussion about the existence of sexual 

harassment at the workplace. Some maintain that it is an age-old problem, while 

others feel that it is a relatively new phenomenon that has emerged as more 

women enter the working world. There has been controversy about what 

constitutes sexual harassment, how widespread harassment is, and how serious 

its consequences are for employee well-being and productivity. 

Against this background, Chairman James M. Hanley and the Subcommittee on 

Investigations of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service of the United 

States House of Representatives conducted a preliminary investigation on sexual 

harassment in October and November of 1979. Although the investigation was 

limited to an examination of 100 complaints, the findings were serious enough to 

prompt the Subcommittee to ask the Merit Systems Protection Board to conduct 

a thorough and scientific survey of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. 

The Subcommittee wanted to find out if the results of their limited investigation 

would be borne out by a more extensive study. 

The preliminary results of the MSPB study were presented at follow-up hearings 

held by the House Subcommittee on September 25, 1980. The preliminary 

briefing focused on the series of questions mandated by the Subcommittee to be 

addressed in the survey. These were: 

What kinds of behavior constitute sexual harassment? Do the attitudes of men 

and women differ in this regard? 

1. To what degree does sexual harassment occur within the Federal 

workplace? What is the frequency? What are the manifestations? 
2. Are victims or perpetrators of sexual harassment found in disproportionate 

numbers within certain agencies, job classifications, geographic locations, 

racial categories, age brackets, educational levels, grade levels, etc.? 

3. What forms of express or implied lever age have been used by harassers 

to reward or punish their victims? 

4. What has been the impact of sexual harassment on its victims in terms of 

job turnover, work performance, physical and emotional condition, 

financial and career well-being? 

5. What effect has sexual harassment had on the morale or productivity of 

the immediate work group? 

6. Are victims of sexual harassment aware of available remedies? Do they 

have confidence in those remedies? 

Research Methodology 

To develop the study, the MSPB's Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies: 

• surveyed the current literature on the subject of sexual harassment, 

• consulted with a group of community workers, academic researchers, 

Federal officials, and a union representative on the content of the study, 

• reviewed applicable case law and Government regulations and related 

policy directives, plans, and training programs, and 

• reviewed various case testimonies, Congressional testimony, and 

previous research studies that had addressed the subject of sexual 

harassment. 

After extensive field testing on over 300 Federal employees and after making 

numerous revisions, the research team constructed a questionnaire designed to 

elicit answers to questions in the Congressional mandate. As directed by the 

House Subcommittee, the research team prepared the questionnaire on the 

basis of the Office of Personnel Management 's (OPM) definition of sexual 

harassment, i.e., deliberate or repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures or 

physical contact of a sexual nature that is considered to be unwelcome by the 

recipient. 

With the assistance of OPM, a disproportionately stratified random sample[1] 

was drawn from OPM 's Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) consisting of civilian 

employees in the Executive Branch. Four variables were selected to stratify the 

population. These were: sex, minority status, salary, and organization. Over 

23,000 men and women were surveyed in May 1980. Questionnaires were sent 

to respondents' homes to preserve their confidentiality and anonymity. The 

members of the sample were asked to base most of their answers on their work 

experience during the 24-month period from May 1978 to May 1980. A reminder 

postcard was sent one week later and a follow-up questionnaire was sent to non 

respondents three weeks after that. The rate of return of 85%--was considerably 

higher than usually expected on mail surveys.[2] 
Explanations of Frequently Used Terms 

Victims. In this executive summary, victims of sexual harassment are defined as 

those respondents who indicated (in either Survey Question 17 or Question 20) 

that they had experienced one or more forms of sexual harassment on the job 

during the preceding 24 months. All data is computed on the basis of Question 

17 except for those parts of the Questionnaire where respondents were asked to 

provide detailed data on one critical sexual harassment incident. For questions 

involving this critical incident, the data on victims was computed on the basis of 

Survey Question 20. In the final report, the victims who chose to describe their 

critical incident are referred to as "narrator-victims." 

Level of severity of sexual harassment. On the basis of preliminary analysis, 

sexual harassment experiences (identified by respondents to Survey Question 17 

or Question Survey 20) were classified as "most severe," "severe," or "less 

severe." Those considered "most severe" --were actual or attempted rape or 

assault; "severe"--included letters, phone calls or materials of a sexual nature; 

pressure for sexual favors; and deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering or 

pinching; and "less severe" included pressure for dates; sexually suggestive 

looks or gestures; and sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions. 

Findings 

Summary 

The following major findings emerged from the study: 

• Both men and women Federal workers generally agree that uninvited 

behaviors of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. 

• The incidence rate of sexual harassment in the Federal workforce is 

widespread--42% of all female employees and 15% of all male employees 

reported being sexually harassed. 

• Many sexual harassment incidents occur repeatedly and are of relatively 

long duration. 

• The majority of Federal employees who had worked elsewhere feel sexual 

harassment is no worse in the Federal workplace than in state and local 

governments or in the private sector. 

• Sexual harassment is widely distributed among women and men of 

various backgrounds, positions and locations; however individuals with 

certain personal and organizational characteristics are more likely to be 

sexually harassed than others. 

• The characteristics of harassers differ for women and men victims--for 

example, women report almost always being harassed by a man, whereas 

men report usually being harassed by a woman. 

• Many harassers are reported to have bothered more than one victim at 

work. 
• Few employees report having been accused of sexually harassing others. 

• Those who are sexually harassed by supervisors and those who 

experience the more severe forms of sexual harassment are more likely 

than other victims to foresee penalties or possible benefits from the sexual 

harassment. 

• Most victims neither anticipated nor receive adverse consequences as a 

result of their sexual harassment, although a sizeable minority did, 

particularly women. 

• A number of informal actions were found by victims to be effective in 

stopping sexual harassment, particularly the most direct and assertive 

responses. 

• Few victims pursue formal remedies, but many who do find them helpful. 

• The impact and cost of sexual harassment in dollars to the Federal 

Government is sizeable--an estimated minimum of $189 million over the 2-

year period covered by the study. 

• Although their experiences do not change the careers and work situations 

of most victims, a sizeable number of women and men do leave their jobs 

or suffer adverse consequences. 

• Victims are more likely to think the sexual harassment negatively affected 

their personal well-being or morale than their work performance or that of 

their immediate work group. 

• Victims and supervisors are generally unaware of available formal 

remedies and are skeptical about their effectiveness. 

• Assertive informal actions are thought to be the most effective way 

employees can make others stop bothering them sexually. 

• Most victims and supervisors think there is much management can do to 

reduce sexual harassment. 

• In conclusion, the data show that sexual harassment is widespread, is 

costly, deeply felt by many of the victims, and that the 1979 Congressional 

investigation was indicative of a significant problem; however, the data 

also indicated that there is much that can be done to reduce that problem. 

View of Federal Workers Toward Sexual Harassment 

To determine whether men and women defined sexual harassment differently, 

they were asked whether they considered uninvited sexually-oriented behaviors 

to be sexual harassment. These behaviors, ranked in order of agreement were: 

Severe 

1. Letters, phone calls or materials of a sexual nature 

2. Pressure for sexual favors 

3. Touching, leaning over, cornering or pinching 

Less Severe 
4. Pressure for dates 

5. Sexually suggestive looks or gestures 

6. Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions 

From the responses, we found that most men and women agreed that behaviors 

1-4 constituted sexual harassment. However, men were less likely to think that 

"sexual looks" and "sexual comments," the more ambiguous and prevalent forms 

of sexual behavior on the job, were sexual harassment, particularly when 

perpetrated by a coworker. Respondents were not asked whether they thought 

that actual or attempted rape or assault was sexual harassment. Since this 

behavior is potentially criminal, we assumed that it is the most severe form of 

sexual harassment. 

Generally, men and women were more likely to think that a behavior was sexual 

harassment if the perpetrator was a supervisor rather than a coworker. Thus, it 

would appear that a higher standard of conduct exists for supervisors to exhibit 

proper behavior in the office, arguably because of their official authority and 

responsibilities. 

Although in the abstract men and women were likely to agree that uninvited 

sexual behavior at work is sexual harassment, responses may indicate that 

sexual harassment is sometimes situational. For most workers, including those 

who identified themselves as victims, the perceived motive or demeanor of the 

initiator made a difference as to whether the behavior was viewed as sexual 

harassment. 

A number of questions were asked to find how respondents viewed sexual 

behavior at work. We found that both men and women believed that sexual 

activity, whether voluntary or otherwise, should not occur between people who 

work together, although women were less likely to approve of sexual affairs 

among coworkers than were men. We found that men, including supervisors, 

showed a greater tendency than women to think that victims are somewhat 

responsible for bringing sexual harassment on themselves and are inclined to 

believe that sexual harassment has been exaggerated. However, men and 

women agreed that sexual harassment is behavior that people should not have 

to tolerate. 

Extent of Sexual Harassment 

To determine how widespread sexual harassment is in the Federal workplace, 

respondents were asked whether they had experienced any of the seven listed 

behaviors within the finite time frame of the previous 24 months (May 1978 to 

May 1980), and how often the experience occurred. 

From this we found that one in four Federal employees reported receiving 

uninvited and unwanted sexual attention, and that women, as expected, were 
much more likely to be victims than were men. Almost half--(42%) of all female 

Federal employees and only 15% of all male employees reported being sexually 

harassed. Although the percentage for men is lower in comparison to women, it 

nevertheless is much higher than previously expected. 

Definition of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Male and Female Federal Employees Who Agreed that Each of 

Six Forms of Unwanted, Uninvited

Sexual Attention Constitutes Sexual Harassment (Questions 2-7, b & d) (text 

alternative)

 SEVERE LESS SEVERE

IF A 

SUPERVIS

OR DID 

THIS 

 

Letters 

and

Calls

Pressure 

for 

Sexual 

Favors 

Deliberate

Touching 

Pressure 

for

Dates

Suggestive 

Looks 

Sexual

Remarks 

IF 

ANOTHER 

WORKER 

DID THIS 

 

NOTE: Percentages are based on "Probably Yes" and 

"Definitely Yes" responses to questions. WOMEN MEN 

 
Whether both men and women define the unwanted behavior that they received 

in the same way is debatable. Other studies have shown that men and women 

view their sex roles very differently and use language in different ways to 

describe sexual behavior. Again, it should be pointed out that the sexual 

harassment as reported here is based upon data provided by the victims 

themselves. If sexual attention was neither unwanted (nor uninvited) by the 

recipient, it presumably was not reported. 

The sexual harassment as reported by the victims took many forms. Every form 

except actual or attempted rape or sexual assault was experienced by a sizeable 

percentage of both men and women. The more ambiguous forms of sexual 

harassment--"sexual comments" and "suggestive looks "--were reported most 

often. These forms were more likely to be repeated. 

However, with the exception of actual or attempted rape or assault, most of the 

victims reported experiencing all forms of sexual harassment repeatedly. In 

addition, many reported experiencing more than one form of sexual harassment. 

We also found that the incidents of sexual harassment were not just passing 

events--most lasted more than a week, and many lasted longer than 6 months. 

Thus, not only did the sexual harassment occur repeatedly, it was of relatively 

long duration as well. 

Incidence Rate Among Various Forms of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Female and Male Federal Employees Who Experienced Each 

Form of Sexual Harassment 

Between May 1978 and May 1980 (Question 17) 

Reported by 33% of 

Women Sexual Remarks 

Reported by 10% of 

Men 

Reported by 28% of 

Women Suggestive Looks Reported by 8% of 

Men 

Reported by 26% of 

Women 

LESS 

SEVERE 

Pressure for Dates 

Reported by 7% of 

Men 

Reported by 15% of 

Women SEVERE 

Deliberate Touching Reported by 3% of 

Men 
Reported by 9% of 

Pressure for Sexual Women 

Favors Reported by 2% of 

Men 

Reported by 9% of 

Women Letters and Calls 

Reported by 3% of 

Men 

Reported by 1% of 

MOST Women 

SEVERE 

Actual or Attempted Rape 

or Assault Reported by 0.3% of 

Men 

Note: Many respondents indicated that they experience 

more than one form of sexual harassment. 

To view the incidence rate of sexual harassment in context, we asked 

respondents who had worked outside the Federal Government to compare the 

Federal Government with other workplaces. The majority of respondents stated 

that they felt sexual harassment was no worse in the Federal workplace than in 

state and local government or in the private sector. 

Victims of Sexual Harassment 

To determine who is sexually harassed and whether certain personal and 

organizational factors contributed to the likelihood of harassment, we looked at a 

number of demographic variables. Demographic characteristics of victims that 

seem to have a strong bearing on whether or not an individual is harassed are: 

age, marital status, and sexual (male-female) composition of the workgroup. 

Those factors that seem to have a somewhat weaker bearing are education 

level, race, ethnic background, job classification, nontraditional nature of job, and 

sex of immediate supervisor. Based on these factors, we found that the typical 

men and women who are likely to be harassed are: 

• young, 

• not married, 

• higher educated, 

• members of a minority, racial or ethnic group (if male), 

• hold trainee positions (or office/clerical positions, if male), 

• hold nontraditional positions, for their sex, (e.g., female law enforcement 

officers, male secretaries), 

• have an immediate supervisor of the opposite sex, 

• have an immediate work group composed predominately of the opposite 

sex. 
We also found that certain agencies have a greater incidence rate than do 

others. Women in the Departments of Labor, Transportation, Justice, certain 

Defense Department agencies[3] (other than the Air Force, Army, Navy and 

Marine Corps), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Air Force, Navy/Marine 

Corps, Veterans Administration and other smaller agencies[4] had a higher rate 

of sexual harassment than those in other agencies. Men (as well as women) in 

the Departments of Justice and HUD and the Veterans Administration, and men 

in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the General Services 

Administration also reported rates higher than the Federal-wide average. 

Age of Victims

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Ages Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment (Question 61)

Ages 16-19 

Reported by 67% of 

Women 

Reported by 27% of 

Men 

Ages 20-24 

Reported by 59% of 

Women 

Reported by 20% of 

Men 

Ages 25-

34

Reported by 53% of 

Women 

Reported by 18% of 

Men 

Ages 35-

44

Reported by 43% of 

Women 

Reported by 14% of 

Men 

Ages 45-

54

Reported by 33% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Ages 55 

and older 

Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment 

Reported by 22% of 

Women 

Reported by 12% of 

Men 

 

Marital Status of Victims

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment, by 

Marital Status (Question 62)
Single 

Reported by 53% of 

Women 

Reported by 22% of 

Men 

Divorced 

Reported by 49% of 

Women 

Reported by 21% of 

Men 

Married

Reported by 37% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Widowed

Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment 

Reported by 31% of 

Women 

Reported by 30% of 

Men 

 

Education Level of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Education Levels Who 

Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 60) 

Less than high 

school diploma 

Reported by 31% of 

Women 

Reported by 8% of 

Men 

High School 

diploma or GED 

(Graduate 

Equivalency 

Degree)

Reported by 35% of 

Women 

Reported by 11% of 

Men 

High school 

diploma plus 

technical training 

or apprenticeship 

Reported by 39% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Some college 

Reported by 45% of 

Women 

Reported by 17% of 

Men 

Graduated from 

college (B.A., 

B.S., or other 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment 

Reported by 50% of 

Women 

Reported by 14% of 
bachelor's 

degree 

Men 

Some graduate 

school 

Reported by 53% of 

Women 

Reported by 15% of 

Men 

Graduate or 

professional 

degree 

Reported by 48% of 

Women 

Reported by 17% of 

Men 

Racial and Ethnic Background of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Racial and Ethnic Backgrounds 

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 59)

Other 

Reported by 48% of 

Women 

Reported by 27% of 

Men 

Hispanic 

Reported by 45% of 

Women 

Reported by 19% of 

Men 

White, not of

Hispanic origin

Reported by 43% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Black, not of

Hispanic origin

Reported by 43% of 

Women 

Reported by 21% of 

Men 

Asian or Pacific 

Islander

Reported by 36% of 

Women 

Reported by 16% of 

Men 

American Indian 

or Alaskan native 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment

Reported by 35% of 

Women 

Reported by 22% of 

Men 

 
Job Classification of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Job Classifications Who 

Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 57) 

Trainee 

Reported by 51% of 

Women 

Reported by 16% of 

Men 

Professional, 

technical 

Reported by 45% of 

Women 

Reported by 15% of 

Men 

Administration, 

management 

Reported by 42% of 

Women 

Reported by 15% of 

Men 

Other 

Reported by 42% of 

Women 

Reported by 14% of 

Men 

Office, clerical 

Reported by 40% of 

Women 

Reported by 17% of 

Men 

Blue collar, 

service 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment 

Reported by 38% of 

Women 

Reported by 12% of 

Men 

 

Traditionality of Jobs of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Traditional and Nontraditional Jobs For 

Their Sex Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 52)

Nontraditional 

job 

Reported by 53% of 

Women 

Reported by 20% of 

Men 

Traditional 

job 

Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment Reported by 41% of 

Women 

Reported by 14% of 

Men 
 

Sex of Supervisor(s) of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment, by Sex 

of Immediate Supervisor(s) (Question 50)

Male supervisor 

Reported by 45% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Male and female 

supervisors 

Reported by 44% of 

Women 

Reported by 25% of 

Men 

Female 

supervisor 

Reported by 38% of 

Women 

Reported by 23% of 

Men 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment 

 

Sexual Composition of Victims' Work Groups

Percentage of Federal Employees in Different Kinds of Work Groups Who 

Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 51) 

All men 

Reported by 55% of 

Women 

Reported by 8% of 

Men 

Predominately 

men 

Reported by 49% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Equal number of 

men and women 

Reported by 43% of 

Women 

Reported by 19% of 

Men 

Predominately 

women 

Reported by 37% of 

Women 

Reported by 22% of 

Men 

All women Reported by 22% of 

Women 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment 
Reported by 22% of 

Men 

 

Sex of Harasser

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Sex of the Person(s) Who 

Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32a) 

Male 

Reported by 

79% of 

Women 

Reported by 

18% of Men 

Two or 

more males 

Reported by 

16% of 

Women 

Reported by 

4% of Men 

Both males 

and 

females 

Reported by 

2% of Women 

Reported by 

6% of Men 

Female 

Reported by 

2% of Women 

Reported by 

60% of Men 

Two or 

more 

females 

Reported by 

1% of Women 

Reported by 

12% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Unknown 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

1% of Women 

Reported by 

0.3% of Men 

In addition, we found that certain work environments were more conducive to 

sexual harassment than were others. 

Victims were more likely to report being in work environments where employees 

did not perceive open communications or a good relationship with their 

supervisors, felt pressure to engage in sexual activity such as flirting or making 
comments about the opposite sex, and observed others using sex for 

professional advancement. 

In addition, victims were much more likely than supervisors to perceive that 

sexual harassment is a problem in their offices and to think that management is 

not making every effort to stop sexual harassment. 

Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment 

We found that most women reported that their harassers were male and that 

most men indicated that their harassers were female. However, men were far 

more likely than women to report being harassed by someone of their same sex. 

Most harassers of women and men reportedly acted alone rather than in concert 

with another person. However, most women identified their harasser as being 

older than they, whereas men usually indicated that their harasser was usually 

younger than they. Although both women and men reported that their harasser 

was usually married, men were more likely to indicate that their harasser was 

divorced or single. Most victims in general reported being harassed by someone 

of their same race or ethnic background, although minority women were more 

likely to report that their harasser was of a different race or ethnicity. 

Age of Harasser

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Age of the Person(s) Who 

Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32b) 

Older 

Reported by 

68% of 

Women 

Reported by 

29% of Men 

Younger 

Reported by 

12% of 

Women 

Reported by 

38% of Men 

Same 

Reported by 

11% of 

Women 

Reported by 

18% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Various 

Ages 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

7% of Women 

Reported by 

12% of Men 
Unknown 

Reported by 

2% of Women 

Reported by 

3% of Men 

Marital Status of Harasser

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Marital Status of the Person(s) 

Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32d) 

Married 

Reported by 

67% of 

Women 

Reported by 

35% of Men 

Mixed 

Reported by 

9% of Women 

Reported by 

14% of Men 

Unknown 

Reported by 

9% of Women 

Reported by 

7% of Men 

Single 

Reported by 

8% of Women 

Reported by 

20% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Divorced, 

Separated, 

Widowed 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

7% of Women 

Reported by 

25% of Men 

One surprising finding was that women and men reported being harassed by 

fellow employees more often than by supervisors. This finding was surprising in 

that, before the study, most sexual harassment was thought to be perpetrated by 

the more powerful supervisors against their more vulnerable employees. 

However, a sizeable number of women also reported being harassed by 

supervisors. Thus, supervisors were found to be personally responsible for a 

number of sexual harassment incidents, although not the principal cause of the 

problem. However, supervisors as part of their duties have a responsibility to 

assure that their subordinates work in an environment free from sexual 

harassment in keeping with Federal policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the 

Federal workplace. 
Another major finding was that many women and men reported that their 

harasser had also bothered others at work. This somewhat negates the view that 

sexual harassment is principally a matter of isolated instances of personal sexual 

attraction. Thus it appears that some individuals are more likely to harass than 

others and that sexual harassment is not necessarily normal interaction among 

men and women on the job, or that all men and women engage in it as has been 

intimated by some. 

Only a handful of respondents indicated that they had been accused of sexually 

bothering someone else at work, and most thought that the charge was unfair. 

This could indicate that few victims confront their harassers or that many 

accused harassers are unwilling to identify themselves even in the privacy of an 

anonymous questionnaire. 

Ethnic Status of Harasser

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Ethnic Status of the Person(s) 

Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32c) 

Same 

Reported by 

63% of 

Women 

Reported by 

68% of Men 

Different 

Reported by 

26% of 

Women 

Reported by 

17% of Men 

Some the 

Same and 

Some 

Different 

Reported by 

9% of Women 

Reported by 

12% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Unknown 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

2% of Women 

Reported by 

3% of Men 

Organizational Level of Harasser

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Identified the Organizational Level of the 

Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 33) 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF Coworker 

or Other 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually Reported by 

63% of 
Employee Women 

Reported by 

76% of Men 

Immediate 

Supervisor 

or Other 

Supervisor

Reported by 

37% of 

Women 

Reported by 

14% of Men 

Unknown 

Reported by 

6% of Women 

Reported by 

5% of Men 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Subordinate

Reported by 

4% of Women 

Reported by 

16% of Men 

NOTE: Some respondents 

indicated that more than one 

party bothered them. 

Incidents of Sexual Harassment 

We found that although most victims did not foresee consequences for resisting 

or complying with the sexual harassment, both the organizational level of the 

harasser in relation to the victim and the severity of the sexual harassment made 

a major difference in the victims' perceptions of the use of leverage. 

Victims who were harassed by immediate or higher level supervisors were more 

likely to foresee negative consequences for refusing to comply and incentives for 

complying with the sexual harassment than those who were harassed by 

coworkers or other employees. Likewise, those who were victims of "most 

severe" and "severe" sexual harassment were much more likely than those who 

were victims of "less severe " harassment to perceive that carrots and sticks 

were being used against them to comply with the behavior. 

We also looked at how victims responded to their sexual harassment. Most 

victims stated that they responded to the sexual harassment by passively 

ignoring it. However, the most effective actions for most victims to take were 

found to be the most assertive actions--"asking or telling the person to stop" or 

"reporting the behavior to the supervisor or other officials." The least effective 

actions were found to be the most passive--"going along with the behavior" or 

"ignoring it." The effectiveness level for various actions differed somewhat with 

the sex of the victim and severity of the sexual harassment. 
However, it should be pointed out that although reporting the behavior to a 

supervisor or other officials was found to produce better results compared with 

other informal actions, around half of the women and only one-third of the men 

who tried this found that it made no difference or made things worse. This 

indicates that much still needs to be done to make supervisors and other officials 

accountable for resolving these problems informally. 

Another indication of the need to make supervisors and other officials more 

responsive to the problem of sexual harassment is the finding that talking with 

these officials did not help the situation in the majority of cases. Talking with a 

party outside the agency such as a lawyer, civil rights group, someone from 

Congress, or other agency official, was found to be most successful for the few 

male and female victims of "most severe" sexual harassment and female victims 

of "less severe" sexual harassment who tried it. Most workers did not talk with 

any one about their incident and when they did, they usually spoke with friends 

and relatives or other workers. 

Narrators' Informal Responses to Sexual Harassment

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated that Taking These Informal Actions 

"Made Things Better" (Question 23) 

Transferred, disciplined or 

gave a poor performance 

rating to the person 

reported by 72% 

of women 

and 9% of men 

Asked or told the person(s) to 

stop 

reported by 40% 

of women 

and 13% of men 

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

reported by 57% 

of women 

and 11% of men 

Avoided the person(s) reported by 20% 

of women 

and 32% of men 

Made a joke of the behavior reported by 52% 

of women 

and 7% of men 

Threatened to tell or told other 

workers 

reported by 30% 

of women 

and 19% of men 

Ignored the behavior or did 

nothing 

reported by 12% 

of women 

and 27% of men 

VICTIMS OF 

MOST 

SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Went along with the behavior reported by 14% 

of women 

and 46% of men 
Transferred, disciplined or 

gave a poor performance 

rating to the person 

reported by 79% 

of women 

and 87% of men 

Asked or told the person(s) to 

stop 

reported by 53% 

of women 

and 69% of men 

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

reported by 54% 

of women 

and 46% of men 

Avoided the person(s) reported by 42% 

of women 

and 51% of men 

Made a joke of the behavior reported by 32% 

of women 

and 45% of men 

Threatened to tell or told other 

workers 

reported by 36% 

of women 

and 29% of men 

Ignored the behavior or did 

nothing 

reported by 24% 

of women 

and 41% of men 

VICTIMS OF 

SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Went along with the behavior reported by 3% 

of women 

and 32% of men 

Transferred, disciplined or 

gave a poor performance 

rating to the person 

reported by 59% 

of women 

and 33% of men 

Asked or told the person(s) to 

stop 

reported by 60% 

of women 

and 68% of men 

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

reported by 52% 

of women 

and 17% of men 

Avoided the person(s) reported by 54% 

of women 

and 58% of men 

Made a joke of the behavior reported by 43% 

of women 

and 57% of men 

Threatened to tell or told other 

workers 

reported by 36% 

of women 

and 21% of men 

VICTIMS OF 

LESS SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Ignored the behavior or did reported by 36% 
nothing of women 

and 45% of men 

Went along with the behavior reported by 18% 

of women 

and 13% of men 

Transferred, disciplined or 

gave a poor performance 

rating to the person 

reported by 74% 

of women 

and 56% of men 

Asked or told the person(s) to 

stop 

reported by 54% 

of women 

and 67% of men 

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

reported by 53% 

of women 

and 35% of men 

Avoided the person(s) reported by 45% 

of women 

and 53% of men 

Made a joke of the behavior reported by 36% 

of women 

and 49% of men 

Threatened to tell or told other 

workers 

reported by 35% 

of women 

and 24% of men 

Ignored the behavior or did 

nothing 

reported by 28% 

of women 

and 42% of men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Went along with the behavior reported by 8% 

of women 

and 25% of men 

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that they took more than 

one formal action. 

 

Narrators' Informal Responses to Sexual Harassment

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated that Taking These Informal Actions 

"Made Things Better" (Question 28) 

Requested an investigation by 

victim's organization 

reported by 84% 

of women 

and 28% of men 

VICTIMS OF 

MOST 

SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filed a discrimination 

complaint or lawsuit 

reported by 81% 

of women 
and 26% of men 

Requested an investigation by 

an outside agency 

reported by 92% 

of women 

and 100% of 

men 

Filed a grievance or adverse 

action appeal 

reported by 0% 

of women 

and 26% of men 

Requested an investigation by 

victim's organization 

reported by 73% 

of women 

and 50% of men 

Filed a discrimination 

complaint or lawsuit 

reported by 52% 

of women 

and 15% of men 

Requested an investigation by 

an outside agency 

reported by 27% 

of women 

and 0% of men 

VICTIMS OF 

SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filed a grievance or adverse 

action appeal 

reported by 31% 

of women 

and 43% of men 

Requested an investigation by 

victim's organization 

reported by 44% 

of women 

and 0% of men 

Filed a discrimination 

complaint or lawsuit 

reported by 90% 

of women 

and 0% of men 

Requested an investigation by 

an outside agency 

reported by 52% 

of women 

and 100% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF 

LESS SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Filed a grievance or adverse 

action appeal 

reported by 85% 

of women 

and 0% of men 

Requested an investigation by 

victim's organization 

reported by 70% 

of women 

and 29% of men 

Filed a discrimination 

complaint or lawsuit 

reported by 66% 

of women 

and 12% of men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Requested an investigation by 

an outside agency 

reported by 58% 

of women 

and 100% of 

men 
Filed a grievance or adverse 

action appeal 

reported by 45% 

of women 

and 33% of men 

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that they took more than 

one formal action. 

Costs of Sexual Harassment 

Job Turnover Women Men Total

Cost to offer a 

job[1] 

$ 6.4 $ 1.2 $ 7.6

Background 

checks[2] 

2.0 0.4 2.4

Training[3] 24.1 2.7 26.8

Total Cost of Job 

Turnover 

$ 22.5 $ 4.3 $ 

26.8

Emotional Stress 3.9 2.1 5.0

Individual 

Productivity 

37.7 34.4 72.1

Absenteeism 5.3 2.6 7.9

Work Group 

Productivity 

32.6 44.3 76.9

TOTALS $ 102.0 $ 

86.7

$ 

188.7

1 Source: Office of 

Program 

Management and 

Evaluation, Office of 

Personnel 

Management 

2 Source: Division 

of Personnel 

Investigations, 

Office of Personnel 

Management 

3 Source: 

"Employee 

Training in the 

Federal ServiceFY 1979," 

published by the 

Office of Personnel 

Management, 

Workforce 

Effectiveness and 

Development 

Office. 

We found that very few victims took formal institutional remedies against the 

sexual harassment--only 2 to 3%. The majority who took formal actions reported 

that their doing so made things better. This would indicate that in contrast to the 

lack of faith in formal remedies expressed by most respondents in Chapter 8, the 
system does work for some. However, a sizeable minority (41%) indicated that 

filing the formal action either had no effect or in fact made things worse. 

In addition, victims in general reported a mixed response from management to 

their formal complaints, although the response of management seemed to 

depend somewhat on the sex of victim and the severity of the harassment. 

Generally, victims were more likely to find a favorable' management response 

than a hostile one. However, male victims were more likely to encounter hostility 

than were women and few victims of either sex reported that management 

"corrected the damage done to them." 

Impact and Cost of Sexual Harassment 

We found that a conservative estimate of the cost to the Federal Government 

due to sexual harassment over the two-year period was $189 million--a sum 

equivalent to the total salaries of all 465 agency heads and all 7000 senior 

Federal executives (members of the Senior Executive Service) for six months. 

The greatest costs were associated with the loss of individual and workgroup 

productivity as reported by the victims. These figures are conservative for three 

reasons: 

• Victims were far less likely to report a decline in their productivity than a 

decline in their physical or emotional well-being. Since physical or 

emotional well-being may in fact affect productivity, the number of victims 

who reported a drop in productivity may actually be closer to the larger 

number who stated that their emotional or physical condition declined. 

Thus, the numbers used to compute the loss due to individual productivity 

are probably low. 

• We assumed that where reported, individual productivity declined by only 

10%. 

• We assumed that where reported, work group productivity declined by 

only 1%. 

We also found that most victims reported that their careers and work situations 

did not change as a result of their sexual harassment experience, although a 

sizeable minority of women and men reported adverse consequences, such as 

leaving their jobs. Although most women and men victims in general indicated 

that their sexual harassment experience did not negatively affect their personal 

well-being or work performance, this varied with the severity of the harassment. 

Victims of the more severe forms of sexual harassment were more likely to report 

adverse effects. The adverse effects were particularly dramatic for the victims of 

"most severe" sexual harassment. 

As stated above, most women and men were much more likely to perceive that 

their sexual harassment experience affected their personal well-being or morale 
than their work performance or productivity. Again, this finding may be one of 

perception. 

In contrast to the reported effect on the individuals themselves, we found that few 

victims felt that the morale or productivity of their immediate work groups were 

negatively affected by their sexual harassment experiences. One reason for this 

may be that few coworkers knew about the experience and its effects on the 

victim since only about one-third of the victims reported that they spoke with 

coworkers about the incident. 

Awareness of Remedies and Their Effectiveness 

To discover whether victims and supervisors were even aware of formal 

remedies for sexual harassment, we asked whether they believed that the 

following actions were available to those who had been sexually bothered by 

others: 

• requesting an investigation by the organization 

• requesting an investigation by an outside organization 

• filing a grievance or adverse action appeal 

• filing a discrimination complaint 

• filing a complaint through special channels set up for sexual harassment 

complaints 

Although most of these actions are in fact available to most employees, we found 

that most victims and supervisors were relatively unaware of them. The one 

remedy about which the respondents were most knowledgeable was "filing a 

discrimination complaint." 

When we asked respondents whether they thought those same formal remedies 

were effective in helping victims of sexual harassment, we found that relatively 

few victims or supervisors thought that the formal remedies would definitely be 

effective. 

However, to the largest number of victims, particularly those who have not 

experienced the most severe form of sexual harassment, filing a formal complaint 

simply may not be an appropriate response. They prefer to handle the situation 

informally. Most victims indicated that they "saw no need to report" the incident 

as a reason for not filing a formal complaint. However, the female and to a lesser 

extent the male victims of the more severe forms of sexual harassment were 

much less likely to cite this reason for not taking a formal action than fear of 

adverse consequences or belief that nothing would be done. 

In contrast to the somewhat pessimistic view of formal remedies, most Federal 

workers believe that employees successfully can take informal steps to stop the 

unwanted sexual attention. Both victims and supervisors most often endorsed 
direct assertive actions by the employees as being effective in stopping 

unwanted sexual attention. In contrast, few respondents thought that there was 

little an employee could do about the situation. 

In addition, most Federal workers also think that there is much that management 

can do to reduce sexual harassment. Management actions involving tougher 

sanctions and enforcement generally were endorsed most often. However, a 

majority of victims and supervisors also endorsed actions involving publicizing 

management policies on sexual harassment. Women were more likely than men 

to endorse actions intended to help victims cope with the problem, such as 

setting up a special counseling service. 

Conclusions 

From these findings the following five general conclusions can be drawn about 

sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. This Final Report provides 

explanations for these conclusions. 

1. Sexual harassment is a legitimate problem in the Federal workplace. 

2. In the past, agency managers have not been as successful as they could 

be in resolving problems of sexual harassment. 

3. There is much that management can do about the problem of sexual 

harassment in the future. 

4. There are effective actions that victims can take to solve the problem of 

sexual harassment. 

5. Sexual harassment by its nature and in its various forms has differing 

effects on victims. 

Perceived Effectiveness of Individual Actions 

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Employee Actions Would 

Stop Sexual Harassment (Question 10) 

Asking or telling 

the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 78% 

of women and 

61% of men 

Reporting the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 66% 

of women and 

59% of men 

Filing a formal 

complaint 

Reported by 48% 

of women and 

48% of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Ignoring the Reported by 50% 
behavior of women and 

50% of men 

Avoiding the 

person(s) 

Reported by 50% 

of women and 

34% of men 

There is very little 

employees can do 

Reported by 19% 

of women and 

28% of men 

Threatening to tell 

or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 17% 

of women and 

18% of men 

Asking or telling 

the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 87% 

of women and 

82% of men 

Reporting the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 68% 

of women and 

70% of men 

Filing a formal 

complaint 

Reported by 52% 

of women and 

61% of men 

Ignoring the 

behavior 

Reported by 48% 

of women and 

44% of men 

Avoiding the 

person(s) 

Reported by 48% 

of women and 

42% of men 

There is very little 

employees can do 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 5% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Threatening to tell 

or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 15% 

of women and 

17% of men 

Asking or telling 

the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 83% 

of women and 

84% of men 

Reporting the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 71% 

of women and 

72% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filing a formal 

complaint 

Reported by 55% 

of women and 

56% of men 
Ignoring the 

behavior 

Reported by 45% 

of women and 

45% of men 

Avoiding the 

person(s) 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 

39% of men 

There is very little 

employees can do 

Reported by 5% of 

women and 5% of 

men 

Threatening to tell 

or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 16% 

of women and 

21% of men 

Asking or telling 

the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 85% 

of women, 83% of 

men, 86% of 

supervisory 

women, and 85% 

of supervisory men 

Reporting the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 69% 

of women, 71% of 

men, 71% of 

supervisory 

women, and 78% 

of supervisory men 

Filing a formal 

complaint 

Reported by 53% 

of women, 59% of 

men, 49% of 

supervisory 

women, and 57% 

of supervisory men 

Ignoring the 

behavior 

Reported by 47% 

of women, 45% of 

men, 49% of 

supervisory 

women, and 42% 

of supervisory men 

Avoiding the 

person(s) 

Reported by 47% 

of women, 41% of 

men, 45% of 

supervisory 

women, and 40% 

of supervisory men 

VICTIMS OF ALL 

FORMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT AND 

SUPERVISORS 

There is very little 

employees can do 

Reported by 9% of 

women, 5% of 
men, 6% of 

supervisory 

women, and 2% of 

supervisory men 

Threatening to tell 

or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 16% 

of women, 19% of 

men, 13% of 

supervisory 

women, and 19% 

of supervisory men 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated more than one action would 

be effective. 

 

Perceived Effectiveness of Management Actions

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Management Actions 

Regarding Sexual Harassment Would Be Effective (Question 11) 

Conduct swift and 

thorough 

investigations of 

complaints of sexual 

harassment 

Perceived effective 

action by 77% of 

women, 71% of 

men, 81% of female 

supervisors, and 

78% of male 

supervisors 

Enforce penalties 

against managers 

who knowingly allow 

this behavior to 

continue 

Perceived effective 

action by 59% of 

workmen, 61% of 

men, 62% of female 

supervisors, and 

60% of male 

supervisors 

Enforce penalties 

against those who 

sexually bother 

others 

Perceived effective 

action by 74% of 

workmen, 71% of 

men, 71% of female 

supervisors, and 

74% of male 

supervisors 

IMPOSING 

TOUGHER 

SANCTIONS AND 

STRICTER 

ENFORCEMENT 

Publicize the 

availability of formal 

complaint channels 

Perceived effective 

action by 63% of 

workmen, 63% of 

men, 67% of female 

supervisors, and 
60% of male 

supervisors 

There is very little 

that management 

can do to reduce 

sexual harassment 

on the job 

Perceived effective 

action by 69% of 

workmen, 69% of 

men, 75% of female 

supervisors, and 

73% of male 

supervisors PUBLICIZING 

MANAGEMENT 

POLICY Provide training for 

managers and EEO 

officials on their 

responsibilities for 

decreasing sexual 

harassment 

Perceived effective 

action by 61% of 

workmen, 57% of 

men, 65% of female 

supervisors, and 

57% of male 

supervisors 

Establish a special 

counseling service 

for those who 

experience sexual 

harassment 

Perceived effective 

action by 44% of 

workmen, 37% of 

men, 44% of female 

supervisors, and 

37% of male 

HELPING VICTIMS supervisors 

COPE 

Provide awareness 

training for 

employees on sexual 

harassment 

Perceived effective 

action by 53% of 

workmen, 43% of 

men, 54% of female 

supervisors, and 

43% of male 

supervisors 

NOTHING CAN BE 

DONE 

Establish and 

publicize policies 

which prohibit 

sexual harassment 

Perceived effective 

action by 6% of 

workmen, 5% of 

men, 3% of female 

supervisors, and 

4% of male 

supervisors 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated more than one action would 

be effective. 

Recommendations 

The final report goes into more detail regarding the recommendations that are 

summarized here. It is strongly urged that these recommendations be 

implemented as both a cost savings measure and one designed to produce a 
positive work atmosphere where morale and productivity can prosper. These 

recommendations can be incorporated within current mechanisms without undue 

expense to the Government. 

For the few who choose to pursue formal remedies, the complaint channels need 

to be responsive to their needs. However, because of the sensitivity of the issue, 

most victims have not and probably will not in the future take formal actions to 

stop sexual harassment. The most effective way to aid these individuals and 

have the greatest impact on reducing most instances of sexual harassment is to 

take steps to prevent sexual harassment in the first place and to help victims 

handle the situation informally. 

Of the following recommendations, the first two are remedial in nature, the 

second two preventive, the fifth, designed to assist victims and the last designed 

to monitor compliance and provide follow-up. 

1. Agencies should provide strong and effective enforcement against sexual 

harassment and issue sanctions where appropriate. 

2. Complaint channels for sexual harassment should be clarified and 

streamlined. 

3. Managers and other agency officials should be made aware of their 

responsibilities and held accountable for enforcing Federal Government 

and agency policy prohibiting sexual harassment at the Federal 

workplace. 

4. Agencies should develop a training strategy to aid in preventing sexual 

harassment. 

5. Agencies should provide information to victims on effective techniques for 

resolving incidents of sexual harassment. 

6. A number of other activities should be instituted to assure compliance with 

law and regulation, as well as to provide follow up to this study both within 

the Federal Government and in the other public and private sectors. 

Conclusion 

The Federal Government has a responsibility to be a model employer that 

maintains "high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and conduct to assure 

proper performance of the Government's business and the maintenance of 

confidence of the American people ... Sexual harassment is a form of employee 

misconduct which undermines the integrity of the employment relationship. All 

employees must be allowed to work in an environment free from unsolicited and 

unwelcome sexual overtures. "[5]

To mount a strong campaign to reduce sexual harassment is in keeping with this 

policy and is cost-effective. 

Footnotes -- Executive Summary 
1 A "disproportionately stratified " sample is one in which certain categories of 

participants are selected to be in the sample in greater numbers than they occur 

in the general population. These categories of participants are intentionally 

oversampled to ensure adequate numbers for statistical analysis within each 

category. The sample is "random" in that, within a given category (or stratum), 

each member has an equal chance of being selected. A random sample enables 

the researcher to make predictions about the whole population based upon the 

sample. All final results in this final report are expressed in "weighted " terms, 

which means that all numbers and percentages are adjusted to reflect each 

category's actual size in the Federal population. 

2 See Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods, Wadsworth Publishing 

Company, Inc. Belmont, California, 1973, p. 165. 

3 Such as the Defense Mapping Agency and Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

4 Such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Office of 

Personnel Management. 

5. OPM Policy Statement, see Appendix E. 

 

1. Introduction

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a subject about which much discussion is 

currently taking place. Do any of these statements sound familiar? 

• Sexual harassment is just another example of what men do to women to 

keep them from advancing in the workplace. 

• The issue of sexual harassment has been greatly exaggerated--because 

of all the publicity men will be afraid to talk to women for fear of being 

accused of sexual harassment. 

• Women in low-pay and low-status positions are more likely to be harassed 

than others and are afraid to make waves about it for fear of losing their 

jobs. 

• The Government should not try to legislate love--it has no business 

interfering in the personal (sex) lives of employees. 

As statements such as these suggest, there have been disagreements about 

what constitutes sexual harassment, how widespread it is and its consequences 

for employees in their careers, morale, and work performance. 

As a result of this publicity about the issue of sexual harassment, the 

Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, under the leadership of Chairman 
James M. Hanley, conducted a preliminary investigation of sexual harassment in 

the Federal Government and held hearings in October and November, 1979. The 

findings from the investigation, which included an examination of 100 employee 

allegations, were serious enough to cause the Subcommittee to request that the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) conduct a thorough and authoritative 

study of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. Since no such thorough 

study had ever been conducted on this subject in either the private or public 

sectors, the Subcommittee wanted to discover whether the results of their 

preliminary investigation would be borne out by a scientific study. 

TTo establish a Federal Government-wide approach to sexual harassment the 

Subcommittee also asked the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to (1) 

prepare a policy statement about sexual harassment, (2) prepare a training 

module on sexual harassment issues, and (3) encourage agencies to issue 

policy statements and provide training. The Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) was also asked to (1) develop and issue interpretive 

guidelines clarifying the status of sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), (2) require agencies as part of their affirmative 

action plans to inform Federal agencies that sexual harassment is prohibited by 

Title VII, and (3) require agencies to take steps to make the work environment 

free of sexual intimidation.[1]

MSPB was directed to examine the following questions using the definition of 

sexual harassment already developed by OPM: 

1. What kinds of behavior constitute sexual harassment? Do the attitudes of 

men and women differ in this regard? 

2. To what degree does sexual harassment occur within the Federal 

workplace? What is the frequency? What are the manifestations? 

3. Are victims or perpetrators of sexual harassment found in disproportionate 

numbers within certain agencies, job classifications, geographic locations, 

racial categories, age brackets, educational levels, grade levels, etc.? 

4. What forms of express or implied lever age have been used by harassers 

to reward or punish their victims? 

5. What has been the impact of sexual harassment on its victims in terms of 

job turn-over, work performance, physical and emotional condition, 

financial and career well-being? 

6. What effect has sexual harassment had on the morale or productivity of 

the immediate work group? 

7. Are victims of sexual harassment aware of available remedies? Do they 

have confidence in those remedies? 

Top agency officials of the MSPB, OPM, and EEOC reported the status of their 

charges regarding sexual harassment at a hearing held by the Subcommittee on 

September 25, 1980. The Chairwoman of the MSPB and the Director of the 

Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies (MSRS), the MSPB office given 
responsibility for conducting the study, reported on the preliminary findings at the 

hearing. These findings were preliminary in that they included information only on 

women victims and only for some of the data. This Final Report considerably 

expands the preliminary study, notably by including data on male victims and 

providing policy recommendations. 

In developing the plan for the study, the MSRS research team first examined the 

relevant issues by reviewing the legal case law and the relevant available 

literature. 

Review of Relevant Case Law 

We reviewed the OPM policy statement prohibiting sexual harassment as well as 

the limited but growing case law on sexual harassment in order to observe the 

legal basis for prohibiting sexual harassment. OPM defines sexual harassment 

as: "deliberate or repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures or physical 

contact of a sexual nature which are un welcome."[2] This definition allows the 

recipient of the behavior to determine whether the contact is "unwelcome" and is 

more broadly defined than other interpretations construed by the courts and 

EEOC. 

Under recently published EEOC interpretive guidelines, sexual harassment is 

considered to be sex discrimination under certain conditions: (1) when 

submission to it is a term or condition of employment, (2) when it is used as the 

basis of employment decisions, or (3) when it creates an intimidating or hostile 

work environment.[3] With the exception of the recent Court of Appeals decision 

in the case of Bundy v. Jackson, D.C. Civil Action No. 77-1359 (D.C. Cir., 

January 12, 1981), most courts have found that prohibited sex discrimination has 

occurred only when submission to the sexual harassment is a term or condition 

of the victim's employment.[4] The OPM definition is broader than these 

interpretations in that it expands the definition of sexual harassment to include 

unacceptable behavior that, although not necessarily sex discrimination, may be 

a prohibited personnel practice or a violation of the standards of conduct in the 

Federal workplace. Thus, unwelcome sexual attention, however defined, is seen 

at most as a form of sex discrimination that is prohibited by law and at least as a 

violation of the standards of conduct in the Federal workplace that is prohibited 

by Government policy or regulation. 

Survey of the Literature 

To conceptualize the study, we wanted to determine whether any of the 

questions posed in the Congressional mandate had been addressed in the 

available literature on sexual harassment. 

We found that only within the last six years has sexual harassment gained public 

notice both as a catch-word to describe a situation and as a work related 
issue.[5] Since that time a number of authors have examined the issue and 

several common patterns have emerged from their writings. First, most of the 

literature has been descriptive in nature with little or no explanation for the 

underlying social pro cess involved. Second, most of the writers have been 

feminists who have focused on the behavior almost exclusively as it affects 

women, and not men, the larger society, or the work organization. Third, there 

has been no common denominator in the literature about what behaviors 

constitute sexual harassment. Fourth, much of the literature has drawn upon 

individual case studies to generalize about the victims of sexual harassment, how 

the experience affects them and how they have responded.[6]

Most of the studies that did attempt to discern the extent of sexual harassment 

and to explore other factors such as the characteristics of victims and 

perpetrators, are not scientifically valid.[7] Therefore they are not useful to 

measure the actual pervasiveness of sexual harassment in the workplace. 

The groups surveyed in most of these studies were small and self-selected.[8] In 

addition, in none of these studies was sexual harassment defined in the same 

way, making comparison of results difficult. Another drawback was that most of 

these studies asked about experiences of sexual harassment over the 

respondent's lifetime (relying on their recall ability), rather that using a 

conceptually stronger finite and more immediate period of time. 

However a few studies have had some degree of scientific control.[9] Although 

they shed some light on the topic, none have addressed all of the issues covered 

in the Congressional man date, none have involved Federal employees, all have 

been restricted to a particular geographic region and/or work setting, only one 

has included men as well as women as potential victims, and most have 

restricted harassment to heterosexual behavior. 

Major Views of Sexual Harassment 

Three major views of sexual harassment have emerged from most of this 

literature: one concerning the underlying social-political basis for the behavior, 

the second concerning the vulnerability of particular groups to sexual harassment 

and the third, concerning the motivation behind the behavior. 

The three views are: 

1. That sexual harassment is an abuse of power that is exercised by those 

with power, usually male supervisors, over low-status employees, usually 

women. 

2. That individuals with certain low-status, low-power characteristics, such as 

youth and low salaries and who are tied economically to their jobs, are 

more vulnerable to sexual harassment than others. 
3. That sexual harassment is an expression of personal attraction between 

men and women that cannot and should not be stopped. 

The first two views are closely related. They grow out of a belief that sexual 

harassment is a form of sex discrimination and abuse of power used to keep 

women in their place at the low end of the economic scale. This view is based on 

the fact that on average women earn only 59 cents for every dollar that a man 

earns and that sexual harassment is one example of the sex discrimination that 

maintains this disparity. 

The first view sees sexual harassment primarily as an expression of power (see 

for example, Backhouse and Cohen, 1978; Farley, 1978; Appendix H.). One 

example of this perspective sees sexual harassment as a form of violence or 

threat of violence used as a mechanism of social control over women to limit their 

access to certain jobs or their job success and mobility (Bularzik, 1978). Others 

emphasize that sexual harassment is used as a powerful lever to maintain the 

status quo in traditional economic and social relationships (Silverman, 1976-77). 

The second major view about sexual harassment that emerges from the analytic 

literature has to do with the vulnerability of particular groups of women working in 

particular kinds of jobs. It has been suggested that women, particularly women 

from minority groups, working for low wages in low-status jobs are particularly 

vulnerable to sexual harassment because of their economic dependence on their 

jobs (see for example, Hooven and McDonald, 1978). Another group considered 

to be particularly vulnerable to harassment are women working in traditionally 

male occupations because they have invaded a private male preserve 

(Silverman, 1976-77; also see Martin, 1978, on harassment among women 

police officers). 

The third view reflects a fundamentally different view of the sex roles of men and 

women and the impact that these roles have on their relationships to each other 

on the job. This theory grows out of a belief that rather than being a source of 

power of men over women, the vagueness and broad nature of the definitions of 

sexual harassment used by both OPM and EEOC will undoubtedly lead to a 

barrage of trivial and unfounded complaints against men. Followers of this view 

also might be inclined to believe that the sexual relationships between men and 

women are expressions of personal attraction, and that although some of the 

consequences of these relationships may involve harassment, it is not 

appropriate for an employer to become involved (Berns, 1980). This study will 

review the evidence for these three views. 

Study Design 

Of primary concern in developing the study was the desire to develop a 

scientifically valid survey instrument that would determine whether sexual 

harassment was a problem in the Federal workplace and address the questions 
posed in the Congressional mandate. Secondarily, we wanted to gather 

information that would permit examination of the major views about sexual 

harassment in order to make appropriate policy recommendations.[10] 

With the assistance of OPM, a disproportionately stratified random sample" of 

civilian employees in the Executive Branch was selected to be in the study. The 

four variables on which the sample was stratified were: (1) sex, (2) minority 

status, (3) salary, and (4) organization. 

As a result of revising the survey instrument through pretests on a cross section 

of Washington, D.C.-based Federal employees, the final product contained 12 

pages with 63 questions. Over 23,000 men and women received questionnaires 

in May 1980, which were sent to the respondents' homes to preserve their 

confidentiality and anonymity. The rate of return from two mailings of the 

questionnaire was 85%--a rate considerably higher than is usually required for 

statistical reliability.[11] The members of the sample were asked to base most of 

their answers on their work experience during the 24-month period from May 

1978 to May 1980. Both the preliminary findings presented at the Congressional 

hearing in September 1980 and the Final Report were prepared by the MSRS 

research team based upon the data gathered from the survey. 

Disclaimers and Cautions in Interpreting the Data 

In reading this report and interpreting the data, some issues should be kept in 

mind. First, the incidence data is based upon the number of respondents who 

personally indicated that they had received what they believed to be uninvited 

and unwanted sexual attention. Thus, the method of identifying victims for this 

report involved a self-defining process on the part of the respondents. This 

approach seemed to be a reasonable way to measure incidence of sexual 

harassment and in line with the OPM definition of sexual harassment, which also 

relies on self-identification of victims. This method of determining incidence 

cannot measure whether the initiator believed that the behavior was sexually 

harassing, although the questionnaire afforded some opportunity for those who 

had been accused of sexual harassment to describe their experiences. 

A second major caution in interpreting the data concerns the perceptual and 

language differences that may have been operating on the men and women who 

took this questionnaire. That men and women look at sexual behavior differently 

is important to keep in mind when looking at the reported experiences of men 

victims in the following chapters.[12] There is an indication from the data that the 

behavior that is referred to as unwanted and uninvited sexual attention, 

particularly for reported cases of actual or attempted rape or sexual assault, may 

be different for men and women respondents.[13] 

Also, men and women may have different reactions to the unwanted behavior. 

Sexual behavior that may be offensive to women may be more or less offensive 
to men when they are the recipients. Social norms have encouraged men to be 

sexually aggressive and women to be sexually passive (Faltzman, 1974). As 

modern attitudes have altered these stereotypical expectations, it is not 

surprising that stress or confusion often results when these sex roles reverse. 

For example, one study that was conducted on young adults found that when 

men and women were asked their views about sexual behavior that could 

happen to them, the men were much more likely to see less severe behaviors, 

such as pressure for dates, as more offensive than did women. The men felt 

uncomfortable as the recipients of these actions since their typical sex role was 

reversed, whereas, the women, were not as offended since they saw the 

unwanted attention as part of normal dating behavior.[14]

In addition, the degree to which victims felt bothered by their sexual harassment 

could not be measured closely in this study. There is reason to believe that men 

who indicate that they have been sexually harassed are not only talking about 

different behavior (language difference) than women victims, but are affected in 

very different ways. The only other scientific study on sexual harassment that 

involved male respondents found that in general male victims were more likely to 

think that sexual harassment was flattering or ego-enhancing and the women 

victims were more likely to think that the experience was threatening or interfered 

with the effective conduct of their work (Gutek and Nakamura, 1980). 

A final caution in interpreting the data in terms of the experiences of male and 

female victims is raised. That is the belief that it is not reasonable to equate the 

sexual harassment of men with the sexual harassment of women, since men 

traditionally have had more opportunities for advancement in the workplace. This 

view states that since this is a society where laws have had to be enacted to 

ensure women their rights, the sexual intimidation of men is not logically as 

severe or discriminatory as that of women (McKinnon, 1979). 

Presentation of the Report 

The Final Report is organized into eight additional Chapters plus Appendices. 

The Chapters are as follows: 

Chapter 2: View of Federal Workers Toward Sexual Harassment--the attitudes of 

men and women toward sexual behavior in the Federal workplace. 

Chapter 3: Extent of Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace--the overall 

incidence level of such behaviors among women and men. 

Chapter 4: Victims of Sexual Harassment--the personal and organizational 

characteristics of women and men victims and their work environment. 

Chapter 5: Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment--the characteristics of those who 

initiate sexual harassment. 

Chapter 6: Incidents of Sexual Harassment --the perceived use of leverage by 

harassers, as well as victims' responses to the sexual harassment. 
Chapter 7: Impact and Cost of Sexual Harassment--actual dollar cost of sexual 

harassment to the Federal Government, as well as the perceived consequences 

to victims. 

Chapter 8: Awareness of Remedies and their Effectiveness--opinions of victims 

and their supervisors toward informal and formal institutional remedies for 

stopping sexual harassment. 

Chapter 9: Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. 

The Appendices are as follows: 

Appendix A: Methodology--explanation of the methodology used in preparing 

the study, including the development of the questionnaire, the selection and 

design of the sample, conduct of the study, the preparation and analysis of the 

data, and the confidentiality and anonymity of participants. 

Appendix B: Definitions of Terms--definitions of commonly used terms that 

appear in this report. 

Appendix C: Survey Questionnaire--a copy of the cover letters and 

questionnaire used in the survey. 

Appendix D: Additional Statistical Analyses--back-up data for figures and tables 

that appear in the report, as well as additional figures and tables. 

Appendix E: Official Policy Documents--copies of Memoranda of Understanding 

Between the Investigations Subcommittee and MSPB, EEOC, and OPM; OPM 

Policy Statement and Definition of Sexual Harassment; EEOC Guidelines on 

Discrimination Because of Sex; and EEOC Instructions for Prevention of Sexual 

Harassment in the Workforce Plans. 

Appendix F: Agency Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment--recent steps taken 

by agencies to reduce sexual harassment. 

Appendix G: Survey of Literature--a review of the current literature on the 

subject of sexual harassment. 

Appendix H: Annotated Bibliography--an annotated listing of major or useful 

works classified as general theory and analysis, studies and surveys, mass 

media articles, legal commentaries, miscellaneous reports, booklets and guides, 

and bibliographies. 

Footnotes -- Introduction 

1 Memoranda of Understanding between the Subcommittee on Investigations of 

the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and the Merit Systems 

Protection Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office 

of Personnel Management concerning the Problem of Sexual Harassment of 

Federal Employees; see Appendix E. 

2 Office of Personnel Management Policy Statement and Definition of Sexual 

Harassment; see Appendix E. 
3 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines on Discrimination 

Because of Sex, November 10, 1980, 29 CFR Part 1604.11, 45 FR 25024; see 

Appendix E. 

4 For a further discussion of this case law see Appendix H. 

5 For a fuller review of the literature see Appendix G. 

6 For example, see Backhouse and Cohen, 1978; Farley, 1978; Martin, 1978; 

Appendix H. 

7 Since the results were not based on information derived from a scientifically 

selected probability sample, predictions for the population at large are usually not 

valid. 

8 See for example, Kelber, 1979; Lang, 1979; New Responses, Inc., 1979; 

Safran, 1976; Working Women's Institute, 1979; Appendix H. 

9 See Benson and Thompson, 1979; Gutek and Nakamura, 1980; Livingston, 

1979; Appendix H. 

10 A more detailed description of the methodology employed by the research 

team is given in Appendix A. 

11 See footnotes 1 and 2 in Executive Summary for explanation. 

12 Janet Faltzman Chafetz, Masculine-Feminine or Human? Overview of the 

Sociology of Sex Roles, F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., Itasca, Illinois, 1974. 

13 See Chapter 3. 

14 Martha R. Burt and Rhoda E. Estep, "Assessing the Impact of Sexually 

Intrusive Events," unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 1976. 

 

2. View of Federal Workers Toward Sexual Harassment

• Both men and women Federal workers generally agree that uninvited 

behaviors of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. 

• Federal workers believe supervisors should be held to a higher standard 

of conduct than other workers regarding sexually oriented behavior on the 

job. 

• Both men and women Federal workers believe sexual activity, whether 

voluntary or otherwise, should not occur between people who work 

together. 
• Men show a greater tendency than women to think victims are somewhat 

responsible for bringing sexual harassment on themselves and are 

inclined to believe the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. 

• Both men and women Federal workers think sexual harassment is 

something people should not have to tolerate. 

The "playing around" many of us engage in is mutually agreeable between 

consenting adults and greatly relieves tension in a tense environment. No one 

who didn' t want to join in has ever been bothered. 

There is a great deal of sexual innuendo and joking that goes on in my office . . . 

. It is uncomfortable to me, and I consider it a kind of sexual harassment. 

Two views of sexually oriented behavior on the job.[1] Which is more typical of 

Federal workers? Do Federal workers think behavior of a sexual nature should 

go on in the office? At what point does such conduct cease being acceptable or 

tolerable and begin to seem like sexual harassment? Do different groups of 

employees view these things differently? 

These were some of the questions that came to mind when the Subcommittee on 

Investigations directed the Merit Systems Protection Board to determine "what 

kinds of behavior are perceived to constitute sexual harassment and whether the 

attitudes of men and women differ in this respect."[2] They were interested in 

learning not only how Federal workers define sexual harassment, but also how 

they feel generally about sexually oriented behaviors on the job--such things as 

affairs between people in the same office and people using sexuality to get 

ahead on the job. 

We anticipated that men and women would differ not only in how they define 

sexual harassment, but also in how they feel about sex in the office, since 

research has shown that the perceptions of men about sexuality in general and 

sexual activity differ from those of women and that men tend to use different 

language to describe sexual experiences.[3] We also thought people who had 

experienced what they considered to be sexual harassment might feel differently 

about sexually oriented activity in the office than would people who had not. 

We found substantial agreement among Federal workers in the way they defined 

sexual harassment. We also observed a tendency to hold supervisors to a higher 

standard of conduct than non supervisors. The majority of women considered all 

of the six forms of uninvited and unwanted behaviors they were asked about to 

be sexual harassment, whether initiated by a supervisor or another worker. The 

majority of men regarded all the forms of behaviors as sexual harassment when 

initiated by a supervisor but did not consider sexually suggestive looks, gestures, 

remarks, joking, teasing, or questioning to be harassment when coming from a 

coworker. 
As to their general attitudes, Federal workers indicated that they believe sex, 

whether engaged in voluntarily or otherwise, has no place in the office. Most 

respondents also thought that sexual harassment is a behavior that should not 

be tolerated. The majority of women thought people should not have affairs with 

people they work with, and nearly all felt unwanted sexual attention is something 

people should not have to put up with. The majority of men also disapproved of 

affairs between people who work together and believed workers should not have 

to put up with sexual harassment. However, men differed from women in 

showing a greater tendency to hold victims responsible for their own harassment 

and thinking the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. 

Federal Workers' Definition of Sexual Harassment 

To learn how Federal workers define sexual harassment, we listed six forms of 

behavior and asked whether they would consider each form to be sexual 

harassment "if (this) happened to you or someone else at work."[4] 

The six forms of behavior were:[5] 

• Uninvited pressure for sexual favors; 

• Uninvited and deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering, or pinching 

("deliberate touching"); 

• Uninvited sexually suggestive looks or gestures ("suggestive looks"); 

• Uninvited letters, phone calls, or materials of a sexual nature ("letters and 

calls"); 

• Uninvited pressure for dates; and 

• Uninvited sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions ("sexual remarks"). 

These behaviors for the most part were taken from the Office of Personnel 

Management's (OPM) definition of sexual harassment, as had been directed by 

the Subcommittee on Investigations. One behavior not mentioned in the 

definition but referred to in the literature on sexual harassment was included in 

the survey: "uninvited letters, phone calls, or materials of a sexual nature." 

It seemed possible that Federal workers would view sexually oriented behaviors 

differently depending on the job status of the person demonstrating the behavior. 

Thus, for each of the six forms of behavior, we posed two questions: If a 

supervisor did this, would you consider this sexual harassment? If another 

worker did this would you consider this sexual harassment? The possible 

responses were: "definitely not," "probably not," "probably yes," "definitely yes," 

and "don't know." 

Many Uninvited Behaviors Constitute Sexual Harassment 

Substantial agreement existed among Federal workers that uninvited behaviors 

of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. We had expected to find that 
men and women view sexual harassment somewhat differently, that women 

consider all of the six behaviors sexual harassment but that men regard only the 

most direct, most obvious conduct as harassment. Instead, we found 

considerable agreement between the two groups. 

FIGURE 2-1 

Definition of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Male and Female Federal Employees Who Agreed that Each of 

Six Forms of Unwanted, Uninvited Sexual Attention Constitutes Sexual 

Harassment (Questions 2-7, b & d) (text alternative)

 SEVERE LESS SEVERE

IF A 

SUPERVIS

OR DID 

THIS 

 

Letters 

and

Calls

Pressure 

for 

Sexual 

Favors 

Deliberate

Touching 

Pressure 

for

Dates

Suggestive 

Looks 

Sexual

Remarks 

IF 

ANOTHER 

WORKER 

DID THIS 

 

NOTE: Percentages are based on "Probably Yes" and 

"Definitely Yes" responses to questions. WOMEN MEN 

As Figure 2-1 shows, the majority of women considered all six uninvited 

behaviors to be sexual harassment,[6] regardless of whether the perpetrator is a 

supervisor or another worker. Although men were somewhat less likely to think 
that any one of the behaviors constituted sexual harassment, the majority of men 

considered the behaviors to be sexual harassment--with two exceptions. 

Somewhat fewer than half (but still sizeable percentages) thought "suggestive 

looks" or "sexual remarks," when coming from another worker, constituted sexual 

harassment. Since these are two behaviors that are thought to be somewhat 

indirect and subject to different interpretations, our expectation that men would 

regard only the most obvious behaviors as sexual harassment was partially 

borne out. 

As can be seen in Figure 2-1, both men and women showed a pattern in their 

responses. For both groups there, was clear agreement that three behaviors--

"letters and calls," "pressure for sexual favors," and "deliberate touching"--

constituted sexual harassment. There was somewhat less agreement about the 

other behaviors--"pressure for dates," "suggestive looks," and "sexual remarks." 

It is worth noting that two of these latter behaviors--"suggestive looks" and 

"sexual remarks"--tend to be indirect and subject to different interpretations. 

Another group of actions that might be regarded as ambiguous--"deliberate 

touching"--fell about the seeming demarcation between considerable agreement 

and general agreement, while a rather overt behavior--"pressure for dates"--fell 

below. 

It is also interesting to note that the majority of Federal workers considered all of 

the behaviors listed in the Office of Personnel Management's definition as 

harassment. Moreover, the form of behavior not included in the OPM definition--

"letters and calls"--was the behavior about which there was most agreement. 

Nine of every 10 women thought such behavior constituted sexual harassment, 

whether the perpetrator was a supervisor (93%) or another worker (87%), and at 

least 3 of 4 men agreed (87% if a supervisor did it and 76% if another worker did 

it). 

For purposes of later analysis, the behaviors about which there was considerable 

agreement were grouped in a category designated "severe" harassment, and 

those about which there was general agreement were termed "less severe" 

harassment. On this basis, we can say that the majority of men and women who 

work for the Federal Government believe that "severe" forms of uninvited 

behavior are sexual harassment, whether initiated by a supervisor or another 

worker. The majority of men and women also think "less severe" behavior is 

sexual harassment when engaged in by a supervisor. 

Supervisors Generally Agree with Definition 

Male and female supervisors[7] defined sexual harassment substantially the 

same way as did men and women in general. The majority of female supervisors 

felt all of the behaviors, regardless of whether initiated by a supervisor or another 

worker, constitute sexual harassment. The majority of male supervisors agreed, 
with the same two exceptions as men in general--"suggestive looks" and "sexual 

remarks" coming from another worker--but, again, substantial percentages (46% 

and 42%) thought these behaviors constitute harassment. 

Like men in general, male supervisors were somewhat less likely than women to 

agree that any of the uninvited behaviors constituted sexual harassment. Male 

supervisors also were less likely to regard a behavior as harassment than were 

female supervisors. Since most supervisors are men,[8] these findings raise 

some questions: Are supervisors generally able to identify sexual harassment in 

their organizations, particularly the less severe behaviors demonstrated by non 

supervisory personnel? Will the 12% to 58% of male supervisors who do not 

consider the various behaviors sexual harassment be able to be assertive in 

enforcing sanctions against those behaviors? 

Motives and Sensitivity to Sexual Overtures 

Whether a behavior is considered sexual harassment is related to some extent to 

the perceived motive of the person exhibiting the behavior. We learned this by 

asking Federal workers how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the 

statement, "I would call something sexual harassment even if the person doing it 

did not mean to be offensive."[9] 

As Table 2-1 indicates, few Federal workers, regardless of gender, supervisory 

status, or victim status, would consider an act sexual harassment had the initiator 

not intended to be offensive. For most workers, the perceived motive or 

demeanor of the initiator does make a difference. 

To learn something about sensitivity to the issue of sexual harassment, we also 

asked Federal workers how they felt about the statement, "People shouldn't be 

so quick to take offense when someone expresses a sexual interest in them."[10]

We thought that since men are usually the ones to be accused of sexual 

harassment,[11] they would identify with the harasser and think people shouldn't 

be so quick to take offense. We expected men would think most behavior was 

not intended to be offensive and thus the recipient should not take offense. On 

the other hand, we expected that women would tend to identify with the victim, 

and, showing a greater sensitivity to sexual overtures, would be less likely to 

believe people shouldn't take offense so quickly. This difference was somewhat 

reflected in the responses. As Table 2-1 shows, half the men, but only about onethird of the women, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Thus, it 

appears that women would be more likely to be offended when someone 

expresses a sexual interest in them. 

Table 2-1 

Sexual Attitudes 

(Question No. 1) 

These are the opinions that Federal workers have expressed about different 
kinds of sexual behavior that can happen at work. Percentages are of Federal 

workers--men, women, supervisors, non supervisors., victims and nonvictims--

who agreed with the following statements. 

 Respondents 

 

Wome

n 

Men Supervisor

s 

Non 

supervisors

. 

Victim

s 

Non 

victim

s 

(i) I would 

call 

something 

sexual 

harassment 

even if the 

person 

doing it did 

not mean to 

be offensive. 

26% 28

% 30% 27% 31% 26% 

Definition of 

Sexual 

Harassment: (g) People 

shouldn't be 

so quick to 

take offense 

when 

someone 

expresses a 

sexual 

interest in 

them. 

36% 48

% 45% 43% 44% 43% 

(b) Morale at 

work suffers 

when some 

employees 

seem to get 

ahead by 

using their 

sexuality. 

93% 90

% 92% 91% 94% 90% 

(d) There's 

nothing 

wrong when 

women use 

their 

sexuality to 

get ahead 

on the job. 

4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

Sexual 

Activity in the 

Office: 

(k) There's 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 
nothing 

wrong when 

men use 

their 

sexuality to 

get ahead 

on the job. 

(a) I think it's 

all right for 

people to 

have sexual 

affairs with 

people they 

work with. 

17% 26

% 21% 23% 23% 23% 

(j) When 

people say 

they've been 

sexually 

harassed, 

they 're 

usually 

trying to get 

the person 

they accuse 

into trouble. 

7% 13

% 11% 11% 9% 12% 

(f) People 

who receive 

annoying 

sexual 

attention 

have usually 

asked for it. 

22% 31

% 30% 27% 23% 29% Responsibilit

y Of Victims 

For their Own 

Harassment: 

(m) The 

issue of 

sexual 

harassment 

has been 

exaggerated

--most 

incidents are 

simply 

normal 

sexual 

attraction 

between 

23% 44

% 43% 34% 28% 39% 
people. 

Policy 

Implications: 

(e) 

Unwanted 

sexual 

attention on 

the job is 

something 

people 

should not 

have to put 

up with. 

97% 95

% 96% 95% 96% 95% 

Note: Percentages are based on "Agree " and "Strongly Agree" responses to 

statements. 

 

Different Behavior Is Expected of Supervisors 

Federal workers think supervisors should be held to a higher standard of conduct 

when it comes to sexual behavior on the job than should other workers. As 

Figure 2-1 shows, for every one of the six forms of uninvited, unwanted sexual 

attention, both men and women were more likely to consider a behavior sexual 

harassment if initiated by a supervisor than if initiated by another worker. There 

are no data to suggest why workers felt this way. The discrepancy may imply that 

since supervisors hold positions of power, their behavior should be exemplary. 

Uninvited sexual attention may be seen as less threatening and coercive when 

initiated by a coworker, who usually has little power over the recipient. This 

assumption was borne out by findings presented in Chapter 6. 

Federal Workers' Attitudes Toward Sexuality in the Workplace 

The late Margaret Mead felt that there is no place in the work environment for 

sexuality, and she called for a general societal taboo against mixing business 

and sex.[12] Other people just as sincerely regard this as an unnecessarily harsh 

solution to the problem of sexual harassment, whatever its extent. They note that 

since most people spend most of their working hours on the job, that is where 

they form many of their meaningful and long-lasting relationships, including social 

sexual relationships. We wondered how Federal workers felt about this and 

related issues. Do they think mutually agreeable sexual activity between people 

who work together is all right? What about people who use their sexuality to get 

ahead on the job? Do Federal workers think the problem of sexual harassment is 

really as great as it has been made out to be? And is it just part of the job, 

something that many people bring on themselves? 

Several questions were designed to shed some light on these issues. 
Sex Does Not Belong in the Office 

Voluntary sexual affairs on the job. Federal workers were asked whether they 

thought "it's all right for people to have sexual affairs with people they work with. 

"[13] As Table 2-1 suggests, there was considerable agreement that even such 

voluntary activities should not go on. The finding that supervisors, along with 

women, were even less likely than other groups to approve of voluntary sexual 

affairs is noteworthy, particularly since most supervisors are men. This result, 

together with the fact that only 22% of male supervisors questioned approved of 

this behavior,[14] may help answer a question raised earlier. 

Since most supervisors, both male and female, do not approve of such 

relationships, they may not hesitate to enforce sanctions against sexual 

harassment out of fear of interfering with possible voluntary relationships. 

Using sexuality to get ahead on the job is wrong. Federal workers were 

asked three questions about the use of sexuality to get ahead on the job.[15] As 

can be seen in Table 2-1, there was almost universal agreement among Federal 

workers, regardless of gender, supervisory status, or victim status, that morale at 

work suffers when employees seem to get ahead by using their sexuality. 

Likewise, Federal workers--be they men or women, supervisors or non 

supervisors., self-reported victims of sexual harassment or nonvictims--

overwhelmingly disapproved of employees using their sexuality to get ahead on 

the job. The fact that very few approved of this behavior whether used by a man 

or a woman, indicates that Federal workers do not apply a double standard to the 

sexes in this regard. Responses to these three questions seem to indicate that 

Federal workers feel people should not mix business with pleasure. 

That sexual favoritism (as such use of sexuality to get ahead on the job is usually 

called) was censured by 9 of every 10 Federal workers, men and women alike, is 

interesting in light of recent Government statements on this matter. In interpretive 

guidelines issued in November 1980,[16] the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) affirmed that sexual harassment under certain conditions is 

a form of discrimination on the basis of sex. The EEOC did not regard sexual 

favoritism specifically as a form of sexual harassment, but did caution that when 

such favoritism occurs, the employer may be liable for unlawful sex 

discrimination against other employees who were qualified but did not receive the 

employment opportunity or benefit. This survey did not address the issue of 

sexual favoritism beyond the three questions seeking employee attitudes toward 

it, however, this would be an interesting topic for subsequent research. 

Victims May Bear Some Responsibility 

Three items in the Questionnaire[17] were designed to discover whether Federal 

employees hold victims responsible for their own harassment, that is, whether 

they tend to blame the victim. These questions, again presented in the form of 
statements with which the respondent could agree or disagree, were: "People 

who receive annoying sexual attention have usually asked for it," "When people 

say they've been sexually harassed, they're usually trying to get the person in 

trouble," and "The issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated--most 

incidents are simply normal sexual attraction between people." Partial responses 

are shown in Table 2-1. 

Few women agreed with any of the three statements. The responses of men 

were mixed. Although less than a majority of men thought that victims ask for 

attention or are vindictive in accusing their harassers, the percentages were 

greater than those of women. Further, almost half of the men thought that the 

issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated (compared with less than 

one-fourth of the women). Looked at in another way, men were about twice as 

likely as women to think the issue has been exaggerated (44% of men, but only 

23% of women agreed or strongly agreed with the statement). 

In summary, for all the "blame the victim" attitudes, substantially smaller 

percentages of women than men agreed with the statements This would indicate 

that men are more inclined to believe that victims bring sexual harassment on 

themselves, to think accusers are trying to get people in trouble, and to think the 

issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. 

Supervisors as a group tended to see things as men in general saw them. While 

this may not be surprising, since most supervisors are men, it is noteworthy. Of 

particular interest is the fact that almost half (43%) of the supervisors agreed that 

the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. Might this indicate a lack 

of understanding on the part of supervisors as to the actual incidence rates of 

sexual harassment in their own agencies and in the Federal Government as a 

whole? 

Not surprisingly, since most victims are women, victims of sexual harassment 

tend to hold views similar to those of women in general. This may be because 

people who have experienced a behavior usually are more sensitive to that 

behavior than others. In contrast, non-victims tend to think more like men in 

general and like supervisors on these issues. 

Sexual Harassment is a Problem and Should not be Tolerated 

Several additional questions were asked to get an overall picture of how Federal 

workers view sexual harassment as a problem. Is it just part of the job, 

something people have to learn to put up with? Or is it a real problem? Is enough 

being done about it? 

Federal workers-be they men or women, supervisors or non supervisors., victims 

or non victims--strongly agree that people should not have to put up with 

unwanted sexual attention on the job[18] (see Table 2-1). Nevertheless, a great 
many apparently must, for some 197,900 Federal workers (3 in 20 women and 2 

in 20 men) say unwanted, uninvited attention is a problem where they work.[19]

The finding that around one-fourth of both male and female victims think 

unwanted, uninvited attention is a problem where they work (See Table 4-3, 

Chapter 4) suggests that victims feel they are not the only ones in their 

organization who have been sexually harassed--and in fact their responses to 

another question bears this out:[20] 43% of female narrators[21] and 31% of 

male narrators reported that the person who had harassed them had also 

sexually bothered others at work. 

Are organizations doing enough to eliminate the problem? About two in every 

twenty non-victims (18% of men and 13% of women) said no.[22] The 

perceptions of victims were strikingly different: one in three victims--32% of 

males and 34% of females--apparently felt their organizations could be doing 

more to stop sexual harassment. 

Conclusion 

Federal workers think sexual activity, even voluntary affairs between . people 

who work together, has no place in the office and believe people should not have 

to put up with uninvited sexual attention. They consider a number of forms of 

unwanted, uninvited sexual attention to be sexual harassment, particularly when 

the person exhibiting the behavior is a supervisor. However, most men and 

women would take the motives of the person into account and would not 

consider it sexual harassment if the person did not mean to be offensive. 

That men and supervisors tend to think like each other but differently than 

women and victims about expressions of sexual interest and the responsibility of 

victims for their own harassment is not surprising, since most supervisors are 

men and most victims are women. The differences are worthy of note, however, 

and may have implications for efforts to reduce sexual harassment in the offices 

of the nearly 200,000 men and women who recognized it as a problem where 

they work. When even 4 in every 10 supervisors (43%) believe the issue of 

harassment has been exaggerated, 3 in 10 (30%) believe people who receive 

annoying sexual attention have usually asked for it, and 4 in 10 supervisors 

(45%) believe people should not be so quick to take offense when someone 

expresses a sexual interest in them, can we feel confident that sanctions against 

sexual harassment will be enforced? And when men and women are inclined to 

differ on these points, with men more than women showing a tendency to blame 

the victim and believe people shouldn't be so quick to take offense, is a need for 

better understanding between men-usually the "harassers"--and women--usually 

the "victims"--indicated? 

In this chapter we learned that both men and women regard many forms of 

uninvited, unwanted sexual attention as sexual harassment and that 3 in every 

20 women and 2 in every 20 men see such behavior as a problem where they 
work. Since these figures indicate only the number of respondents who see 

sexual harassment as an organizational problem rather than a personal problem 

they have had to face, the figures do not indicate the actual incidence of sexual 

harassment of Federal employees. The incidence of sexual harassment is 

examined in the next chapter. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 2 

1 These and other comments that appear in this report were provided by Federal 

workers on their questionnaires or through a sexual harassment " hot-line" in a 

Federal agency. 

2 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

3 Burt and Estep, 1976; Gutek and Nakamura, 1980; Chafetz, 1974 (Chapter 1, 

footnote 12). 

4 Survey Questions 2-7, b, d; see Appendix C. 

5 A seventh form of behavior--actual or attempted raped or sexual assault--

appears in later discussions. However, since rape and sexual assault are 

criminal offenses, Federal workers were not asked whether they considered 

these sexual harassment. 

6That is, they responded "definitely yes" or "probably yes" that they considered 

the behavior to be sexual harassment. See Appendix D for more complete 

statistical information for this and other figures and tables. 

7 See Appendix B for a definition of supervisor and other terms used in this 

report; See Appendix D, Figure A for data. 

8 Approximately 322,800 men and 88,000 women are supervisors according to 

the survey data. 

9 Survey Question 1(i). 

10 Survey Question 1(g). 

11 See Chapter 5. 

12 Mead, 1978; see Appendix H, General Theory and Analysis. 

13 Survey Question 1(a). 

14 See Appendix D, Table A. 
15 Survey Question 1(b), 1(d), and 1(k). 

16 See Appendix E for the full text of the EEOC Guidelines. 

17 Survey questions 1(f), 1(j), and 1(m). 

18 That is, they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "Unwanted sexual 

attention on the job is something people should not have to put up with"; see 

Survey Question 1(e). 

19 Concluded from responses to Survey Question 44(e) Appendix D, Table 0. 

Other data on Survey Question 44 are reported and discussed more fully in 

Chapter 4. 

20 Concluded from response to Survey Question 34; see Figure 5-6 in Chapter 

5. 

21 Narrators are victims who chose to describe one incident of sexual 

harassment in some detail; see Appendix B for a full description of narrators. 

22 That is, they disagreed with the statement, "My organization makes every 

effort to stop unwanted sexual attention among its employees"; see Survey 

Question 44(g); and see Table 4-3, Chapter 4. 

 

3. Extent of Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace 

• One out of every four Federal employees was sexually harassed on the 

job over a 2-year period. 

• Women are much more likely to be victims than men--42% of all female 

Federal employees, but only 15% of male employees, reported being 

sexually harassed. 

• Sexual harassment can take many forms, and every form except 

attempted or actual rape or sexual assault was experienced by a sizeable 

percentage of both men and women. 

• Sexual harassment is not just a one-time experience--many victims were 

repeatedly subjected to harassing behaviors, particularly the less severe 

forms. 

• incidents of harassment are not just passing events--most lasted more 

than a week, and many lasted longer than 6 months. 

• The majority of Federal employees who had worked elsewhere feel sexual 

harassment is no worse in the Federal workplace than in state and local 

government or in the private sector. 
"I said no, I simply was not going out with him after work and no, I simply was not 

going to have an affair with him because I thought I could rely on my job skills . . 

." and eventually "I was fired with 25 minutes notice on a Friday."[1] Stories like 

this from dozens of Federally-employed women led the Subcommittee on 

Investigations to ask the Merit Systems Protection Board to determine the 

"degree to which sexual harassment is occurring within the Federal workplace, its 

manifestation and frequency"[2] We wanted to learn how widespread harassment 

of Federal workers is, whether it happens to men as well as women, whether it is 

a one-time event or happens to some victims more than once, how long the 

incidents go on, and if harassment is worse in the Federal Government than in 

other work settings. 

We found that sexual harassment is a problem for a large number of Federal 

workers--approximately 294,000 women and 168,000 men. For many of the 

women, harassment occurred repeatedly and frequently lasted a relatively long 

time. The men, though fewer in number, representing only one in every three 

victims, had similar experiences; relatively few reported their experiences to be 

one-time-only events that were soon over. 

FIGURE 3-1 (alternate text)

Overall Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment 

Between May 1978 and May 1980, by Severity of Harassment (Question 17) 

TOTAL FEDERAL WORKFORCE: 1,862,000 -- TOTAL VICTIMS: 

462,000(25%) 
NOTE: These figures indicate the number of people harassed, classified by their 

most severe experience. Since many people reported they had had more than 

one experience, the number of harassment incidents is considerably larger. 

Sexual Harassment Is Widespread 

To learn how common sexual harassment is, we asked Federal workers whether 

they had received, during the past 24 months (approximately May 1978 to May 

1980), any of seven forms of uninvited and unwanted sexual attention from 

someone where they worked in the Federal Government.[3] The forms of 

behavior were: 

• Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault; Pressure for sexual behaviors; 

• Deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering, or pinching ( "touching"); 

• Sexually suggestive looks or gestures ("suggestive looks"); 

• Letters, phone calls, or materials of a sexual nature ("letters and calls"); 

• Pressure for dates; and 

• Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions ("sexual remarks"). 

FIGURE 3-2

Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment Among Women and Men

Percentage of Female and Male Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment Between May 1978 and May 1980, by Severity of Harassment 

(Question 17) 
Total Women: 694,000 -- Total Female Victims: 294,000 (42%) (alternate 

text) 

Total Men: 1,168,000 -- Total Male Victims: 168,000 (15%) (alternate text) 
NOTE: These figures indicate the number of people harassed, classified by their 

most severe experience. Since many people reported they had had more than 

one experience, the number of harassment incidents is considerably larger. 

As the earlier but limited Congressional investigation had indicated, we found 

that sexual harassment in the Federal workplace is wide-spread. 

Approximately 462,000 Federal employees-a number roughly equal to the 

population of Denver, Colorado-reported being sexually harassed on the job 

between May 1978 and May 1980 (see Figure 3-1). These victims--about one in 

every four Federal employees--faced all kinds of problems. One woman was 

called into her Division Chief's office and "after a verbal shakedown, he 

threatened me, became more violent, lunged over the desk at me, offered 

promotions in exchange for sexual behaviors, and threatened to fire me if I didn't 

go along." A woman whose only access to a telephone is in her superintendent's 

office says that whenever she (or other women) uses the phone "the 

superintendent persists in putting his arm around me, kissing me, making 

obscene suggestions about what I should do with him, suggesting I go away for 

long weekends with him and his buddies so they can show me a really 'good' 

time." The male supervisor of a sandblaster grabs him while he's working on a 

scaffold. Another man finds his 'apartment and car broken into and packages of 

women's undergarments left there. 

Less direct behaviors are also common. One Federal worker reported that her 

District Director "practically sits in my lap when I ask a question, embarrassing 
me with his constant twisting of every word I say into some sexual connotation." 

Another complains, "I resent being asked into someone ' s 'private office' to 

confer on legitimate business and then being confronted with walls papered with 

nudes." She adds: "No government office is so 'private' that such a display can 

be justified." A third worker felt harassed by her supervisor's excessive interest in 

her personal life, his questioning in "private little chats" about her marital plans, 

family planning, and other matters she feels are none of his business. 

The "most severe" form of harassment--attempted or actual rape or sexual 

assault-- was also the least common experience, faced by only about 1% of 

Federal workers (see Figure 3-1). Still, this means that around 12,000 people 

had to deal with this problem. At least 300,000 victims were subjected to "severe" 

sexual harassment, while at least half that number experienced "less severe" 

harassment."[4]

We say "at least" that many workers faced "severe" and "less severe" 

harassment because many people indicated they had experienced more than 

one of the seven forms of behavior asked about. When this happened, the victim 

was counted only once, on the basis of the most severe form of harassment he 

or she had en countered.[5] Thus, the number of incidents was considerably 

larger than the number of people experiencing harassment, as reported on 

Figure 3-1. 

As the next section shows, there we're marked differences between male and 

female Federal workers. 

Women Are Sexually Harassed More Than Men 

Sexual harassment of women is far more common than harassment of men. 

While about twice as many men as women hold Federal jobs (1,168,000 vs. 

694,000), two out of three victims were women (294,000 women out of a total of 

462,000 victims). 

Eight in every 20 women (42%), but only 3 in every 20 men (15%), were 

subjected to harassment on the job over the 2-year period (see Figure 3-2). 

While far more women than men were harassed (294,000 women compared with 

168,000 men), the patterns for the two groups were similar. The largest group of 

victims had experienced at least one form of severe harassment, and only a 

small percentage--though still a significant number considering the seriousness 

of the behavior--had faced attempted or actual rape or assault. 

Most Forms of Harassment Are Common 

Every form of sexual harassment except actual or attempted rape or sexual 

assault was experienced by a sizeable number of men and women. 
Figure 3-3

Incidence Rate Among Various Forms of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Female and Male Federal Employees Who Experienced Each 

Form of Sexual Harassment 

Between May 1978 and May 1980 (Question 17) 

Reported by 33% of 

Women Sexual Remarks 

Reported by 10% of 

Men 

Reported by 28% of 

Women Suggestive Looks Reported by 8% of 

Men 

Reported by 26% of 

Women 

LESS 

SEVERE 

Pressure for Dates 

Reported by 7% of 

Men 

Reported by 15% of 

Women Deliberate Touching Reported by 3% of 

Men 

Reported by 9% of 

Pressure for Sexual Women 

Favors Reported by 2% of 

Men 

Reported by 9% of 

Women 

SEVERE 

Letters and Calls 

Reported by 3% of 

Men 

Reported by 1% of 

MOST Women 

SEVERE 

Actual or Attempted Rape 

or Assault Reported by 0.3% of 

Men 

Note: Many respondents indicated that they experience 

more than one form of sexual harassment. 

As Figure 3-3 shows, 1 in every 3 women employed by the Federal Government 

reported having been subjected to unwanted sexual re marks, 1 in 4 had been 

deliberately touched or cornered, 1 in 10 had been pressured for sexual favors, 

and 1 in 100 had faced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault. Since 
respondents were allowed to report more than one kind of behavior, many are 

counted more than once in these figures. 

What kinds of experiences are these women talking about when they say they've 

been sexually harassed? A woman who works in a production area reports that 

she and other women employees are constantly subjected to suggestive remarks 

and propositions as they go about their jobs. She added that supervisors 

participate in this and frequently send women on unnecessary errands through 

the area just to give the men another opportunity to act this way. Another woman 

writes that a great deal of sexual innuendo and joking goes on in her office and 

everyone feels obligated to contribute or tolerate it. "It is very uncomfortable to 

me," she says, "so I consider it a kind of harassment." A clerical worker says her 

boss stands touching her while she works. When his "buddies" stop by his desk, 

he makes remarks that imply that she cooperates sexually with him. He offers to 

share her "services" with his buddies, in a tone and manner that make clear it is 

not clerical services he's talking about. 

Suggestive looks and gestures often accompany the joking and remarks. One 

woman, for example, says that her fellow employees make obscene gestures 

and remarks to and about her. Her supervisor thinks it's funny and does nothing 

about it. 

Deliberate touching and cornering is cited by a large number of women. A 

supervisor stands so close to a female subordinate while giving instructions or 

looking over her work that he touches her-and while so doing makes suggestive 

body movements. "The last time the Regional Director was here," writes another 

victim, "the head secretary had to come to my rescue as the Director was 

practically breathing down my shirt. " 

Many women find materials of a sexual nature bothersome. One woman dislikes 

the way her male coworkers pass around and put up pornographic cartoons in 

work spaces. When she objects, her boss tells her she's too sensitive. 

Pressure for dates and sexual favors are also cited by women. Their descriptions 

indicate that their experiences not only were bother some, but sometimes had 

serious consequences. One woman says when she ignored her boss' advances, 

he began to treat her cruelly; for example, he made her take 4 hours of dictation, 

made her stay late to transcribe it, then in her presence threw it all away because 

"He didn't need it." Another woman's boss kept pestering her for dates and for 

favors and kept making personal remarks. When she would not change her mind 

and play around with him, he had her transferred to a less desirable job. During 

her first week on the job, reports a temporary trainee, her supervisor kept rubbing 

her back and shoulders while she typed and filed. Later he made a point blank 

advance, which she refused. Within a week she was let go on the grounds that 

she could not adapt to the office. The woman described earlier, whose Division 

Chief became violent when she refused to grant sexual favors sought medical 
help to calm her nerves but finally quit working altogether be cause of the 

experience. "I'm afraid to go back," she says. 

Far smaller percentages of men have been the object of these unwanted 

attentions, but the pattern is similar. Generally, the less severe the behavior, the 

more likely the worker was to experience it, with sexual remarks and suggestive 

looks leading the list for both men and women and actual or attempted rape or 

sexual assault being relatively rare. It is more difficult to discern what kinds of 

experiences men are talking about when they say they've been sexually 

harassed, because few chose to de scribe their experiences in the open-ended 

comment section provided in the questionnaire. Information from other sources 

indicates that men tend to describe homosexual harassment, such as the 

experiences cited earlier. 

It is interesting that the three most common forms of harassment-"sexual 

remarks," "suggestive looks," and "deliberate touching"--are the least direct and 

perhaps the most subject to different interpretations. One person's appreciative 

glance might be another person's suggestive look. Questioning about personal 

life might be intended as an expression of concern or caring but felt as an 

invasion of privacy. Writes one Federal worker, "the sexual harassment that goes 

on in my office is supposed to be in jest, but is very offensive and embarrassing." 

Another notes that the man in her office who tells sexual jokes and teases thinks 

the women enjoy his attention and remarks. Regardless of the possible ambiguity 

of some behavior, how ever, the important point is that a large number of Federal 

workers had found themselves the objects of this uninvited attention and had not 

wanted it-however innocent it had been or however innocuous it might have 

seemed to the initiator. 

Sexual Harassment Occurs Repeatedly 

To learn whether harassment is a one-time only experience or occurs repeatedly, 

we asked Federal workers how often they had been the object of the seven 

forms of uninvited, unwanted attention during the 2-year period--once, once a 

month or less, or once a week or more often.[6] Their responses made it clear 

that harassment is not a one-time-only phenomenon. 

Generally, the less severe the harassment the more likely women were to 

experience it more than once. However, more than half the female victims of five 

of the seven forms of harassment (all of the less severe forms and two of the 

three severe forms) had been subjected to that behavior more than once (see 

Figure 3-4). Only for female victims of actual or attempted rape did the 

experience tend strongly to occur only once. 

The experiences of men were similar, though for most forms a smaller 

percentage of male victims had experienced the behavior repeatedly. A marked 

difference between men and women was the frequency of actual or attempted 
rape or assault. More than half the men who reported this experience, but only 

one-fifth of the women, said they had faced it more than once. The experiences 

of men are somewhat surprising, as it was not anticipated that such serious 

behavior would occur repeatedly in more that half the reported cases. The sharp 

difference between men and women may reflect a difference in perceptions 

about what constitutes attempted rape or sexual assault. Further research might 

shed some light on this. 

Incidents May Last Several Weeks or More 

To add to the picture of harassment of Federal workers, victims were asked to 

describe in detail one particular incident, either their only experience, their most 

recent experience, or the one that had had the greatest effect on them. Victims 

who did so were termed "narrators, " and the episodes they reported on were 

termed their "critical incidents."[7]

One question asked of these narrators was "How long did this unwanted 

attention last?"[8]

FIGURE 3-4

Frequency of Sexual Harassment Incidents

Percentage of Female and Male Victims of Each Form of Harassment Who 

Experienced That Form of Sexual Harassment 

More Than Once* (Question 17) 

Reported by 77% of 

Women Sexual Remarks 

Reported by 71% of 

Men 

Reported by 73% of 

Women Suggestive Looks Reported by 61% of 

Men 

Reported by 55% of 

Women 

LESS 

SEVERE 

Pressure for Dates 

Reported by 45% of 

Men 

Reported by 62% of 

Women Deliberate Touching Reported by 54% of 

Men 

SEVERE 

Pressure for Sexual Favors Reported by 52% of 

Women 
Reported by 40% of 

Men 

Reported by 42% of 

Women Letters and Calls 

Reported by 38% of 

Men 

Reported by 20% of 

MOST Women 

SEVERE 

Actual or Attempted Rape 

or Assault Reported by 56% of 

Men 

* Once a month or less, 2-4 times a month, or once a week 

or more.

Their responses indicated that incidents of harassment can last varying lengths 

of time, but that most go on a week or more--and a sizeable percentage persist 

for more than 6 months. 

Responses of female narrators were some-what evenly distributed among the 

closed choices presented in the questionnaire-less than 1 week (31%), several 

weeks (19%), 1 to 6 months (22%), and more than 6 months (28%). For one-third 

of the female victims of actual or attempted rape (33%), the incident was over in 

less than a week--but for an equal number the incident lasted a fairly lengthy 

time, from 1 to 6 months. 

The incidents of male narrators also lasted varying lengths of time, but a 

somewhat larger percentage indicated their critical incidents were over in less 

than a week (39% compared with 31% for women). As with females, for one-third 

of the male victims of actual or attempted rape (32%) the experience lasted less 

than a week. In contrast with women, however, the largest group of these male 

victims (38%, compared with 17% of females) said their experience went on 

longer than 6 months. Again, this finding is somewhat surprising, one that might 

warrant further examination. 

Sexual Harassment Is No Worse in Federal Workplace 

The findings that large numbers of men and women are sexually harassed, that 

many are harassed more than once, and that the incidents last a relatively long 

time indicate that sexual harassment is a problem in the Federal work force. But 

is it any worse a problem in the Federal workplace than in the private sector, or 

for employees of state and local governments? Since we could not conduct a 

comprehensive survey of non-Federal workers, we sought to shed some light on 

this question by asking Federal workers who had held jobs outside the Federal 

Government what they thought.[9]
Their responses suggest that harassment is not worse in the Federal workplace. 

Of the men and women who had held jobs outside the Federal Government and 

had an opinion on the subject, around two-thirds (68% of the women and 61% of 

the men) thought there is about the same amount of sexual harassment in 

Federal and non-Federal jobs. An additional 20% of the women and 29% of the 

men thought there is more harassment in non-Federal jobs. The remainder 

thought there is less harassment in non-Federal jobs. 

Although we have no data with which to validate this overwhelming consensus 

that sexual harassment is no worse in the Federal workplace, there seems no 

reason to dispute the opinion, since Federal workers probably reflect the cultural 

values and behavior of the larger U.S. society. 

Conclusion 

Clearly, sexual harassment is a problem for many women working for the Federal 

Government, and to a lesser extent for men. Indeed, evidence presented later 

(see Chapter 5) indicates that many harassers bother more than one person. 

Thus, a picture of the experiences of Federal workers begins to emerge: sexual 

harassment occurs repeatedly, frequently lasts a month or longer, occurs in 

multiple forms for many victims, and is part of an overall pattern of sexual 

harassment perpetrated by the harasser. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 3 

1 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee 

on Post Office and Civil Service on Sexual Harassment in the Federal 

Government, 1st sess., October 23, November 1, 13, 1979, pp. 71-74. 

2 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding, Appendix E. 

3 Survey Question 17; see Appendix C. 

4 See Appendix B for explanation of levels of severity of sexual harassment. 

5 For example, a person who reported both deliberate touching, a form of 

"severe" harassment, and pressure for dates, a "less severe" behavior, was 

treated as a victim of "severe" harassment. 

6 See Survey Question 17. 

7 See Appendix B for a complete discussion of narrators. 

8 Survey Question 22; see Appendix D, Figure 0 for data. 

9 See Survey Question 8; see Appendix D, Table B for data. 
 

4. Victims of Sexual Harassment 

• Age, marital status, and sexual composition of the employee's work group 

have a relatively strong effect on whether a Federal employee is sexually 

harassed. 

• Factors having a somewhat weaker relationship are employee educational 

level, race or ethnic background, and job classification, traditionality of the 

employee's job, and sex of the employee's immediate supervisor. 

• Some Federal agencies have a greater incidence of sexual harassment 

than do others. 

• Sexual harassment is more likely to occur in work environments where 

employees have poor communications with their supervisors and feel 

pressured to participate in activities of a sexual nature. 

One in every four Federal employees reports having to deal with uninvited, 

unwanted sexual attention on the job. 

One in 20 has been pressured for sexual favors. 

One in 100 has faced actual or attempted rape or assault. 

Who are these 462,000 men and women who have had to deal with sexual 

harassment on the job? And who are the people bothering them? This and the 

following chapter look at the victims and perpetrators of sexual harassment, at 

the same time exploring what are thought to be some of the causes of the 

problem. 

Many people see sexual harassment as an expression of power, specifically a 

tool used (primarily by men) to keep other workers (typically women) in their 

place--and an expression of hostility toward workers (again, typically women) 

intruding in a world once exclusively the domain of the other sex.[1] This chapter 

addresses a corollary theory--that the people most likely to be sexually harassed 

are the powerless (those working in low-status jobs) or the pioneers (those 

working in jobs traditionally reserved for the opposite sex). 

We hoped to determine whether victims of sexual harassment are found in 

disproportion-ate numbers within certain Federal agencies, job classifications, 

geographic locations, racial categories, age brackets, educational levels, and 

grade levels.[2] We also wanted to learn whether there are any personal or job 

characteristics 

related to the incidence of sexual harassment that management could change to 

reduce the incidence of the problem. Such information is useful in framing 

remedies appropriate for different target groups. 
The factors that showed a relatively strong relationship with experience of sexual 

harassment were employee age, marital status, and sexual composition of the 

employee's immediate work group (see Table 4-1). Factors that showed a 

somewhat weaker relationship were education level, race and ethnic 

background, job classification, traditionality of job, and sex of supervisor. In 

addition, the rate of incidence of sexual harassment varied somewhat from 

agency to agency. 

A detailed discussion of these personal and organizational characteristics and a 

brief look at general work environments follow. 

Table 4-1

Characteristics of Federal Workers Most Likely To Be Sexually Harassed 

On the Job

Women Most Likely To Be Sexually 

Harassed Are... 

• Young (under 34) 

• Single or divorced 

• Well educated (college degree or 

higher) 

• Members of either a minority or 

non minority group (black, 

Hispanic, other minority, or white) 

• Very dependent on their jobs 

Men Most Likely To Be Sexually 

Harassed Are... 

• Young (under 34) 

• Widowed, single, or 

divorced 

• Relatively well educated (at 

least some college) 

• Members of a minority 

group (black, Hispanic, 

American Indian, Alaskan 

Native, or other minority) 

• Very dependent on their 

jobs 

And the Women are Working ... 

• For the Departments of Labor, 

Transportation, or Justice, "Other 

Defense Department" agencies, 

the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, the Air Force, 

Navy, or Marine Corps, the 

Veterans Administration, or other 

agencies 

• In any geographic region, but 

particularly in the North Central 

and Upper Midwest 

• At any salary level, but particularly 

for less than $11,000 annually 

• As a GS-1 through GS-15 or in 

And the Men are Working ... 

• For the Departments of 

Health, Education and 

Welfare; Justice; or 

Housing and Urban 

Development; the Veterans 

Administration; or the 

General Services 

Administration 

• In any geographic region, 

but particularly in the 

Pacific region 

• At lower salary levels 

(under $15,000 annually) 

• As a GS-1 through GS-8 or 
pay classification "Other" 

• In any occupation, but particularly 

as a trainee or in a professional/ 

technical position 

• In a nontraditional position (though 

most victims hold traditional 

positions) 

• For an immediate supervisor who 

is male, or for several supervisors, 

both male and female 

• In a predominately or completely 

male immediate work group 

in an ungraded job 

• In any occupation, but 

particularly as a trainee or 

in an office/clerical position 

• In a nontraditional position 

(though most victims hold 

traditional positions) 

• For an immediate 

supervisor who is female, 

or for several supervisors, 

both male and female 

• In a predominately or 

completely female 

immediate work group 

Female Victims Also Tend To... 

• Have varying degrees of privacy in 

their workspaces, but particularly 

to have no workspace to call their 

own, to have a workspace that can 

be seen from one to three sides, or 

to have only a semi-private office 

• Be working in a non supervisory 

capacity 

• Have worked for the Federal 

Government for varying numbers 

of years 

• Be working full time on a 

permanent basis 

• Be working either regular daytime 

hours or on other schedules 

• Be working in immediate work 

groups of all sizes, from groups of 

1-5 persons to groups of 25 or 

more 

Male Victims Also Tend To... 

• Have varying degrees of 

privacy in their workspaces, 

but particularly to have no 

workspace to call their own 

• Be working in either a 

supervisory or nonsupervisory capacity 

• Have worked for the 

Federal Government less 

than 1 year 

• Be working full time on a 

permanent basis or to be a 

part time, seasonal, or 

temporary employee or a 

consultant 

• Be working on a schedule 

other than regular daytime 

hours (e.g., nights, 

weekends, alternating 

shifts) 

• Be working in immediate 

work groups of al sizes, 

from groups of 1-5 persons 

to group of 25 or more 

FIGURE 4-1

Age of Victims
Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Ages Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment (Question 61) 

Ages 16-19 

Reported by 67% of 

Women 

Reported by 27% of 

Men 

Ages 20-24 

Reported by 59% of 

Women 

Reported by 20% of 

Men 

Ages 25-

34

Reported by 53% of 

Women 

Reported by 18% of 

Men 

Ages 35-

44

Reported by 43% of 

Women 

Reported by 14% of 

Men 

Ages 45-

54

Reported by 33% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Ages 55 

and older 

Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment 

Reported by 22% of 

Women 

Reported by 12% of 

Men 

Several Personal Characteristics Are Related to Sexual Harassment 

Since few studies have looked at men as potential victims, we had few 

expectations about the characteristics of male victims. We anticipated that most 

female victims would have similar personal and organizational characteristics 

that would make them more vulnerable to being harassed, and that generally 

they would have less power and lower status than women who are not harassed. 

We found that in some ways women with relatively little power and status, as 

measured by certain personal and organizational characteristics, were more 

vulnerable to sexual harassment and in some ways they were not. 

We expected to find that young, unmarried Federal workers, those less 

educated, very dependent on their jobs, and members of minority groups, were 

more vulnerable than others to sexual harassment. We found that age and 

marital status have a relatively strong relationship with sexual harassment, and 
educational level and race or ethnic background a somewhat weaker 

relationship. 

Younger Workers Are More Vulnerable 

Age makes a difference in whether a Federal worker, particularly a woman, is 

sexually harassed[3] (see Figure 4-1). Although men and women in all age 

brackets were victims, generally the lower the age bracket, the more likely the 

experience. The youngest workers (aged 16-19) had the highest incidence rates. 

These young workers, though they represented the fewest number of victims, 

were far more likely than workers in the oldest age bracket (aged 55 and older) to 

be sexually harassed--younger women were more than three times as likely and 

younger men twice as likely. 

Single and Divorced Workers Are Likely Victims 

Generally, unmarried workers were more likely than married workers to have 

been sexually bothered by others, but there were some differences between 

women and men[4] (see Figure 4-2). 

FIGURE 4 - 2

Marital Status of Victims

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment, by 

Marital Status (Question 62) 

Single 

Reported by 53% of 

Women 

Reported by 22% of 

Men 

Divorced 

Reported by 49% of 

Women 

Reported by 21% of 

Men 

Married

Reported by 37% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Widowed

Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment 

Reported by 31% of 

Women 

Reported by 30% of 

Men 

Single and divorced women were more likely than married women to have been 

sexually harassed, but widowed women were least likely to have had the 

experience. The reason for their lower rate is uncertain. One might speculate that 
widows, as a group, tend to be older than other groups, as are widowed victims 

(88% were 45 years or older). Their relatively greater age may have made them 

less vulnerable to sexual harassment. 

Like women, single and divorced men were more likely than married men to 

report sexual harassment. But, in contrast to women, widowers had the highest 

incidence rate among men (though the majority, like women, were 45 or older). 

Despite their relatively high incidence rate, however, widowed men accounted for 

only a very small percentage of male victims, only 2% (or approximately 3,000) 

out of 168,000 male victims. The reasons for this might be a subject for further 

research. 

Education Level Shows a Weaker Relationship 

Contrary to expectations, higher educated men and women had a greater 

likelihood of reporting they had been sexually harassed than their less educated 

counterparts[5] (see Figure 4-3). Of the 74,000 women with at least a college 

degree, around half--48% to 53% reported having been bothered by uninvited 

sexual attention. Incidence rates for the 221,000 women with less than a college 

degree were lower, ranging from 31% to 45%. 

Somewhat surprised by this finding, we examined the responses of these women 

victims to several other survey questions. It seemed possible that the higher 

incidence rates reported by higher educated women might be attributable to 

greater awareness or sensitivity on their part or to some other factor. Higher 

educated women victims (those with at least a college degree) generally were 

not more likely than lower educated women victims (those lacking a college 

degree) to label uninvited sexual attention sexual harassment,[6] but there were 

differences in attitudes that may indicate greater sensitivity on their part. 

For instance, higher educated women victims were considerably more likely than 

lower educated women victims to call something sexual harassment even if the 

person doing it did not mean to be offensive (47% compared with 25%).[7] This 

could indicate that higher educated women are more likely to view with suspicion 

the perceived motive or demeanor of the person initiating a behavior, and thus 

more likely than their lower educated counterparts to regard that behavior as 

sexual harassment. 

As relevant as this difference in attitudes seems, it may not be great enough to 

explain the difference in incidence rates between the higher and lower educated 

women. Another explanation may lie in the types of jobs these women hold. As 

data presented later in this chapter show, women who are among the first of their 

sex in a job report higher rates of harassment than women who are not. On this 

factor--traditionality of job--the higher and lower educated female victims differed 

considerably.[8] The more educated victims were more than 2 1/2 times more 

likely than their lower educated counterparts to hold nontraditional jobs (23% 
compared with 9%). These additional findings--that higher educated women are 

more likely to be the first of their sex in their jobs and more sensitive to offensive 

behavior than are lower educated women--may help explain the difference in rate 

of harassment between the two groups. 

Higher educated men also tended to be more likely than their lower educated 

counterparts to report unwanted sexual attention. Men with a high school 

diploma, Graduate Equivalency Degree (GED), or less were less likely to be 

sexually harassed than those with more than a high school diploma. Further, 

men with some college experience or with graduate degrees were more than 

twice as likely to be harassed as those with less than a high school diploma. 

FIGURE 4-3

Education Level of Victims

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Education Levels Who 

Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 60) 

Less than high 

school diploma 

Reported by 31% of 

Women 

Reported by 8% of 

Men 

High School 

diploma or GED 

(Graduate 

Equivalency 

Degree)

Reported by 35% of 

Women 

Reported by 11% of 

Men 

High school 

diploma plus 

technical training 

or apprenticeship 

Reported by 39% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Some college 

Reported by 45% of 

Women 

Reported by 17% of 

Men 

Graduated from 

college (B.A., 

B.S., or other 

bachelor's 

degree 

Reported by 50% of 

Women 

Reported by 14% of 

Men 

Some graduate 

school 

Reported by 53% of 

Women 

Reported by 15% of 

Men 

Graduate or 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment 

Reported by 48% of 
professional 

degree 

Women 

Reported by 17% of 

Men 

FIGURE 4-4

Racial and Ethnic Background of Victims

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Racial and Ethnic Backgrounds 

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 59) 

Other 

Reported by 48% of 

Women 

Reported by 27% of 

Men 

Hispanic 

Reported by 45% of 

Women 

Reported by 19% of 

Men 

White, not of 

Hispanic origin 

Reported by 43% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Black, not of 

Hispanic origin 

Reported by 43% of 

Women 

Reported by 21% of 

Men 

Asian or Pacific 

Islander 

Reported by 36% of 

Women 

Reported by 16% of 

Men 

American Indian 

or Alaskan native 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment

Reported by 35% of 

Women 

Reported by 22% of 

Men 

In summary, there does appear to be a relationship between education level and 

experience of sexual harassment. Higher educated men and women tend to be 

more likely than their lower educated counterparts to report harassment, but for 

women, some of the difference may be explained by other factors. Despite these 

differences, it is clear that the problem of unwanted sexual attention affects a 

sizeable number of Federal workers of all education levels, particularly women. 

Racial or Ethnic Background Makes Some Difference 
Although unwanted sexual attention is a problem for women and men of all racial 

and ethnic backgrounds, there does appear to be some relationship between 

incidence rates and this personal characteristic, particularly for men.[9]

As can be seen in Figure 4-4, incidence rates for Hispanic, black, and nonminority white women--the categories representing the greatest number of 

female Federal workers--10,100, 59,300, and 212,800 respectively--were similar. 

While women in other minority categories were both more likely or less likely than 

these three groups to report harassment, they accounted for a relatively small 

number of victims. For example, women who classified themselves as "other," 

had the highest rate of sexual harassment, but only accounted for 2,400 of the 

women victims. Likewise, Asian and American Indian women had lower rates of 

sexual harassment but accounted for only 3,500 and 4,300 of the women victims. 

Unlike women, men who are members of minority groups did report higher 

incidence rates than non minority men. The lowest rate of sexual harassment for 

men of any racial or ethnic group was found among non-minorities (13%). 

Minority men, however, had higher rates of harassment ranging from 16% to 

27%. As with women, the men with the highest rate of sexual harassment-those 

classified as "other"--were also the fewest in number (2,200). 

Thus it appears that racial or ethnic background has some effect ,on whether 

men are sexually harassed, but less on women. 

Most Victims are Very Dependent on Their Jobs 

Perhaps not surprisingly, we found that most victims were very dependent on 

their jobs. This showed clearly in the responses of narrator victims to the 

question, "At the time of this experience, how much did you need this job?"[10] 

Nearly 7 in 10 female narrators said that at that time they needed their job a 

great deal (the other four possible responses ranged from "quite a bit" to "not at 

all "). It is interesting that women who had faced actual or attempted rape or 

assault were more likely than others to have needed their jobs a great deal at the 

time of harassment (79% compared with 70% of female narrators who described 

"severe" experiences and 66% of those who had "less severe" sexual 

harassment).[11]

The responses of male narrators were similar to those of women. 

Personal Characteristics Do Have an Impact on Incidence of Sexual 

Harassment 

In summary, we found that age and marital status have a strong relationship with 

experience of sexual harassment, and educational level and racial or ethnic 

background have a somewhat weaker relationship. Although sizeable numbers of 
women of various backgrounds experience sexual harassment, young, 

unmarried, and relatively well educated women appear to be more vulnerable to 

sexual harassment than others. This pattern holds true for men, as well, but 

racial or ethnic background also plays a role for men. Male minorities are more 

likely than non minorities to report having been sexually harassed. 

Several Organizational Characteristics Are Related to Sexual Harassment 

Continuing our investigation by looking at whether victims with certain 

organizational characteristics were more likely to be bothered by unwanted 

sexual attention, we explored the popular theories about sexual harassment.[12]

The literature suggests that victims tend to be working in low status jobs with little 

power. Based on this we expected that typical victims would be non supervisors 

who were relatively new to the Federal work force, working for a low annual 

salary (or perhaps as a part time or temporary employee), or working in a job 

traditionally held by a member of the opposite sex. 

To some extent these expectations were realized. Organizational characteristics 

that had some relationship with rates of sexual harassment were job 

classification (e.g., trainee, office/clerical or administration/ management), 

traditionality of job, sex of victim's supervisor, and sexual composition of victim's 

workgroup. 

Incidence Rates Vary By Agency 

For both men and women, incidence rates varied considerably from agency to 

agency[13] (see Table 4-2). For women, incidence rates ranged from a high of 

56% (nearly 6 women in every 10) in the Department of Labor to a lower rate of 

31% (3 women in 10) in the Department of Agriculture. In nine agencies the 

incidence rate exceeded the 42% overall rate for women in the Federal 

workforce, and in four of these agencies at least half of the female employees 

indicated that they had been sexually harassed. 

Table 4-2

Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment In Each Agency 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Different Agencies Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment (Question 55) 

 Female Victims 

Agency[1] Most 

Severe

Severe Less 

Severe

Total 

Victims 

Department Labor 2% 47% 8% 56%

Department of Transportation 1% 45% 9% 55%

Department of Justice 4% 33% 16% 53%

All Other Department of 3% 37% 10% 50% 
Defense Agencies[2] 

All Other Agencies[2] 1% 30% 16% 48%

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

1% 29% 18% 47%

Department of the Air Force 1% 34% 12% 46%

Veterans Administration 2% 33% 12% 46%

Department of the Navy, 

including the Marine Corps 

2% 30% 12% 44% 

Department of Interior 1% 28% 12% 41% 

Department of the Army 1% 31% 9% 41% 

Department of Commerce 0.3% 20% 20% 40% 

Department of Energy 1% 27% 10% 38% 

Department of Treasury 0 22% 15% 37% 

Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare[3] 

1% 25% 9% 35% 

General Services 

Administration 

0 22% 13% 35% 

Department of Agriculture 2% 18% 11% 31% 

Federal Government wide 1% 29% 12% 42% 

 Male Victims

Agency[1] Most 

Severe

Severe Less 

Severe

Total 

Victims 

Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare[3] 

1% 13% 9% 22% 

Veterans Administration 0.4% 13% 8% 22% 

Department of Justice 0.3% 10% 6% 16%

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

0 11% 5% 16%

General Services 

Administration 

0 9% 7% 16% 

Department of the Army 0.4% 9% 5% 15% 

Department of Treasury 0.2% 9% 5% 14% 

Department of Interior 0.1% 6% 7% 14% 

Department of Energy 0 7% 6% 14% 

Department of the Navy, 

including the Marine Corps 

0.3% 9% 5% 14% 

All Other Department of 

Defense Agencies[2] 

0 7% 6% 13% 

Department of the Air Force 0.1% 9% 4% 12% 

Department of Agriculture 0.2% 7% 5% 12% 
Department of Commerce 1% 3% 8% 12% 

All Other Agencies[2] 0.3% 5% 5% 10% 

Department of Labor 1% 7% 2% 10% 

Department of Transportation 0 5% 4% 9% 

Federal Government wide 0.3% 9% 6% 15% 

Note: All figures for each agency may not add up due to rounding. 

Percentages in bold are higher than Federal Government wide 

percentages.

Table 4-2 footnotes: 

1 Ranked in order of highest percentage of sexual harassment among total 

victims for each sex. 

2 See Appendix B for explanation. 

3 The Department of Health, Education and Welfare was abolished and two 

new agencies (Department of Health and Human Services and the 

Department of Education) were formed in May 1980. 

Incidence rates also varied somewhat by severity of harassment experience: 

women in six agencies reported having faced actual or attempted rape or sexual 

assault at a rate higher than that of the Federal work force as a whole; in nine 

agencies, the rate of "severe" sexual harassment was higher than the national 

average for that level of severity, and in six agencies the rate of "less severe" 

sexual harassment exceeded the Federal average. 

Incidence rates for men also varied by agency, but the agencies having rates 

exceeding the 15% average rate for men in the Federal work force--five agencies 

in the case of men--were somewhat different. Again, incidence rates also varied 

by severity of harassment experience: in five agencies the rate for men who 

faced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault exceeded the Government wide 

average, in four the rate for "severe" sexual harassment exceeded the Federal 

average, and in five the rate of "less severe" harassment was higher. 

Although the specific agencies with higher overall incidence rates differ 

somewhat for men and women, in three agencies--Justice, Housing and Urban 

Development, and the Veterans Administration--the rates for both men and 

women were higher than the Federal rate. 

We also found that the majority of narrators in the Federal Government--83% of 

women and 86% of men--reported that the harassment incident occurred on their 

current job as of May 1980.[14]

For both men and women, this finding varied somewhat by agency and with the 

severity of the experience. For example, 98% of female narrators who 

experienced some form of harassment at the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development were in the same jobs where the harassment occurred compared 
with 65% at the Department of Energy. Moreover, all female and male narrator 

victims of actual or attempted rape or assault at the Department of Justice 

reported that they had left the job where they had been working at the time of 

harassment. 

In summary, the incidence rate of sexual harassment varies substantially from 

agency to agency, and the majority of victims are still working in the jobs they 

held when they were harassed. 

Regional Differences Are Minor 

Sexual harassment is not limited to any particular geographic region or regions, 

and what regional differences were found are judged to be small[15] (see Figure 

4-5). In 6 of the 11 geographic regions, the incidence rate for women exceeded 

the Federal average for women, the highest rates being in the North Central and 

Upper Midwest regions[16] (48% and 47% compared with the Federal average of 

42%). In three regions the rate was lower than the Federal average, the lowest 

being in the Pacific Northwest (37%) and the Southeast (38%). 

FIGURE 4-5

Geographic Location of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Each Geographic Region Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment (Question 56) 

Geographic Location Percent of Federal Employees 

North Central Reported by 48% of Women 

Reported by 14% of Men 

Upper Midwest Reported by 47% of Women 

Reported by 13% of Men 

Midwest Reported by 45% of Women 

Reported by 15% of Men 

Pacific Reported by 44% of Women 

Reported by 20% of Men 

Washington DC area Reported by 44% of Women 

Reported by 14% of Men 

New York Reported by 43% of Women 

Reported by 14% of Men 

Southwest Reported by 42% of Women 

Reported by 12% of Men 

Mid Atlantic Reported by 42% of Women 

Reported by 16% of Men 

New England Reported by 40% of Women 

Reported by 12% of Men 
Southeast Reported by 38% of Women 

Reported by 142% of Men 

Pacific Northwest Reported by 37% of Women 

Reported by 14% of Men 

For men, the highest rates were in the Pacific and Mid-Atlantic regions and the 

lowest were in the Southeast, New England, and Southwest regions (20%, 16%, 

and 12% compared with a Federal average for men of 15%). 

Differences Among Salary and Grade Levels Vary Slightly 

Contrary to what might have been expected, sexual harassment is not 

concentrated in any particular salary level. Although incidence rates did vary 

somewhat by salary bracket, the differences were small.[17] As Figure 4-6 

shows, women in the lowest salary bracket (which comprised 39% of all women 

victims) were somewhat more likely (47%) than others to be sexually harassed, 

but generally the rates were similar for all income groups. 

Having expected to find a greater contrast among income groups, and 

suspecting that salary level might not reflect job status as well as grade level, we 

looked closer at the women in white collar jobs, classified under the General 

Schedule pay plan.[18] Since most women employed by the Federal Government 

are classified under the General Schedule, we thought this might be an 

appropriate measure of job status. The incidence of sexual harassment was 

pretty much the same among most white collar workers, those in grades GS 1-

15.[19] Women in the "other" category had a somewhat higher incidence rate, 

and those in Executive positions (GS 16 or above or in the Senior Executive 

Service) were somewhat lower, but those two groups account for a very small 

number of women. 

As Figure 4-6 indicates, men in the two lowest salary brackets were somewhat 

more likely than other men to be sexually harassed (19% compared to 11% to 

14%). However, it should be noted that a relatively small number and proportion 

of victims fall into these two lower salary brackets (34% or 56,800 men) 

compared with women (72% or 212,800 women). The finding that men in lower 

salary brackets are somewhat more likely to be sexually harassed is supported 

by an analyses of incidence among men in General Schedule grades. The 

incidence rates ranged from a high of 54% for men in ungraded positions to a low 

of 9% for men in the executive positions (GS 16 or above, or Senior Executive 

Service). 

FIGURE 4-6

Annual Salary of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Different Annual Salary Brackets Who 

Experienced Sexual Harassment 
Annual Salary Percent of Federal Employees 

Low Income ($1 to $10,999) Reported by 47% of Women 

Reported by 19% of Men 

Low medium Income 

($11,000 to $14,999) 

Reported by 39% of Women 

Reported by 19% of Men 

Medium income ($15,000 to 

$19,999) 

Reported by 42% of Women 

Reported by 14% of Men 

Medium high income 

($20,000 to $23,999) 

Reported by 42% of Women 

Reported by 11% of Men 

High income ($24,000 and 

up) 

Reported by 42% of Women 

Reported by 13% of Men 

In summary, the problem of sexual harassment is not concentrated in any 

particular salary or grade level, but men in lower income brackets and grade 

levels are more likely than others to experience harassment. 

Job Classification Shows a Relatively Weak Relationship

While there were some variations in incidence rates, it is clear that sexual 

harassment is not concentrated in any category of job[20] (see Figure 4-7). 

Contrary to expectations arising from popular theory, there was no clear pattern 

that women in low-status jobs having little power were generally more vulnerable 

to sexual harassment than were other women. As Figure 4-7 shows, the 

incidence rate was highest for trainees, but was next highest for women in 

professional/technical positions. 

FIGURE 4-7

Job Classification of Victims

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Job Classifications Who 

Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 57) 

Trainee 

Reported by 51% of 

Women 

Reported by 16% of 

Men 

Professional, 

technical 

Reported by 45% of 

Women 

Reported by 15% of 

Men 

Administration, 

management 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment 

Reported by 42% of 

Women 

Reported by 15% of 
Men 

Other 

Reported by 42% of 

Women 

Reported by 14% of 

Men 

Office, clerical 

Reported by 40% of 

Women 

Reported by 17% of 

Men 

Blue collar, 

service 

Reported by 38% of 

Women 

Reported by 12% of 

Men 

The finding for trainees was not unexpected since trainees, being new on the job, 

usually have little power or control over their work situation. Further, they tend to 

be young (81% of female trainee victims were 16-34 years old).[21] As data 

presented earlier in this chapter show, younger victims are more likely to be 

sexually harassed. In addition, female trainee victims were more likely than 

female victims in other job classifications to be in nontraditional jobs (35% of 

female trainee victims were in nontraditional positions compared with around 

20% in administrative, blue collar, and professional/technical positions).[22]

However, very few female victims--only 3%--were trainees. 

Contrary to what might have been expected, female office/clerical workers were 

not more likely to be sexually harassed than women in higher status positions. 

Also contrary to findings of other studies, women in blue collar/service 

occupations had a relatively low incidence rate (38%). The relatively low 

incidence rate may be attributable to the fact that few of these women were in 

nontraditional positions for their sex (only 17%, or 5,200 of 31,600 female blue 

collar workers); in the private sector more female workers in blue collar/service 

occupations may be holding nontraditional jobs. 

Results for men tended to be as anticipated. As Figure 4-7 shows, incidence 

rates for men were highest in office/clerical positions (typically female jobs) and 

lowest in blue collar/service positions (typically held by men). However, only 6% 

of all male victims (approximately 9,600 men) held office/clerical positions, 

compared with 17% (or 28,500) in blue collar/service positions. It is noteworthy 

that male office/clerical workers who reported sexual harassment were almost 

twice as likely to be one of the first of their sex in their jobs compared to male 

office/clerical workers who were not harassed (13% compared with 7%). 

In summary, although most sexual harassment is not concentrated in any 

particular job classification, women trainees are considerably more likely to be 

harassed than are those in other jobs. 
Working in a Nontraditional Job Makes a Difference 

We expected that workers who were among the first of their sex in their job (i.e., 

in nontraditional jobs) would be more likely to be sexually harassed than those in 

more traditional jobs for their sex. Examples of nontraditional jobs are female law 

enforcement officers and construction workers and male secretaries and nurses. 

The literature does not address this issue for men, but suggests that this occurs 

to women because men see women entering their "territory" as a threat, and 

respond by using sexual harassment to try to limit the women’s' success or to get 

them to leave. We found the expected relationship present to some extent: men 

and women in nontraditional jobs for their sex were somewhat more likely to be 

sexually harassed than others.[23] 

FIGURE 4-8

Traditionality of Jobs of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Traditional and Nontraditional Jobs For 

Their Sex Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment (Question 52) 

Nontraditional 

job 

Reported by 53% of 

Women 

Reported by 20% of 

Men 

Traditional 

job 

Who Experienced Sexual 

Harassment Reported by 41% of 

Women 

Reported by 14% of 

Men 

As Figure 4-8 shows, fully 5 in every 10 women in nontraditional jobs reported 

unwanted sexual attention on the job, compared with 4 in 10 women in other 

jobs. However, few women--only 12%, or 35,800 in 291,700--reported working in 

nontraditional positions. As with women, men in nontraditional jobs were 

somewhat more likely to experience harassment than others, but this group 

comprises an even smaller percentage of male victims--5%, or 8,700 out of 

164,700. 

Sex of Immediate Supervisor a Factor 

We had expected to find that women workers with supervisors of the opposite 

sex were more vulnerable to sexual harassment, since the literature suggests 

that most incidents of sexual harassment are perpetrated or tolerated by 

supervisors.[24] This expectation that the sex of the immediate supervisor makes 

a difference was borne out for both men and women.[25]
FIGURE 4-9 

Sex of Supervisor(s) of Victims

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment, by Sex 

of Immediate Supervisor(s) (Question 50) 

Male supervisor 

Reported by 45% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Male and female 

supervisors 

Reported by 44% of 

Women 

Reported by 25% of 

Men 

Female 

supervisor 

Reported by 38% of 

Women 

Reported by 23% of 

Men 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment 

 

As Figure 4-9 shows, women were somewhat more likely to be sexually 

harassed if their immediate supervisor was a man than if the supervisor was a 

woman. Even more consistent with expectations, we found that men were almost 

twice as likely to be sexually harassed if their supervisor was a woman, than if 

the supervisor was a man.[26] 

These findings--that women are somewhat more likely to be harassed if their 

supervisor is male and men are almost twice as likely to be harassed if their 

supervisor is female--implies that sex of supervisor has some bearing on whether 

an employee is likely to be sexually harassed, although most incidents of sexual 

harassment are perpetrated by coworkers. It also may suggest that supervisors 

are more likely to allow sexual harassment to occur to their subordinates if those 

employees are of the opposite sex. 

Male-Female Ratio in Immediate Workgroup Is Strongly Related 

We expected to find that most sexual harassment occurs between members of 

the opposite sex and is greater where the victims have fewer same sex 

coworkers who might serve as a support system. We thought women in primarily 

male work groups might be especially vulnerable because they could be seen as 

outsiders who threaten the "old boy network " in the workgroup. 

As expected, both men and women were more likely to be bothered by unwanted 

sexual attention if they worked in work groups composed wholly or primarily of 

members of the opposite sex.[27] As Figure 4-10 shows, the greater the 
proportion of men in the work group, the likelier women were to be sexually 

harassed. More than half the women who worked in all male workgroups, and 

nearly half who worked in predominately male workgroups, reported having had 

to deal with unwanted sexual attention, compared with just over one-third of 

women in predominately female work groups, and one-fifth of women in all 

female groups. A sizeable percentage of female victims--44% or 127,700 out of 

292,800--were working in wholly or predominately male work groups at the time 

they were harassed. 

FIGURE 4-10

Sexual Composition of Victims' Work Groups 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Different Kinds of Work Groups Who 

Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 51) 

All men 

Reported by 55% of 

Women 

Reported by 8% of 

Men 

Predominately 

men 

Reported by 49% of 

Women 

Reported by 13% of 

Men 

Equal number of 

men and women 

Reported by 43% of 

Women 

Reported by 19% of 

Men 

Predominately 

women 

Reported by 37% of 

Women 

Reported by 22% of 

Men 

All women 

Reported by 22% of 

Women 

Reported by 22% of 

Men 

Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment 

Men also were more likely to be bothered by unwanted sexual attention if they 

worked in groups composed wholly or predominately of members of the opposite 

sex. However, relatively few male victims--only 20% or 33,600 out of 167,000--

were working in mostly or all female groups when they were harassed; the 

largest number (62%) were working in all or predominately male workgroups, 

where the incidence rate is relatively low (8% to 13%). 

Thus, it appears that sexual composition of work groups does affect the 

likelihood of women and men becoming victims of sexual harassment. The 

greater the concentration of members of the opposite sex in the work group, the 
greater the incidence of harassment. This has a greater impact on women since 

a greater proportion of women than men are likely to work in groups composed 

wholly or primarily of members of the opposite sex. 

The finding that sexual composition of the work group, like sex of the supervisor, 

has a relationship to incidence rate of sexual harassment also may be 

attributable to the finding reported in the next chapter--that Federal employees 

are sexually harassed by coworkers more often than by supervisors. 

Other Organizational Characteristics Showed Little Relationship with 

Sexual Harassment 

Six other organizational characteristics examined showed little relationship to the 

incidence of sexual harassment. Four were expected to shed some light on the 

theory that people with the least status and power are most vulnerable: level of 

privacy, supervisory status, length of Federal service, and work schedule. The 

other two--work hours and size of workgroup--were designed to explore 

workplace characteristics. 

Relationship between privacy on the job and likelihood of bothersome 

attention is uncertain. Some observers have speculated that workers having no 

personal workspace or an open workspace would be more vulnerable to 

harassment since their working conditions do not afford a sense of privacy; 

others have suggested just the opposite, that those having private workspaces 

would be more vulnerable since much sexual harassment, particularly in its more 

severe forms, occurs in private. Thus, we asked victims whether, at the time they 

were harassed, they had a workspace they could call their own, and if they did, 

what it was like: open (worker could be seen from all sides); semi-open (seen 

from 1 to 3 sides); semi-private (with door that can be closed); or private (with 

door that can be closed).[28] We found that no one type of workspace was 

typical of victims of sexual harassment. 

While there were some differences for women, there was not a clear pattern. 

Women having no workspace, a semi-open space, or a semi-private space were 

somewhat more likely to be bothered with unwanted sexual attention than those 

with open workspaces or a private office (44% to 46% compared with 39%). 

The slightly greater likelihood of harassment of women who had no personal 

workspace might be due to their lack of privacy. The slightly greater 

vulnerableness of women having semi-private offices might reflect the finding 

(discussed in the next chapter) that most women were bothered by coworkers in 

the same office; the semi-private office would seem to afford a relatively greater 

freedom to harass. Any conclusions on the question would be premature, but the 

findings would seem a fruitful area for future research. 
Men experienced sexual harassment at about the same rate, regardless of the 

degree of privacy of their workspaces (13%-16%). 

Nonsupervisors were not found to be more vulnerable to sexual harassment 

than supervisors.[29] Although female nonsupervisors were somewhat more 

likely than female supervisors to report unwanted sexual attention (43% 

compared with 39%), and male nonsupervisors slightly more likely than 

supervisors (15% compared with 14%), these differences are judged to be small. 

While it is true that most victims--88% of female victims and 73% of male victims-

-are nonsupervisors, there are also far more people working in a nonsupervisory 

capacity for the Federal Government. 

The relationship between length of Federal service and likelihood of 

unwanted sexual attention was different for men and women.[30] Women on 

probation (i.e., with less than 1 year of Federal service) were somewhat more 

likely to report sexual harassment than those not on probation (i.e., more than 1 

year of Federal service) (45% compared with 42%), but this difference was 

judged small. The difference in incidence rates for men was more marked: 20% 

of men on probation, but only 14% of those not on probation, reported having 

been harassed. The overall impact of any true differences is probably 

insignificant since relatively small numbers of Federal workers have less than 1 

year of Federal service and most victims are women, who show only slight 

differences in incidence rates. Most victims of sexual harassment, both men and 

women, had been working for the Federal Government for more than 1 year 

when they were harassed. 

Work schedule--permanent, full-time or another arrangement such as parttime, 

temporary, or seasonal--showed only a slight relationship with incidence of 

sexual harassment, and then only for women.[31] Women working in permanent 

full time jobs were somewhat more likely than others to be bothered with 

unwanted attention (43% compared with 37%) but men showed the same rate 

regardless of work schedule (15%). 

The typical working hours of an employee--day time or other arrangements 

such as night time, weekends, shifts, or frequent overtime--seems to bear no 

important relationship to whether the employee is subjected to bothersome 

sexual harassment.[32] Women working regularly in the day time were just about 

as likely to be bothered as working nights, weekends, shifts, or a lot of overtime. 

Although men working "other" hours were a little more vulnerable than day time 

workers to being harassed (17% compared with 14%), this disparity probably is 

not great enough to make a real difference. 

The size of the immediate work group of the employee--small (1-5 people), 

medium (6-15 people), large (16-25 people), or very large (more than 25)--had 

no relationship with likelihood of sexual harassment.[33] The largest group of 

female victims were working in medium sized work groups (40%), but the 
incidence rates for the four different sized groups were about the same (41% to 

45%). The range of incidence rates for men was even smaller (13% to 15%). 

Organizational Characteristics Have an Impact on the Incidence of Sexual 

Harassment 

In summary, of the 13 characteristics of an employee's job or work place 

examined, one clearly showed a relatively strong relationship with incidence of 

sexual harassment: male-female ratio in the immediate workgroup. Women 

working in work groups composed completely or primarily of men were more 

likely to be subjected to unwanted sexual attention, and conversely, men in 

wholly or primarily female workgroups were more likely to be sexually harassed. 

Three other organizational characteristics showed some relationship with 

harassment: sex of immediate supervisor, traditionality of job, and job 

classification. Generally a worker whose immediate supervisor was of the 

opposite sex, or who had more than one supervisor, both male and female, was 

more vulnerable than a worker whose supervisor was of the same sex. Although 

most victims, both male and female, were working in traditional jobs when they 

were harassed, the likelihood of being harassed was greater for those in jobs 

usually held by the opposite sex. This effect may have been seen somewhat in 

the slightly greater vulnerability to harassment of men in office/clerical positions--

but relatively few male victims were working in such jobs when they were 

harassed. 

Women working in professional/technical jobs, and both female and male 

trainees, were somewhat more likely to be bothered with unwanted attention--but 

it is clear that Federal workers in all job classifications, particularly women, 

experience harassment. 

Victims See Their Work Environments Differently Than Nonvictims 

We also were interested in whether the general atmosphere in a work place had 

any relationship with sexual harassment. Are some work environments more 

conducive to sexual harassment than others? To explore this issue we compared 

the responses of victims[34] by sex (i.e., female victims with female nonvictims, 

etc.) to two sets of attitudinal questions, one that attempted to assess general 

relations with supervisors and one designed to measure the general level of 

sexual activity in the office. 35 

We expected to find that victims had worse relations with their supervisors, felt 

more pressured to engage in sexually oriented behavior, and generally felt their 

organization was not as helpful as it might be in curtailing sexual harassment of 

its employees. This turned out to be true. 
Perhaps not surprisingly, victims, particularly women, were considerably more 

likely than nonvictims to feel uninvited, unwanted sexual attention was a problem 

where they worked. (See Table 4-3) Specifically, male and female victims were 

more inclined to feel they were expected to flirt and make sexual comments 

about the opposite sex and to think employees in their offices use (or used) 

sexual favors to advance on the job. 

Victims also were more likely to indicate employee-supervisor relationships in 

their immediate workgroups were not what they might be. They were twice as 

likely as their nonvictim counterparts to feel unable to bring work related 

concerns to their immediate supervisors and to feel, if they did, that their 

supervisors would not do anything about the situation, even if it were possible. 

Finally, victims were more likely than nonvictims to feel their organization was not 

doing everything it could to stop unwanted sexual attention among its employees. 

While there could be several explanations for these differences in attitudes 

between victims and nonvictims, one possibility is that work atmosphere does 

have some affect on the incidence of sexual harassment. Further research on 

this issue would be interesting and helpful in designing means of eliminating the 

problem. 

Conclusion 

We have reviewed in detail the personal and organizational characteristics of 

victims and how they affect the vulnerability of women and men to sexual 

harassment. Some characteristics affect the rate of sexual harassment more 

than others, and some characteristics are more subject to control by managers 

who wish to reduce the rate of sexual harassment in their organization. 

Table 4-3 

Perceptions of Work Environment

These are statements used to describe the general work setting in the immediate 

work group. Percentages are of Federal workers who agreed or disagreed with 

the following statements. (Question 44) 

 Respondents 

General Relations with 

Supervisors 

Female 

Victims 

Female 

Nonvictims 

Male 

Victims 

Male 

Nonvictims 

a. Disagreed with: I feel free 

to bring up general work 

related concerns or 

suggestions to my immediate 

supervisor. 21% 8% 26% 7% 

b. Disagreed with: I feel that 

my supervisor would correct 24% 20% 20% 21% 
general work related 

concerns or suggestions if 

possible. 

Level of Sexual Activity 

c. Agreed with: Where I work, 

I feel I am expected to flirt. 23% 2% 21% 2% 

d. Agreed with: Where I work, 

I feel I am expected to make 

sexual comments about the 

opposite sex. 9% 2% 28% 5% 

e. Agreed with: Uninvited and 

unwanted sexual attention is 

a problem for employees 

where I work. 27% 4% 22% 7% 

f. Agreed with: Where I work, 

employees use their sexual 

favors for advancement on 

the job. 30% 23% 27% 22% 

g. Disagreed with: My 

organization makes every 

effort to stop unwanted 

sexual attention among its 

employees. 34% 23% 32% 28% 

Note: Percentages are based on "Agree" and "Strongly Agree" and 

'"Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" responses to statements. 

Sexual harassment is a problem of virtually all Federal agencies studied. 

Variation in incidence rates suggests the problem is more salient in some 

agencies than in others, but in none is it absent. As noted, a number of generic 

demographic characteristics are related to sexual harassment. As the 

composition of the workforce varies from agency to agency, so too may the 

incidence of sexual harassment. Although this has not been investigated, agency 

managers need to be aware of the composition in their workforce to identify the 

workers in their agency most likely to be victims. This is a first step toward 

reducing the problem. 

In addition, certain working conditions appear related to sexual harassment, and 

many of these conditions can be changed by management in an effort to reduce 

sexual harassment. Consequently, managers need to be made aware that sexual 

harassment is a problem and that they are held accountable for dealing with it. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 4 

1 See Chapter 1. 
2 See Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

3 Based on responses to Survey Question 61; see Appendix C. 

4 Based on responses to Survey Question 62; see Appendix D, Table P for data 

on marital status by age of victim. 

5 Based on responses to Survey Question 60. 

6 Based on responses to Survey Questions 2-7, b, d; see Appendix D, Table C, 

for data. 

7 Based on responses to Survey Question 1 (i); see Appendix D, Table D, for 

data. 

8 Based on responses to Survey Question 52; see Appendix D, Figure B, for 

data. 

9 Based on responses to Survey Question 59; see Appendix B for an explanation 

of racial or ethnic categories. 

10 Survey Question 35. 

11 See Appendix D, Figure C for data. 

12 See Appendix G for a survey of the literature on sexual harassment. 

13 Based on responses to Survey Question 55; the State Department was not 

included in this analysis because the response rate from those employees was 

too low to provide reliable data. 

14Based on responses to Survey Question 19; see Appendix D, Table E for data. 

15 Based on responses to Survey Question 56; see Appendix C. 

16 See Appendix B for list of states included in each region. Regional 

breakdowns are those used by the Office of Personnel Management. 

17 Based on responses by group or stratum number; see Appendix B for 

explanation of salary levels. 

18 That is, those who gave the first response to Survey Question 53. 

19 See Appendix D, Figure D for data. 

20 Based on responses to Survey Question 57. 
21 See Appendix D, Figure E for data. 

22 See Appendix D, Table F for data. 

23 Based on responses to Survey Question 52. 

24 However, as the next chapter shows, most Federal workers were harassed by 

other workers rather than supervisors. 

25 Based on responses to Survey Question 50. 

26 However, as the next chapter shows, of the men who report being harassed, 

only about 7% are harassed by female supervisors. 

27 Based on responses to Survey Question 51. 

28 Question 49; see Appendix B for explanation of terms; See Appendix D, 

Figure F for data. 

29 Based on responses to Survey Question 58; see Appendix D, Figure G for 

data. 

30 Based on responses to Survey Question 45; see Appendix D, Figure H for 

data. 

31 Based on responses to Survey Question 46; see Appendix D, Figure I for 

data. 

32 Based on responses to Survey Question 47; see Appendix D, Figure J for 

data. 

33 Based on responses to Survey Question 48; see Appendix D, Figure K for 

data. 

34 As determined by responses to Survey Question 17; see Appendix C. Victims 

responded in terms of the offices they were in when they were harassed; 

nonvictims described their current jobs. 

35 Based on responses to Survey Questions 44a-44g. 

 

5. Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment 

• Most victims are sexually harassed by people of the opposite sex. 

• Most harassers act alone rather than in concert with another person. 
• Most harassers of women are older than their victims, and most harassers 

of men are younger. 

• Most harassers are married, but many men report being harassed by 

divorced or single women as well. 

• Most harassers are of the same race or ethnic background as their 

victims, but most minority men report being harassed by those of a 

different race or ethnic background. 

• Most harassers are coworkers, but many women are harassed by 

supervisors. 

• Many harassers are reported to have bothered more than one person at 

work. 

• Few employees report having been accused of sexually harassing others. 

More than half the women in four Federal agencies ... one-fifth of the men ,in 

another agency ... two-thirds of all women aged 16 to 19 ... nearly one-third of all 

divorced men .. . half of all female trainees ... one-fifth of all men working in 

nontraditional jobs... 

These are the victims of sexual harassment in the Federal workforce. The next 

step is identifying the perpetrators of these incidents, the people who are 

offending others with their sexual comments and deliberate touching, are 

pressuring others for sexual favors, and in some cases are committing the 

criminal offense of rape or sexual assault. 

We were interested in learning a number of things about the perpetrators of 

sexual harassment: whether they are found in disproportionate numbers within 

certain job classifications, racial categories, age brackets, educational levels, and 

grade levels;[1] whether harassers of men and women are similar in most ways 

or differ markedly; whether certain types of victims typically are bothered by 

certain types of harassers; and whether incidents tend to be one time acts, or 

whether some harassers show a pattern of sexually bothering others. 

Such information would indicate what remedies might--or might not--work and 

would help in developing remedies appropriate for different target groups. It 

seemed especially important to look at the harassers of women since the 

problem of sexual harassment affects women in far greater numbers, at greater 

rates, and with greater severity than it does men. 

We found that women typically are harassed by a male coworker who is married, 

older than the victim, of the same race or ethnic background (or a different 

background if the victim is a minority), and likely to have harassed others at work 

(see Figure 5-1). 

FIGURE 5-1 

Sex of Harasser 
Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Sex of the Person(s) Who 

Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32a) 

Male 

Reported by 

79% of Women 

Reported by 

18% of Men 

Two or 

more males 

Reported by 

16% of Women 

Reported by 4% 

of Men 

Both males 

and 

females 

Reported by 2% 

of Women 

Reported by 6% 

of Men 

Female 

Reported by 2% 

of Women 

Reported by 

60% of Men 

Two or 

more 

females 

Reported by 1% 

of Women 

Reported by 

12% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Unknown 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 1% 

of Women 

Reported by 

0.3% of Men 

Men typically are harassed by a female coworker who is married (but frequently 

is divorced or single), younger than the victim, of the same race or ethnic 

background, and somewhat likely to have harassed others at work. 

More detailed descriptions of perpetrators of sexual harassment are given in the 

sections that follow. Descriptions are based on the responses of narrators (i.e., 

victims who described one incident of harassment in detail) to survey questions 

32-34. Most findings presented represent the responses of victims of all forms of 

sexual harassment. Analysis of responses by severity of harassment experience 

revealed that in most cases the harassers were similar regardless of severity of 

experience. Only the notable exceptions are described. 

FIGURE 5-2 

Age of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Age of the Person(s) Who 

Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32b) 
Older 

Reported by 

68% of 

Women 

Reported by 

29% of Men 

Younger 

Reported by 

12% of 

Women 

Reported by 

38% of Men 

Same 

Reported by 

11% of 

Women 

Reported by 

18% of Men 

Various 

Ages 

Reported by 

7% of Women 

Reported by 

12% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Unknown 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

2% of Women 

Reported by 

3% of Men 

Harassers of Women Are Strikingly Similar 

The harasser of a woman is usually a man. In 95 cases of sexual harassment 

out of every 100, the incident was perpetrated by a man--in 79 incidents by a 

lone man and in 16 incidents by two or more men. Few women were harassed by 

other women. 

The harasser of a woman usually acts alone. In 81 incidents out of every 100 

the harasser acted alone rather than in concert with others--in 79 incidents as a 

lone male and 2 incidents as a lone female. 

The harasser of a woman is usually older than the victim. In 68 incidents out 

of every 100 the harasser was older than the victim, in 12 incidents younger, and 

in 11 incidents of the same age. In 7% of the incidents there were several 

harassers, of various ages, and in 2%, the women did not know their harasser's 

age. (See Figure 5-2) 

FIGURE 5-3

Marital Status of Harasser

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Marital Status of the Person(s) 

Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32d) 
Married 

Reported by 

67% of 

Women 

Reported by 

35% of Men 

Mixed 

Reported by 

9% of Women 

Reported by 

14% of Men 

Unknown 

Reported by 

9% of Women 

Reported by 

7% of Men 

Single 

Reported by 

8% of Women 

Reported by 

20% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Divorced, 

Separated, 

Widowed 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

7% of Women 

Reported by 

25% of Men 

The harasser of a woman usually is married. Two-thirds (67%) of all incidents 

were perpetrated by someone who was married; only 15% were initiated by an 

unmarried person (8% single and 7% divorced, separated, or widowed). In 9% of 

the incidents there was more than one harasser, of different marital statuses, and 

in an equal number the woman did not know her harasser's marital status. (See 

Figure 5-3) 

The harasser of a woman usually is someone of the same race or ethnic 

background. In 63% of all incidents the harasser was of the same race or ethnic 

background as the victim. (See Figure 5-4) However, there were some striking 

differences in the experiences of minority and nonminority women harassed by 

men.[2] While most nonminority female narrators (75%) and most women in 

some minority groups were harassed by a man of the same race or ethnic 

background, most black, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander women (53%, 

62%, and 88%, respectively) were bothered by men of different backgrounds. 

The harasser of a woman usually has no supervisory authority over her, 

but sometimes is a supervisor. Harassers of women usually (in 65% of all 

incidents) are coworkers or "other" Federal employees having no supervisory 

authority over the victim. In a sizeable number of incidents (37%), however, 

women were harassed by their immediate supervisor or a higher level supervisor. 

Subordinates were harassers in only 4% of the incidents; in 6% of the incidents 

the supervisory status of the harasser was unknown.[3] Victims of the relatively 
uncommon most severe form of harassment, actual or attempted rape or sexual 

assault, were harassed by an immediate or higher level supervisor almost as 

often as by a coworker or "other " Federal employee (51% of the incidents 

perpetrated by a supervisor compared with 57% by a coworker or other employee). In many incidents involving more than one harasser, both supervisors 

and coworkers were identified. (See Figure 5-5) 

FIGURE 5-4

Ethnic Status of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Ethnic Status of the Person(s) 

Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32c) 

Same 

Reported by 

63% of 

Women 

Reported by 

68% of Men 

Different 

Reported by 

26% of 

Women 

Reported by 

17% of Men 

Some the 

Same and 

Some 

Different 

Reported by 

9% of Women 

Reported by 

12% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Unknown 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

2% of Women 

Reported by 

3% of Men 

FIGURE 5-5

Organizational Level of Harasser

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Identified the Organizational Level of the 

Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 33) 

Coworker 

or Other 

Employee 

Reported by 

65% of 

Women 

Reported by 

76% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Immediate 

Supervisor 

or Other 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

37% of 

Women 
Supervisor Reported by 

14% of Men 

Unknown 

Reported by 

6% of Women 

Reported by 

5% of Men 

Subordinate

Reported by 

4% of Women 

Reported by 

16% of Men 

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that more than one party bothered 

them. 

Many women are harassed by someone who has harassed others on the 

job. While the majority of female narrators (53%) did not know whether the 

harasser had bothered others, 43% did know this to be the case and only 3% 

knew it not to be true. Victims of the most severe and severe forms of sexual 

harassment were more likely to be bothered by repeat offenders than were 

victims of less severe harassment (38% and 49% compared with 32%). (See 

Figure 5-6) 

FIGURE 5-6

Has the Harasser Sexually Bothered Others at Work?

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Were Sexually Harassed and Who Indicated 

Whether the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually Had Sexually Bothered 

Others at Work (Question 34) 

Did not 

know 

Reported by 

53% of 

Women 

Reported by 

61% of Men 

Harasser 

had 

bothered 

others 

Reported by 

43% of 

Women 

Reported by 

31% of Men 

TOTAL 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Harasser 

had not 

bothered 

others 

Who Bothered 

Them Sexually 

Reported by 

3% of Women 

Reported by 

8% of Men 

Harassers of Men Also Are Similar 
The harasser of a man usually is a woman. In 72 out of every 100 cases, the 

incident was perpetrated by a woman--in 60 incidents by a lone woman and in 12 

cases by two or more women. Men were more likely than women to be victims of 

homosexual harassment; 22% reported being harassed by one or more men, 

while only 3% of the women reported harassment by one or more women. 

The harasser of a man usually acts alone. In 78 out of every 100 incidents the 

harasser acted alone rather than in concert with others--in 60 out of 100 incidents 

as a lone female and in 18 as a lone male. 

The harasser of a man most often is younger than the victim. In 39% of the 

incidents the harasser was younger than the victim, but in 29% the harasser was 

older, and in 18% the two were the same age. 

The harasser of a man most often is married. Slightly over one-third of the 

male narrators (35%) said their harasser was married, but a larger proportion 

was currently unmarried--either divorced, separated, or widowed (25%) or single 

and never married (20%). 

The harasser of a man usually is someone of the same race or ethnic 

background. This was true in 68% of all incidents, but, as in the case of female 

victims, race or ethnic background of the victim made a difference. In nearly 9 in 

every 10 (89%) incidents involving a non minority male victim and a female 

harasser, the harasser was of the same background (i.e., also a nonminority). 

Black men were about as likely to be harassed by a woman of a different 

background as by a black woman (46% of the cases involving female harassers 

compared with 51%), and Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander men were more 

likely to be bothered by a woman of a different race than by one of their own race 

(69% and 100% of the cases involving female harassers, respectively). 

The harasser of a man usually has no supervisory authority over him. 

Three-fourths of the male victims (76%) reported their harasser was a coworker 

or another Federal worker having no supervisory authority over the victim. In 

addition, the harasser was more likely to be subordinate than a supervisor (16% 

of all cases compared with 14%). 

A number of men are harassed by someone who has bothered others on 

the job. While most male narrators (61%) did not know whether their harasser 

had bothered others, 31% did know this to be the case, and 8% were certain it 

was not the case. 

Experiences of Men and Women Differ 

In some ways the harassers of female and male victims were quite similar. For 

instance, most harassers of men and women acted alone rather than with others. 

In other ways, the experiences of men and women were noticeably different. For 
example, while most harassers were of the opposite sex of the victim, men were 

considerably more likely to be victims of homosexual harassment (22% of male 

narrators were bothered by one or more men, but only 3% of female victims 

reported homosexual harassment). 

Most harassers of women (68%) were older than the victim, but the pattern for 

men was less obvious. The largest group of men (39%) were bothered by 

someone younger, but a sizeable number (29%) were bothered by an older 

person. Most harassers of women (67% of the incidents). While men were most 

likely to be bothered by a married person, this was true in only 35% of the 

incidents described. Thus, women were nearly twice as likely as men to have 

been harassed by someone who was married. 

Most harassers of men and women were coworkers or other Federal employees 

who had no supervisory authority over the victim. This finding is particularly 

significant in the case of women since it appears to contradict the popular notion 

that the greatest part of the problem of sexual harassment originates with (male) 

supervisors who wield formal power over their (female) victims. It may be, 

however, that some supervisors, while not themselves readily identifiable as the 

perpetrators of specific sexual harassment incidents, may be giving tacit approval 

to the behavior and thus creating an environment wherein sexual harassment is 

not only tolerated but encouraged. As one Federal employee wrote on the survey 

questionnaire: "A major problem is that the major portion of 'management ' is 

male, and if they do not participate in the games themselves, there is tacit 

approval of activity. Any objection is met with a wry smile and the reaction that 

maybe you are imagining things and perhaps overemphasizing your own charms. 

" 

It appears that the "coercive," or "shake down" element of sexual harassment--to 

the extent that it was present--operated more in the case of women. While both 

men and women were most likely to have been harassed by work associates or 

peers, this was more true for male victims (76%) than for females (65%). 

Likewise, while both men and women were less likely to be harassed by an 

immediate or higher level supervisor, this was also more true for men (14%) than 

for women (37%). The finding that the majority of sexual harassment incidents 

are perpetrated by coworkers or other work peers does suggest that any 

institutional efforts to eliminate the problem of sexual harassment might need to 

involve Federal workers at all levels rather than only supervisors. However, since 

supervisors ultimately are responsible for the conduct in their workplaces, 

training for them regarding sexual harassment should certainly be stressed. 

Of the men and women who knew, most said their harassers had also bothered 

others. That 43% of all female victims could with certainty state that their 

harasser had bothered others at work[4] suggests that the problem of sexual 

harassment should not be viewed solely as a number of isolated instances of 

personal sexual attraction. For a sizeable number of women (98,000), their 
experience was part of an overall pattern exhibited by a harasser. Since most 

harassers of women are men, it seems fair to assume that the majority of repeat 

offenders in harassment of women are men. Thus, it appears that certain men 

are more likely to harass than others and that sexual harassment is not 

necessarily part of the normal interaction among men and women on the job, or 

that all men and women engage in it, as has been intimated by some. 

A similar case could be made for the harassers of men. For 31% of male victims, 

their experiences were part of an overall pattern exhibited by the harasser. Thus 

it seems likely that a number of female harassers were also repeat offenders. 

However, since the number of men harassed is far smaller than the number of 

women, it seems fair to conclude that the problem of repeat offenders among 

male harassers is far more significant. 

Some Harassers Reported on Themselves 

It is important to note that we attempted only to construct a general profile of 

harassers in terms of general personal and job characteristics; obviously a more 

in depth examination, including investigation of psychological variables, was 

beyond the scope of this study. However, we did attempt to gain more 

information about harassers by asking several questions of people willing to 

identify themselves as harassers. 

Only 10,500 men and 1,100 women indicated that during the 24-month period 

they had been accused of sexually bothering someone. Since most of the 

accused were men, we looked only at their responses, not at the women's. The 

vast majority of those men, 82%, felt they had been unjustly accused by ,their 

victim--and 8% thought the accusation had been fair (the remaining 10% were 

not sure whether the charge was fair or not).[5]

Few Federal workers admitted they have been accused of sexual harassment--

far fewer than the numbers who claim to have been harassed. Most men who do 

report having been accused felt the charge was unfair. When asked why they 

considered the charge unfair, 48% said the accuser had misunderstood their 

motives, 45% said the accuser wanted to create trouble, 29% felt they had done 

nothing wrong.[6] Only one-third indicated that management subsequently found 

the charge to be false, although there is no indication of how many of these 

cases were reported to management. Since far fewer men report being accused 

of sexual harassment, whether fairly or not, than the number of women who 

report being harassed by men, it would appear that few women victims confront 

their harassers. This absence of confrontation may perpetuate the problem of 

sexual harassment. 

Conclusion
This chapter has presented a profile of typical perpetrators of sexual harassment 

as described by their victims. We have seen that the typical harasser of women 

differs from the typical harasser of men, principally in terms of sex and age, and, 

to a lesser extent, in marital status and race or ethnic background. We have also 

seen that few individuals admit to having been accused of sexual harassment. 

The next chapter explores in more depth the sexual harassment incidents. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 5 

1 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

2 Too few women in some minority groups reported harassment by more than 

one man or by women to allow separate analysis in regard to background of 

those harassers. See Appendix D, Table G for data on the race or ethnic 

background of victims and their harassers. 

3 Since respondents harassed by more than one person were allowed to give 

more than one answer to this question (Survey Question 33), percentages total 

more than 100%. 

4 This is particularly telling in that, as shown in Chapter 6, the survey found that 

most victims do not talk to others in their offices about their experiences. 

5 Based on responses to Survey Questions 36 and 37; see Appendix D, Table H 

for data. 

6 Based on responses to Survey Question 38; see Appendix D, Table Q for data. 

 

6. Incidents of Sexual Harassment 

• Those who are sexually harassed by supervisors and those who 

experience the more severe forms of sexual harassment are more likely 

than other victims to foresee penalties or possible benefits for not going 

along or for going along with the unwanted sexual attention. 

• Most victims respond to sexual harassment by ignoring it, but few find that 

technique improves the situation. The most assertive actions are found to 

be the most effective. 

• Few victims talk about their experiences with others but those who do find 

talking to someone with independent authority or organizational 

responsibility to be more helpful than talking with coworkers, family, or 

friends. 

• Few victims take formal actions, but many who do find them helpful. 
• The reported response of agency officials to informal and formal charges 

of sexual harassment has been mixed. 

462,000 people having to deal with uninvited, unwanted sexual attention while 

working at their jobs for the Federal Government, two thirds of them women ... 

300,000 confronted by behaviors that a minimum of two-thirds of the Federal 

workforce considers sexual harassment ... 12,000 facing actual or attempted 

rape or sexual assault, a criminal offense ... most of them bothered by coworkers 

of the opposite sex, but a sizeable number harassed by people with supervisory 

authority over them... 

The picture of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace is taking shape. We 

know who the victims are, how many are facing what kinds of unwanted 

attention, and who is perpetrating the offensive behavior. To complete the picture 

we needed to know more about the episodes themselves, the details of the 

individual incidents that, when taken together, would place the many facts and 

figures in context. Only then would the picture be a clear image of the problem of 

sexual harassment as it affects Federal workers. 

We wanted to know about the element of coercion--or enticement--in sexual 

harassment incidents: Do harassers use explicit or implied leverage to ensure 

cooperation from their victims?[1] Do victims think something harmful will happen 

if they don't go along, or something beneficial if they do? How do victims deal 

with the unwanted behavior? Do they simply ignore the situation, hoping it will go 

away? Does any particular response seem most effective in getting the behavior 

stopped? Is management helpful in this regard? Such information is essential in 

developing remedies that are likely to reduce the incidence of sexual 

harassment. 

We found that the answers to these questions depended somewhat on the sex of 

the victim, who was perpetrating the offensive behavior, and what kind of 

unwanted attention was involved. 

Employees bothered by others who had supervisory authority over them, and 

those who faced actual or attempted rape or assault, were most likely to see 

penalties for not going along and rewards for going along. The use and 

effectiveness of various formal and informal responses, including talking with 

other people about the situation and filing formal complaints, depended 

somewhat on the sex of the victim and the severity of the situation. Some victims 

found management helpful, but many did not. 

Again, findings in this chapter are based on the response of narrators--those 

victims who agreed to describe in detail one experience of sexual harassment, 

either their only or their most recent experience, or the one that had the greatest 

effect on them. For simplicity, these people are referred to as victims, although, 

to be precise, they make up only a subgroup of victims. 
Fear of Penalties and Expectation of Rewards 

Most victim narrators did not think anything bad would happen to them if they did 

not go along with the unwanted attention. Nor did most anticipate that something 

beneficial would happen if they did go along. Men and women tended to agree 

on these points. The large majority of female victims (70%) thought there would 

be no adverse consequences if they did not go along with the harasser.[2] We 

speculated that the reason for this was that most reported being harassed by 

presumably less powerful coworkers rather than supervisors (see Chapter 5). 

Indeed we found that the victims' perceptions of consequences differed 

somewhat depending on who was bothering them and what kind of unwanted 

attention they were getting. 

Women who were harassed by coworkers having nonsupervisory authority over 

them were more likely to think nothing adverse would happen to them than were 

women bothered by immediate supervisors (70% compared with 44%) (see 

Figure 6-1). Interestingly, women harassed by their immediate supervisors were 

less likely to think that nothing would happen to them (44%) and thus more likely 

to fear penalties than those bothered by higher level supervisors (57%); likewise, 

those harassed by their coworkers were less likely to think that nothing would 

happen to them (70%) and thus more likely to fear penalties than those bothered 

by "other" employees (79%). This suggests that harassers having direct 

organizational contact with the victim are seen as more coercive or threatening 

than those whose relationship is more distant. 

In addition, the more severe the form of harassment the woman was facing, the 

more likely she was to perceive adverse consequences (see Figure 6-1). Victims 

of actual or attempted rape or assault were most likely to perceive adverse 

consequences regardless of whether the harasser was a coworker or a 

supervisor. Only 15% to 23% of these women thought nothing would happen to 

them if they did not go along. 

FIGURE 6-1

Perceived Penalties for Not Going Along 

Percentage of Narrators Who Were Harassed by Their Immediate Supervisor or 

Coworker Who Thought the Following Would Happen to Them if They Did Not 

Go Along With the Sexual Harassment (Question 24) 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

My working 

assignments or 

conditions 

would get 

worse 

Reported by 

46% of women 

and 100% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 41% 

of 

women 

and 50% 

of men 

who 

were 
harassed 

by a coworker 

The person(s) 

or other 

workers would 

be unpleasant 

or would 

embarrass me 

Reported by 

37% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 67% 

of 

women 

and 45% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would be 

unable to get a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

rating, or 

reference 

Reported by 

62% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 30% 

of 

women 

and 55% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would Lose 

my job 

Reported by 

37% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 41% 

of 

women 

and 0% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I did not think 

anything would 

happen 

Reported by 

23% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 15% 

of 

women 

and 18% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 
by a coworker 

My working 

assignments or 

conditions 

would get 

worse 

Reported by 

45% of women 

and 44% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 19% 

of 

women 

and 12% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

The person(s) 

or other 

workers would 

be unpleasant 

or would 

embarrass me 

Reported by 

25% of women 

and 19% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 26% 

of 

women 

and 20% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would be 

unable to get a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

rating, or 

reference 

Reported by 

47% of women 

and 38% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 14% 

of 

women 

and 10% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

VICTIMS OF 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

I would Lose 

my job 

Reported by 

6% of women 

and 12% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 2% of 

women 

and 3% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 
I did not think 

anything would 

happen 

Reported by 

40% of women 

and 49% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 65% 

of 

women 

and 73% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

My working 

assignments or 

conditions 

would get 

worse 

Reported by 

28% of women 

and 31% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 7% of 

women 

and 9% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

The person(s) 

or other 

workers would 

be unpleasant 

or would 

embarrass me 

Reported by 

23% of women 

and 13% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 13% 

of 

women 

and 20% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would be 

unable to get a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

rating, or 

reference 

Reported by 

17% of women 

and 37% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 5% of 

women 

and 5% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

I would Lose 

my job 

Reported by 

4% of women 

and 4% of men 

Reported 

by 0% of 

women 
who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

and 1% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I did not think 

anything would 

happen 

Reported by 

56% of women 

and 40% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 82% 

of 

women 

and 77% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

My working 

assignments or 

conditions 

would get 

worse 

Reported by 

41% of women 

and 38% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 16% 

of 

women 

and 12% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

The person(s) 

or other 

workers would 

be unpleasant 

or would 

embarrass me 

Reported by 

25% of women 

and 16% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 22% 

of 

women 

and 20% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

I would be 

unable to get a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

rating, or 

Reported by 

39% of women 

and 37% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

Reported 

by 11% 

of 

women 

and 9% 
reference their immediate 

supervisor 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would Lose 

my job 

Reported by 

6% of women 

and 8% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 2% of 

women 

and 3% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I did not think 

anything would 

happen 

Reported by 

44% of women 

and 44% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 70% 

of 

women 

and 74% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

For the women who did perceive adverse consequences, the difficulties they 

foresaw, not unsurprisingly, were related to who was harassing them. Women 

harassed by their supervisors were more likely to fear consequences related to 

job status and pay--being unable to get a promotion or losing their jobs, for 

example. On the other hand, women bothered by coworkers or other employees 

were more likely to feel the quality of their personal relationships would suffer if 

they did not go along (for example, "the person(s) or other workers would be 

unpleasant or would embarrass me"). 

Women harassed by their supervisors also were more likely to perceive benefits 

for going along with the unwanted behavior; the majority harassed by coworkers 

(81%) foresaw no benefits.[3] This difference in perceptions held true for victims 

of all forms of sexual harassment except the few who experienced actual or 

attempted rape or assault. For this group, those harassed by immediate 

supervisors were more likely than those victimized by coworkers and other 

workers to foresee no benefits (71% compared with 47%). A reason for this 

difference in perceptions might be in the nature of the behavior itself: those 

confronted by super visors in this most assaultive way felt extremely threatened 
and could see no benefits, only penalties, whereas other victims, not being in 

direct control of their harasser, felt less threatened and could foresee possible 

rewards for going along. 

The perceptions of men about leverage used to secure compliance were similar 

to that of women. Again, most men did not think anything bad would happen if 

they did not go along, but men harassed by immediate supervisors and those 

experiencing the more severe forms of harassment were more likely than others 

to fear penalties. Men were somewhat more likely than women to perceive 

benefits in going along with the unwanted attention; but, like women, those 

harassed by supervisors were more likely than others to foresee possible 

rewards for their compliance. 

In summary, most victims do not perceive any penalties for not going along with 

the harasser or rewards for going along. The supervisory status of the harasser 

and the type of behavior they were confronted with seems to have an effect on 

their perceptions of leverage. Men and women bothered by individuals having 

direct organizational control over them--their supervisors, and particularly their 

immediate supervisors--are much more likely to feel leverage is being used 

against them. In addition, workers harassed by their supervisors are much more 

likely to see good working conditions and job betterment as more powerful 

incentives for going along than improved relations with their harassers. 

FIGURE 6-2

Perceived Benefits for Going Along

Percentage of Narrators Who Were Harassed by Their Immediate Supervisor or 

Coworker Who Thought the Following Would Happen to Them if They Did Go 

Along With the Sexual Harassment (Question 25) 

My working 

assignments or 

conditions 

would get 

better 

Reported by 

16% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 53% 

of 

women 

and 32% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

The person(s) 

would become 

more pleasant 

Reported by 

13% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

Reported 

by 2% of 

women 

and 26% 

of men 

who 
supervisor were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would get a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

rating, or 

reference 

Reported by 

24% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 52% 

of 

women 

and 0% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would get a 

better job 

Reported by 

16% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 41% 

of 

women 

and 0% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I did not think 

anything would 

happen 

Reported by 

71% of women 

and 0% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 47% 

of 

women 

and 42% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

VICTIMS OF 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

My working 

assignments or 

conditions 

would get 

better 

Reported by 

26% of women 

and 54% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 10% 

of 

women 

and 13% 

of men 

who 

were 
harassed 

by a coworker 

The person(s) 

would become 

more pleasant 

Reported by 

24% of women 

and 37% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 17% 

of 

women 

and 27% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would get a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

rating, or 

reference 

Reported by 

36% of women 

and 37% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 11% 

of 

women 

and 6% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would get a 

better job 

Reported by 

15% of women 

and 31% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 6% of 

women 

and 4% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I did not think 

anything would 

happen 

Reported by 

55% of women 

and 30% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 77% 

of 

women 

and 66% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a co-
worker 

My working 

assignments or 

conditions 

would get 

better 

Reported by 

13% of women 

and 15% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 5% of 

women 

and 3% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

The person(s) 

would become 

more pleasant 

Reported by 

24% of women 

and 23% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 8% of 

women 

and 13% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would get a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

rating, or 

reference 

Reported by 

11% of women 

and 17% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 3% of 

women 

and 2% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would get a 

better job 

Reported by 

2% of women 

and 9% of men 

who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 2% of 

women 

and 1% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

I did not think 

anything would 

happen 

Reported by 

67% of women 

and 59% of 

men who were 

Reported 

by 89% 

of 

women 
harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

and 84% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

My working 

assignments or 

conditions 

would get 

better 

Reported by 

23% of women 

and 35% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 9% of 

women 

and 9% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

The person(s) 

would become 

more pleasant 

Reported by 

24% of women 

and 30% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 14% 

of 

women 

and 21% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

I would get a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

rating, or 

reference 

Reported by 

29% of women 

and 27% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 9% of 

women 

and 5% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

I would get a 

better job 

Reported by 

12% of women 

and 20% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 5% of 

women 

and 2% 

of men 

who 

were 
harassed 

by a coworker 

I did not think 

anything would 

happen 

Reported by 

58% of women 

and 44% of 

men who were 

harassed by 

their immediate 

supervisor 

Reported 

by 81% 

of 

women 

and 74% 

of men 

who 

were 

harassed 

by a coworker 

Assertive Responses Are the Most Effective 

To find out how victims deal with incidents of sexual harassment, we asked 

which of nine possible responses they had made and what the effect of each had 

been.[4] The effectiveness of these informal efforts varied, depending on the sex 

of the victim and the severity of the harassment experience. 

Most women responded passively to the unwanted attention, by ignoring it (61%) 

or[5] avoiding the harasser (48%). Their reasons for doing this may have been 

similar to those of the victim whose situation was related by a supervisor in 

another unit: "She was afraid to report the incident for fear her supervisor would 

not allow her to work overtime. She refused his advances and began to avoid 

him whenever possible, hoping it would 'blow over'." 

The women's next most frequent response to sexual harassment was taking 

direct action by asking or telling the harasser to stop; half the women reported 

doing this. Although most women ignored the behavior, they found this one of the 

least effective actions to take (see Figure 6-3). Only 28% of those who did so 

found it "made things better," and a number found it made the situation worse. 

The small number of women who went along with the behavior indicated that this 

was by far the least effective course to take; only 8% reported that things 

improved as a result. On the other hand, direct, assertive responses such as 

"asking or telling the person to stop" and "reporting the behavior to a supervisor 

or other officials" were found to be effective by the majority of women who took 

those actions (54% and 53%, respectively). However, since many women did not 

find these actions made things better, it cannot be assumed that most women 

could get sexual harassment to stop simply by reporting it or asking the offender 

to stop. 
Although the relatively rare action of disciplining the harasser[6] was found to be 

the most effective response (74% of the women who did this found it made things 

better) few women are in a position to discipline their harasser since relatively 

few women work in supervisory capacity. 

Like women, most male victims (65%) ignored the unwanted attention. However, 

proportionately fewer men avoided the offender or asked or told the person to 

stop. For men, the most effective actions were "asking or telling the person to 

stop," "disciplining the harasser" (also a rare response for men), and "avoiding 

the person(s)"; (67%, 56%, and 53% of men who took those actions found them 

to make things better). 

As with women, the effectiveness of the various actions for men differed 

according to the form of sexual harassment being faced. The few male victims of 

actual or attempted rape or sexual assault found direct responses ineffective. For 

them, the most effective response was going along with the behavior (46% of 

those who went along with the situation found that to make things better), 

whereas this was relatively ineffective for men dealing with other forms of 

unwanted behavior. That such a large proportion of men but so few women, 

would find going along with such assaultive behavior to "make things better" 

raises some questions. Perhaps the difference is based in cultural and 

perceptual differences of opinion about what constitutes an instance of actual or 

attempted rape or assault. 

FIGURE 6-3

Narrators' Informal Responses to Sexual Harassment

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated that Taking These Informal Actions 

"Made Things Better" (Question 23) 

Transferred, 

disciplined or gave 

a poor 

performance rating 

to the person 

Reported by 72% 

of women and 9% 

of men 

Asked or told the 

person(s) to stop 

Reported by 40% 

of women and 

13% of men 

Reported the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 57% 

of women and 

11% of men 

Avoided the 

person(s) 

Reported by 20% 

of women and 

32% of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Made a joke of the Reported by 52% 
behavior of women and 7% 

of men 

Threatened to tell 

or told other 

workers 

Reported by 30% 

of women and 

19% of men 

Ignored the 

behavior or did 

nothing 

Reported by 12% 

of women and 

27% of men 

Went along with 

the behavior 

Reported by 14% 

of women and 

46% of men 

Transferred, 

disciplined or gave 

a poor 

performance rating 

to the person 

Reported by 79% 

of women and 

87% of men 

Asked or told the 

person(s) to stop 

Reported by 53% 

of women and 

69% of men 

Reported the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 54% 

of women and 

46% of men 

Avoided the 

person(s) 

Reported by 42% 

of women and 

51% of men 

Made a joke of the 

behavior 

Reported by 32% 

of women and 

45% of men 

Threatened to tell 

or told other 

workers 

Reported by 35% 

of women and 

29% of men 

Ignored the 

behavior or did 

nothing 

Reported by 24% 

of women and 

41% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Went along with 

the behavior 

Reported by 3% of 

women and 32% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Transferred, 

disciplined or gave 

a poor 

performance rating 

to the person 

Reported by 59% 

of women and 

33% of men 
Asked or told the 

person(s) to stop 

Reported by 60% 

of women and 

68% of men 

Reported the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 52% 

of women and 

17% of men 

Avoided the 

person(s) 

Reported by 54% 

of women and 

58% of men 

Made a joke of the 

behavior 

Reported by 43% 

of women and 

57% of men 

Threatened to tell 

or told other 

workers 

Reported by 36% 

of women and 

21% of men 

Ignored the 

behavior or did 

nothing 

Reported by 36% 

of women and 

45% of men 

Went along with 

the behavior 

Reported by 18% 

of women and 

13% of men 

Transferred, 

disciplined or gave 

a poor 

performance rating 

to the person 

Reported by 74% 

of women and 

56% of men 

Asked or told the 

person(s) to stop 

Reported by 54% 

of women and 

67% of men 

Reported the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 53% 

of women and 

35% of men 

Avoided the 

person(s) 

Reported by 45% 

of women and 

53% of men 

Made a joke of the 

behavior 

Reported by 36% 

of women and 

49% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Threatened to tell 

or told other 

workers 

Reported by 35% 

of women and 

24% of men 
Ignored the 

behavior or did 

nothing 

Reported by 28% 

of women and 

42% of men 

Went along with 

the behavior 

Reported by 8% of 

women and 25% 

of men 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated that they took more than 

one action. 

In summary, many informal responses to sexual harassment made things better 

for some victims--even making a joke of the behavior and telling, or threatening 

to tell, other workers. The responses that generally proved most effective were: 

• reporting the behavior to a supervisor or other officials, 

• asking or telling the person(s) to stop, and 

• avoiding the person(s). 

Other more specific techniques for victims to take to stop sexual harassment are 

discussed in publications listed in Appendix H. In addition, Mary P. Rowe, a 

prominent and knowledgeable observer in the field, has found that one of the 

most effective techniques is for the victim to write a personal confidential letter to 

the harasser outlining the offense and asking that the behavior be stopped. 

According to Dr. Rowe, this technique has the advantage of stopping the 

harassment quickly and effectively, preventing recurrence, and enabling the 

victims to take assertive action on their own.[7]

Actions that generally proved least effective (and in many instances had a 

deleterious effect) were: 

• going along with the behavior, and 

• ignoring the behavior or doing nothing. 

Talking with Others 

To understand more about how people respond to sexual harassment, we asked 

victims whether they had discussed their experiences with anyone and, if so, with 

whom and with what result.[8]

About half the women and one-third of the men who answered this question[9]

had talked with someone about their experience. Women most frequently had 

talked to other workers or to friends and relatives (68% and 60%, respectively, of 

the women who answered this question). Men also most frequently spoke to 

those groups of people (of those who answered this question, 65% spoke to 

other workers, and 53% talked to friends or relatives). 
It should be mentioned however, that relatively few of the men and women we 

have been calling "narrators" do in fact talk to anyone. For example, although 

other workers were the most likely to be told, only 37% of the women we have 

termed "narrators"--83,700 out of 223,700--and 20% of the 97,500 male narrators 

indicated they had talked with other workers. It appears that victims prefer to 

keep their experiences private. 

The benefit of talking to various parties depended on the type of harassment and 

the sex of the victim (see Figure 6-4). When asked whether their discussions 

made things better or worse, or made no difference, women generally indicated 

they found talking to outside contacts (lawyers, civil rights group, Congress, or 

officials in another agency) or a supervisor or other officials more effective than 

talking with other workers; of those who had talked with those groups, 44%, 48% 

and 23%, respectively, said the action made things better. 

However, female victims of severe harassment found talking to the various 

parties about equally effective, while the small number of women who had faced 

actual or attempted rape found talking to EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) 

or union officials to be harmful or to have no effect. 

The results for male victims were even more mixed. As a group they found the 

best results from talking to personnel officials (41% who did so said it made 

things better) and the worst results from talking to union officials (18%). Male 

victims of actual or attempted rape or assault found talking with outside contacts 

helpful and talking to unions to have no effect, whereas victims of less severe 

harassment found neither of these actions to have an effect, but did find talking 

to EEO officials useful. 

While these findings are so mixed that few generalizations can be made, it might 

be noted that although talking with other people can make things better 

(sometimes just in the victim's ability to endure the situation), the best people to 

talk to are those who can do something to change the situation--not coworkers, 

friends, or relatives. Since relatively few victims talk to agency officials, 

publicizing the availability of both organizational and outside parties may be 

indicated. In addition, training may be indicated to help agency officials resolve 

problems of sexual harassment. 

FIGURE 6-4

Parties Contacted by Narrators 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated That Talking to These Parties "Made 

Things Better" (Question 27) 

Supervisor(s) or 

other officials 

Reported by 51% 

of women and 

17% of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Outside contact Reported by 80% 
(lawyer, civil rights 

group, Congress, 

other agency, etc.) 

of women and 

100% of men 

Personnel office Reported by 41% 

of women and 

48% of men 

Equal Employment 

Opportunity official 

(EEO counselor, 

Federal Women's 

Program manager, 

etc.) 

Reported by 0% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

Freinds, relatives Reported by 39% 

of women and 

46% of men 

Union Reported by 0% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

Other workers Reported by 42% 

of women and 

51% of men 

Supervisor(s) or 

other officials 

Reported by 47% 

of women and 

23% of men 

Outside contact 

(lawyer, civil rights 

group, Congress, 

other agency, etc.) 

Reported by 32% 

of women and 

26% of men 

Personnel office Reported by 35% 

of women and 

38% of men 

Equal Employment 

Opportunity official 

(EEO counselor, 

Federal Women's 

Program manager, 

etc.) 

Reported by 33% 

of women and 

25% of men 

Freinds, relatives Reported by 29% 

of women and 

33% of men 

Union Reported by 28% 

of women and 

26% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Other workers Reported by 24% 
of women and 

21% of men 

Supervisor(s) or 

other officials 

Reported by 51% 

of women and 

13% of men 

Outside contact 

(lawyer, civil rights 

group, Congress, 

other agency, etc.) 

Reported by 70% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Personnel office Reported by 15% 

of women and 

43% of men 

Equal Employment 

Opportunity official 

(EEO counselor, 

Federal Women's 

Program manager, 

etc.) 

Reported by 39% 

of women and 

100% of men 

Freinds, relatives Reported by 32% 

of women and 

22% of men 

Union Reported by 49% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Other workers Reported by 20% 

of women and 

21% of men 

Supervisor(s) or 

other officials 

Reported by 48% 

of women and 

20% of men 

Outside contact 

(lawyer, civil rights 

group, Congress, 

other agency, etc.) 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 

26% of men 

Personnel office Reported by 33% 

of women and 

41% of men 

Equal Employment 

Opportunity official 

(EEO counselor, 

Federal Women's 

Program manager, 

etc.) 

Reported by 33% 

of women and 

39% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Freinds, relatives Reported by 30% 
of women and 

30% of men 

Union Reported by 30% 

of women and 

18% of men 

Other workers Reported by 23% 

of women and 

22% of men 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated that they contacted more 

than one party. 

Few File Formal Complaints 

Only 6,600 women (approximately 3% of all Federally employed women who 

described their sexual harassment incidents) and 1,700 men (2% of all male 

narrators) indicated that they filed formal complaints.[10] Of the 8,300 formal 

actions taken, most were requests for an investigation by the organization 

(2,800) or adverse action appeals (2,500).[11] Filing a discrimination complaint, 

the most widely known remedy, was chosen somewhat less often than other 

formal remedies except for "requesting an investigation by an outside agency," 

which is the least known remedy. Infrequent use of the discrimination complaint 

system may be explained by the fact that until recently sexual harassment 

generally was not considered to fall under the jurisdiction of the EEO complaint 

system.[12]

The majority (59%) of the 8,300 men and women who took formal action found 

these actions were effective (i.e., they "made things better") Conversely, 3,400 

men and women found their effort had no effect--or made things worse.[13]

Most of the women who requested an investigation by their agency or filed a 

discrimination complaint found those actions effective (70% and 66%, 

respectively). However, the effectiveness of remedies differed somewhat 

depending on the severity of the behavior involved (see Figure 6-5). 

FIGURE 6-5

Narrators' Formal Responses to Sexual Harassment

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated That Taking These Formal Actions 

"made things better" (Question 28) 

Requested an 

investigation by 

victim's 

organization 

Reported by 84% 

of women and 

28% of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filed a 

discrimination 

Reported by 81% 

of women and 
complaint or 

lawsuit 

26% of men 

Requested an 

investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 92% 

of women and 

100% of men 

Filed a grievance 

or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 0% of 

women and 26% 

of men 

Requested an 

investigation by 

victim's 

organization 

Reported by 73% 

of women and 

50% of men 

Filed a 

discrimination 

complaint or 

lawsuit 

Reported by 52% 

of women and 

15% of men 

Requested an 

investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 27% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filed a grievance 

or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 31% 

of women and 

43% of men 

Requested an 

investigation by 

victim's 

organization 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Filed a 

discrimination 

complaint or 

lawsuit 

Reported by 90% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Requested an 

investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 52% 

of women and 

100% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filed a grievance 

or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 85% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Requested an 

investigation by 

victim's 

organization 

Reported by 70% 

of women and 

29% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Filed a 

discrimination 

complaint or 

lawsuit 

Reported by 66% 

of women and 

12% of men 
Requested an 

investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 58% 

of women and 

100% of men 

Filed a grievance 

or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 45% 

of women and 

33% of men 

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that they took more than 

one formal action. 

Men who requested an investigation by an outside agency were most likely to 

think their action had made things better, but, in contrast with women, few who 

filed a discrimination complaint found that action useful. Again, the effectiveness 

of remedies varied somewhat depending on the severity of the behavior the men 

had experienced. 

In summary, the type of formal action taken and the perceived effectiveness of 

the action varied with the sex of the victim and the severity of the behavior the 

victim faced. However, the perceived success rate was only 59% (i.e., 4 victims 

in every 10 who took formal action did not find their efforts made things better). 

This middling success rate was cited by Congresswoman Gladys Spellman 

during Congressional hearings[14] as a possible reason so many employees 

consider formal actions ineffective or think nothing would be done if incidents of 

sexual harassment were reported. Said Spellman: "If the success rate is only 

50%, it isn't going to be a great incentive to moving ahead" (i.e., to changing 

attitudes so more Federal workers will have confidence that something will 

happen if incidents are reported). 

For a number of Federal workers, filing a formal complaint not only did not make 

things better, but actually made matters worse.[15] One survey respondent 

related on her questionnaire what happened when she filed a grievance, which 

eventually went to arbitration: "My supervisor was found to have sexually 

harassed--but the end result was I was literally forced by my supervisor and 

management to transfer to another installation. The action I took against my 

supervisor cost me psychologically as well as prevented promotions. " 

Response of Management 

In general, the response of agency officials to formal and informal actions was 

reported to be mixed[16] (see Figure 6-6). 

FIGURE 6-6

Organizations' Responses to Formal Actions Taken by Narrators 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated That Their Organizations Responded as 

Follows (Question 29) 
Took action 

against the 

harasser 

Reported by 74% 

of women and 

20% of men 

Found narrator 

victim's charge to 

be true 

Reported by 49% 

of women and 

14% of men 

Did not know 

whether 

management did 

anything 

Reported by 0% of 

women and 46% 

of men 

Corrected the 

damage done to 

narrator victim 

Reported by 17% 

of women and 5% 

of men 

The action is still 

being processed 

Reported by 0% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

Did nothing Reported by 17% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Were hostile or 

took action against 

narrator victim 

Reported by 2% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Found charge to 

be false 

Reported by 0% of 

women and 15% 

of men 

Took action 

against the 

harasser 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 

38% of men 

Found narrator 

victim's charge to 

be true 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 

37% of men 

Did not know 

whether 

management did 

anything 

Reported by 17% 

of women and 

23% of men 

Corrected the 

damage done to 

narrator victim 

Reported by 20% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

The action is still 

being processed 

Reported by 8% of 

women and 16% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Did nothing Reported by 5% of 

women and 0% of 
men 

Were hostile or 

took action against 

narrator victim 

Reported by 4% of 

women and 23% 

of men 

Found charge to 

be false 

Reported by 0.2% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Took action 

against the 

harasser 

Reported by 31% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Found narrator 

victim's charge to 

be true 

Reported by 40% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Did not know 

whether 

management did 

anything 

Reported by 36% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Corrected the 

damage done to 

narrator victim 

Reported by 0% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

The action is still 

being processed 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

Did nothing Reported by 4% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

Were hostile or 

took action against 

narrator victim 

Reported by 6% of 

women and 16% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Found charge to 

be false 

Reported by 3% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

Took action 

against the 

harasser 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 

27% of men 

Found narrator 

victim's charge to 

be true 

Reported by 43% 

of women and 

25% of men 

Did not know 

whether 

management did 

anything 

Reported by 19% 

of women and 

25% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Corrected the Reported by 16% 
damage done to 

narrator victim 

of women and 4% 

of men 

The action is still 

being processed 

Reported by 8% of 

women and 9% of 

men 

Did nothing Reported by 6% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

Were hostile or 

took action against 

narrator victim 

Reported by 4% of 

women and 16% 

of men 

Found charge to 

be false 

Reported by 1% of 

women and 4% of 

men 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated that management 

responded in more than one way. 

Although female narrator-victims who did pursue formal remedies were more 

likely to encounter a favorable and corrective response than apathy or hostility, 

the results depended on the severity of the experience they had faced. More than 

8 out of every 20 female narrators who answered this question said management 

found the charge to be true or took action against the offender, and only around 1 

in 20 said management was hostile or did nothing. The more severe the 

harassment experience, the more likely management was to do something about 

it. However, only 16% of the group of female narrators (and none of the victims of 

less severe harassment) reported the damage had been corrected--and for some 

it may have taken awhile. Wrote one woman who had been bothered by a 

Branch Chief: "My harasser's supervisors took no action until they were ordered 

to by outside sources. The sexual harassment continued over several years with 

several different women, two of whom resigned under pressure from this man. 

The situation eventually was rectified by removing him from a management 

position." 

The finding that no female victims of "less severe" harassment reported that 

damage from the harassment had been corrected may reflect the difficulty in 

correcting damage caused by ambiguous behavior such as unwanted sexual 

comments, and suggestive looks and pressure for dates. The negative 

consequences for these victims may be more in the realm of the psychological. 

Although men who took formal action also were more likely to find a favorable 

rather than a hostile management response, they were less likely than women to 

do so and four times more likely than women to encounter hostility, particularly if 

they had experienced the less severe forms of sexual harassment. Thus, it would 

seem that men who allege sexual harassment are less likely than women to be 

taken seriously by management, possibly because sexual harassment often is 
seen as a problem that happens only to women. There is other evidence that the 

complaints of men are not taken as seriously as those of women in the low 

number who found reporting the behavior and talking to a supervisor or other 

agency officials to be effective. Around half the women found reporting (53%) or 

talking (48%) to these officials to make things better, but only one-third (35%) of 

the men found reporting the behavior helpful, and only one-fifth (20%) found 

talking to officials useful (see Figures 6-3 and 6-4). 

The comments respondents wrote on their questionnaires clearly indicate that 

some managers approach the problem more seriously than do others. One victim 

reported that when she attempted to get help from her harasser's superior officer, 

she was told she should be more tolerant of him and make allowance for him. 

Another wrote of taking a complaint to the top administrator, who said he was 

powerless to admonish for "hearsay" In contrast, a supervisor reported, "My 

deputy tried sexual harassment pressure on my secretary until I dealt with the 

matter rather bluntly for the future of his work record." Adds this respondent: "I 

have advised counseling for the victims and filing charges against the 

perpetrators." 

Conclusion 

This chapter has explored the behavior of victims and harassers during sexual 

harassment incidents and the attempts of victims to stop the harassment. Few 

victims talk to organizational officials about their problems and only a handful file 

formal complaints. It may be that most victims simply want the harassment to 

stop and see no need to escalate the situation by filing a formal complaint. 

Thus, informal actions carried out by victims or those with organizational or 

independent authority to correct the situation are seen as the most effective 

available remedies. Exploration of this possibility continues in the next chapter. 

Clearly, the findings reported in this chapter indicate that there is much 

management can do to improve its effectiveness in reducing sexual harassment. 

Agency officials must be clearly informed of their responsibilities in this regard. In 

addition, victims need to be informed of the most effective informal responses to 

stop sexual harassment. They also need information on formal remedies so that 

option is open to those who choose to take it. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 6 

1 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

2 Based on responses to Survey Question 24; also see Appendix D, Table R for 

additional data. 

3 Based on responses to Survey Question 25. 
4 See Survey Questions 23a and 23b; see Appendix D, Figure L for additional 

data. 

5 Respondents were asked to indicate all actions they had taken, and many did. 

6 Fewer than 4,000 women, or 2% of all female narrators who answered this 

question, took this action. 

7 Mary P. Rowe, Ph.D., Assistant to the President, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, conversation, March 1981. 

8 See Survey Questions 27a and 27b; see Appendix D, Figure M for additional 

data. 

9 A number of narrators, i.e., those who responded to Survey Question 20, did 

not answer Question 27. 

10 Based on responses to Survey Question 28b, see Appendix D, for additional 

data. 

11 See Chapter 8 for a description of the various formal complaint procedures. 

12 In November 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission helped to 

clarify the issue by adopting guidelines in which sexual harassment under certain 

conditions was interpreted to be a form of discrimination on the basis of sex; see 

Appendix E. 

13 See Appendix D, Table I for data. 

14 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee 

on Post Office and Civil Service on Sexual Harassment in the Federal 

Government, 2nd Sess., September 25, 1980, p. 28. 

15 See Appendix D, for additional data. 

16 Based on responses to Survey Question 29. 

 

7. Impact and Cost of Sexual Harassment 

• The cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government between May 

1978 and May 1980 is conservatively estimated to have been $189 

million. 
• Although their experiences do not change the careers or work situations of 

most victims, a sizeable number of men and women do leave their jobs or 

suffer other adverse job consequences. 

• A majority of victims do not think their personal well-being or work 

performance declined as a result of their experiences, but a sizeable 

minority do. 

• Victims are much more likely to think sexual harassment negatively 

affected their personal wellbeing or morale than to believe that their work 

performance or productivity suffered. 

• Most victims report that as far as they know the morale and productivity of 

their immediate workgroups are little affected by their personal experience 

of sexual harassment. 

"I really stored a lot of feelings over one particular sexual advance." 

"My boss kept pestering me for dates and kept making personal remarks. When I 

wouldn't change my mind and play around with him, he had me transferred to a 

less desirable job." 

" Because I will not cooperate with my supervisor, he is giving me bad references 

so I can 't get another job in order to get out of the situation." 

The problem of sexual harassment does not end when the harasser walks out of 

the room or when a new day begins in the office. Victims are affected by their 

interpersonal problems and crisis experiences just as all people are. How 

strongly and in what way they are affected undoubtedly depends on a complex 

combination of personal variables--who they are, how they view the world, how 

many options they have--and situational variables--what sort of experience they 

had, what sort of office they were working in. 

Nor does the problem of sexual harassment necessarily end with the victim. The 

problems of the victim or between the victim and the harasser may spill over into 

the workgroup, becoming a distraction if not a cause of additional office 

problems. In extreme cases, the impact of individual incidents may extend far 

beyond the office--to the Federal Women's Program manager called in to hear a 

complaint, or to the personnel specialist called on to write a vacancy notice for a 

job left by a victim. 

Thus, while the picture of sexual harassment incidents is fairly complete, more 

questions must be asked to gain an understanding of the true extent of the 

problem of sexual harassment in the Federal work force. What is the impact of 

sexual harassment on a victim's physical and emotional condition, work 

performance, career well-being, and job turnover? What effect does sexual 

harassment have on, the morale and productivity of the victim's immediate 

workgroup?[1] And how do all these things--each of them costly to some extent 

in some way--add up to a total cost to the Federal Government? 
While most victims did not think their experiences had had a negative effect on 

their work performance or productivity, or on that of their work group, enough did 

report these and other negative consequences to bring the estimated cost of 

sexual harassment to the Federal Government over the 2-year period of the 

study to $189 million. This overall cost is discussed first, and then the responses 

of the victims on which the estimates were based are examined in greater detail. 

Sexual Harassment Is Costly to the Federal Government 

Sexual harassment of its employees cost the Federal Government an estimated 

$189 million during the period May 1978 to May 1980-$102 million for the 

harassment of women and $87 million for the harassment of men. These figures 

represent the costs of: 

• replacing employees who left their jobs because of sexual harassment, 

• paying medical insurance claims for service to employees who sought 

professional help because of physical or emotional stress brought on by 

their experiences, 

• paying sick leave to employees who missed work, and 

• absorbing the costs associated with reduced individual and work group 

productivity. 

The starting point for making cost estimates derives from those victims who 

agreed to describe at least one harassment incident they experienced in greater 

detail. We term these individuals narrators. The incident they describe may be a 

"most recent" experience or one they felt had the greatest impact on them. 

Obtaining the cost estimates on sexual harassment required that several general 

assumptions be made. Fundamental among these is that those respondents 

defined as narrators are representative of all victims and that we may generalize 

from them to the total population of victims. A second important set of 

assumptions concerns the derivation of costs of harassment. Largely, cost was 

calculated by inferential extrapolations from questions included in the survey. 

This was necessary since no direct questions were included in the survey which 

would provide information about the nature and amount of medical benefits used 

as a consequence of sexual harassment, the reason for or the amount of sick 

leave taken, work time missed, or estimated amount of work time devoted to 

harassment reduction activity. 

Cost of Job Turnover: $26.8 million 

Projecting figures for the entire groups of victims, not just narrators, we estimated 

that 29,350 Federal employees--24,660 women and 4,690 men--left their jobs 

over the 2-year study period as a result of being sexually harassed.[2] Replacing 

an employee usually involves three types of measurable costs: personnel costs 

associated with offering the job to a replacement; costs of a background check 
on the replacement; and the cost of training the replacement. Assuming that 

each person who left the job due to sexual harassment was replaced, that a 

background check of some type was made on each replacement, and each 

replacement received formal training in the new position, the loss to the Federal 

Government due to job turnover resulting from sexual harassment is estimated to 

have been $26.8 million--$22.5 million for women and $4.3 for men (see Table 7-

1). 

These figures are conservative in that they assume that the first person offered 

the job accepted it. They also do not include the costs associated with having a 

job vacant (e.g., work not done or overtime for other employees) and with taking 

one employee off, and putting another on, the payroll. The estimated number of 

Federal employees who quit because of sexual harassment also is conservative 

in that the survey, by its nature, did not reach the people who left the Federal 

Government altogether as a result of their sexual harassment experience. 

Table 7-1

Costs of Sexual Harassment 

 

Job Turnover 

Women Men Total

Cost to offer a job[1] $ 6.4 $ 1.2 $ 7.6 

Background checks[2] 2.0 0.4 2.4 

Training[3] 24.1 2.7 26.8 

Total Cost of Job Turnover $ 22.5 $ 4.3 $ 26.8 

Individual Productivity 37.7 34.4 72.1 

Emotional Stress 3.9 2.1 5.0 

Absenteeism 5.3 2.6 7.9 

Work Group Productivity 32.6 44.3 76.9 

TOTALS $ 102.0 $ 86.7 $ 188.7

[1] Source: Office of Program Management and Evaluation, Office of 

Personnel Management 

[2] Source: Division of Personnel Investigations, Office of Personnel 

Management 

[3] Source: "Employee Training in the Federal Service--FY 1979," published 

by the Office of Personnel Management, Workforce Effectiveness and 

Development Office. 

Cost of Emotional and Physical Stress: $5 million 

Dollar loss due to emotional and physical stress was measured in terms of 

estimated use of Governmental health benefits plans. An estimated 128,200 
victims indicated that their experience of sexual harassment had a negative 

impact on their emotional and physical health.[3] We assumed that such physical 

and emotional stress would result in symptoms for which some victims would 

seek professional services--and that the employees' Government health benefit 

plans would cover 40% of the cost of these services. We also assumed that the 

need for medical help would vary by the severity of the harassment experience of 

the victim. Thus, we assumed that the victims of the "most severe" form of sexual 

harassment who said their emotional or physical condition had declined (7,560 

women and 1,590 men) would seek on the average $200 worth of medical 

services, that victims of "severe" forms of sexual harassment (74,000 women 

and 22,000 men) would seek on the average $100 in services, and that each vic 

tim of "less severe" sexual harassment (17,850 women and 5,200 men) would 

seek on the average $50 in services. On this basis we estimate the loss to the 

Government in use of health benefits plans due to emotional and physical stress 

to have been $5 million-$3.9 million for women and $1.1 million for men. 

Cost of Absenteeism: $7.9 million 

Dollar cost to the Government due to absenteeism was measured in terms of 

extra sick leave paid to the estimated 50,430 Federal employees whose time and 

attendance at work suffered as a result of their sexual harassment 

experiences.[4] We assumed that victims of "most severe" sexual harassment 

(4,320 women and 660 men) took 5 days on the average of sick leave, while 

victims of "severe" sexual harassment (28,000 women and 8,000 men) took 3 

days on the average, and those victims of "less severe" harassment (4,250 

women and 5,200 men) took 1 day on the average. Furthermore, assuming that 

the average daily salary of men and women is $80 and $48, respectively,[5] we 

project the approximate work time lost due to sick leave absenteeism to cost $8 

million ($5,3 million for women and $2.6 million for men). Note, this estimate 

does not reflect tardiness at work or absenteeism not due to sick leave. 

Cost of Decline in Individual Productivity: $72.1 million 

Dollar cost of diminished victim productivity was measured in terms of self 

reported decreases in quality and quantity of work. First we assumed that the 

productivity of the estimated 47,290 employees whose work quality and quantity 

became worse[6] declined by 10%, and that this loss translates into a loss to the 

Government of 10% of the workers' annual salaries. Figures are based on 

calculations of average annual salaries of male and female victims of each of the 

three levels of severity of sexual harassment experience.[7] On this basis we 

estimate the loss to the Federal Government due to decreased productivity of 

victims of sexual harassment to have been $72.1 million--$37.7 million for female 

victims and $34.4 million for male victims (see Table 7-1). 

We believe a 10% loss in productivity to be a very conservative figure. In 1970, 

the General Accounting Office estimated that lost productivity of individual 
workers due to alcoholism was at least 25%.[8] It seems possible that the 

problems generated by sexual harassment, at least in severe cases or when, as 

is commonly the case, the harassment continues over a 'lengthy period,[9] could 

approach in severity the problems associated with employee alcoholism. 

If the 25% GAO figure were used to estimate loss due to decreased worker 

productivity, the cost to the Federal Government over the 2-year study period 

would amount to $180.2 million. It should be mentioned that the estimated loss 

does not take into account any decline in productivity of the harasser, who might 

be assumed also to have been less productive during the duration of the 

harassment incidents. 

Cost of Decline in Workgroup Productivity: $76.9 million 

Decrease in workgroup productivity was measured in terms of victims' 

assessment of this factor.[10] We estimated that 30,680 workgroups were 

affected.[11] If workgroup productivity can be assumed to decline by 1%, dollar 

costs for this decreased productivity are likely to be at least 1% of the average 

salaries of members of the workgroup. These average workgroup salaries were 

estimated on the basis of sizes[12] and sexual composition of workgroups[13]

reported by narrator-victims. Again on the basis of calculations from survey data, 

women in the workgroups were assigned an average annual salary of $12,000, 

and men an average annual salary of $20,000. On this basis, the loss to the 

Federal Government due to decreased productivity of employees who worked in 

close association with the victims of sexual harassment is estimated to have 

been $76.9 million--$32.6 million for workgroups containing female victims and 

$44.3 million for workgroups containing male victims. 

The General Accounting Office study cited earlier estimates that the productivity 

of an alcoholic employee 's workgroup could decline as much as 5% to 10%. If 

these percentages were applied to the workgroups of victims of sexual 

harassment, the loss to the Federal Government over the 2-year study period 

would have amounted to $384.5 million (5% loss) or $769 million (10% loss) (see 

Table 7-1). 

Total Cost of Sexual Harassment of Federal Employees: $189 million 

The cost to the Federal Government of sexual harassment of Federal workers 

was estimated on the basis of what victims said about how their experiences 

affected them personally and their coworkers. Estimates of dollar losses due to 

job turnover, increased absenteeism, physical and emotional stress, and 

decreased individual and workgroup productivity were based on seemingly 

reasonable sets of assumptions and deliberately were conservative. The 

estimated overall cost, $189 million, while likely a minimum amount, is still 

enough to pay the salaries of all the executives in the Federal Government--both 
the 465 top agency executives and the 7,000 members of the Senior Executive 

Service--for 6 months.[14] 

As indicated, these cost estimates were based on the negative consequences of 

sexual harassment on victims and their workgroups as perceived by victimnarrators. The overall impact, as indicated by this group, is discussed in detail in 

the sections that follow. 

Work Situation of Most Victims Did Not Change 

The job status and working conditions of the majority of victims did not change as 

a result of sexual harassment, but this clearly depended on the severity of the 

experience[15] (see Figure 7-1). Nearly half (49%) of the women who experienced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault, compared with 1 in 5 female 

victims of "severe" forms of sexual harassment (22%) and 1 in 10 victims of "less 

severe" sexual harassment (10%), reported some change in their working 

conditions or careers as a result of sexual harassment, that is, did not indicate 

"no changes happened in (their) work situation." Most of the changes were for 

the worse. Wrote one victim: "I transferred out of state because of sexual 

harassment I received from my immediate supervisor because I chose not to tell 

her of my social life off the job." Another reported: "Because of my refusal to 

grant favors to my immediate supervisor I have been prevented from obtaining 

the fulltime status I had prior to my graduate studies in management." 

FIGURE 7-1 

Changes in Narrators' Work Situations as a Result of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated These Changes Actually Occurred 

(Question 26) 

No changes 

happened in work 

situation 

Reported by 51% 

of women and 

52% of men 

Working 

assignments or 

conditions got 

worse 

Reported by 22% 

of women and 

25% of men 

Was denied a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

performance 

rating, or reference 

Reported by 14% 

of women and 7% 

of men 

Transferred or quit 

to take another job 

Reported by 12% 

of women and 4% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Was reassigned or Reported by 2% of 
fired women and 9% of 

men 

Received a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

performance 

rating, or reference 

Reported by 9% of 

women and 7% of 

men 

Working 

assignments or 

conditions got 

better 

Reported by 6% of 

women and 9% of 

men 

Quit without 

having another job 

Reported by 0% of 

women and 0% of 

men 

No changes 

happened in work 

situation 

Reported by 78% 

of women and 

85% of men 

Working 

assignments or 

conditions got 

worse 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 9% 

of men 

Was denied a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

performance 

rating, or reference 

Reported by 8% of 

women and 6% of 

men 

Transferred or quit 

to take another job 

Reported by 7% of 

women and 2% of 

men 

Was reassigned or 

fired 

Reported by 2% of 

women and 1% of 

men 

Received a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

performance 

rating, or reference 

Reported by 2% of 

women and 0.4% 

of men 

Working 

assignments or 

conditions got 

better 

Reported by 1% of 

women and 1% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Quit without 

having another job 

Reported by 1% of 

women and 0.3% 

of men 
No changes 

happened in work 

situation 

Reported by 90% 

of women and 

91% of men 

Working 

assignments or 

conditions got 

worse 

Reported by 5% of 

women and 5% of 

men 

Was denied a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

performance 

rating, or reference 

Reported by 3% of 

women and 2% of 

men 

Transferred or quit 

to take another job 

Reported by 3% of 

women and 2% of 

men 

Was reassigned or 

fired 

Reported by 1% of 

women and 0.3% 

of men 

Received a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

performance 

rating, or reference 

Reported by 0.3% 

of women and 

0.2% of men 

Working 

assignments or 

conditions got 

better 

Reported by 1% of 

women and 1% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Quit without 

having another job 

Reported by 0.3% 

of women and 0% 

of men 

No changes 

happened in work 

situation 

Reported by 81% 

of women and 

87% of men 

Working 

assignments or 

conditions got 

worse 

Reported by 9% of 

women and 8% of 

men 

Was denied a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

performance 

rating, or reference 

Reported by 7% of 

women and 5% of 

men 

ALL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Transferred or quit 

to take another job 

Reported by 6% of 

women and 2% of 
men 

Was reassigned or 

fired 

Reported by 2% of 

women and 1% of 

men 

Received a 

promotion, step 

increase, good 

performance 

rating, or reference 

Reported by 1% of 

women and 0.4% 

of men 

Working 

assignments or 

conditions got 

better 

Reported by 1% of 

women and 1% of 

men 

Quit without 

having another job 

Reported by 1% of 

women and 0.1% 

of men 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated that management 

responded in more than one way. 

It is interesting that many of the relatively few women who anticipated penalties 

would occur if they did not go along[16] did in fact report negative consequences, 

i.e., their fear of negative consequences was found to be justified. These women 

were much more likely to report adverse consequences than the women who had 

thought that nothing would happen if they did not go along. 

Of the women narrators who reported adverse consequences as a result of their 

sexual harassment experience, approximately 18,200 indicated they left their 

jobs (by quitting, transferring, being reassigned or fired) at some point during the 

2-year period of the study. 

The experiences of men were similar to those of women. Most men reported that 

no changes had occurred in their work situations, but this again depended on 

severity of experience, with male victims of the "most severe" form of sexual 

harassment most likely to experience changes (48% did) and victims of "severe" 

and "less severe" sexual harassment far less likely to report changes (15% and 

9%, respectively). Around 2,700 men reported they had left their jobs (voluntarily 

or involuntarily) over the 2-year study period as a result of unwanted sexual 

attention. As with women, men who foresaw penalties or benefits for not going 

along or going along with the sexual harassment were more likely to experience 

changes in their work situations than those who did not anticipate any 

consequences. 

Well-Being and Morale of Many Victims Suffered 
Again, although the personal well-being and job morale of most victims 

apparently did not suffer as a result of their experiences, many did report 

suffering these negative consequences, and their experiences were strongly 

related to the type of unwanted attention they had faced.[17] (see Figure 7-2). 

Approximately 65,500 women (33% of the women who responded to this 

question) said their emotional or physical condition became worse as a result of 

their experiences. Negative physical and emotional consequences were far more 

common among women who had faced actual or attempted rape or sexual 

assault: 82% of the female victims of this most severe form of harassment 

reported worsened emotional or physical conditions, compared with 37% and 

21% of the victims of severe and less severe forms of unwanted attention. One 

woman, whose Division Chief had become violent in his persistent pressuring of 

her for sexual favors, described her experience in this way: "It was so upsetting I 

finally went to a doctor for help in calming my nerves. Finally I quit. I've been a 

housewife since then. I'm afraid to go back--it was like being raped." 

FIGURE 7-2

Impact of Sexual Harassment on Narrators

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated These Aspects of Their Lives "Became 

Worse" (Question 31a) 

Feelings about 

work 

Reported by 62% 

of women and 

27% of men 

Emotional or 

physical condition 

Reported by 82% 

of women and 

53% of men 

Ability to work with 

others on the job 

Reported by 32% 

of women and 

24% of men 

time and 

attendance at work

Reported by 48% 

of women and 

22% of men 

The quantity of 

work 

Reported by 28% 

of women and 

10% of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

The quality of work Reported by 21% 

of women and 6% 

of men 

Feelings about 

work 

Reported by 41% 

of women and 

20% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Emotional or 

physical condition 

Reported by 37% 

of women and 

22% of men 
Ability to work with 

others on the job 

Reported by 18% 

of women and 

16% of men 

time and 

attendance at work

Reported by 14% 

of women and 8% 

of men 

The quantity of 

work 

Reported by 13% 

of women and 

12% of men 

The quality of work Reported by 12% 

of women and 

13% of men 

Feelings about 

work 

Reported by 24% 

of women and 

17% of men 

Emotional or 

physical condition 

Reported by 21% 

of women and 

17% of men 

Ability to work with 

others on the job 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 

14% of men 

time and 

attendance at work

Reported by 5% of 

women and 8% of 

men 

The quantity of 

work 

Reported by 6% of 

women and 8% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

The quality of work Reported by 4% of 

women and 6% of 

men 

Feelings about 

work 

Reported by 36% 

of women and 

19% of men 

Emotional or 

physical condition 

Reported by 33% 

of women and 

21% of men 

Ability to work with 

others on the job 

Reported by 15% 

of women and 

15% of men 

time and 

attendance at work

Reported by 11% 

of women and 8% 

of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

The quantity of Reported by 11% 
work of women and 

10% of men 

The quality of work Reported by 10% 

of women and 

10% of men 

An even larger number of women--74,300, or 36% of all female narrators--said 

their feelings about work (i.e., their "morale") became worse as a result of the 

unwanted sexual attention. Again, women who faced actual or attempted rape or 

sexual assault were considerably more likely than victims of "less severe " 

harassment to report this negative consequence (62% compared with 24%). 

Men were less likely than women to report having been adversely affected by 

their experiences. Only 1 in 5 male narrators (21% or 17,500 men), compared 

with 1 in 3 women, reported worse emotional or physical conditions attributed to 

the unwanted attention they received, and only 1 in 5 (19%, or 16,800 male 

narrators), compared with 1 in 3 women, reported their feelings about work 

became worse. Like women, the subsequent physical and emotional condition of 

male narrator-victims was strongly related to the severity of the experience they 

had had. More than half of the men who had faced actual attempted rape or 

sexual assault (53%) reported worsened emotional or physical health, compared 

with only 22% and 17% of male victims of severe and less severe forms of 

harassment. The feelings of men toward work were less dependent than women 

on type of experience: 27% who had experienced the most severe form of 

harassment, compared with 17% of victims of "less severe" behavior, reported 

lowered morale. 

Victims Judged Their Own Work Performance and Productivity to Be 

Unaffected 

The impact of sexual harassment on victims' work performance and productivity 

was examined in terms of the victims' own assessments of changes in their time 

and attendance at work, their ability to work with others, and the quantity and 

quality of their work.[18] As Figure 7-2 shows, very few victims reported their 

work had suffered in any of these ways. 

That only 10% to 15% of women who had received sexual attention they did not 

invite and did not want (attention that in some cases continued 6 months or 

more) felt their experiences had adversely affected their work performance and 

productivity seems somewhat surprising. It may be that most of the behavior, 

while unwanted, was not perceived as coercive enough to affect individual 

productivity and performance substantially. Some evidence of this (assuming 

perceived coerciveness is related to severity of experience) shows up in analysis 

of responses by severity of experience: the more severe the harassment 

incident, the more likely were female narrators to report diminished performance 

and productivity. Also interesting is the finding that victims of the two most severe 
forms of harassment were likelier to report that their time and attendance and 

their ability to work with others had suffered than that the quality and quantity of 

their work had diminished. 

While the explanation suggested above may have some validity, the finding that 

so few women--and men, as well--report their harassment experience had an 

adverse effect on their work performance warrants further exploration. 

Sex Assessments of Work Performance Must be Questioned 

When one looks at the victims' self reports of the impact of sexual harassment on 

personal well-being and work performance, a striking difference emerges. It 

appears that victims, both male and female, are more inclined to state that their 

emotional and physical condition was harmed by sexual harassment than that 

their ability to do their work was diminished. For example, female victims of "most 

severe" harassment were nearly four times as likely to state that their emotional 

or physical condition got worse (82%) than that the quality of their work declined 

(21%). A possible explanation for this difference was suggested by 

Congresswoman Gladys Spellman (Democrat-Maryland) during hearings on 

sexual harassment in the Federal workforce called by the Subcommittee on 

Investigations, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service:[19]

Mrs. Spellman. I am aware of that question on productivity, and I am puzzled 

over it. 

Here people have been harassed and had, in some cases, very severe 

problems. Yet they say it did not affect their productivity. 

I am puzzled over that and wondered if, indeed, they were afraid to say that 

productivity had changed for fear it would have an adverse effect on them. As we 

look at some of the graphs we have here, we find that 82 percent of those 

responding to the survey said their emotional or physical condition was affected; 

62 percent said their feelings about work were affected; 48 percent said their 

time and attendance at work was affected. 

Surely, that affects productivity. Thirtytwo percent said that their ability to work 

with others on the job was affected. Twentyeight percent specified that their 

quantity of work was affected, while 21 percent specified that the quality of their 

work was affected. In addition, there are indications that those who have been 

victims of severe sexual harassment and victims of less severe sexual 

harassment also were affected in those ways but, then, when you ask "was your 

productivity affected," they will say, no. That of course, belies the other statistics 

that we have, so I think that we can look just a little bit beyond that one simple 

question. 

There is far more to it than meets the eye. 
In sum, although a sizeable number of women, and to a lesser extent men, report 

physicalical or emotional distress or reduced morale, fewer are willing to admit to 

a decline in productivity. This discrepancy may be perceptual or based on fear of 

adverse consequences and thus should not necessarily be taken at face value. It 

may be that those who are experiencing stress are not always the most accurate 

judges of the effect of that stress on their own performance on the job. Further 

research may be needed to put this finding in context. 

 

FIGURE 7-3

Impact of Sexual Harassment on the Morale and Productivity of Narrators' 

Immediate Work Groups

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated These Effects on the Morale and 

Productivity 

of Their Immediate Work Groups (Question 31b) 

MORALE 

Became better Reported by 2% of 

women and 19% 

of men 

Became worse Reported by 26% 

of women and 

42% of men 

Had no effect Reported by 72% 

of women and 

40% of men 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Became better Reported by 1% of 

women and 3% of 

men 

Became worse Reported by 10% 

of women and 

11% of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Had no effect Reported by 89% 

of women and 

87% of men 

MORALE 

Became better Reported by 1% of 

women and 1% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Became worse Reported by 13% 

of women and 

13% of men 
Had no effect Reported by 86% 

of women and 

86% of men 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Became better Reported by 0.3% 

of women and 1% 

of men 

Became worse Reported by 6% of 

women and 11% 

of men 

Had no effect Reported by 94% 

of women and 

89% of men 

MORALE 

Became better Reported by 1% of 

women and 5% of 

men 

Became worse Reported by 7% of 

women and 11% 

of men 

Had no effect Reported by 92% 

of women and 

84% of men 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Became better Reported by 1% of 

women and 2% of 

men 

Became worse Reported by 3% of 

women and 6% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Had no effect Reported by 96% 

of women and 

92% of men 

MORALE 

Became better Reported by 1% of 

women and 3% of 

men 

Became worse Reported by 11% 

of women and 

12% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Had no effect Reported by 88% 

of women and 

85% of men 
PRODUCTIVITY 

Became better Reported by 0.4% 

of women and 1% 

of men 

Became worse Reported by 5% of 

women and 9% of 

men 

Had no effect Reported by 95% 

of women and 

90% of men 

Victims Also Judged Their Workgroups to Be Unaffected 

Most male and female narrators thought their personal experiences had no effect 

on the morale (85% to 88%) and productivity (90% to 95%) of the people they 

worked with on a day-to-day basis,[20] but their perceptions depended somewhat 

on the severity of the behavior they encountered (see Figure 7-3). 

Women who faced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault were more likely 

than other women to perceive a decline in their workgroups' morale and 

productivity, and women in general were more likely to judge there had been a 

decline in morale than a decrease in productivity (11% compared with 5%). Men 

also overwhelmingly reported that their workgroups were affected by their 

personal experiences. Interestingly, male victims of the most severe form of 

harassment were more likely than their female counterparts to report a decline in 

the morale of their coworkers because of the incident. 

The finding that the workgroup was unaffected by a member's sexual harassment 

should be interpreted carefully since the finding is based on the opinions of the 

victims, not on reports of the coworkers themselves. Victims may or may not 

have been aware of the effect on their coworkers. Conversely, other members of 

the workgroup may never have known of the incidents. Most incidents of sexual 

harassment may occur in private, and as data discussed in Chapter 6 reveal, 

only around one-third of female narrators and one-fifth of male narrators spoke 

with other workers about their experiences. Given the data, a generalization 

about the impact of sexual harassment on the victim 's immediate workgroup is 

unwise. 

Conclusion 

Although sexual harassment was not perceived by the majority of victims to have 

an adverse impact on their career, morale, or productivity, a significant number of 

women and men indicated they suffered serious adverse consequences in the 

form of job transfers or dismissals, impairment to emotional and physical health, 

and deteriorated work performance. Aside from compassionate and moral 
reasons for reducing sexual harassment, to do so would save the Government a 

considerable amount of money--$189 million over a 2-year period, by our 

conservative estimate. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 7 

1 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

2 Figures projected from the 20,900 narrators (18,200 women and 2,700 men) 

who indicated in response to Survey Question 26 (see Figure 7-1 and additional 

data in Appendix D) that they had left their jobs because of unwanted sexual 

attention, either by quitting or transferring or because they had been reassigned 

or fired. 

3 Figures projected from the number of narrator-victims who indicated in 

response to Survey Question 31a (Figure 7-2 and additional data in Appendix D) 

that their emotional and physical condition declined as a result of unwanted 

sexual attention. 

4 Figures projected from the number of narrator-victims who indicated in 

response to Survey Question 31a (Figure 7-2 and Appendix D) that their time 

and attendance at work declined as a result of unwanted sexual attention. 

5 Daily salaries were based on approximations that the average annual salaries 

of women and men working for the Federal Government are $12,000 and 

$20,000 respectively. This assumes 250 working days a year and is based on 

data derived from the questionnaire. 

6 Figures projected from number of narrator-victims who indicated in response to 

Survey Question 31a (Figure 7-2 and Appendix D) that the quality and quantity of 

their work became worse as a result of unwanted sexual attention. 

7 Rounded average annual salaries of victims of "most severe" sexual 

harassment were $12,000 for women and $15,300 for men; "severe " sexual 

harassment, $12,400 for women and $20,000 for men; "less severe " sexual 

harassment, $12,100 for women and $22,100 for men; see Appendix D, Table J. 

8 "Substantial Cost Savings from Establishment of Alcoholism Program for 

Federal Civilian Employees, " GAO Report to Special Subcommittee on 

Alcoholism and Narcotics Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 

September 28, 1970, p. 14. The GAO figure of 25% was at that time, and still is, 

considered conservative by many people familiar with the problem of alcoholism 

in the work force. For example, see editorial by Charles Elliott Blackford III, "What 

Does Employee Alcoholism Really Cost? ", Labor-Management Alcoholism 

Journal VII (May-June, 1978). 
9 See Chapter 9 

10 Based on responses to Survey Question 31b. 

11 This is composed of 990 workgroups of female victims, and 330 of male 

victims, of "most severe " sexual harassment; 12,000 and 11,000 workgroups of 

female and male victims of "severe " sexual harassment respectively; and 2,550 

and 3,900 workgroups of female and male victims of "less severe " sexual 

harassment. See Appendix D, Table K. 

12 Average workgroup size of male and female victims of each level of severity 

of sexual harassment experience was determined on the basis of responses of 

narrator-victims to Survey Question 48; the average workgroup size for all female 

victims was calculated to be roughly 13 persons, and for all male victims, 16 

persons. See Appendix D, Table N. 

13 Sexual composition of workgroups of victims was determined by responses of 

narrator-victims to Survey Question 51. 

14 Figures provided by Ann Andrews, Coordinator of Executive Personnel and 

Management Development Information Systems, OPM. 

15 Based on responses to Survey Question 26. 

16 Those who checked one or more items when responding to Survey Question 

24; see Appendix D, Table L for data. 

17 Based on responses to Survey Question 31(a) and (b). 

18 See Survey Question 31a(c)-(f). 

19 Congressional Hearings, September 25, 1980, pp- 37-38. 

20 Based on responses to Survey Question 31b. 

8. Awareness of Remedies and Their Effectiveness 

• Most victims and supervisors are relatively unaware of the formal 

remedies available to victims of sexual harassment. 

• Relatively few victims and supervisors consider formal remedies effective 

in helping victims of sexual harassment. 

• Taking assertive informal action is thought to be the most effective way for 

employees to make others stop bothering them sexually. 

• Most victims and supervisors think there is much management can do 

regarding sexual harassment. 
What can a person do to get sexual harassment to stop? Can anything be done 

when rejection of overtures results in negative job consequences? More 

important, what could be done to keep sexual harassment from becoming a 

problem in the first place? 

There are a number of formal actions Federal employees can take in instances of 

sexual harassment, including filing a discrimination complaint or a grievance or 

adverse action appeal and requesting an investigation by their own or an outside 

agency. These are the remedies the Subcommittee on Investigations had in mind 

when it directed that the survey determine "whether victims of sexual harassment 

are aware of available remedies and whether they have any faith in them"[1] We 

believed it would also be useful to learn whether Federal employees thought 

there were any other actions management might take--or any effective ways an 

individual could get the bothersome behavior to stop. The broad issue of 

prevention of sexual harassment also seemed important. 

Since victims obviously are the most concerned about remedies, and since 

supervisors not only are often involved in the complaint process but also are 

responsible for monitoring office behavior, we focused on their responses. There 

was a great deal of agreement between the two groups. Generally, there was a 

very low level of awareness of formal remedies. With the exception of filing a 

discrimination complaint, the majority of victims--male or female--were not aware 

of formal remedies available to them. Even fewer felt these formal actions would 

be effective in helping Federal employees who have been sexually bothered by 

others. Supervisors--Federal employees responsible for advising workers of their 

rights--were only somewhat more aware of formal remedies; nor were they much 

more confident in the effectiveness of these remedies. Despite this lack of faith, 

most victims and supervisors--men and women alike--believe there is much 

management can do regarding sexual harassment, particularly in the areas of 

sanctions and penalties. 

A large number of victims and supervisors--at least 4 in every 10--did not think 

filing a formal complaint per se was one of the most effective things employees 

could do to get sexual harassment to stop. Far greater numbers preferred direct 

informal actions--asking or telling the offender to stop and reporting the behavior 

to a supervisor or other official as remedies for the behavior. 

In order to provide background information for this chapter, the next section 

describes the various formal remedies usually available to victims of sexual 

harassment within the Federal Government. 

Explanations of Formal Remedies 

Formal actions or remedies are procedures that have been established by 

agencies in accordance with law or regulation for use by employees to resolve 

their workrelated complaints. Depending in some cases on the type of formal 
remedy used, the complaint may concern any number of matters, such as unfair 

office practices, demotion, termination, or racial discrimination. These formal 

institutional remedies are also available to process charges of sexual 

harassment. 

In some cases, such as filing a grievance, the first step in taking formal action 

may be contacting the supervisor. The subsequent investigation and conclusion 

of the case remain within the worker's employing agency. In other instances, 

other agency officials, such as EEO officials in the case of discrimination 

complaints, process the complaint within the agency and the complainant has 

appeal rights outside the agency. At other times, the formal action begins with an 

outside agency, such as the Office of the Special Counsel within the Merit 

Systems Protection Board. Depending on the circumstances provoking the 

complaint, more than one channel of formal complaint may be available to an 

employee who alleges sexual harassment--or only one may be apppropriate. 

Complainants have a choice of courses of action to take. For example, alleged 

victims may want to file a discrimination complaint if they feel that the sexual 

harassment was a result of sex discrimination as interpreted by the EEOC 

Guidelines on sexual harassment.[2] In summary, these guidelines state that 

sexual harassment is sex discrimination when going along with the behavior is 

implicitly or explicitly a term or condition of employment, when going along or not 

going along is used as the basis of employment decisions affecting the victim or 

when the behavior has the effect of interfering with the victims' work performance 

or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. 

Victims may choose to appeal an adverse action (for example, a removal or 

demotion based on unacceptable performance) which they feel was a result of 

refusing to go along with sexual harassment. Employees may appeal the action 

to the Merit Systems Protection Board where they have a right to a hearing on 

the merits.[3]

Victims may file grievances with their agency management seeking relief from 

sexual harassment. There are usually no appeal rights outside the agency for 

grievances. There are two kinds of grievance systems in the Federal 

Government--an administrative grievance system provided by each agency 

under OPM regulation and a negotiated grievance system provided by a 

collective bargaining agreement between a union and agency management.[4]

Victims may also request internal investigations of their allegations of sexual 

harassment by their agency Inspectors General if their agency has one and if the 

allegations involve fraud, waste, or mismanagement of Government funds. 

Finally, victims may want to request an external investigation from the Special 

Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board if the sexual harassment involves 

a prohibited personnel practice such as "taking or refusing to take a personnel 
action, including promotion of employees who submit to sexual advances or 

refusal to promote employees who resist or protest sexual overtures."[5] The 

Special Counsel may recommend corrective action or ask the Merit Systems 

Protection Board to "stay" the personnel action. 

FIGURE 8-1

Awareness of Formal Remedies 

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Knew the Following Formal 

Remedies Were Available to Victims of Sexual Harassment (Questions 12a-16a) 

Filing a discrimination complaint Reported by 

49% of women 

and 53% of 

men 

Filing a grievance or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 

36% of women 

and 44% of men 

Requesting an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 

18% of women 

and 26% of men 

Filing a complaint through special 

channels set up for sexual 

harassment complaints 

Reported by 

10% of women 

and 12% of men 

VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Requesting an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 5% 

of women and 

10% of men 

Filing a discrimination complaint Reported by 

57% of women 

and 62% of men 

Filing a grievance or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 

45% of women 

and 55% of men 

Requesting an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 

27% of women 

and 42% of men 

Filing a complaint through special 

channels set up for sexual 

harassment complaints 

Reported by 

12% of women 

and 18% of men 

SUPERVISORS 

Requesting an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 8% 

of women and 

12% of men 

NOTE: Percentages based on "Definitely Yes" responses to questions. 
In the survey questionnaire, formal remedies were grouped to form five general 

types of actions:[6]

• filing a discrimination complaint (if the behavior falls under guidelines set 

forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission); 

• filing a grievance or adverse action appeal (that is, using the agency 's 

internal grievance system, following negotiated grievance procedures if a 

union contract has been violated, or filing an adverse action appeal with 

the agency, with subsequent appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board); 

• requesting an internal investigation by the employing organization (for 

example, by the agency's Inspector General or Ethics Officer); 

• requesting an investigation by an outside agency (such as the Special 

Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board if a prohibited personnnel 

practice, as defined in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, is involved); 

and 

• filing a complaint through special channels set up for sexual harassment 

complaints. 

For each type of formal actions, workers were asked: (a) Is this remedy available 

to employees where you work? (b) Would this be effective in helping these 

employees? 

Available responses to each question were: "definitely not," "probably not," 

"probably yes," "definitely yes," and "don't know." 

Awareness of Formal Remedies Is Not Great 

Most victims and supervisors were not aware of all the formal remedies available 

to Federal employees who have been sexually harassed. Since we wanted to 

know the level of awareness with some degree of certainty, we looked at only the 

number of workers who said "definitely yes," the remedies are available.[7] On 

this basis we found that rarely were even half of the victims or supervisors aware 

that a remedy existed. The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint 

system (that is, filing a discrimination complaint) was the most widely known. 

As can be seen in Figure 8-1, female victims were relatively unaware of all the 

formal remedies, particularly investigations by an outside agency or their own. 

That they were most aware of the EEO discrimination complaint procedure is 

interesting since that channel was not used as often as other remedies by the 

victims who did take formal action (see Chapter 6). Since most remedies (except 

"filing a complaint through special channels") are in fact available to victims, their 

responses indicate a generally low level of awareness. Male victims were slightly 

more familiar with the remedies than were females, but their awareness still was 

generally quite low. 
Does unawareness of available remedies keep men and women from taking 

formal action? Apparently so, for nearly 38,000 victims--31,600 women and 

6,200 men--indicated that was the reason they had not taken formal action[8]

(see Figure 8-2). Generally, the more severe the harassing behavior, the more 

likely narrators were to say this was their reason for not taking formal action. 

Supervisors as a group also were relatively unfamiliar with formal remedies 

available to victims of sexual harassment (see Figure 8-1). More than half did not 

know employees could request internal or external investigations, and fewer than 

two-thirds knew about filing an EEO discrimination complaint. As with victims, 

male supervisors tended to be more knowledgeable about remedies than were 

female supervisors. 

As can be seen in Figure 8-1, for all remedies, both male and female supervisors 

were more likely to be aware than were female victims--and to some extent than 

were male victims. Nevertheless, given their responsibilities for advising 

employees of their rights, supervisors indicate a surprisingly low level of 

awareness of formal complaint channels, particular avenues other than filing an 

EEO complaint, or a grievance or adverse action appeal. 

To see if awareness of formal remedies is lower in agencies having relatively 

high rates of sexual harassment, we looked at the responses of victims and 

supervisors in the 10 agencies "grouped as "other" where rates were higher than 

rates for the Federal work force as a whole.[9] We found that in many of these 

agencies the awareness level of victims and supervisors was lower than for the 

Federal work force in general. 10 For example, in three agencies (Departments 

of Labor and Transportation and the Veterans Administration) plus in those 

agencies grouped as "other," victims and supervisors tended to be less aware 

than the Governmentwide averages. 

In other agencies such as the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban 

Development, other Defense agencies, and the General Services Administration, 

there are sex based differences. For example, in other Defense agencies, male 

supervisors tended to be more aware of remedies and female victims and 

supervisors less aware than the Governmentwide averages. 

Formal Remedies Are Not Seen as Effective 

FIGURE 8-2

Reasons For Not Taking Formal Action 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Gave the Following Reasons for Not Taking 

Formal Actions in Response to the Sexual Harassment (Question 30) 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Saw no need to 

report it 

Reported by 16% 

of women and 

36% of men 
Thought it would 

make work 

situation 

unpleasant 

Reported by 50% 

of women and 

22% of men 

Did not think 

anything would be 

done 

Reported by 50% 

of women and 

31% of men 

Thought it would 

be held against me 

or that I would be 

blamed 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 

22% of men 

Did not want to 

hurt the person 

who bothered me 

Reported by 41% 

of women and 

43% of men 

Was too 

embarrassed 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 

21% of men 

Did not know what 

actions to take 

Reported by 37% 

of women and 

12% of men 

Thought it would 

take too much time 

and effort 

Reported by 13% 

of women and 2% 

of men 

Saw no need to 

report it 

Reported by 54% 

of women and 

65% of men 

Thought it would 

make work 

situation 

unpleasant 

Reported by 40% 

of women and 

21% of men 

Did not think 

anything would be 

done 

Reported by 36% 

of women and 

19% of men 

Thought it would 

be held against me

or that I would be 

blamed 

Reported by 25% 

of women and 

11% of men 

Did not want to 

hurt the person 

who bothered me 

Reported by 21% 

of women and 

31% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Was too 

embarrassed 

Reported by 16% 

of women and 

10% of men 
Did not know what 

actions to take 

Reported by 17% 

of women and 6% 

of men 

Thought it would 

take too much time 

and effort 

Reported by 6% of 

women and 3% of 

men 

Saw no need to 

report it 

Reported by 72% 

of women and 

74% of men 

Thought it would 

make work 

situation 

unpleasant 

Reported by 24% 

of women and 

24% of men 

Did not think 

anything would be 

done 

Reported by 24% 

of women and 

14% of men 

Thought it would 

be held against me 

or that I would be 

blamed 

Reported by 14% 

of women and 9% 

of men 

Did not want to 

hurt the person 

who bothered me 

Reported by 15% 

of women and 

13% of men 

Was too 

embarrassed 

Reported by 9% of 

women and 9% of 

men 

Did not know what 

actions to take 

Reported by 8% of 

women and 7% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Thought it would 

take too much time 

and effort 

Reported by 5% of 

women and 5% of 

men 

Saw no need to 

report it 

Reported by 61% 

of women and 

71% of men 

Thought it would 

make work 

situation 

unpleasant 

Reported by 36% 

of women and 

23% of men 

Did not think 

anything would be 

done 

Reported by 33% 

of women and 

17% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

Thought it would Reported by 23% 
be held against me 

or that I would be 

blamed 

of women and 

11% of men 

Did not want to 

hurt the person 

who bothered me 

Reported by 20% 

of women and 

25% of men 

Was too 

embarrassed 

Reported by 15% 

of women and 

10% of men 

Did not know what 

actions to take 

Reported by 15% 

of women and 

17% of men 

Thought it would 

take too much time 

and effort 

Reported by 6% of 

women and 4% of 

men 

NOTE: Most respondents gave more than one reason for not 

taking formal action.. 

To get a clear picture of the opinions of victims and supervisors about the 

effectiveness of formal remedies, we again looked only at the "definitely yes" 

responses." On this basis it must be concluded that little faith is placed in formal 

remedies. In no case did more than 1 in 5 victims think a remedy would be 

effective (see Figure 8-3). Supervisors were not much more confident. 

The EEO complaint system and the grievance or adverse action appeal process 

tended to receive the most support, and generally male victims were more 

confident in the remedies than were female victims. Likewise, a greater 

percentage of male supervisors than female supervisors rated the remedies 

effective. 

Why so few victims and supervisors indicated they believe formal remedies 

would be effective is uncertain. The way the question was posed may have been 

a factor. Perhaps the majority simply thought formal action would not be effective 

in the circumstances described---helping "persons who have been sexually 

bothered by others"; more might have thought a formal action would be effective 

had the situation been more clearcut, for example a worker suffering negative 

emotional, physical, or job consequences from the harassment. 

Some support for this notion, at least in regard to victims, comes from reasons 

narrators gave for not filing a formal complaint. As Figure 8-2 shows, the most 

common reason given by narrators reporting severe and less severe harassment 

was "I saw no need to report it." However, this reason was given by far smaller 

percentages of narrators who had experienced actual or attempted rape or 

sexual assault. Clearly, victims of the less intense forms of harassment saw filing 

a formal complaint as an unnecessary response. 
FIGURE 8-3

Perceived Effectiveness of Formal Remedies

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Formal Remedies Would 

Be Helpful To Victims of Sexual Harassment (Questions 12b-16b) 

Filing a 

discrimination 

complaint 

Reported by 18% 

of women and 

23% of men 

Requesting an 

investigation by 

victim's 

organization 

Reported by 22% 

of women and 

26% of men 

Fileing a grievance 

or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 18% 

of women and 

30% of men 

Filing a complaint 

throught special 

channels set up for 

sexual harassment 

complaints 

Reported by 15% 

of women and 

19% of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Requesting an 

investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 8% of 

women and 19% 

of men 

Filing a 

discrimination 

complaint 

Reported by 14% 

of women and 

20% of men 

Requesting an 

investigation by 

victim's 

organization 

Reported by 11% 

of women and 

18% of men 

Fileing a grievance 

or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 13% 

of women and 

21% of men 

Filing a complaint 

throught special 

channels set up for 

sexual harassment 

complaints 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 

15% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Requesting an 

investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 7% of 

women and 14% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filing a 

discrimination 

complaint 

Reported by 13% 

of women and 

20% of men 
Requesting an 

investigation by 

victim's 

organization 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 

15% of men 

Fileing a grievance 

or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 11% 

of women and 

19% of men 

Filing a complaint 

throught special 

channels set up for 

sexual harassment 

complaints 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 

14% of men 

Requesting an 

investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 9% of 

women and 11% 

of men 

Filing a 

discrimination 

complaint 

Reported by 14% 

of women and 

20% of men 

Reported by 16% 

of female 

supervisors and 

28% of male 

supervisors 

Requesting an 

investigation by 

victim's 

organization 

Reported by 11% 

of women and 

17% of men 

Reported by 13% 

of female 

supervisors and 

27% of male 

supervisors 

Fileing a grievance 

or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 13% 

of women and 

20% of men 

Reported by 15% 

of female 

supervisors and 

28% of male 

supervisors 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT AND 

SUPERVISORS 

Filing a complaint 

throught special 

channels set up for 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 

14% of men 
sexual harassment 

complaints Reported by 12% 

of female 

supervisors and 

16% of male 

supervisors 

Requesting an 

investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 8% of 

women and 12% 

of men 

Reported by 8% of 

female supervisors 

and 11% of male 

supervisors 

NOTE: Percentages are based on "Definitely Yes" responses to 

questions. 

Another explanation for the lack of confidence in formal remedies might be 

unfamiliarity with available courses of action. The fact that supervisors were both 

more aware of remedies and more favorable toward them might suggest this is 

the case. A third possible explanation for the low ratings given the formal 

remedies is that victims and supervisors generally do not think that taking an 

informal action is the most effective course of action for any work related 

problem. When asked which of six actions they thought were the most effective 

actions employees could take to make others stop bothering them sexually,[12]

fewer than 6 in 10 victims and supervisors chose "filing a formal complaint" (see 

Figure 8-4). Whether these responses indicate a true lack of faith in the available 

formal remedies or simply a belief that other actions are more effective for 

remedying sexual harassment is unknown. 

Certainly some amount of dissatisfaction and distrust was expressed by narrator 

victims who took no formal action (97% of the female narrators and 98% of the 

male narrators). As Figure 8-2 shows, a substantial percentage of female 

narrators gave as their reason--or one of their reasons--for not filing a formal 

complaint that it would make the work situation unpleasant, nothing would be 

done, or filing would be held against the accuser. 

Smaller percentages, but still representative of a large number of male narrators, 

also gave those reasons. Contrast these beliefs with the results of the small 

number of victims who actually took formal actions. Although a majority (59%) of 

these female and male victims found the formal actions effective (see Chapter 6), 

a sizeable number (41%) did not. This middling success rate may contribute to a 

lack of faith in available remedies. 

FIGURE 8-4

Perceived Effectiveness of Individual Actions
Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Employee Actions Would 

Stop Sexual Harassment (Question 10) 

Asking or telling 

the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 78% 

of women and 

61% of men 

Reporting the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 66% 

of women and 

59% of men 

Filing a formal 

complaint 

Reported by 48% 

of women and 

48% of men 

Ignoring the 

behavior 

Reported by 50% 

of women and 

50% of men 

Avoiding the 

person(s) 

Reported by 50% 

of women and 

34% of men 

There is very little 

employees can do 

Reported by 19% 

of women and 

28% of men 

VICTIMS OF MOST 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Threatening to tell 

or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 17% 

of women and 

18% of men 

Asking or telling 

the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 87% 

of women and 

82% of men 

Reporting the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 68% 

of women and 

70% of men 

Filing a formal 

complaint 

Reported by 52% 

of women and 

61% of men 

Ignoring the 

behavior 

Reported by 48% 

of women and 

44% of men 

Avoiding the 

person(s) 

Reported by 48% 

of women and 

42% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

There is very little 

employees can do 

Reported by 10% 

of women and 5% 

of men 
Threatening to tell 

or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 15% 

of women and 

17% of men 

Asking or telling 

the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 83% 

of women and 

84% of men 

Reporting the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 71% 

of women and 

72% of men 

Filing a formal 

complaint 

Reported by 55% 

of women and 

56% of men 

Ignoring the 

behavior 

Reported by 45% 

of women and 

45% of men 

Avoiding the 

person(s) 

Reported by 44% 

of women and 

39% of men 

There is very little 

employees can do 

Reported by 5% of 

women and 5% of 

men 

VICTIMS OF LESS 

SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Threatening to tell 

or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 16% 

of women and 

21% of men 

Asking or telling 

the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 85% 

of women and 

83% of men 

Reported by 86% 

of female 

supervisors and 

85% of male 

supervisors 

Reporting the 

behavior to the 

supervisor or other 

officials 

Reported by 69% 

of women and 

71% of men 

Reported by 71% 

of female 

supervisors and 

78% of male 

supervisors 

VICTIMS OF ALL 

FORMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT AND 

SUPERVISORS 

Filing a formal Reported by 53% 
complaint of women and 

59% of men 

Reported by 49% 

of female 

supervisors and 

57% of male 

supervisors 

Ignoring the 

behavior 

Reported by 47% 

of women and 

45% of men 

Reported by 49% 

of female 

supervisors and 

42% of male 

supervisors 

Avoiding the 

person(s) 

Reported by 47% 

of women and 

41% of men 

Reported by 45% 

of female 

supervisors and 

40% of male 

supervisors 

There is very little 

employees can do 

Reported by 9% of 

women and 5% of 

men 

Reported by 6% of 

female supervisors 

and 2% of male 

supervisors 

Threatening to tell 

or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 16% 

of women and 

19% of men 

Reported by 13% 

of female 

supervisors and 

19% of male 

supervisors 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated more than one action would 

be effective. 
Perhaps the men and women who thought filing a formal complaint would make 

their work situations unpleasant had heard of an incident similar to that reported 

by a victim whose sex discrimination complaint was in process: "My supervisor 

continues to make remarks which are just on the 'safe' side of the line. I have 

been followed while leaving work by coworkers who get away with making 

suggestive remarks to me on the job." Perhaps those who felt filing a complaint 

would be held against them agreed with comments written on questionnaires 

returned by two survey respondents: "At my station," wrote one, "you will find 

very few complaints of sexual harassment, not because it isn't there, but because 

there is fear of consequences." Observed the other, "If you file a complaint 

against someone harassing you, you will be eased out of your job or your 

working conditions will become so miserable you will quit or transfer." 

Maybe those who feel nothing would be done had observed, as had one 

respondent who wrote on the questionnaire, that "managers either ignore or 

squash the complaint." The concerns of even the small percentage of narrators 

who thought filing a complaint would take too much time and effort may be 

justified. Wrote one survey respondent: "The discrimination complaint process is 

ineffective for handling problems in areas it was designed to cover because the 

process takes too long." Another survey respondent noted an additional problem 

related to formal remedies: "Sexual harassment can be very subtle and difficult to 

prove." 

Whatever their reasons, it is clear few victims of sexual harassment or 

supervisors believe formal remedies would be effective in helping people who 

have been sexually bothered by others. It also should be mentioned that most of 

the men and women who do file complaints are victims of the more severe forms 

of sexual harassment, actual and attempted rape and assault or "severe" sexual 

harassment. It may be that they tend to use the formal complaint procedures 

because of the severity of their harassment or because they believe that they 

have strong cases which have a greater chance of success. 

In summary, taking formal action is not necessarily the best course of action for 

all victims. Few victims of "severe" and "less severe" harassment filed formal 

complaints. Their most common reason was that they saw no need to report it. 

The system of formal remedies may be less effective in some agencies than in 

others. Some victims may be unable to document their cases. Others may prefer 

to handle the harassment informally. As the next section shows, there is general 

agreement that other types of action are more effective in getting harassment 

stopped. 

Assertive Informal Remedies Are Seen as Most Effective 

Their reasons for not doing so indicate that a sizeable number of narrator-victims 

do not see filing a formal complaint as a viable option (see Figure 8-2). Many 

worry that the solution might add to the problem by making the work situation 
unpleasant, or that filing a complaint might backfire, with them ending up being 

blamed. Many would be too embarrassed to make the matter known. An even 

larger number seem to feel it would be an empty exercise (nothing would be 

done), perhaps requiring too much time and energy. Hurting the offending person 

is also a concern. 

To the largest number of victims, however, particularly those who have not faced 

the most severe form of harassment, filing a formal complaint simply is not an 

appropriate response. 

We were interested in what victims would consider the most effective things 

employees can do--not necessarily to get relief from negative job consequences, 

but simply to get others to stop bothering them. Would they agree with the victim 

who transferred jobs because "you just don't make a big racket when the 

attainment of your doctorate depends on your evaluations." Would they approve 

the directness, if not the technique, of the victim who wrote: "When he made one 

of his comments, I told him if I heard him say something like that again to me, I 

would 'haul off' and belt him in the mouth." Would they think it best to ask a third 

party to intervene? Or would their response reflect the hopelessness one 

respondent seemed to feel when she wrote, "Sexual harassment is (widespread) 

and is now a problem I cannot handle." 

Most victims believe people can do something to stop the unwanted behavior; as 

can be seen in Figure 8-4 only 2 in 20 women and 1 in 20 men felt there is little 

employees can do. More female victims endorsed the most direct informal 

response, "asking or telling the person(s) to stop," as being more effective than 

any other action. The next most frequent response was "reporting the behavior to 

the supervisor or other officials." Fewer than half the female victims endorsed the 

most passive actions, "ignoring the behavior" and "avoiding the person(s)." The 

most coercive direct response, "threatening to tell or telling other workers," was 

regarded as effective by the fewest number, presumably because other workers, 

as opposed to supervisors, rarely have authority over the annoying person. Thus 

female victims consider the most effective actions to be those involving direct 

confrontation with either the annoying person or someone who has authority over 

that person. These actions were judged most effective in getting the harassment 

stopped by more victims than the direct formal action, filing a formal complaint. 

As with females, more male victims endorse the most direct responses, with 

fewer, but still a large percentage, regarding a formal complaint as most 

effective. 

That direct informal action can be effective in getting offensive behavior stopped 

was confirmed by several respondents who commented on their personal 

experiences. Wrote one victim: "I put a stop to the situation by speaking to the 

individual concerned. Some (people) ... (do) not realiz(e) that they are offensive. 

Only with me (or others) saying something to them will they realize they are 

being offensive...." The offending party may even find this the best approach. 
Wrote one man: "The lady confronted me and requested that I stop as my 

gestures were sexy. Her request was granted and the lady and I are good 

friends." 

Several respondents also indicated that re-porting to a supervisor or higher 

authority can be a successful tactic. One described how an incident was reported 

to a higher authority (informally) and an apology was given publicly. Said the 

commentor: "The initiator of the unwanted advances lost esteem among fellow 

workers, and this action effectively nipped in the bud any further complications." 

Supervisors tended to agree with victims about the most effective ways to get 

unwanted sexual attention stopped, with the largest number endorsing the direct 

informal actions (see Figure 8-4). That male supervisors were more likely than 

others to endorse reporting the behavior to the supervisor may indicate that 

supervisors (the majority of whom are men) wish to be informed about sexual 

harassment problems. Another finding, that male supervisors seemed to have 

more faith in the complaint system than did female supervisors, is consistent with 

the finding reported in Figure 8-3 that greater percentages of male supervisors 

than female supervisors endorsed specific avenues of formal complaint. 

Although more victims and supervisors--male or female--considered asking or 

telling the person(s) to stop an effective action, this does not necessarily indicate 

that is all they think is needed to get the behavior stopped. Indeed, many believe 

it is not enough.[13] While the majority felt "nearly all instances of unwanted 

sexual attention can be stopped if the person receiving the attention simply tells 

the other person to stop," a sizeable number--approximately 1 in every 4 men 

and supervisors and 1 in 3 women and victims--disagreed. That the responses 

break down this way, with men (22%) and supervisors (24%) being less likely to 

disagree that telling the person to stop will stop the behavior than women (35%) 

and victims (37%) is not surprising, since most supervisors are men and most 

victims are women. Nevertheless, it is clear that a majority of Federal workers 

feel telling a person to stop is adequate and effective in getting unwanted sexual 

attention stopped. 

Management Can Help 

Most victims and supervisors think there is much an organization's management 

can do to reduce the rate of sexual harassment. Their optimism showed through 

clearly in their responses to the question, "Which are the most effective actions 

for an organization's management to take regarding sexual harassment?"[14] As 

Figure 8-5 shows, only around 1 in 20 men, women, and supervisors felt there is 

little management can do to reduce sexual harassment on the job. Management 

actions involving tougher sanctions and enforcement generally were endorsed 

more often than other management actions. A majority of victims and supervisors 

also endorsed actions involving publicizing management policy regarding sexual 

harassment. Actions intended to help victims cope with sexual harassment were 
less popular, with women noticeably more likely than men to think a special 

counseling service would be effective. 

The importance of effective management involvement can be seen in the 

comments that respondents wrote on their questionnaires. Few were as cynical 

as the Federal worker who said there is very little management can do because 

"management does not want to reduce sexual harassment on the job"--or as 

discouraged as the person who wrote, "upper management in my agency is 

generally unconcerned about subjects like sexual harassment; senior executives 

feel they have more important things to do." But a number implied that greater 

support from management is indicated. Wrote one person: "A major problem is 

that among management there is tacit approval." 

Swifter investigations and action against managers who knowingly allow behavior 

to continue might seem appropriate to the Federal worker who wrote that 

supervisors took no action against the offender, a Branch Chief, until they were 

ordered to by outside sources. Noted the respondent: "The sexual harassment 

continued over several years with several different women, two of whom 

resigned under pressure from the harasser." Awareness training on management 

responsibilities for decreasing sexual harassment might seem like a good idea to 

the Federal worker who observed: "When one complains to the supervisor about 

an employee whose comments and filthy jokes are annoying and embarrassing, 

she always says, `Oh, I know, he's always been like that,' but she never does 

anything about it." 

FIGURE 8-5

Perceived Effectiveness of Management Actions

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Management Actions 

Regarding Sexual Harassment Would Be Effective (Question 11) 

IMPOSING TOUGHER SANCTIONS AND STRICTER 

ENFORCEMENT 

Conduct swift and thorough 

investigations of complaints of 

sexual harassment 

Reported by 77% of women 

and 71% of men 

Reported by 81% of female 

supervisors and 78% of male 

supervisors 

Enforce penalties against 

managers who knowingly allow 

this behavior to continue 

Reported by 59% of women 

and 61% of men 

Reported by 62% of female 

supervisors and 60% of male 

supervisors 

Enforce penalties against those Reported by 74% of women 
who sexually bother others and 71% of men 

Reported by 71% of female 

supervisors and 74% of male 

supervisors 

Publicize the availability of formal 

complaint channels 

Reported by 63% of women 

and 63% of men 

Reported by 67% of female 

supervisors and 60% of male 

supervisors 

PUBLICIZING MANAGEMENT POLICY 

Establish and publicize policies which 

prohibit sexual harassment 

Reported by 69% of 

women and 69% of men 

Reported by 75% of 

female supervisors and 

73% of male supervisors 

Provide training for managers and 

EEO officials on their responsibilities 

for decreasing sexual harassment 

Reported by 61% of 

women and 57% of men 

Reported by 65% of 

female supervisors and 

57% of male supervisors 

HELPING VICTIMS COPE 

Establish a special counseling 

service for those who experience 

sexual harassment 

Reported by 44% of women 

and 37% of men 

Reported by 44% of female 

supervisors and 37% of male 

supervisors 

Provide awareness training for 

employees on sexual harassment 

Reported by 53% of women 

and 43% of men 

Reported by 54% of female 

supervisors and 43% of male 

supervisors 

NOTHING CAN BE DONE

There is very little that 

management can do to reduce 

sexual harassment on the job 

Reported by 6% of women 

and 5% of men 

Reported by 3% of female 

supervisors and 4% of male 

supervisors 
NOTE: Many respondents indicated more than one action would 

be effective. 

Respondents' comments also indicated that management action can be--or is 

thought likely to be--helpful. As cited above, management investigation and 

discipline of the offending person "effectively nipped in the bud" any further 

problem. Publishing a policy "along the vein of 'you don't have to put up with this' 

could go a long way toward encouraging people to speak up," wrote another 

Federal worker. However, a third cautions, "the Federal Government spends a lot 

on developing policy and providing training, but they are not very serious about 

doing anything practical to correct the problem." One reports that agency 

employees are "... periodically given memoranda citing the section of the law so 

we will know how to report or file a complaint if we encounter sexual 

harassment." 

Conclusion 

Although few victims and supervisors considered current formal remedies for 

sexual harassment effective, many thought a number of management actions 

regarding sexual harassment would be helpful, and most endorsed management 

actions involving sanctions and enforcement of penalties. Awareness of existing 

complaint channels is relatively low (particularly in a number of agencies having 

high rates of harassment), and most victims and supervisors felt publicizing the 

availability of these channels would be helpful. A number of victims and 

supervisors indicated that filing a formal complaint is not one of the most effective 

actions employees can take to stop sexual harassment, and a number of victims 

indicated that their reasons for not taking formal action are related to the system 

itself. The overwhelming support for management action involving sanctions and 

penalties, but lack of faith in current formal remedies, may reflect unfamiliarity of 

dissatisfaction with the existing complaint system. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 8 

1 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

2 See Appendix E. 

3 See Section 204, of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. Law 94-454, 92 

Stat. 1111, codified at 5 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. and 7501 et seq. 

4 See 5 C.F.R. Part 771. 

5 See Section 202 of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 cited in footnote 3 and 

the OPM Policy Statement, Appendix E. 

6 See Survey Questions 12-16. 
7 See Survey Questions 12a-16a. 

8 Based on responses to Survey Question 30. 

9 See Chapter 4 for a discussion of incidence of sexual harassment in individual 

Government agencies. 

10 See Appendix D, Table M for data. 

11 See Survey Questions 12b-16b. 

12 Based on responses to Survey Question 10. 

13 Based on disagree/strongly disagree and agree/ strongly agree responses to 

Survey Question 1(h). See Appendix D, Table N for data. 

14 See Survey Question 11. 

 

9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations that follow grow directly out of 

the discussions in the preceding eight chapters. The major findings are 

summarized and conclusions drawn to facilitate the development of the policy 

recommendations on ways to remedy sexual harassment in the Federal work 

force. 

The recommendations are directed to those institutions--Congress, Federal 

agencies, OPM, EEOC--that have responsibility for assuring that the Federal 

workplace is free from unsolicited and unwelcome sexual overtones. Each of 

these institutions can play an important role in bringing this about by effectively 

implementing the recommended actions. Most of these actions do not require 

extensive outlays of funds and resources and are cost effective when compared 

to the dollar, psychic, and productivity costs of prohibited sexual harassment on 

the job. 

Summary of Findings 

View Of Federal Workers Toward Sexual Harassment 

1. A variety of uninvited sexual behaviors are considered to be sexual 

harassment by both men and women.

• Both men and women Federal workers generally agree that uninvited 

behaviors of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. 
• Federal workers believe supervisors should be held to a higher standard 

of conduct than other workers regarding sexually oriented behavior on the 

job. 

2. The attitudes of men and women Federal workers about sexual behavior 

at work vary. 

• Both men and women Federal workers believe sexual activity, whether 

voluntary or otherwise, should not occur between people who work 

together. 

• Men show a greater tendency than women to think victims are somewhat 

responsible for bringing sexual harassment on themselves and are 

inclined to believe the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. 

• Both men and women Federal workers think sexual harassment is 

something people should not have to tolerate. 

Extent Of Sexual Harassment In The Federal Workplace 

3. The incidence rate of sexual harassment in the Federal workforce is 

widespread. 

• One out of every four Federal employees reported being sexually 

harassed on the job over a 2-year period. 

• Women are much more likely to be victims than men--42% of all female 

Federal employees, but only 15% of male employees, reported being 

sexually harassed. 

• Sexual harassment can take many forms, and every form except 

attempted or actual rape or sexual assault was experienced by a sizeable 

percentage of both men and women. 

4. Many sexual harassment incidents occur repeatedly and are of relatively long 

duration. 

• Sexual harassment is not just a one-time experience--many victims were 

repeatedly subjected to harassing behaviors, particularly the less severe 

forms. 

• Incidents of sexual harassment are not just passing events--most lasted 

more than a week, and many lasted longer than 6 months. 

5. The majority of Federal employees who had worked elsewhere feel 

sexual harassment is no worse in the Federal workplace than in state and 

local government or in the private sector.

Victims Of Sexual Harassment 
6. Individuals with certain personal and organizational characteristics are 

more likely to be sexually harassed than others.

• Age, marital status, and sexual composition of the employee's work group 

have a relatively strong effect on whether a Federal employee is sexually 

harassed. 

• Factors having a somewhat weaker relationship are employee education 

level, race or ethnic background, job classification, traditionality of the 

employee's job, and sex of the employee's immediate supervisor. 

7. Sexual harassment is widely distributed among women and men of 

various backgrounds, positions, and locations. 

• Some agencies have a greater incidence of sexual harassment than do 

others. 

• Sexual harassment is more likely to occur in work environments where 

employees have poor communications with their supervisors and feel 

pressured to participate in activities of a sexual nature. 

Perpetrators Of Sexual Harassment 

8. The personal and organizational characteristics of those who harass 

women are somewhat different from those who harass men. 

• Most victims are harassed by people of the opposite sex. 

• Most harassers act alone rather than in concert with another person. 

• Most harassers of women are older than their victims, and most harassers 

of men are younger. 

• Most harassers are married, but many men report being harassed by 

divorced or single women as well. 

• Most harassers are of the same race or ethnic background as their victims 

but minority men report being harassed by those of a different race or 

ethnic background. 

• Most harassers are coworkers, but many women are harassed by 

supervisors. 

9. Many harassers are reported to have bothered more than one victim at 

work.

10. Few employees report having been accused of sexually harassing 

others. 

Incidents Of Sexual Harassment 

11. Those who are sexually harassed by supervisors and those who 

experience the more severe forms of sexual harassment are more likely 
than other victims to foresee penalties or possible benefits for not going 

along or going along with the unwanted sexual attention. 

12. A number of informal actions were found by victims to be effective in 

stopping the sexual harassment. 

• Most victims respond to the sexual harassment by ignoring it, but few find 

that technique improves the situation. 

• The most direct and assertive informal responses, such as telling the 

harasser to stop, are reported to be the most effective actions to take. 

• Few victims talk about their experiences with others, but those who do find 

talking to someone with independent authority or organizational 

responsibility to be more helpful than talking to coworkers, family, or 

friends. 

13. Filing a formal complaint was also found to be relatively effective for the 

few who tried it.

• Few victims take formal actions, but many who do find them helpful. 

• The reported response of agency officials to informal and formal charges 

of sexual harassment has been mixed. 

The Impact And Cost Of Sexual Harassment 

14. The cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government between May 

1978 and May 1980 is conservatively estimated to have been $189 million. 

15. Although their experiences do not change the careers and work 

situations of most victims, a sizeable number of women and men do leave 

their jobs or suffer other adverse consequences.

• A majority of victims did not think their personal wellbeing or work 

performance declined as a result of their experience, but a sizeable 

minority do. 

• Victims are much more likely to think sexual harassment negatively 

affected their personal wellbeing or morale than to believe that their work 

performance or productivity suffered. 

16. Most victims report that, as far as they know, the morale and 

productivity of their immediate workgroup are little affected by their 

personal experience of sexual harassment. 

Awareness Of Remedies And Their Effectiveness 

17. Federal workers are generally unaware of formal remedies and even 

fewer are convinced of their effectiveness.
• Most victims and supervisors are relatively unaware of the formal 

remedies available to victims of sexual harassment. 

• Relatively few victims and supervisors consider formal remedies effective 

in helping victims of sexual harassment. 

18. Taking assertive informal action is thought to be the most effective way 

for employees to make others stop bothering them sexually. 

19. Most victims and supervisors think there is much management can do 

regarding sexual harassment. 

Conclusions 

These findings lead to five general conclusions that can be drawn about the 

sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. In addition, several views about the 

nature of sexual harassment are discussed. 

1. Sexual harassment is a legitimate problem in the Federal workplace. 

We have seen that sexual harassment is indeed a widespread and legitimate 

problem. As shown in Chapter 2, the vast majority of both supervisors and others 

alike agreed that sexual harassment is behavior that should not be tolerated and 

a sizeable number of victims indicated that it was a problem where they worked. 

Chapters 3 and 4 provided information on how widespread and prevalent sexual 

harassment is among female and male Federal workers. Another indication that 

sexual harassment is a legitimate problem is the sizeable dollar cost to the 

Federal Government of the effects of sexual harassment, as conservatively 

estimated in Chapter 7. 

2. In the past, agency managers and supervisors have not been as 

successful as they could be in resolving problems of sexual harassment. 

We found that in the past, management overall has been somewhat less than 

effective in " resolving issues of sexual harassment that have been raised. 

Chapter 5 shows that few victims talked to supervisors for advice or reported the 

behavior formally and when they did, they had only a 60-40 chance of having the 

problem resolved. 

Problems may also arise when supervisors who do not actually participate in the 

sexual harassment give tacit approval to the subordinates who engage in the 

behavior. Since these supervisors have responsibility for employee conduct in 

their offices, they should take charge in eliminating it from their workplaces rather 

than approving or ignoring it. The basis for this lack of commitment may be 

partially explained by the findings, in Chapter 2 that a number of supervisors 

think that the problem of sexual harassment has been exaggerated and that 

victims are somewhat to blame for bringing the sexual harassment on 
themselves. Clearly, these attitudes of supervisors tend to undermine the 

authority and force of agency policy statements prohibiting sexual harassment 

and have the effect of thwarting their implementation. 

3. There is much that management can do about the problem of sexual 

harassment in the future. 

We found that there is much management can do about the problem of sexual 

harassment in the future to both prevent its occurrence and remedy the effects. 

Chapter 8 contains information on a number of actions which respondents felt 

would be helpful in reducing sexual harassment. Chapters 4 and 5 provide data 

on the characteristics of individuals most likely to be harassed and to do the 

harassing. 

Some of these characteristics are under the control of management and can be 

adjusted to reduce the rate of sexual harassment. For example, individuals in 

nontraditional jobs, such as women law enforcement officers, have been shown 

to experience sexual harassment at somewhat higher rates than others. 

Supervisors of these employees as well as the employees themselves can be 

made aware of this fact and appropriate preventive and remedial steps 

implemented. 

4. There are effective actions that victims can take to resolve the problem of 

sexual harassment. 

A number of actions have been discussed that victims themselves can take 

regarding the sexual harassment. As shown in Chapter 5, the most assertive 

informal actions are the most effective: talking to someone with either outside or 

organizational responsibility sometimes helps, and filing a formal complaint as 

noted above has an average chance of helping the victims. Chapter 8 indicates 

that victims as well as supervisors need to be made aware of the existence of 

available remedies so that they can use them if needed. However, Chapter 5 

indicates that most victims would prefer to settle the matter informally rather than 

taking a formal action that would tend to escalate this highly personal matter. 

Appendix H lists publications that offer additional advice on effective techniques 

for dealing with sexual harassment. 

5. Sexual harassment has varying effects on victims, which probably account for 

the differences in repercussions. 

In studying the effects of sexual harassment on its victims, we found variance in 

the repercussions, depending on a number of factors. It appears that some 

victims experience dramatic consequences as a result of this experience and 

others do not. The causes are various, but contributing factors appear to be the 

level of severity of the sexual harassment, personal and organizational 
characteristics of the victim, the organizational level of the harasser, and the 

perceived motive or demeanor of the harasser. 

Some victims were more likely to be sexually harassed than others, and some 

reported suffering greater consequences, particularly when the harasser had 

greater power. For example, women victims of actual or attempted rape or 

assault who were harassed by their supervisors were more likely than other 

victims to report fearing and suffering negative job consequences as a result of 

their sexual harassment experience. These victims of "most severe" sexual 

harassment were also much more likely to report experiencing emotional or 

physical problems or reductions in their work performance. 

However, it should be pointed out that the findings indicate the level of severity 

by itself does not control whether adverse consequences will occur. Some 

victims of seemingly mild forms of sexual harassment have reported adverse 

consequences. For example, an individual who received repeated lewd 

comments ("less severe" behavior) from her supervisor might suffer greater 

consequences than an individual who was pressured for sexual favors ("severe " 

behavior) by a coworker. 

What Is the Nature of Sexual Harassment? 

Although sexual harassment has been demonstrated to be a problem that 

management can combat, the question still remains: what is the underlying 

nature of sexual harassment in the first place? Three explanations that were 

discussed in Chapter 1 have been raised in the literature. The first two views are 

somewhat interrelated in that those who have low power are thought to be more 

vulnerable to those with greater power. Based upon the findings in the study, we 

concluded that the first two explanations appear valid under some circumstances 

and we rejected the last. The three views are: 

1. That sexual harassment is a form of power that is exercised by those in 

control, usually men, over low status employees, usually women. 

2. That individuals with certain low power characteristics, such as youth and 

low, salaries, are more subject to sexual harassment than others. 

3. That sexual harassment is an expression of personal attraction between 

men and women that is widespread and cannot and should not be 

stopped. 

The following briefly discusses these views in light of the findings from the study. 

Sexual Harassment is an Abuse of Power 

This theory grows out of the view that sexual harassment is a form of sex 

discrimination designed to keep women from advancing from low paid, 

powerless, jobs. Women do comprise only about one-third (31%) of the jobs in 
the Federal workforce and most women occupy the lowest paid jobs compared to 

men.[1]

However, the findings show that most victims, both men and women, are 

harassed by coworkers rather than supervisors who presumably have more 

power. On its face this finding would tend to disprove the power theory, however, 

one must look closer at the data. The findings also show that victims, regardless 

of severity of the harassment, were more likely to perceive and experience 

adverse consequences if their harasser was a supervisor rather than a coworker. 

This seems to indicate that, although not all harassment is an outgrowth of 

organizational power, those cases where consequences are greater are more 

likely to be examples of abuse of organizational power. The sexual harassment 

by coworkers probably has more to do with personal power and sex roles than 

with organizationally derived power. In any event, further research would be 

helpful in exploring this issue. 

Individuals with Certain Characteristics are More Vulnerable to Sexual 

Harassment 

The view that those with low status and power characteristics are more 

vulnerable to sexual harassment has been proved in some respects and 

disproved in others. Some with low power and status, such as younger men and 

women and trainees, did report receiving sexual harassment disproportionately, 

but others, such as those in low salary levels, low education levels, and women 

office and clerical workers, did not. 

Sexual Harassment is Not an Expression of Personal Sexual Attraction 

The theory that sexual harassment is an expression of personal sexual attraction 

grows out of a view that sexual harassment is part of standard behavior between 

the sexes and that employers have no business interfering with these matters of 

love or personal attraction. This theory has been disproved on several counts. 

That many harassers were reported to have harassed more than one victim casts 

doubt on the idea that sexual harassment is simply a matter of unique personal 

attraction. The finding that the rate of sexual harassment is not constant among 

all Federal agencies also somewhat negates the idea that sexual harassment is 

appropriate sexual behavior that occurs everywhere; that many victims report 

severe consequences also tends to negate that this behavior is and should be 

standard practice. In addition, the vast majority of respondents stated that sexual 

harassment is not something that "people should have to put up with." All of this 

indicates that sexual harassment should not be considered standard behavior at 

the workplace and is very much a matter of concern for employers such as the 

Federal Government. 

Implications 
Understanding that sexual harassment does not affect all victims in the same 

way is important in developing recommendations on ways to effectively reduce 

sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. 

To help reduce most instances of sexual harassment, where the effects are not 

so adverse or presumably debilitating, an awareness campaign that focuses on 

prevention would be the most effective. This campaign should advise managers 

of their responsibilities and hold them accountable, as well as provide aid to 

victims in informally resolving these matters. 

For the smaller number of instances where the sexual harassment has an 

extremely adverse or punitive affect, the response of management should be 

swift and thorough in imposing sanctions against the behavior and in aiding the 

victim. 

These concepts are more thoroughly explored below. 

Recommendations 

Since sexual harassment has been clearly shown to be a problem in the Federal 

Government, managerial policies should be instituted stating sexual harassment 

is unacceptable conduct that will not be condoned. A number of agencies have 

already begun to do this.[2] The Federal courts and Federal regulations[3] have 

also stated that under many circumstances, sexual harassment is a violation of 

both civil law and criminal law. Therefore, it is both cost-effective and 

managerially responsible to take effective steps to reduce the amount of sexual 

harassment in the Federal Government. 

Sanctions and Enforcement 

1. Agencies should provide strong and effective enforcement against 

sexual harassment and issue sanctions where appropriate. To do this: 

• Agencies should conduct swift and thorough investigations to discover 

evidence of sexual harassment and take appropriate action. 

• Agencies should emphasize their strong commitment to prohibiting sexual 

harassment on the job by imposing sanctions where appropriate against 

the behavior, including: 

o enforcing penalties against those who sexually bother others, and 

o enforcing penalties against managers who knowingly allow this 

behavior to continue. 

2. Complaint channels for allegations of sexual harassment should be clarified 

and streamlined. 
Agency management has a responsibility to investigate and eliminate prohibited 

behavior, such as sexual harassment. The sanctions imposed and the remedial 

action taken, as with other violations of the law, should be commensurate with 

the violation. What is key, however, to render this recommendation effective is 

that allegations be taken seriously so that forceful and fair resolutions result. This 

will help to restore the faith of victims as well as supervisors in formal channels 

for processing complaints or grievances. 

No additional legal or regulatory mechanisms appear to be necessary to enforce 

sanctions against sexual harassment if strong enforcement can be accomplished 

within current channels. However, the channels must be made more efficient and 

responsive to the fact that sexual harassment is a legitimate problem that must 

be handled as seriously as other violations of the law, standards of conduct, or 

prohibited personnel practices. 

Publicizing Managerial Policy and Commitment 

3. Managers and other agency officials should be made aware of their 

responsibility and held accountable for enforcing Government and agency policy 

prohibiting sexual harassment at the workplace. This can best be accomplished 

by agency managers: 

• issuing strong policy statements 

• otherwise clarifying acceptable behavior for supervisors, and 

• holding supervisors responsible for the conduct of their offices with regard 

to sexual harassment through the performance appraisal system. 

Agencies should emphasize the use of preventive measures and informal 

resolution of complaints as a means of combating sexual harassment since 

processing formal complaints is both time consuming and costly. Since most 

victims do not file complaints, these measures will also affect the largest number 

of victims and harassers. The costs of preventing sexual harassment may be 

more than offset by the savings to the Government in reducing sexual 

harassment and, thus, reducing job turnover and increasing job productivity and 

morale. 

It is also important to note that a knowledgeable observer with a widespread 

clinical practice for the last decade finds that enunciating regulations clearly and 

specifically can be very effective in reducing sexual harassment.[4] Buttressing 

this argument is the finding in Appendix F that the agency with the highest rate of 

sexual harassment for women also had not issued a policy statement of sexual 

harassment at the time this survey was conducted. 

However, Dr. Rowe cautions that because of heightened awareness caused by 

publicizing the policy, the number of informal and formal complaints of sexual 

harassment may temporarily increase in the short run. 
4. Agencies should develop a training strategy to aid in preventing sexual 

harassment; this strategy will be instrumental in targeting those groups 

that should receive training on a priority basis to best utilize limited 

training resources. 

This training can include inservice classroom training either as a separate course 

or as part of other courses, publishing pamphlets or handbooks for employees 

and supervisors on the subject, and providing other awareness activities through 

lectures and short workshops. An effective training strategy should include at 

least three target audiences: 

(a) managers and supervisors whose responsibility is the conduct of the 

workplace; 

(b) other agency personnel such as personnel and EEO officials who have 

responsibility to advise victims and supervisors on procedural and other matters 

regarding sexual harassment, and 

(c) victims or potential victims requiring information on their rights as well as 

useful techniques on coping with the sexual harassment informally. 

Providing Assistance to Victims 

5. Agencies should provide information to victims on effective techniques for 

resolving incidents of sexual harassment. 

Agencies should provide all employees with information (in pamphlet or other 

written format) regarding: 

• what the most effective actions are for them to take to stop sexual 

harassment, 

• what their rights of redress of sexual harassment are, including the 

availability of formal complaint channels, 

• which agency officials have responsibility for processing complaints or 

assisting with problems associated with incidents of sexual harassment; 

officials may include Federal Women's Program managers, EEO 

counselors, EEO officers or personnel officers, and 

The study indicates that most victims try to resolve their sexual harassment 

incidents by ignoring the behavior but that this very rarely solves the problem. 

Victims should be advised that the most assertive responses are the most 

effective. Since a sizeable number of victims report suffering negative personal 

effects that result in losses to the Federal Government, steps should be taken to 

mitigate some of these effects. 

6. Outside agencies, such as the Office of the Special Counsel in the MSPB, 

should also publicize the availability of their services as resources allow. 
7. Federal employee labor unions should be encouraged to instruct shop 

stewards and other union officials about counseling techniques and legal redress 

for union member victims of sexual harassment who seek assistance from the 

union. 

Followup 

8. A number of other activities should be instituted to assure compliance 

with law and regulation as well as to provide followup to this study both 

within the Federal Government and in the private sector. 

Steps that should be taken include: 

• Copies of the MSPB Final Report documenting the incidence of sexual 

harassment should receive wide distribution among the agencies. 

• The Congress should continue to monitor the activities of the various 

Federal agencies regarding sexual harassment. 

• Agencies should ensure that their training courses developed to prevent 

sexual harassment are effective. 

• EEOC should continue its review of actions taken by agencies to combat 

sexual harassment. 

• Other research groups, both public and private, should be encouraged to 

do further analysis on this subject using the MSPB data tape in order to 

increase understanding and awareness of the problem; agencies should 

be encouraged to use the MSPB questionnaire to conduct research of 

organizations within the agencies for purposes of comparison. 

• State and local governments, universities, as well as companies in the 

private sector should be encouraged to conduct research on sexual 

harassment among their own employees or students. The MSPB survey 

questionnaire should be made available to use as a model. 

As with the laws that the Federal Government enforces against the private 

sector, the laws and policies regarding sexual harassment in the Federal 

workplace should also be monitored and enforced. The most cost effective 

approach is to include the monitoring of sexual harassment policies in 

conjunction with evaluation programs already in place. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 9 

1 See Office of Personnel Management, Federal Civilian Work Force Statistics, 

Equal Employment Opportunity Statics, November 1978, p. xv. 

2 See Appendix F for data on these agencies. 

3 See Appendix H for a discussion of the legal analysis of sexual harassment. 
4 Mary P. Rowe, Ph.D. Assistant to the President, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, conversation March 1981. 

Text Alternatives 

Definition of Sexual Harassment: Percentage of Male and Female Federal 

Employees Who Agreed that Each of Six Forms of Unwanted, Uninvited Sexual 

Attention Constitutes Sexual Harassment (Questions 2-7, b & d) Actions that 

male and female employees agreed constitute severe sexual harassment are 

making letters and calls, pressure for sexual favors, and deliberate touching. 

Less severe actions are pressure for dates, suggestive looks, and sexual 

remarks. If a supervisor took these actions; 93% of women and 87% of men 

agreed that letters and calls constitute severe sexual harassment; 91% of women 

and 84% of men agreed that pressure for sexual favors constitute severe sexual 

harassment; 91% of women and 83% of men agreed that deliberate touching 

constitute severe sexual harassment; 77% of women and 76% of men agreed 

that pressure for dates constitute less severe sexual harassment; 72% of women 

and 59% of men agreed that suggestive looks constitute less severe sexual 

harassment; and, 62% of women and 53% of men agreed that sexual remarks 

constitute less severe sexual harassment. If another worker took these actions; 

87% of women and 76% of men agreed that letters and calls constitute severe 

sexual harassment; 81% of women and 65% of men agreed that pressure for 

sexual favors constitute severe sexual harassment; 84% of women and 69% of 

men agreed that deliberate touching constitute severe sexual harassment; 65% 

of women and 59% of men agreed that pressure for dates constitute less severe 

sexual harassment; 64% of women and 47% of men agreed that suggestive 

looks constitute less severe sexual harassment; and, 54% of women and 42% of 

men agreed that sexual remarks constitute less severe sexual harassment. 

Figure 3-1: Pie chart shows of the total federal workforce of 1,862,000, nonvictims comprised 75% or 1,400,000; victims of less severe sexual harassment 

comprised 8% or 150,000; victims of severe sexual harassment comprised 16% 

or 300,000; and, victims of most severe sexual harassment comprised 1% or 

12,000 employees. 

Figure 3-2: Pie chart 1 shows of the total federal female workforce of 694,000, 

non-victims comprised 58% or 400,000; victims of less severe sexual 

harassment comprised 12% or 85,000; victims of severe sexual harassment 

comprised 29% or 200,000; and, victims of most severe sexual harassment 

comprised 1% or 9,000 employees. Pie chart 2 shows of the total federal male 

workforce of 1,168,000, non-victims comprised 85% or 1,000,000; victims of less 

severe sexual harassment comprised 6% or 65,000; victims of severe sexual 

harassment comprised 9% or 100,000; and, victims of most severe sexual 

harassment comprised .3% or 3,000 employees. 

 

Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE

IS IT A PROBLEM? 

 

March 1981

A REPORT OF THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

OFFICE OF MERIT SYSTEMS REVIEW AND STUDIES

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (1 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

THE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

Washington, D.C. 20419 

March 1981 

THE PRESIDENT 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE 

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Dear Sirs: 

The Merit Systems Protection Board presents this report pursuant to a request by the Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Post 

Office and Civil Service, United States House of Representatives. 

This report conveys the findings of a survey of the extent of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace conducted by the Board's Office of 

Merit Systems Review and Studies. 

We urge your consideration of the facts presented here and the use of your good offices to ensure that the Federal personnel system is free 

from prohibited practices and honors merit principles. 

Respectfully, 

FOR THE BOARD 

Ruth T. Prokop, Chairwoman 

PREFACE 

A little over a year ago the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service asked the Merit Systems 

Protection Board to conduct a study to determine the extent, if any, of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. This task was assigned to 

the Board's Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies (MSRS) which, at that time, was in its infancy--barely two months old with a staff of 

four. 

The study of sexual harassment was to become a landmark study of a complex social issue with Federal-wide implications. To conduct such a 

study, MSRS had to develop systems to address the issues at hand and survey the entire Federal population in a manner honoring the 

scientific standards for a study of such scope. 

My colleagues and I began to shape the project along the lines of the Congressional mandate in late December 1979. Daniel Wojcik, 

Associate Director for Operations, brought to the assignment his multi-discipline experience in personnel research, survey design and 

personnel operations. George Raub, the office's newly recruited Statistician-Computer Scientist was able to borrow from his previous Federal 

experience in analyzing complex data bases and began to set in place the myriad of systems required to ensure an unbiased analysis. Cynthia 

Shaughnessy was chosen to coordinate the day-to-day operations of this project, to contribute her substantial knowledge of Federal women's 

issues which had grown out of her leadership in the Federal Women's Program, and to oversee the drafting of the final report. 

Our initial task was the development of a questionnaire to search out answers to the concerns raised by the Congress. Although several 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (2 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

informal studies had been conducted in recent years, none of them met the standards we believed we must honor to ensure a balanced and 

objective review of this area of human behavior. 

With this pioneership much in mind we sought the counsel of those experts we believed could contribute to our understanding. At the time 

we developed the questionnaire, Dr. Sandra Tangri, Dr. Martha Burt, and Dr. Leanor Johnson were identified as expert researchers in various 

aspects of sexual behavior and they took a brief leave of absence from The Urban Institute to help us identify the critical issues and develop 

the questionnaire. During this phase of the project, Dr. Suzanne S. Ageton of the Behavorial Research Institute of Boulder, Colorado, Dr. 

Hubert Feild of Auburn University and Dr. Barbara Gutek of the University of California at Los Angeles gave us the benefit of their research 

experiences as did many others. 

Over 20,000 Federal employees completed the questionnaire--an 85% response rate which far exceeded the minimum standards for 

reliability. Once the results were tabulated and analyzed a preliminary report of the statistical results was presented to the Subcommittee on 

Investigations of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service on September 25, 1980. 

Our final report identifies sexual harassment as an important concern in the workplace. Although we know of no comparable research in the 

private sector, our findings in the Federal study--that people of all ages, salary levels, education backgrounds and hometowns are potential 

victims--lead us to the observation that sexual harassment cannot be uniquely associated with Federal employment. We encourage private 

sector understanding of other employee experiences with sexual harassment and encourage private sector leaders to pursue a comparable 

course of self-analysis as the first step in eliminating this form of sex discrimination. 

Patricia A. Mathis 

Director, Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The senior group identified in the Director's Preface was supported by dozens of Federal employees and private citizens who contributed their 

experiences and ideas. 

The National Institute of Mental Health provided its early support by helping us enlist able researchers and by providing the initial funding 

support for the questionnaire development. 

Before the questionnaire was developed, an advisory panel was convened to define critical issues and explore' alternative study approaches. 

These advisors included: Mr. Louis Nunez, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Ms. Ellis McNeil, Office of Personnel Management; Mr. Robert 

Walker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Dr. Hubert S. Feild, Jr., Auburn University; Ms. Stewart Oneglia, U.S. Department of 

Justice; Mr. Willard Mitchell, U.S. Department of the Air Force; Ms. Louise Smothers, American Federation of Government Employees; and Ms. 

Freada Klein, Alliance Against Sexual Coercion. 

Assistance in the preparation of the preliminary report to the Congress of the results of the study in September 1980 was provided by Dr. 

Barbara Kaster of Bowdoin College and Dr. Carol Duncan of Maine Medical Center. 

The legal commentary of current case law for this report was prepared by Susan Cornelius under the supervision of Stewart Oneglia, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Additional research, writing, and editing was provided by Sherrell Varner and Carolyn Heinrich of the Blue Pencil Group, Reston, Virginia. 

Several members of the Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies were central players at various stages of this project. Dr. Joel D. 

Chananie developed the model for estimating the cost impact of sexual harassment; a team of support staff headed by Gene Browning, 

included Elaine Latimer, Margaret Wilson, Sandra Stewart and Karen Elliott; Mercer Jones of the Board 's Office of Legislative Counsel 

provided audio-visual assistance for the Congressional testimony. 

We were also assisted by the following individuals who gave us their advice and assistance in the design, implementation, and reporting of 

this study: Daniel M. Geller, Department of Psychology, George Washington University; William A. Blakey, U.S. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare; Emilio Abeyta, U.S. Department of Justice; Rosemary Storey and Todd Buchta, Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service, U.S. House of Representatives; Dr. Nancy Barrett, U.S. Department of Labor; Diane Herrmann, Office of Personnel Management; 

Donald Moore, U.S. Department of Treasury; Dr. Philip A. D. Schneider, Office of Personnel Management; Dr. John Dirkse, George 

Washington University; Mary Jo Aagerstoun, Small Business Administration; Betty Hart, Connie Price, and Dr. Sandra Carey, U.S. Department 

of the Navy; Mary Ann Largen, New Responses, Inc.; Dr. Gloria Levin, National Institute of Mental Health; and Leonard Slobodin and Betty 

Caplis of the MSPB Chicago office. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (3 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

Review of Relevant Case Law 

Survey of the Literature

Major Views of Sexual Harassment

Study Design

Disclaimers and Cautions in Interpreting the Data

Presentation of the Report

2. VIEW OF FEDERAL WORKERS TOWARD SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Federal Workers' Definition of Sexual Harassment 

Motives and Sensitivity to Sexual Overtures

Different Behavior Is Expected of Supervisors

Federal Workers' Attitudes Toward Sexuality in the Workplace

Conclusion

3. EXTENT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE

Sexual Harassment Is Widespread

Women Are Sexually Harassed More than Men

Most Forms Of Harassment Are Common

Sexual Harassment Occurs Repeatedly

Incidents May Last Several Weeks or More

Sexual Harassment Is No Worse in Federal Workplace

Conclusion

4. VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Several Personal Characteristics Are Related to Sexual Harassment

Several Organizational Characteristics Are Related to Sexual Harassment

Other Organizational Characteristics Showed Little Relationship with Sexual Harassment

Victims See Their Work Environments Differently Than Non victims

Conclusion

5. PERPETRATORS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Harassers of Women Are Strikingly Similar

Harassers of Men Also Are Similar

Experiences of Men and Women Differ

Some Harassers Reported on Themselves

Conclusion

6. INCIDENTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Fear of Penalties and Expectation of Rewards

Assertive Responses Are the Most Effective

Talking with Others

Few File Formal Complaints

Response of Management

Conclusion

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (4 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

7. IMPACT AND COST OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Sexual Harassment Is Costly to the Federal Government

Work Situation of Most Victims Did Not Change

Well-Being and Morale of Many Victims Suffered

Victims Judged Their Own Work Performance and Productivity to Be Unaffected 

Victims Also Judged Their Workgroups to Be Unaffected

Conclusion

8. AWARENESS OF REMEDIES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

Awareness of Formal Remedies Is Not Great

Formal Remedies Are Not Seen as Effective 

Assertive Informal Remedies Are Seen as Most Effective

Management Can Help

Conclusion

9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings 

Conclusions

What Is the Nature of Sexual Harassment? 

Implications

Recommendations

APPENDICES 

A. Methodology

B. Definitions of Terms

C. Survey Questionnaire and Cover Letters 

D. Additional Statistical Analyses

E. Official Policy Documents

1. Memoranda of Understanding

2. Office of Personnel Management Policy Statement and Definition of Sexual Harassment

3. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex

4. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Instructions for Prevention of Sexual Harassment in the 

Workforce Plans

F. Agency Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment

G. Survey of the Literature

H. Annotated Bibliography

TABLES 

2.1 Sexual Attitudes

4.1 Characteristics of Federal Workers Most Likely To Be Sexually Harassed On the Job 

4.2 Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment In Each Agency

4.3 Perceptions of Work Environment

7.1 Costs of Sexual Harassment

F.1 Summary of Agency Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment as of September 1980

F.2 Summary of Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment Taken by 17 Agencies Named in Survey Questionnaire as of September 

1980

FIGURES 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (5 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

2.1 Definition of Sexual Harassment

3.1 Overall Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment

3.2 Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment Among Women and Men

3.3 Incidence Rate Among Various Forms of Sexual Harassment

3.4 Frequency of Sexual Harassment Incidents

4.1 Age of Victims

4.2 Marital Status of Victims

4.3 Education Level of Victims

4.4 Racial and Ethnic Background of Victims 

4.5 Geographic Locations of Victims

4.6 Annual Salary of Victims

4.7 Job Classification of Victims

4.8 Traditionality of Jobs of Victims

4.9 Sex of Supervisor(s) of Victims

4.10 Sexual Composition of Victims' Work Groups

5.1 Sex of Harasser

5.2 Age of Harasser

5.3 Marital Status of Harasser

5.4 Ethnic Status of Harasser 

5.5 Organizational Level of Harasser 

5.6 Has the Harasser Bothered Others at Work? 

6.1 Perceived Penalties for Not Going Along

6.2 Perceived Benefits for Going Along 

6.3 Narrators' Informal Responses to Sexual Harassment 

6.4 Parties Contacted by Narrators

6.5 Narrators' Formal Responses to Sexual Harassment

6.6 Organizations' Responses to Formal Actions Taken by Narrators

7.1 Changes in Narrators' Work Situations as a Result of Sexual Harassment

7.2 Impact of Sexual Harassment on Narrators 

7.3 Impact of Sexual Harassment on the Morale and Productivity of Narrators' Immediate Work Groups 

8.1 Awareness of Formal Remedies

8.2 Reasons For Not Taking Formal Action

8.3 Perceived Effectiveness of Formal Remedies

8.4 Perceived Effectiveness of Individual Actions

8.5 Perceived Effectiveness of Management Actions

Executive Summary 

This Executive Summary provides in condensed form a summary of major recommendations and a review of the major findings on the views 

of Federal employees about sexual harassment, the extent of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace, a description of characteristics of 

victims and perpetrators of sexual harassment, a discussion of the perceptions and responses of victims to their incidents of sexual 

harassment, the impact of the behavior on the victims and the estimated dollar cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government, and 

views of Federal employees about potential remedies and their effectiveness. 

The full Final Report represents the culmination of approximately one year of original research and evaluation of the nature and extent of 

sexual harassment in the Federal Government. This study is the first scientifically controlled survey of this depth and breadth ever to be 

conducted on the subject of sexual harassment. To our knowledge it is also the first of its kind to be conducted with the full cooperation of 

the employer--in this case the Federal Government. 

The full report contains many recommendations that can be implemented by agency heads quickly and at relatively minimum cost. Copies of 

this study should be made available to all agency personnel offices, training officers, Equal Employment Opportunity officers and Federal 

Women's Program managers, to aid implementation of the recommendations. 

Background 

" Managers should be put on notice that a 'boys will be boys' atmosphere will not be condoned in any Federal agency. " James M. Hanley, 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (6 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

former Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives. 

In recent years there has been growing discussion about the existence of sexual harassment at the workplace. Some maintain that it is an 

age-old problem, while others feel that it is a relatively new phenomenon that has emerged as more women enter the working world. There 

has been controversy about what constitutes sexual harassment, how widespread harassment is, and how serious its consequences are for 

employee well-being and productivity. 

Against this background, Chairman James M. Hanley and the Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service of the United States House of Representatives conducted a preliminary investigation on sexual harassment in October and November 

of 1979. Although the investigation was limited to an examination of 100 complaints, the findings were serious enough to prompt the 

Subcommittee to ask the Merit Systems Protection Board to conduct a thorough and scientific survey of sexual harassment in the Federal 

workplace. The Subcommittee wanted to find out if the results of their limited investigation would be borne out by a more extensive study. 

The preliminary results of the MSPB study were presented at follow-up hearings held by the House Subcommittee on September 25, 1980. 

The preliminary briefing focused on the series of questions mandated by the Subcommittee to be addressed in the survey. These were: 

What kinds of behavior constitute sexual harassment? Do the attitudes of men and women differ in this regard?

1. To what degree does sexual harassment occur within the Federal workplace? What is the frequency? What are the manifestations? 

2. Are victims or perpetrators of sexual harassment found in disproportionate numbers within certain agencies, job classifications,

geographic locations, racial categories, age brackets, educational levels, grade levels, etc.? 

3. What forms of express or implied lever age have been used by harassers to reward or punish their victims? 

4. What has been the impact of sexual harassment on its victims in terms of job turnover, work performance, physical and emotional 

condition, financial and career well-being? 

5. What effect has sexual harassment had on the morale or productivity of the immediate work group? 

6. Are victims of sexual harassment aware of available remedies? Do they have confidence in those remedies? 

Research Methodology 

To develop the study, the MSPB's Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies: 

● surveyed the current literature on the subject of sexual harassment, 

● consulted with a group of community workers, academic researchers, Federal officials, and a union representative on the content of 

the study, 

● reviewed applicable case law and Government regulations and related policy directives, plans, and training programs, and

● reviewed various case testimonies, Congressional testimony, and previous research studies that had addressed the subject of sexual 

harassment. 

After extensive field testing on over 300 Federal employees and after making numerous revisions, the research team constructed a

questionnaire designed to elicit answers to questions in the Congressional mandate. As directed by the House Subcommittee, the research 

team prepared the questionnaire on the basis of the Office of Personnel Management 's (OPM) definition of sexual harassment, i.e., 

deliberate or repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures or physical contact of a sexual nature that is considered to be unwelcome by 

the recipient. 

With the assistance of OPM, a disproportionately stratified random sample[1] was drawn from OPM 's Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) 

consisting of civilian employees in the Executive Branch. Four variables were selected to stratify the population. These were: sex, minority 

status, salary, and organization. Over 23,000 men and women were surveyed in May 1980. Questionnaires were sent to respondents' homes 

to preserve their confidentiality and anonymity. The members of the sample were asked to base most of their answers on their work 

experience during the 24-month period from May 1978 to May 1980. A reminder postcard was sent one week later and a follow-up 

questionnaire was sent to non respondents three weeks after that. The rate of return of 85%--was considerably higher than usually expected 

on mail surveys.[2]

Explanations of Frequently Used Terms 

Victims. In this executive summary, victims of sexual harassment are defined as those respondents who indicated (in either Survey Question 

17 or Question 20) that they had experienced one or more forms of sexual harassment on the job during the preceding 24 months. All data is 

computed on the basis of Question 17 except for those parts of the Questionnaire where respondents were asked to provide detailed data on 

one critical sexual harassment incident. For questions involving this critical incident, the data on victims was computed on the basis of Survey 

Question 20. In the final report, the victims who chose to describe their critical incident are referred to as "narrator-victims." 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (7 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Level of severity of sexual harassment. On the basis of preliminary analysis, sexual harassment experiences (identified by respondents 

to Survey Question 17 or Question Survey 20) were classified as "most severe," "severe," or "less severe." Those considered "most severe" --

were actual or attempted rape or assault; "severe"--included letters, phone calls or materials of a sexual nature; pressure for sexual favors; 

and deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering or pinching; and "less severe" included pressure for dates; sexually suggestive looks or 

gestures; and sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions. 

Findings 

Summary 

The following major findings emerged from the study: 

● Both men and women Federal workers generally agree that uninvited behaviors of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. 

● The incidence rate of sexual harassment in the Federal workforce is widespread--42% of all female employees and 15% of all male 

employees reported being sexually harassed. 

● Many sexual harassment incidents occur repeatedly and are of relatively long duration.

● The majority of Federal employees who had worked elsewhere feel sexual harassment is no worse in the Federal workplace than in 

state and local governments or in the private sector. 

● Sexual harassment is widely distributed among women and men of various backgrounds, positions and locations; however individuals

with certain personal and organizational characteristics are more likely to be sexually harassed than others. 

● The characteristics of harassers differ for women and men victims--for example, women report almost always being harassed by a 

man, whereas men report usually being harassed by a woman. 

● Many harassers are reported to have bothered more than one victim at work. 

● Few employees report having been accused of sexually harassing others. 

● Those who are sexually harassed by supervisors and those who experience the more severe forms of sexual harassment are more 

likely than other victims to foresee penalties or possible benefits from the sexual harassment. 

● Most victims neither anticipated nor receive adverse consequences as a result of their sexual harassment, although a sizeable minority 

did, particularly women. 

● A number of informal actions were found by victims to be effective in stopping sexual harassment, particularly the most direct and 

assertive responses. 

● Few victims pursue formal remedies, but many who do find them helpful. 

● The impact and cost of sexual harassment in dollars to the Federal Government is sizeable--an estimated minimum of $189 million 

over the 2-year period covered by the study. 

● Although their experiences do not change the careers and work situations of most victims, a sizeable number of women and men do 

leave their jobs or suffer adverse consequences. 

● Victims are more likely to think the sexual harassment negatively affected their personal well-being or morale than their work 

performance or that of their immediate work group. 

● Victims and supervisors are generally unaware of available formal remedies and are skeptical about their effectiveness. 

● Assertive informal actions are thought to be the most effective way employees can make others stop bothering them sexually. 

● Most victims and supervisors think there is much management can do to reduce sexual harassment. 

● In conclusion, the data show that sexual harassment is widespread, is costly, deeply felt by many of the victims, and that the 1979 

Congressional investigation was indicative of a significant problem; however, the data also indicated that there is much that can be 

done to reduce that problem.

View of Federal Workers Toward Sexual Harassment 

To determine whether men and women defined sexual harassment differently, they were asked whether they considered uninvited sexuallyoriented behaviors to be sexual harassment. These behaviors, ranked in order of agreement were: 

Severe 

1. Letters, phone calls or materials of a sexual nature 

2. Pressure for sexual favors 

3. Touching, leaning over, cornering or pinching 

Less Severe 

4. Pressure for dates 

5. Sexually suggestive looks or gestures 

6. Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (8 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

From the responses, we found that most men and women agreed that behaviors 1-4 constituted sexual harassment. However, men were less 

likely to think that "sexual looks" and "sexual comments," the more ambiguous and prevalent forms of sexual behavior on the job, were 

sexual harassment, particularly when perpetrated by a coworker. Respondents were not asked whether they thought that actual or attempted 

rape or assault was sexual harassment. Since this behavior is potentially criminal, we assumed that it is the most severe form of sexual 

harassment. 

Generally, men and women were more likely to think that a behavior was sexual harassment if the perpetrator was a supervisor rather than a 

coworker. Thus, it would appear that a higher standard of conduct exists for supervisors to exhibit proper behavior in the office, arguably 

because of their official authority and responsibilities. 

Although in the abstract men and women were likely to agree that uninvited sexual behavior at work is sexual harassment, responses may 

indicate that sexual harassment is sometimes situational. For most workers, including those who identified themselves as victims, the 

perceived motive or demeanor of the initiator made a difference as to whether the behavior was viewed as sexual harassment. 

A number of questions were asked to find how respondents viewed sexual behavior at work. We found that both men and women believed 

that sexual activity, whether voluntary or otherwise, should not occur between people who work together, although women were less likely to 

approve of sexual affairs among coworkers than were men. We found that men, including supervisors, showed a greater tendency than 

women to think that victims are somewhat responsible for bringing sexual harassment on themselves and are inclined to believe that sexual 

harassment has been exaggerated. However, men and women agreed that sexual harassment is behavior that people should not have to

tolerate. 

Extent of Sexual Harassment 

To determine how widespread sexual harassment is in the Federal workplace, respondents were asked whether they had experienced any of 

the seven listed behaviors within the finite time frame of the previous 24 months (May 1978 to May 1980), and how often the experience 

occurred. 

From this we found that one in four Federal employees reported receiving uninvited and unwanted sexual attention, and that women, as 

expected, were much more likely to be victims than were men. Almost half--(42%) of all female Federal employees and only 15% of all male 

employees reported being sexually harassed. Although the percentage for men is lower in comparison to women, it nevertheless is much 

higher than previously expected. 

Definition of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Male and Female Federal Employees Who Agreed that Each of Six Forms of Unwanted, Uninvited 

Sexual Attention Constitutes Sexual Harassment (Questions 2-7, b & d) (text alternative)

SEVERE LESS SEVERE

IF A 

SUPERVISOR 

DID THIS

Letters and 

Calls

Pressure for 

Sexual Favors 

Deliberate 

Touching 

Pressure for 

Dates

Suggestive 

Looks 

Sexual 

Remarks 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (9 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

IF ANOTHER 

WORKER 

DID THIS

NOTE: Percentages are based on "Probably Yes" and "Definitely Yes" 

responses to questions. WOMEN MEN

Whether both men and women define the unwanted behavior that they received in the same way is debatable. Other studies have shown 

that men and women view their sex roles very differently and use language in different ways to describe sexual behavior. Again, it should be 

pointed out that the sexual harassment as reported here is based upon data provided by the victims themselves. If sexual attention was 

neither unwanted (nor uninvited) by the recipient, it presumably was not reported. 

The sexual harassment as reported by the victims took many forms. Every form except actual or attempted rape or sexual assault was 

experienced by a sizeable percentage of both men and women. The more ambiguous forms of sexual harassment--"sexual comments" and

"suggestive looks "--were reported most often. These forms were more likely to be repeated. 

However, with the exception of actual or attempted rape or assault, most of the victims reported experiencing all forms of sexual harassment 

repeatedly. In addition, many reported experiencing more than one form of sexual harassment. We also found that the incidents of sexual 

harassment were not just passing events--most lasted more than a week, and many lasted longer than 6 months. Thus, not only did the 

sexual harassment occur repeatedly, it was of relatively long duration as well. 

Incidence Rate Among Various Forms of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Female and Male Federal Employees Who Experienced Each Form of Sexual Harassment 

Between May 1978 and May 1980 (Question 17) 

LESS SEVERE

Sexual Remarks Reported by 33% of Women

Reported by 10% of Men

Suggestive Looks Reported by 28% of Women

Reported by 8% of Men

Pressure for Dates Reported by 26% of Women

Reported by 7% of Men

SEVERE

Deliberate Touching Reported by 15% of Women

Reported by 3% of Men

Pressure for Sexual Favors Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 2% of Men

Letters and Calls Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 3% of Men

MOST SEVERE Actual or Attempted Rape or Assault Reported by 1% of Women

Reported by 0.3% of Men

Note: Many respondents indicated that they experience more than one form of sexual harassment. 

To view the incidence rate of sexual harassment in context, we asked respondents who had worked outside the Federal Government to 

compare the Federal Government with other workplaces. The majority of respondents stated that they felt sexual harassment was no worse 

in the Federal workplace than in state and local government or in the private sector. 

Victims of Sexual Harassment 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (10 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

To determine who is sexually harassed and whether certain personal and organizational factors contributed to the likelihood of harassment, 

we looked at a number of demographic variables. Demographic characteristics of victims that seem to have a strong bearing on whether or 

not an individual is harassed are: age, marital status, and sexual (male-female) composition of the workgroup. Those factors that seem to 

have a somewhat weaker bearing are education level, race, ethnic background, job classification, nontraditional nature of job, and sex of 

immediate supervisor. Based on these factors, we found that the typical men and women who are likely to be harassed are: 

● young, 

● not married, 

● higher educated, 

● members of a minority, racial or ethnic group (if male),

● hold trainee positions (or office/clerical positions, if male), 

● hold nontraditional positions, for their sex, (e.g., female law enforcement officers, male secretaries), 

● have an immediate supervisor of the opposite sex,

● have an immediate work group composed predominately of the opposite sex. 

We also found that certain agencies have a greater incidence rate than do others. Women in the Departments of Labor, Transportation, 

Justice, certain Defense Department agencies[3] (other than the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps), Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), Air Force, Navy/Marine Corps, Veterans Administration and other smaller agencies[4] had a higher rate of sexual harassment than 

those in other agencies. Men (as well as women) in the Departments of Justice and HUD and the Veterans Administration, and men in the 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the General Services Administration also reported rates higher than the Federal-wide 

average. 

Age of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Ages Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 61) 

Ages 16-19 

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 67% of Women

Reported by 27% of Men

Ages 20-24 Reported by 59% of Women

Reported by 20% of Men

Ages 25-34 Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 18% of Men

Ages 35-44 Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Ages 45-54 Reported by 33% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Ages 55 and older Reported by 22% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Marital Status of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment, by Marital Status (Question 62) 

Single

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 22% of Men

Divorced Reported by 49% of Women

Reported by 21% of Men

Married Reported by 37% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Widowed Reported by 31% of Women

Reported by 30% of Men

Education Level of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Education Levels Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 60) 

Less than high school diploma Reported by 31% of Women

Reported by 8% of Men

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (11 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

High School diploma or GED 

(Graduate Equivalency Degree)

Reported by 35% of Women

Reported by 11% of Men

High school diploma plus 

technical training or 

apprenticeship 

Reported by 39% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Some college Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 17% of Men

Graduated from college (B.A., B.

S., or other bachelor's degree 

Reported by 50% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Some graduate school Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 15% of Men

Graduate or professional degree Reported by 48% of Women

Reported by 17% of Men

Racial and Ethnic Background of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Racial and Ethnic Backgrounds Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 59) 

Other

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 48% of Women

Reported by 27% of Men

Hispanic Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 19% of Men

White, not of Hispanic origin Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Black, not of Hispanic origin Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 21% of Men

Asian or Pacific Islander Reported by 36% of Women

Reported by 16% of Men

American Indian or Alaskan native Reported by 35% of Women

Reported by 22% of Men

 

Job Classification of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Job Classifications Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 57) 

Trainee

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 51% of Women

Reported by 16% of Men

Professional, technical Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 15% of Men

Administration, management Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 15% of Men

Other Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Office, clerical Reported by 40% of Women

Reported by 17% of Men

Blue collar, service Reported by 38% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Traditionality of Jobs of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Traditional and Nontraditional Jobs For Their Sex Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 52)

Nontraditional job 

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 20% of Men

Traditional job Reported by 41% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Sex of Supervisor(s) of Victims 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (12 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment, by Sex of Immediate Supervisor(s) (Question 50) 

Male supervisor Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Male and female supervisors Who Experienced Sexual Harassment Reported by 44% of Women

Reported by 25% of Men

Female supervisor Reported by 38% of Women

Reported by 23% of Men

Sexual Composition of Victims' Work Groups 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Different Kinds of Work Groups Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 51) 

All men Reported by 55% of Women

Reported by 8% of Men

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Predominately men Reported by 49% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Equal number of men and 

women 

Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 19% of Men

Predominately women Reported by 37% of Women

Reported by 22% of Men

All women Reported by 22% of Women

Reported by 22% of Men

Sex of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Sex of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32a) 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Male 

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 79% of Women

Reported by 18% of Men

Two or more males Reported by 16% of Women

Reported by 4% of Men

Both males and 

females 

Reported by 2% of Women

Reported by 6% of Men

Female Reported by 2% of Women

Reported by 60% of Men

Two or more females Reported by 1% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Unknown Reported by 1% of Women

Reported by 0.3% of Men

In addition, we found that certain work environments were more conducive to sexual harassment than were others. 

Victims were more likely to report being in work environments where employees did not perceive open communications or a good relationship 

with their supervisors, felt pressure to engage in sexual activity such as flirting or making comments about the opposite sex, and observed 

others using sex for professional advancement. 

In addition, victims were much more likely than supervisors to perceive that sexual harassment is a problem in their offices and to think that 

management is not making every effort to stop sexual harassment. 

Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment 

We found that most women reported that their harassers were male and that most men indicated that their harassers were female. However, 

men were far more likely than women to report being harassed by someone of their same sex. 

Most harassers of women and men reportedly acted alone rather than in concert with another person. However, most women identified their 

harasser as being older than they, whereas men usually indicated that their harasser was usually younger than they. Although both women 

and men reported that their harasser was usually married, men were more likely to indicate that their harasser was divorced or single. Most 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (13 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

victims in general reported being harassed by someone of their same race or ethnic background, although minority women were more likely 

to report that their harasser was of a different race or ethnicity. 

Age of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Age of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32b) 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Older

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 68% of Women

Reported by 29% of Men

Younger Reported by 12% of Women

Reported by 38% of Men

Same Reported by 11% of Women

Reported by 18% of Men

Various Ages Reported by 7% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Unknown Reported by 2% of Women

Reported by 3% of Men

Marital Status of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Marital Status of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32d) 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Married

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 67% of Women

Reported by 35% of Men

Mixed Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Unknown Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 7% of Men

Single Reported by 8% of Women

Reported by 20% of Men

Divorced, Separated, 

Widowed

Reported by 7% of Women

Reported by 25% of Men

One surprising finding was that women and men reported being harassed by fellow employees more often than by supervisors. This finding 

was surprising in that, before the study, most sexual harassment was thought to be perpetrated by the more powerful supervisors against 

their more vulnerable employees. However, a sizeable number of women also reported being harassed by supervisors. Thus, supervisors 

were found to be personally responsible for a number of sexual harassment incidents, although not the principal cause of the problem. 

However, supervisors as part of their duties have a responsibility to assure that their subordinates work in an environment free from sexual 

harassment in keeping with Federal policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. 

Another major finding was that many women and men reported that their harasser had also bothered others at work. This somewhat negates 

the view that sexual harassment is principally a matter of isolated instances of personal sexual attraction. Thus it appears that some 

individuals are more likely to harass than others and that sexual harassment is not necessarily normal interaction among men and women on 

the job, or that all men and women engage in it as has been intimated by some. 

Only a handful of respondents indicated that they had been accused of sexually bothering someone else at work, and most thought that the 

charge was unfair. This could indicate that few victims confront their harassers or that many accused harassers are unwilling to identify 

themselves even in the privacy of an anonymous questionnaire. 

Ethnic Status of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Ethnic Status of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32c) 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Same

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 63% of Women

Reported by 68% of Men

Different Reported by 26% of Women

Reported by 17% of Men

Some the Same and 

Some Different

Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Unknown Reported by 2% of Women

Reported by 3% of Men

Organizational Level of Harasser 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (14 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Identified the Organizational Level of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 33)

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Coworker or Other 

Employee

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 63% of Women

Reported by 76% of Men

Immediate Supervisor 

or Other Supervisor

Reported by 37% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Unknown Reported by 6% of Women

Reported by 5% of Men

Subordinate Reported by 4% of Women

Reported by 16% of Men

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that more than one party 

bothered them.

Incidents of Sexual Harassment 

We found that although most victims did not foresee consequences for resisting or complying with the sexual harassment, both the

organizational level of the harasser in relation to the victim and the severity of the sexual harassment made a major difference in the victims' 

perceptions of the use of leverage. 

Victims who were harassed by immediate or higher level supervisors were more likely to foresee negative consequences for refusing to 

comply and incentives for complying with the sexual harassment than those who were harassed by coworkers or other employees. Likewise, 

those who were victims of "most severe" and "severe" sexual harassment were much more likely than those who were victims of "less severe 

" harassment to perceive that carrots and sticks were being used against them to comply with the behavior. 

We also looked at how victims responded to their sexual harassment. Most victims stated that they responded to the sexual harassment by 

passively ignoring it. However, the most effective actions for most victims to take were found to be the most assertive actions--"asking or 

telling the person to stop" or "reporting the behavior to the supervisor or other officials." The least effective actions were found to be the 

most passive--"going along with the behavior" or "ignoring it." The effectiveness level for various actions differed somewhat with the sex of 

the victim and severity of the sexual harassment. 

However, it should be pointed out that although reporting the behavior to a supervisor or other officials was found to produce better results 

compared with other informal actions, around half of the women and only one-third of the men who tried this found that it made no 

difference or made things worse. This indicates that much still needs to be done to make supervisors and other officials accountable for 

resolving these problems informally. 

Another indication of the need to make supervisors and other officials more responsive to the problem of sexual harassment is the finding 

that talking with these officials did not help the situation in the majority of cases. Talking with a party outside the agency such as a lawyer, 

civil rights group, someone from Congress, or other agency official, was found to be most successful for the few male and female victims of 

"most severe" sexual harassment and female victims of "less severe" sexual harassment who tried it. Most workers did not talk with any one 

about their incident and when they did, they usually spoke with friends and relatives or other workers. 

Narrators' Informal Responses to Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated that Taking These Informal Actions "Made Things Better" (Question 23) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Transferred, disciplined or gave a poor performance rating 

to the person

reported by 72% of women 

and 9% of men

Asked or told the person(s) to stop reported by 40% of women 

and 13% of men

Reported the behavior to the supervisor or other officials reported by 57% of women 

and 11% of men

Avoided the person(s) reported by 20% of women 

and 32% of men

Made a joke of the behavior reported by 52% of women 

and 7% of men

Threatened to tell or told other workers reported by 30% of women 

and 19% of men

Ignored the behavior or did nothing reported by 12% of women 

and 27% of men

Went along with the behavior reported by 14% of women 

and 46% of men

Transferred, disciplined or gave a poor performance rating 

to the person

reported by 79% of women 

and 87% of men

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (15 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Asked or told the person(s) to stop reported by 53% of women 

and 69% of men

Reported the behavior to the supervisor or other officials reported by 54% of women 

and 46% of men

Avoided the person(s) reported by 42% of women 

and 51% of men

Made a joke of the behavior reported by 32% of women 

and 45% of men

Threatened to tell or told other workers reported by 36% of women 

and 29% of men

Ignored the behavior or did nothing reported by 24% of women 

and 41% of men

Went along with the behavior reported by 3% of women 

and 32% of men

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Transferred, disciplined or gave a poor performance rating 

to the person

reported by 59% of women 

and 33% of men

Asked or told the person(s) to stop reported by 60% of women 

and 68% of men

Reported the behavior to the supervisor or other officials reported by 52% of women 

and 17% of men

Avoided the person(s) reported by 54% of women 

and 58% of men

Made a joke of the behavior reported by 43% of women 

and 57% of men

Threatened to tell or told other workers reported by 36% of women 

and 21% of men

Ignored the behavior or did nothing reported by 36% of women 

and 45% of men

Went along with the behavior reported by 18% of women 

and 13% of men

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Transferred, disciplined or gave a poor performance rating 

to the person

reported by 74% of women 

and 56% of men

Asked or told the person(s) to stop reported by 54% of women 

and 67% of men

Reported the behavior to the supervisor or other officials reported by 53% of women 

and 35% of men

Avoided the person(s) reported by 45% of women 

and 53% of men

Made a joke of the behavior reported by 36% of women 

and 49% of men

Threatened to tell or told other workers reported by 35% of women 

and 24% of men

Ignored the behavior or did nothing reported by 28% of women 

and 42% of men

Went along with the behavior reported by 8% of women 

and 25% of men

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that they took more than one formal action. 

Narrators' Informal Responses to Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated that Taking These Informal Actions "Made Things Better" (Question 28) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Requested an investigation by victim's organization reported by 84% of women 

and 28% of men

Filed a discrimination complaint or lawsuit reported by 81% of women 

and 26% of men

Requested an investigation by an outside agency reported by 92% of women 

and 100% of men

Filed a grievance or adverse action appeal reported by 0% of women 

and 26% of men

VICTIMS OF SEVERE 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Requested an investigation by victim's organization reported by 73% of women 

and 50% of men

Filed a discrimination complaint or lawsuit reported by 52% of women 

and 15% of men

Requested an investigation by an outside agency reported by 27% of women 

and 0% of men

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (16 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Filed a grievance or adverse action appeal reported by 31% of women 

and 43% of men

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Requested an investigation by victim's organization reported by 44% of women 

and 0% of men

Filed a discrimination complaint or lawsuit reported by 90% of women 

and 0% of men

Requested an investigation by an outside agency reported by 52% of women 

and 100% of men

Filed a grievance or adverse action appeal reported by 85% of women 

and 0% of men

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Requested an investigation by victim's organization reported by 70% of women 

and 29% of men

Filed a discrimination complaint or lawsuit reported by 66% of women 

and 12% of men

Requested an investigation by an outside agency reported by 58% of women 

and 100% of men

Filed a grievance or adverse action appeal reported by 45% of women 

and 33% of men

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that they took more than one formal action. 

Costs of Sexual Harassment 

Job Turnover Women Men Total

Cost to offer a job

[1]

$ 6.4 $ 1.2 $ 7.6

Background 

checks[2] 

2.0 0.4 2.4

Training[3] 24.1 2.7 26.8

Total Cost of Job Turnover $ 22.5 $ 4.3 $ 26.8

Emotional Stress 3.9 2.1 5.0

Individual Productivity 37.7 34.4 72.1

Absenteeism 5.3 2.6 7.9

Work Group Productivity 32.6 44.3 76.9

TOTALS $ 102.0 $ 86.7 $ 188.7

1 Source: Office of Program 

Management and Evaluation, 

Office of Personnel 

Management

2 Source: Division of 

Personnel Investigations, 

Office of Personnel 

Management 

3 Source: "Employee 

Training in the Federal 

Service- FY 1979," published 

by the Office of Personnel 

Management, Workforce 

Effectiveness and 

Development Office. 

We found that very few victims took formal institutional remedies against the sexual harassment--only 2 to 3%. The majority who took formal 

actions reported that their doing so made things better. This would indicate that in contrast to the lack of faith in formal remedies expressed 

by most respondents in Chapter 8, the system does work for some. However, a sizeable minority (41%) indicated that filing the formal action 

either had no effect or in fact made things worse. 

In addition, victims in general reported a mixed response from management to their formal complaints, although the response of 

management seemed to depend somewhat on the sex of victim and the severity of the harassment. Generally, victims were more likely to 

find a favorable' management response than a hostile one. However, male victims were more likely to encounter hostility than were women 

and few victims of either sex reported that management "corrected the damage done to them." 

Impact and Cost of Sexual Harassment 

We found that a conservative estimate of the cost to the Federal Government due to sexual harassment over the two-year period was $189 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (17 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

million--a sum equivalent to the total salaries of all 465 agency heads and all 7000 senior Federal executives (members of the Senior 

Executive Service) for six months. The greatest costs were associated with the loss of individual and workgroup productivity as reported by 

the victims. These figures are conservative for three reasons: 

● Victims were far less likely to report a decline in their productivity than a decline in their physical or emotional well-being. Since 

physical or emotional well-being may in fact affect productivity, the number of victims who reported a drop in productivity may 

actually be closer to the larger number who stated that their emotional or physical condition declined. Thus, the numbers used to 

compute the loss due to individual productivity are probably low. 

● We assumed that where reported, individual productivity declined by only 10%. 

● We assumed that where reported, work group productivity declined by only 1%. 

We also found that most victims reported that their careers and work situations did not change as a result of their sexual harassment 

experience, although a sizeable minority of women and men reported adverse consequences, such as leaving their jobs. Although most 

women and men victims in general indicated that their sexual harassment experience did not negatively affect their personal well-being or 

work performance, this varied with the severity of the harassment. Victims of the more severe forms of sexual harassment were more likely 

to report adverse effects. The adverse effects were particularly dramatic for the victims of "most severe" sexual harassment. 

As stated above, most women and men were much more likely to perceive that their sexual harassment experience affected their personal 

well-being or morale than their work performance or productivity. Again, this finding may be one of perception. 

In contrast to the reported effect on the individuals themselves, we found that few victims felt that the morale or productivity of their 

immediate work groups were negatively affected by their sexual harassment experiences. One reason for this may be that few coworkers 

knew about the experience and its effects on the victim since only about one-third of the victims reported that they spoke with coworkers 

about the incident. 

Awareness of Remedies and Their Effectiveness 

To discover whether victims and supervisors were even aware of formal remedies for sexual harassment, we asked whether they believed 

that the following actions were available to those who had been sexually bothered by others: 

● requesting an investigation by the organization 

● requesting an investigation by an outside organization 

● filing a grievance or adverse action appeal 

● filing a discrimination complaint 

● filing a complaint through special channels set up for sexual harassment complaints 

Although most of these actions are in fact available to most employees, we found that most victims and supervisors were relatively unaware 

of them. The one remedy about which the respondents were most knowledgeable was "filing a discrimination complaint." 

When we asked respondents whether they thought those same formal remedies were effective in helping victims of sexual harassment, we 

found that relatively few victims or supervisors thought that the formal remedies would definitely be effective. 

However, to the largest number of victims, particularly those who have not experienced the most severe form of sexual harassment, filing a 

formal complaint simply may not be an appropriate response. They prefer to handle the situation informally. Most victims indicated that they 

"saw no need to report" the incident as a reason for not filing a formal complaint. However, the female and to a lesser extent the male 

victims of the more severe forms of sexual harassment were much less likely to cite this reason for not taking a formal action than fear of 

adverse consequences or belief that nothing would be done. 

In contrast to the somewhat pessimistic view of formal remedies, most Federal workers believe that employees successfully can take informal 

steps to stop the unwanted sexual attention. Both victims and supervisors most often endorsed direct assertive actions by the employees as 

being effective in stopping unwanted sexual attention. In contrast, few respondents thought that there was little an employee could do about 

the situation. 

In addition, most Federal workers also think that there is much that management can do to reduce sexual harassment. Management actions 

involving tougher sanctions and enforcement generally were endorsed most often. However, a majority of victims and supervisors also 

endorsed actions involving publicizing management policies on sexual harassment. Women were more likely than men to endorse actions 

intended to help victims cope with the problem, such as setting up a special counseling service. 

Conclusions 

From these findings the following five general conclusions can be drawn about sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. This Final Report 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (18 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

provides explanations for these conclusions. 

1. Sexual harassment is a legitimate problem in the Federal workplace. 

2. In the past, agency managers have not been as successful as they could be in resolving problems of sexual harassment. 

3. There is much that management can do about the problem of sexual harassment in the future. 

4. There are effective actions that victims can take to solve the problem of sexual harassment. 

5. Sexual harassment by its nature and in its various forms has differing effects on victims. 

Perceived Effectiveness of Individual Actions 

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Employee Actions Would Stop Sexual Harassment (Question 10) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 78% of women and 

61% of men 

Reporting the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 66% of women and 

59% of men 

Filing a formal complaint Reported by 48% of women and 

48% of men 

Ignoring the behavior Reported by 50% of women and 

50% of men 

Avoiding the person(s) Reported by 50% of women and 

34% of men 

There is very little employees can 

do 

Reported by 19% of women and 

28% of men 

Threatening to tell or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 17% of women and 

18% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 87% of women and 

82% of men 

Reporting the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 68% of women and 

70% of men 

Filing a formal complaint Reported by 52% of women and 

61% of men 

Ignoring the behavior Reported by 48% of women and 

44% of men 

Avoiding the person(s) Reported by 48% of women and 

42% of men 

There is very little employees can 

do 

Reported by 10% of women and 

5% of men 

Threatening to tell or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 15% of women and 

17% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 83% of women and 

84% of men 

Reporting the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 71% of women and 

72% of men 

Filing a formal complaint Reported by 55% of women and 

56% of men 

Ignoring the behavior Reported by 45% of women and 

45% of men 

Avoiding the person(s) Reported by 44% of women and 

39% of men 

There is very little employees can 

do 

Reported by 5% of women and 5% 

of men 

Threatening to tell or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 16% of women and 

21% of men 

VICTIMS OF ALL FORMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT AND SUPERVISORS 

Asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 85% of women, 83% 

of men, 86% of supervisory 

women, and 85% of supervisory 

men 

Reporting the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 69% of women, 71% 

of men, 71% of supervisory 

women, and 78% of supervisory 

men 

Filing a formal complaint Reported by 53% of women, 59% 

of men, 49% of supervisory 

women, and 57% of supervisory 

men 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (19 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Ignoring the behavior Reported by 47% of women, 45% 

of men, 49% of supervisory 

women, and 42% of supervisory 

men 

Avoiding the person(s) Reported by 47% of women, 41% 

of men, 45% of supervisory 

women, and 40% of supervisory 

men 

There is very little employees can 

do 

Reported by 9% of women, 5% of 

men, 6% of supervisory women, 

and 2% of supervisory men 

Threatening to tell or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 16% of women, 19% 

of men, 13% of supervisory 

women, and 19% of supervisory 

men 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated more than one action would be effective. 

Perceived Effectiveness of Management Actions 

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Management Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment Would Be Effective (Question 11) 

IMPOSING TOUGHER SANCTIONS AND 

STRICTER ENFORCEMENT 

Conduct swift and thorough investigations 

of complaints of sexual harassment

Perceived effective action by 77% 

of women, 71% of men, 81% of 

female supervisors, and 78% of 

male supervisors 

Enforce penalties against managers who 

knowingly allow this behavior to continue 

Perceived effective action by 59% 

of workmen, 61% of men, 62% of 

female supervisors, and 60% of 

male supervisors 

Enforce penalties against those who 

sexually bother others

Perceived effective action by 74% 

of workmen, 71% of men, 71% of 

female supervisors, and 74% of 

male supervisors 

Publicize the availability of formal 

complaint channels

Perceived effective action by 63% 

of workmen, 63% of men, 67% of 

female supervisors, and 60% of 

male supervisors 

PUBLICIZING MANAGEMENT POLICY

There is very little that management can 

do to reduce sexual harassment on the job

Perceived effective action by 69% 

of workmen, 69% of men, 75% of 

female supervisors, and 73% of 

male supervisors 

Provide training for managers and EEO 

officials on their responsibilities for 

decreasing sexual harassment 

Perceived effective action by 61% 

of workmen, 57% of men, 65% of 

female supervisors, and 57% of 

male supervisors 

HELPING VICTIMS COPE 

Establish a special counseling service for 

those who experience sexual harassment 

Perceived effective action by 44% 

of workmen, 37% of men, 44% of 

female supervisors, and 37% of 

male supervisors 

Provide awareness training for employees 

on sexual harassment 

Perceived effective action by 53% 

of workmen, 43% of men, 54% of 

female supervisors, and 43% of 

male supervisors 

NOTHING CAN BE DONE Establish and publicize policies which 

prohibit sexual harassment 

Perceived effective action by 6% 

of workmen, 5% of men, 3% of 

female supervisors, and 4% of 

male supervisors 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated more than one action would be effective. 

Recommendations 

The final report goes into more detail regarding the recommendations that are summarized here. It is strongly urged that these 

recommendations be implemented as both a cost savings measure and one designed to produce a positive work atmosphere where morale 

and productivity can prosper. These recommendations can be incorporated within current mechanisms without undue expense to the 

Government. 

For the few who choose to pursue formal remedies, the complaint channels need to be responsive to their needs. However, because of the 

sensitivity of the issue, most victims have not and probably will not in the future take formal actions to stop sexual harassment. The most 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (20 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

effective way to aid these individuals and have the greatest impact on reducing most instances of sexual harassment is to take steps to 

prevent sexual harassment in the first place and to help victims handle the situation informally. 

Of the following recommendations, the first two are remedial in nature, the second two preventive, the fifth, designed to assist victims and 

the last designed to monitor compliance and provide follow-up. 

1. Agencies should provide strong and effective enforcement against sexual harassment and issue sanctions where appropriate. 

2. Complaint channels for sexual harassment should be clarified and streamlined. 

3. Managers and other agency officials should be made aware of their responsibilities and held accountable for enforcing Federal 

Government and agency policy prohibiting sexual harassment at the Federal workplace. 

4. Agencies should develop a training strategy to aid in preventing sexual harassment. 

5. Agencies should provide information to victims on effective techniques for resolving incidents of sexual harassment. 

6. A number of other activities should be instituted to assure compliance with law and regulation, as well as to provide follow up to this 

study both within the Federal Government and in the other public and private sectors. 

Conclusion 

The Federal Government has a responsibility to be a model employer that maintains "high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and 

conduct to assure proper performance of the Government's business and the maintenance of confidence of the American people ... Sexual 

harassment is a form of employee misconduct which undermines the integrity of the employment relationship. All employees must be allowed 

to work in an environment free from unsolicited and unwelcome sexual overtures. "[5]

To mount a strong campaign to reduce sexual harassment is in keeping with this policy and is cost-effective. 

Footnotes -- Executive Summary 

1 A "disproportionately stratified " sample is one in which certain categories of participants are selected to be in the sample in greater 

numbers than they occur in the general population. These categories of participants are intentionally oversampled to ensure adequate 

numbers for statistical analysis within each category. The sample is "random" in that, within a given category (or stratum), each member has 

an equal chance of being selected. A random sample enables the researcher to make predictions about the whole population based upon the 

sample. All final results in this final report are expressed in "weighted " terms, which means that all numbers and percentages are adjusted to 

reflect each category's actual size in the Federal population. 

2 See Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Belmont, California, 1973, p. 165. 

3 Such as the Defense Mapping Agency and Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

4 Such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Office of Personnel Management. 

5. OPM Policy Statement, see Appendix E. 

1. Introduction

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a subject about which much discussion is currently taking place. Do any of these statements sound 

familiar? 

● Sexual harassment is just another example of what men do to women to keep them from advancing in the workplace. 

● The issue of sexual harassment has been greatly exaggerated--because of all the publicity men will be afraid to talk to women for fear 

of being accused of sexual harassment. 

● Women in low-pay and low-status positions are more likely to be harassed than others and are afraid to make waves about it for fear 

of losing their jobs.

● The Government should not try to legislate love--it has no business interfering in the personal (sex) lives of employees.

As statements such as these suggest, there have been disagreements about what constitutes sexual harassment, how widespread it is and its 

consequences for employees in their careers, morale, and work performance. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (21 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

As a result of this publicity about the issue of sexual harassment, the Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, under the leadership of Chairman James M. Hanley, conducted a preliminary investigation of 

sexual harassment in the Federal Government and held hearings in October and November, 1979. The findings from the investigation, which 

included an examination of 100 employee allegations, were serious enough to cause the Subcommittee to request that the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB) conduct a thorough and authoritative study of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. Since no such thorough 

study had ever been conducted on this subject in either the private or public sectors, the Subcommittee wanted to discover whether the 

results of their preliminary investigation would be borne out by a scientific study. 

To establish a Federal Government-wide approach to sexual harassment the Subcommittee also asked the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) to (1) prepare a policy statement about sexual harassment, (2) prepare a training module on sexual harassment issues, and (3) 

encourage agencies to issue policy statements and provide training. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was also asked 

to (1) develop and issue interpretive guidelines clarifying the status of sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title 

VII), (2) require agencies as part of their affirmative action plans to inform Federal agencies that sexual harassment is prohibited by Title VII, 

and (3) require agencies to take steps to make the work environment free of sexual intimidation.[1]

MSPB was directed to examine the following questions using the definition of sexual harassment already developed by OPM: 

1. What kinds of behavior constitute sexual harassment? Do the attitudes of men and women differ in this regard? 

2. To what degree does sexual harassment occur within the Federal workplace? What is the frequency? What are the manifestations? 

3. Are victims or perpetrators of sexual harassment found in disproportionate numbers within certain agencies, job classifications,

geographic locations, racial categories, age brackets, educational levels, grade levels, etc.? 

4. What forms of express or implied lever age have been used by harassers to reward or punish their victims? 

5. What has been the impact of sexual harassment on its victims in terms of job turn-over, work performance, physical and emotional

condition, financial and career well-being? 

6. What effect has sexual harassment had on the morale or productivity of the immediate work group? 

7. Are victims of sexual harassment aware of available remedies? Do they have confidence in those remedies? 

Top agency officials of the MSPB, OPM, and EEOC reported the status of their charges regarding sexual harassment at a hearing held by the 

Subcommittee on September 25, 1980. The Chairwoman of the MSPB and the Director of the Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies 

(MSRS), the MSPB office given responsibility for conducting the study, reported on the preliminary findings at the hearing. These findings 

were preliminary in that they included information only on women victims and only for some of the data. This Final Report considerably 

expands the preliminary study, notably by including data on male victims and providing policy recommendations. 

In developing the plan for the study, the MSRS research team first examined the relevant issues by reviewing the legal case law and the 

relevant available literature. 

Review of Relevant Case Law 

We reviewed the OPM policy statement prohibiting sexual harassment as well as the limited but growing case law on sexual harassment in 

order to observe the legal basis for prohibiting sexual harassment. OPM defines sexual harassment as: "deliberate or repeated unsolicited 

verbal comments, gestures or physical contact of a sexual nature which are un welcome."[2] This definition allows the recipient of the 

behavior to determine whether the contact is "unwelcome" and is more broadly defined than other interpretations construed by the courts 

and EEOC. 

Under recently published EEOC interpretive guidelines, sexual harassment is considered to be sex discrimination under certain conditions: (1) 

when submission to it is a term or condition of employment, (2) when it is used as the basis of employment decisions, or (3) when it creates 

an intimidating or hostile work environment.[3] With the exception of the recent Court of Appeals decision in the case of Bundy v. Jackson, D.

C. Civil Action No. 77-1359 (D.C. Cir., January 12, 1981), most courts have found that prohibited sex discrimination has occurred only when 

submission to the sexual harassment is a term or condition of the victim's employment.[4] The OPM definition is broader than these 

interpretations in that it expands the definition of sexual harassment to include unacceptable behavior that, although not necessarily sex 

discrimination, may be a prohibited personnel practice or a violation of the standards of conduct in the Federal workplace. Thus, unwelcome 

sexual attention, however defined, is seen at most as a form of sex discrimination that is prohibited by law and at least as a violation of the 

standards of conduct in the Federal workplace that is prohibited by Government policy or regulation. 

Survey of the Literature 

To conceptualize the study, we wanted to determine whether any of the questions posed in the Congressional mandate had been addressed 

in the available literature on sexual harassment. 

We found that only within the last six years has sexual harassment gained public notice both as a catch-word to describe a situation and as a 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (22 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

work related issue.[5] Since that time a number of authors have examined the issue and several common patterns have emerged from their 

writings. First, most of the literature has been descriptive in nature with little or no explanation for the underlying social pro cess involved. 

Second, most of the writers have been feminists who have focused on the behavior almost exclusively as it affects women, and not men, the 

larger society, or the work organization. Third, there has been no common denominator in the literature about what behaviors constitute 

sexual harassment. Fourth, much of the literature has drawn upon individual case studies to generalize about the victims of sexual 

harassment, how the experience affects them and how they have responded.[6]

Most of the studies that did attempt to discern the extent of sexual harassment and to explore other factors such as the characteristics of 

victims and perpetrators, are not scientifically valid.[7] Therefore they are not useful to measure the actual pervasiveness of sexual 

harassment in the workplace. 

The groups surveyed in most of these studies were small and self-selected.[8] In addition, in none of these studies was sexual harassment 

defined in the same way, making comparison of results difficult. Another drawback was that most of these studies asked about experiences of 

sexual harassment over the respondent's lifetime (relying on their recall ability), rather that using a conceptually stronger finite and more 

immediate period of time. 

However a few studies have had some degree of scientific control.[9] Although they shed some light on the topic, none have addressed all of 

the issues covered in the Congressional man date, none have involved Federal employees, all have been restricted to a particular geographic 

region and/or work setting, only one has included men as well as women as potential victims, and most have restricted harassment to 

heterosexual behavior. 

Major Views of Sexual Harassment 

Three major views of sexual harassment have emerged from most of this literature: one concerning the underlying social-political basis for 

the behavior, the second concerning the vulnerability of particular groups to sexual harassment and the third, concerning the motivation 

behind the behavior. 

The three views are: 

1. That sexual harassment is an abuse of power that is exercised by those with power, usually male supervisors, over low-status 

employees, usually women.

2. That individuals with certain low-status, low-power characteristics, such as youth and low salaries and who are tied economically to 

their jobs, are more vulnerable to sexual harassment than others. 

3. That sexual harassment is an expression of personal attraction between men and women that cannot and should not be stopped. 

The first two views are closely related. They grow out of a belief that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and abuse of power 

used to keep women in their place at the low end of the economic scale. This view is based on the fact that on average women earn only 59 

cents for every dollar that a man earns and that sexual harassment is one example of the sex discrimination that maintains this disparity. 

The first view sees sexual harassment primarily as an expression of power (see for example, Backhouse and Cohen, 1978; Farley, 1978; 

Appendix H.). One example of this perspective sees sexual harassment as a form of violence or threat of violence used as a mechanism of 

social control over women to limit their access to certain jobs or their job success and mobility (Bularzik, 1978). Others emphasize that sexual 

harassment is used as a powerful lever to maintain the status quo in traditional economic and social relationships (Silverman, 1976-77). 

The second major view about sexual harassment that emerges from the analytic literature has to do with the vulnerability of particular groups 

of women working in particular kinds of jobs. It has been suggested that women, particularly women from minority groups, working for low 

wages in low-status jobs are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment because of their economic dependence on their jobs (see for 

example, Hooven and McDonald, 1978). Another group considered to be particularly vulnerable to harassment are women working in 

traditionally male occupations because they have invaded a private male preserve (Silverman, 1976-77; also see Martin, 1978, on harassment 

among women police officers). 

The third view reflects a fundamentally different view of the sex roles of men and women and the impact that these roles have on their 

relationships to each other on the job. This theory grows out of a belief that rather than being a source of power of men over women, the 

vagueness and broad nature of the definitions of sexual harassment used by both OPM and EEOC will undoubtedly lead to a barrage of trivial 

and unfounded complaints against men. Followers of this view also might be inclined to believe that the sexual relationships between men 

and women are expressions of personal attraction, and that although some of the consequences of these relationships may involve 

harassment, it is not appropriate for an employer to become involved (Berns, 1980). This study will review the evidence for these three 

views. 

Study Design 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (23 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Of primary concern in developing the study was the desire to develop a scientifically valid survey instrument that would determine whether 

sexual harassment was a problem in the Federal workplace and address the questions posed in the Congressional mandate. Secondarily, we 

wanted to gather information that would permit examination of the major views about sexual harassment in order to make appropriate policy 

recommendations.[10] 

With the assistance of OPM, a disproportionately stratified random sample" of civilian employees in the Executive Branch was selected to be 

in the study. The four variables on which the sample was stratified were: (1) sex, (2) minority status, (3) salary, and (4) organization. 

As a result of revising the survey instrument through pretests on a cross section of Washington, D.C.-based Federal employees, the final 

product contained 12 pages with 63 questions. Over 23,000 men and women received questionnaires in May 1980, which were sent to the 

respondents' homes to preserve their confidentiality and anonymity. The rate of return from two mailings of the questionnaire was 85%--a 

rate considerably higher than is usually required for statistical reliability.[11] The members of the sample were asked to base most of their 

answers on their work experience during the 24-month period from May 1978 to May 1980. Both the preliminary findings presented at the 

Congressional hearing in September 1980 and the Final Report were prepared by the MSRS research team based upon the data gathered 

from the survey. 

Disclaimers and Cautions in Interpreting the Data 

In reading this report and interpreting the data, some issues should be kept in mind. First, the incidence data is based upon the number of 

respondents who personally indicated that they had received what they believed to be uninvited and unwanted sexual attention. Thus, the 

method of identifying victims for this report involved a self-defining process on the part of the respondents. This approach seemed to be a 

reasonable way to measure incidence of sexual harassment and in line with the OPM definition of sexual harassment, which also relies on selfidentification of victims. This method of determining incidence cannot measure whether the initiator believed that the behavior was sexually 

harassing, although the questionnaire afforded some opportunity for those who had been accused of sexual harassment to describe their 

experiences. 

A second major caution in interpreting the data concerns the perceptual and language differences that may have been operating on the men 

and women who took this questionnaire. That men and women look at sexual behavior differently is important to keep in mind when looking 

at the reported experiences of men victims in the following chapters.[12] There is an indication from the data that the behavior that is 

referred to as unwanted and uninvited sexual attention, particularly for reported cases of actual or attempted rape or sexual assault, may be 

different for men and women respondents.[13] 

Also, men and women may have different reactions to the unwanted behavior. Sexual behavior that may be offensive to women may be

more or less offensive to men when they are the recipients. Social norms have encouraged men to be sexually aggressive and women to be 

sexually passive (Faltzman, 1974). As modern attitudes have altered these stereotypical expectations, it is not surprising that stress or 

confusion often results when these sex roles reverse. 

For example, one study that was conducted on young adults found that when men and women were asked their views about sexual behavior 

that could happen to them, the men were much more likely to see less severe behaviors, such as pressure for dates, as more offensive than 

did women. The men felt uncomfortable as the recipients of these actions since their typical sex role was reversed, whereas, the women, 

were not as offended since they saw the unwanted attention as part of normal dating behavior.[14]

In addition, the degree to which victims felt bothered by their sexual harassment could not be measured closely in this study. There is reason 

to believe that men who indicate that they have been sexually harassed are not only talking about different behavior (language difference) 

than women victims, but are affected in very different ways. The only other scientific study on sexual harassment that involved male 

respondents found that in general male victims were more likely to think that sexual harassment was flattering or ego-enhancing and the 

women victims were more likely to think that the experience was threatening or interfered with the effective conduct of their work (Gutek 

and Nakamura, 1980). 

A final caution in interpreting the data in terms of the experiences of male and female victims is raised. That is the belief that it is not 

reasonable to equate the sexual harassment of men with the sexual harassment of women, since men traditionally have had more 

opportunities for advancement in the workplace. This view states that since this is a society where laws have had to be enacted to ensure 

women their rights, the sexual intimidation of men is not logically as severe or discriminatory as that of women (McKinnon, 1979). 

Presentation of the Report 

The Final Report is organized into eight additional Chapters plus Appendices. The Chapters are as follows: 

Chapter 2: View of Federal Workers Toward Sexual Harassment--the attitudes of men and women toward sexual behavior in the Federal 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (24 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

workplace. 

Chapter 3: Extent of Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace--the overall incidence level of such behaviors among women and men. 

Chapter 4: Victims of Sexual Harassment--the personal and organizational characteristics of women and men victims and their work 

environment. 

Chapter 5: Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment--the characteristics of those who initiate sexual harassment. 

Chapter 6: Incidents of Sexual Harassment --the perceived use of leverage by harassers, as well as victims' responses to the sexual 

harassment. 

Chapter 7: Impact and Cost of Sexual Harassment--actual dollar cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government, as well as the 

perceived consequences to victims. 

Chapter 8: Awareness of Remedies and their Effectiveness--opinions of victims and their supervisors toward informal and formal institutional 

remedies for stopping sexual harassment. 

Chapter 9: Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. 

The Appendices are as follows: 

Appendix A: Methodology--explanation of the methodology used in preparing the study, including the development of the questionnaire, the 

selection and design of the sample, conduct of the study, the preparation and analysis of the data, and the confidentiality and anonymity of 

participants. 

Appendix B: Definitions of Terms--definitions of commonly used terms that appear in this report. 

Appendix C: Survey Questionnaire--a copy of the cover letters and questionnaire used in the survey. 

Appendix D: Additional Statistical Analyses--back-up data for figures and tables that appear in the report, as well as additional figures and 

tables. 

Appendix E: Official Policy Documents--copies of Memoranda of Understanding Between the Investigations Subcommittee and MSPB, EEOC, 

and OPM; OPM Policy Statement and Definition of Sexual Harassment; EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex; and EEOC 

Instructions for Prevention of Sexual Harassment in the Workforce Plans. 

Appendix F: Agency Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment--recent steps taken by agencies to reduce sexual harassment. 

Appendix G: Survey of Literature--a review of the current literature on the subject of sexual harassment. 

Appendix H: Annotated Bibliography--an annotated listing of major or useful works classified as general theory and analysis, studies and 

surveys, mass media articles, legal commentaries, miscellaneous reports, booklets and guides, and bibliographies. 

Footnotes -- Introduction 

1 Memoranda of Understanding between the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Personnel Management concerning the 

Problem of Sexual Harassment of Federal Employees; see Appendix E. 

2 Office of Personnel Management Policy Statement and Definition of Sexual Harassment; see Appendix E. 

3 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex, November 10, 1980, 29 CFR Part 1604.11, 45 FR 

25024; see Appendix E. 

4 For a further discussion of this case law see Appendix H. 

5 For a fuller review of the literature see Appendix G. 

6 For example, see Backhouse and Cohen, 1978; Farley, 1978; Martin, 1978; Appendix H. 

7 Since the results were not based on information derived from a scientifically selected probability sample, predictions for the population at 

large are usually not valid. 

8 See for example, Kelber, 1979; Lang, 1979; New Responses, Inc., 1979; Safran, 1976; Working Women's Institute, 1979; Appendix H. 

9 See Benson and Thompson, 1979; Gutek and Nakamura, 1980; Livingston, 1979; Appendix H. 

10 A more detailed description of the methodology employed by the research team is given in Appendix A. 

11 See footnotes 1 and 2 in Executive Summary for explanation. 

12 Janet Faltzman Chafetz, Masculine-Feminine or Human? Overview of the Sociology of Sex Roles, F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., Itasca, 

Illinois, 1974. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (25 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

13 See Chapter 3. 

14 Martha R. Burt and Rhoda E. Estep, "Assessing the Impact of Sexually Intrusive Events," unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 

1976. 

2. View of Federal Workers Toward Sexual Harassment

● Both men and women Federal workers generally agree that uninvited behaviors of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. 

● Federal workers believe supervisors should be held to a higher standard of conduct than other workers regarding sexually oriented 

behavior on the job. 

● Both men and women Federal workers believe sexual activity, whether voluntary or otherwise, should not occur between people who 

work together. 

● Men show a greater tendency than women to think victims are somewhat responsible for bringing sexual harassment on themselves 

and are inclined to believe the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. 

● Both men and women Federal workers think sexual harassment is something people should not have to tolerate. 

The "playing around" many of us engage in is mutually agreeable between consenting adults and greatly relieves tension in a tense 

environment. No one who didn' t want to join in has ever been bothered. 

There is a great deal of sexual innuendo and joking that goes on in my office . . . . It is uncomfortable to me, and I consider it a kind of 

sexual harassment. 

Two views of sexually oriented behavior on the job.[1] Which is more typical of Federal workers? Do Federal workers think behavior of a 

sexual nature should go on in the office? At what point does such conduct cease being acceptable or tolerable and begin to seem like sexual 

harassment? Do different groups of employees view these things differently? 

These were some of the questions that came to mind when the Subcommittee on Investigations directed the Merit Systems Protection Board 

to determine "what kinds of behavior are perceived to constitute sexual harassment and whether the attitudes of men and women differ in 

this respect."[2] They were interested in learning not only how Federal workers define sexual harassment, but also how they feel generally 

about sexually oriented behaviors on the job--such things as affairs between people in the same office and people using sexuality to get 

ahead on the job. 

We anticipated that men and women would differ not only in how they define sexual harassment, but also in how they feel about sex in the 

office, since research has shown that the perceptions of men about sexuality in general and sexual activity differ from those of women and 

that men tend to use different language to describe sexual experiences.[3] We also thought people who had experienced what they 

considered to be sexual harassment might feel differently about sexually oriented activity in the office than would people who had not. 

We found substantial agreement among Federal workers in the way they defined sexual harassment. We also observed a tendency to hold 

supervisors to a higher standard of conduct than non supervisors. The majority of women considered all of the six forms of uninvited and 

unwanted behaviors they were asked about to be sexual harassment, whether initiated by a supervisor or another worker. The majority of 

men regarded all the forms of behaviors as sexual harassment when initiated by a supervisor but did not consider sexually suggestive looks, 

gestures, remarks, joking, teasing, or questioning to be harassment when coming from a coworker. 

As to their general attitudes, Federal workers indicated that they believe sex, whether engaged in voluntarily or otherwise, has no place in the 

office. Most respondents also thought that sexual harassment is a behavior that should not be tolerated. The majority of women thought 

people should not have affairs with people they work with, and nearly all felt unwanted sexual attention is something people should not have 

to put up with. The majority of men also disapproved of affairs between people who work together and believed workers should not have to 

put up with sexual harassment. However, men differed from women in showing a greater tendency to hold victims responsible for their own 

harassment and thinking the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. 

Federal Workers' Definition of Sexual Harassment 

To learn how Federal workers define sexual harassment, we listed six forms of behavior and asked whether they would consider each form to 

be sexual harassment "if (this) happened to you or someone else at work."[4] 

The six forms of behavior were:[5] 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (26 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

● Uninvited pressure for sexual favors; 

● Uninvited and deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering, or pinching ("deliberate touching"); 

● Uninvited sexually suggestive looks or gestures ("suggestive looks"); 

● Uninvited letters, phone calls, or materials of a sexual nature ("letters and calls"); 

● Uninvited pressure for dates; and 

● Uninvited sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions ("sexual remarks"). 

These behaviors for the most part were taken from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) definition of sexual harassment, as had 

been directed by the Subcommittee on Investigations. One behavior not mentioned in the definition but referred to in the literature on sexual 

harassment was included in the survey: "uninvited letters, phone calls, or materials of a sexual nature." 

It seemed possible that Federal workers would view sexually oriented behaviors differently depending on the job status of the person 

demonstrating the behavior. Thus, for each of the six forms of behavior, we posed two questions: If a supervisor did this, would you consider 

this sexual harassment? If another worker did this would you consider this sexual harassment? The possible responses were: "definitely not," 

"probably not," "probably yes," "definitely yes," and "don't know." 

Many Uninvited Behaviors Constitute Sexual Harassment 

Substantial agreement existed among Federal workers that uninvited behaviors of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. We had 

expected to find that men and women view sexual harassment somewhat differently, that women consider all of the six behaviors sexual 

harassment but that men regard only the most direct, most obvious conduct as harassment. Instead, we found considerable agreement 

between the two groups. 

FIGURE 2-1 

Definition of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Male and Female Federal Employees Who Agreed that Each of Six Forms of Unwanted, Uninvited Sexual Attention Constitutes 

Sexual Harassment (Questions 2-7, b & d) (text alternative)

SEVERE LESS SEVERE

IF A 

SUPERVISOR 

DID THIS

Letters and 

Calls

Pressure for 

Sexual Favors 

Deliberate 

Touching 

Pressure for 

Dates

Suggestive 

Looks 

Sexual 

Remarks 

IF ANOTHER 

WORKER 

DID THIS

NOTE: Percentages are based on "Probably Yes" and "Definitely Yes" responses to 

questions. WOMEN MEN

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (27 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

As Figure 2-1 shows, the majority of women considered all six uninvited behaviors to be sexual harassment,[6] regardless of whether the 

perpetrator is a supervisor or another worker. Although men were somewhat less likely to think that any one of the behaviors constituted 

sexual harassment, the majority of men considered the behaviors to be sexual harassment--with two exceptions. Somewhat fewer than half 

(but still sizeable percentages) thought "suggestive looks" or "sexual remarks," when coming from another worker, constituted sexual 

harassment. Since these are two behaviors that are thought to be somewhat indirect and subject to different interpretations, our expectation 

that men would regard only the most obvious behaviors as sexual harassment was partially borne out. 

As can be seen in Figure 2-1, both men and women showed a pattern in their responses. For both groups there, was clear agreement that 

three behaviors--"letters and calls," "pressure for sexual favors," and "deliberate touching"--constituted sexual harassment. There was 

somewhat less agreement about the other behaviors--"pressure for dates," "suggestive looks," and "sexual remarks." 

It is worth noting that two of these latter behaviors--"suggestive looks" and "sexual remarks"--tend to be indirect and subject to different 

interpretations. Another group of actions that might be regarded as ambiguous--"deliberate touching"--fell about the seeming demarcation 

between considerable agreement and general agreement, while a rather overt behavior--"pressure for dates"--fell below. 

It is also interesting to note that the majority of Federal workers considered all of the behaviors listed in the Office of Personnel 

Management's definition as harassment. Moreover, the form of behavior not included in the OPM definition--"letters and calls"--was the 

behavior about which there was most agreement. Nine of every 10 women thought such behavior constituted sexual harassment, whether 

the perpetrator was a supervisor (93%) or another worker (87%), and at least 3 of 4 men agreed (87% if a supervisor did it and 76% if 

another worker did it). 

For purposes of later analysis, the behaviors about which there was considerable agreement were grouped in a category designated "severe" 

harassment, and those about which there was general agreement were termed "less severe" harassment. On this basis, we can say that the 

majority of men and women who work for the Federal Government believe that "severe" forms of uninvited behavior are sexual harassment, 

whether initiated by a supervisor or another worker. The majority of men and women also think "less severe" behavior is sexual harassment 

when engaged in by a supervisor. 

Supervisors Generally Agree with Definition 

Male and female supervisors[7] defined sexual harassment substantially the same way as did men and women in general. The majority of 

female supervisors felt all of the behaviors, regardless of whether initiated by a supervisor or another worker, constitute sexual harassment. 

The majority of male supervisors agreed, with the same two exceptions as men in general--"suggestive looks" and "sexual remarks" coming 

from another worker--but, again, substantial percentages (46% and 42%) thought these behaviors constitute harassment. 

Like men in general, male supervisors were somewhat less likely than women to agree that any of the uninvited behaviors constituted sexual 

harassment. Male supervisors also were less likely to regard a behavior as harassment than were female supervisors. Since most supervisors 

are men,[8] these findings raise some questions: Are supervisors generally able to identify sexual harassment in their organizations, 

particularly the less severe behaviors demonstrated by non supervisory personnel? Will the 12% to 58% of male supervisors who do not 

consider the various behaviors sexual harassment be able to be assertive in enforcing sanctions against those behaviors?

Motives and Sensitivity to Sexual Overtures 

Whether a behavior is considered sexual harassment is related to some extent to the perceived motive of the person exhibiting the behavior. 

We learned this by asking Federal workers how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement, "I would call something sexual 

harassment even if the person doing it did not mean to be offensive."[9] 

As Table 2-1 indicates, few Federal workers, regardless of gender, supervisory status, or victim status, would consider an act sexual 

harassment had the initiator not intended to be offensive. For most workers, the perceived motive or demeanor of the initiator does make a 

difference. 

To learn something about sensitivity to the issue of sexual harassment, we also asked Federal workers how they felt about the statement, 

"People shouldn't be so quick to take offense when someone expresses a sexual interest in them."[10] We thought that since men are usually 

the ones to be accused of sexual harassment,[11] they would identify with the harasser and think people shouldn't be so quick to take 

offense. We expected men would think most behavior was not intended to be offensive and thus the recipient should not take offense. On 

the other hand, we expected that women would tend to identify with the victim, and, showing a greater sensitivity to sexual overtures, would 

be less likely to believe people shouldn't take offense so quickly. This difference was somewhat reflected in the responses. As Table 2-1 

shows, half the men, but only about one-third of the women, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Thus, it appears that women 

would be more likely to be offended when someone expresses a sexual interest in them. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (28 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Table 2-1 

Sexual Attitudes 

(Question No. 1) 

These are the opinions that Federal workers have expressed about different kinds of sexual behavior that can happen at work. Percentages 

are of Federal workers--men, women, supervisors, non supervisors., victims and nonvictims--who agreed with the following statements. 

Respondents

 Women Men Supervisors Non supervisors. Victims Non victims

Definition of Sexual 

Harassment: 

(i) I would call something sexual 

harassment even if the person 

doing it did not mean to be 

offensive. 

26% 28% 30% 27% 31% 26% 

(g) People shouldn't be so quick 

to take offense when someone 

expresses a sexual interest in 

them. 

36% 48% 45% 43% 44% 43%

Sexual Activity in the Office: 

(b) Morale at work suffers when 

some employees seem to get 

ahead by using their sexuality. 

93% 90% 92% 91% 94% 90%

(d) There's nothing wrong when 

women use their sexuality to get 

ahead on the job. 

4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

(k) There's nothing wrong when 

men use their sexuality to get 

ahead on the job. 

3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

(a) I think it's all right for 

people to have sexual affairs 

with people they work with. 

17% 26% 21% 23% 23% 23%

Responsibility Of Victims For 

their Own Harassment: 

(j) When people say they've 

been sexually harassed, they 're 

usually trying to get the person 

they accuse into trouble. 

7% 13% 11% 11% 9% 12%

(f) People who receive annoying 

sexual attention have usually 

asked for it. 

22% 

31% 30% 27% 23% 29%

(m) The issue of sexual 

harassment has been 

exaggerated--most incidents are 

simply normal sexual attraction 

between people. 

23% 

44% 43% 34% 28% 39%

Policy Implications: 

(e) Unwanted sexual attention 

on the job is something people 

should not have to put up with. 

97% 

95% 96% 95% 96% 95% 

Note: Percentages are based on "Agree " and "Strongly Agree" responses to statements. 

Different Behavior Is Expected of Supervisors 

Federal workers think supervisors should be held to a higher standard of conduct when it comes to sexual behavior on the job than should 

other workers. As Figure 2-1 shows, for every one of the six forms of uninvited, unwanted sexual attention, both men and women were more 

likely to consider a behavior sexual harassment if initiated by a supervisor than if initiated by another worker. There are no data to suggest 

why workers felt this way. The discrepancy may imply that since supervisors hold positions of power, their behavior should be exemplary. 

Uninvited sexual attention may be seen as less threatening and coercive when initiated by a coworker, who usually has little power over the 

recipient. This assumption was borne out by findings presented in Chapter 6. 

Federal Workers' Attitudes Toward Sexuality in the Workplace 

The late Margaret Mead felt that there is no place in the work environment for sexuality, and she called for a general societal taboo against 

mixing business and sex.[12] Other people just as sincerely regard this as an unnecessarily harsh solution to the problem of sexual 

harassment, whatever its extent. They note that since most people spend most of their working hours on the job, that is where they form 

many of their meaningful and long-lasting relationships, including social sexual relationships. We wondered how Federal workers felt about 

this and related issues. Do they think mutually agreeable sexual activity between people who work together is all right? What about people 

who use their sexuality to get ahead on the job? Do Federal workers think the problem of sexual harassment is really as great as it has been 

made out to be? And is it just part of the job, something that many people bring on themselves? 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (29 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Several questions were designed to shed some light on these issues. 

Sex Does Not Belong in the Office 

Voluntary sexual affairs on the job. Federal workers were asked whether they thought "it's all right for people to have sexual affairs with 

people they work with. "[13] As Table 2-1 suggests, there was considerable agreement that even such voluntary activities should not go on. 

The finding that supervisors, along with women, were even less likely than other groups to approve of voluntary sexual affairs is noteworthy, 

particularly since most supervisors are men. This result, together with the fact that only 22% of male supervisors questioned approved of this 

behavior,[14] may help answer a question raised earlier. 

Since most supervisors, both male and female, do not approve of such relationships, they may not hesitate to enforce sanctions against 

sexual harassment out of fear of interfering with possible voluntary relationships. 

Using sexuality to get ahead on the job is wrong. Federal workers were asked three questions about the use of sexuality to get ahead on the 

job.[15] As can be seen in Table 2-1, there was almost universal agreement among Federal workers, regardless of gender, supervisory 

status, or victim status, that morale at work suffers when employees seem to get ahead by using their sexuality. Likewise, Federal workers--

be they men or women, supervisors or non supervisors., self-reported victims of sexual harassment or nonvictims--overwhelmingly 

disapproved of employees using their sexuality to get ahead on the job. The fact that very few approved of this behavior whether used by a 

man or a woman, indicates that Federal workers do not apply a double standard to the sexes in this regard. Responses to these three 

questions seem to indicate that Federal workers feel people should not mix business with pleasure. 

That sexual favoritism (as such use of sexuality to get ahead on the job is usually called) was censured by 9 of every 10 Federal workers, 

men and women alike, is interesting in light of recent Government statements on this matter. In interpretive guidelines issued in November 

1980,[16] the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) affirmed that sexual harassment under certain conditions is a form of 

discrimination on the basis of sex. The EEOC did not regard sexual favoritism specifically as a form of sexual harassment, but did caution that 

when such favoritism occurs, the employer may be liable for unlawful sex discrimination against other employees who were qualified but did 

not receive the employment opportunity or benefit. This survey did not address the issue of sexual favoritism beyond the three questions 

seeking employee attitudes toward it, however, this would be an interesting topic for subsequent research. 

Victims May Bear Some Responsibility 

Three items in the Questionnaire[17] were designed to discover whether Federal employees hold victims responsible for their own 

harassment, that is, whether they tend to blame the victim. These questions, again presented in the form of statements with which the 

respondent could agree or disagree, were: "People who receive annoying sexual attention have usually asked for it," "When people say 

they've been sexually harassed, they're usually trying to get the person in trouble," and "The issue of sexual harassment has been 

exaggerated--most incidents are simply normal sexual attraction between people." Partial responses are shown in Table 2-1. 

Few women agreed with any of the three statements. The responses of men were mixed. Although less than a majority of men thought that 

victims ask for attention or are vindictive in accusing their harassers, the percentages were greater than those of women. Further, almost half 

of the men thought that the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated (compared with less than one-fourth of the women). Looked 

at in another way, men were about twice as likely as women to think the issue has been exaggerated (44% of men, but only 23% of women 

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement). 

In summary, for all the "blame the victim" attitudes, substantially smaller percentages of women than men agreed with the statements This 

would indicate that men are more inclined to believe that victims bring sexual harassment on themselves, to think accusers are trying to get 

people in trouble, and to think the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. 

Supervisors as a group tended to see things as men in general saw them. While this may not be surprising, since most supervisors are men, 

it is noteworthy. Of particular interest is the fact that almost half (43%) of the supervisors agreed that the issue of sexual harassment has 

been exaggerated. Might this indicate a lack of understanding on the part of supervisors as to the actual incidence rates of sexual harassment 

in their own agencies and in the Federal Government as a whole? 

Not surprisingly, since most victims are women, victims of sexual harassment tend to hold views similar to those of women in general. This 

may be because people who have experienced a behavior usually are more sensitive to that behavior than others. In contrast, non-victims 

tend to think more like men in general and like supervisors on these issues. 

Sexual Harassment is a Problem and Should not be Tolerated 

Several additional questions were asked to get an overall picture of how Federal workers view sexual harassment as a problem. Is it just part 

of the job, something people have to learn to put up with? Or is it a real problem? Is enough being done about it? 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (30 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Federal workers-be they men or women, supervisors or non supervisors., victims or non victims--strongly agree that people should not have 

to put up with unwanted sexual attention on the job[18] (see Table 2-1). Nevertheless, a great many apparently must, for some 197,900 

Federal workers (3 in 20 women and 2 in 20 men) say unwanted, uninvited attention is a problem where they work.[19] The finding that 

around one-fourth of both male and female victims think unwanted, uninvited attention is a problem where they work (See Table 4-3, 

Chapter 4) suggests that victims feel they are not the only ones in their organization who have been sexually harassed--and in fact their 

responses to another question bears this out:[20] 43% of female narrators[21] and 31% of male narrators reported that the person who had 

harassed them had also sexually bothered others at work. 

Are organizations doing enough to eliminate the problem? About two in every twenty non-victims (18% of men and 13% of women) said no.

[22] The perceptions of victims were strikingly different: one in three victims--32% of males and 34% of females--apparently felt their 

organizations could be doing more to stop sexual harassment. 

Conclusion 

Federal workers think sexual activity, even voluntary affairs between . people who work together, has no place in the office and believe 

people should not have to put up with uninvited sexual attention. They consider a number of forms of unwanted, uninvited sexual attention 

to be sexual harassment, particularly when the person exhibiting the behavior is a supervisor. However, most men and women would take 

the motives of the person into account and would not consider it sexual harassment if the person did not mean to be offensive. 

That men and supervisors tend to think like each other but differently than women and victims about expressions of sexual interest and the 

responsibility of victims for their own harassment is not surprising, since most supervisors are men and most victims are women. The 

differences are worthy of note, however, and may have implications for efforts to reduce sexual harassment in the offices of the nearly 

200,000 men and women who recognized it as a problem where they work. When even 4 in every 10 supervisors (43%) believe the issue of 

harassment has been exaggerated, 3 in 10 (30%) believe people who receive annoying sexual attention have usually asked for it, and 4 in 10 

supervisors (45%) believe people should not be so quick to take offense when someone expresses a sexual interest in them, can we feel 

confident that sanctions against sexual harassment will be enforced? And when men and women are inclined to differ on these points, with 

men more than women showing a tendency to blame the victim and believe people shouldn't be so quick to take offense, is a need for better 

understanding between men-usually the "harassers"--and women--usually the "victims"--indicated? 

In this chapter we learned that both men and women regard many forms of uninvited, unwanted sexual attention as sexual harassment and 

that 3 in every 20 women and 2 in every 20 men see such behavior as a problem where they work. Since these figures indicate only the 

number of respondents who see sexual harassment as an organizational problem rather than a personal problem they have had to face, the 

figures do not indicate the actual incidence of sexual harassment of Federal employees. The incidence of sexual harassment is examined in 

the next chapter. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 2

1 These and other comments that appear in this report were provided by Federal workers on their questionnaires or through a sexual 

harassment " hot-line" in a Federal agency. 

2 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

3 Burt and Estep, 1976; Gutek and Nakamura, 1980; Chafetz, 1974 (Chapter 1, footnote 12).

4 Survey Questions 2-7, b, d; see Appendix C. 

5 A seventh form of behavior--actual or attempted raped or sexual assault--appears in later discussions. However, since rape and sexual 

assault are criminal offenses, Federal workers were not asked whether they considered these sexual harassment. 

6That is, they responded "definitely yes" or "probably yes" that they considered the behavior to be sexual harassment. See Appendix D for 

more complete statistical information for this and other figures and tables. 

7 See Appendix B for a definition of supervisor and other terms used in this report; See Appendix D, Figure A for data.

8 Approximately 322,800 men and 88,000 women are supervisors according to the survey data. 

9 Survey Question 1(i). 

10 Survey Question 1(g). 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (31 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

11 See Chapter 5. 

12 Mead, 1978; see Appendix H, General Theory and Analysis.

13 Survey Question 1(a). 

14 See Appendix D, Table A. 

15 Survey Question 1(b), 1(d), and 1(k). 

16 See Appendix E for the full text of the EEOC Guidelines. 

17 Survey questions 1(f), 1(j), and 1(m). 

18 That is, they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "Unwanted sexual attention on the job is something people should not have to 

put up with"; see Survey Question 1(e). 

19 Concluded from responses to Survey Question 44(e) Appendix D, Table 0. Other data on Survey Question 44 are reported and discussed 

more fully in Chapter 4. 

20 Concluded from response to Survey Question 34; see Figure 5-6 in Chapter 5.

21 Narrators are victims who chose to describe one incident of sexual harassment in some detail; see Appendix B for a full description of 

narrators. 

22 That is, they disagreed with the statement, "My organization makes every effort to stop unwanted sexual attention among its employees"; 

see Survey Question 44(g); and see Table 4-3, Chapter 4.

3. Extent of Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace 

● One out of every four Federal employees was sexually harassed on the job over a 2-year period. 

● Women are much more likely to be victims than men--42% of all female Federal employees, but only 15% of male employees, 

reported being sexually harassed. 

● Sexual harassment can take many forms, and every form except attempted or actual rape or sexual assault was experienced by a 

sizeable percentage of both men and women. 

● Sexual harassment is not just a one-time experience--many victims were repeatedly subjected to harassing behaviors, particularly the 

less severe forms. 

● incidents of harassment are not just passing events--most lasted more than a week, and many lasted longer than 6 months. 

● The majority of Federal employees who had worked elsewhere feel sexual harassment is no worse in the Federal workplace than in 

state and local government or in the private sector. 

"I said no, I simply was not going out with him after work and no, I simply was not going to have an affair with him because I thought I 

could rely on my job skills . . ." and eventually "I was fired with 25 minutes notice on a Friday."[1] Stories like this from dozens of Federallyemployed women led the Subcommittee on Investigations to ask the Merit Systems Protection Board to determine the "degree to which 

sexual harassment is occurring within the Federal workplace, its manifestation and frequency"[2] We wanted to learn how widespread 

harassment of Federal workers is, whether it happens to men as well as women, whether it is a one-time event or happens to some victims 

more than once, how long the incidents go on, and if harassment is worse in the Federal Government than in other work settings. 

We found that sexual harassment is a problem for a large number of Federal workers--approximately 294,000 women and 168,000 men. For 

many of the women, harassment occurred repeatedly and frequently lasted a relatively long time. The men, though fewer in number,

representing only one in every three victims, had similar experiences; relatively few reported their experiences to be one-time-only events 

that were soon over. 

FIGURE 3-1 (alternate text) 

Overall Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (32 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment Between May 1978 and May 1980, by Severity of Harassment 

(Question 17) 

TOTAL FEDERAL WORKFORCE: 1,862,000 -- TOTAL VICTIMS: 462,000(25%) 

NOTE: These figures indicate the number of people harassed, classified by their most severe experience. Since many people reported they had had more 

than one experience, the number of harassment incidents is considerably larger. 

Sexual Harassment Is Widespread 

To learn how common sexual harassment is, we asked Federal workers whether they had received, during the past 24 months 

(approximately May 1978 to May 1980), any of seven forms of uninvited and unwanted sexual attention from someone where they worked in 

the Federal Government.[3] The forms of behavior were: 

● Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault; Pressure for sexual behaviors; 

● Deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering, or pinching ( "touching"); 

● Sexually suggestive looks or gestures ("suggestive looks"); 

● Letters, phone calls, or materials of a sexual nature ("letters and calls"); 

● Pressure for dates; and 

● Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions ("sexual remarks"). 

FIGURE 3-2 

Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment Among Women and Men 

Percentage of Female and Male Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment Between May 1978 and May 1980, by Severity of 

Harassment (Question 17) 

Total Women: 694,000 -- Total Female Victims: 294,000 (42%) (alternate text) 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (33 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Total Men: 1,168,000 -- Total Male Victims: 168,000 (15%) (alternate text) 

NOTE: These figures indicate the number of people harassed, classified by their most severe experience. Since many people reported they had had more 

than one experience, the number of harassment incidents is considerably larger. 

As the earlier but limited Congressional investigation had indicated, we found that sexual harassment in the Federal workplace is widespread. 

Approximately 462,000 Federal employees-a number roughly equal to the population of Denver, Colorado-reported being sexually harassed 

on the job between May 1978 and May 1980 (see Figure 3-1). These victims--about one in every four Federal employees--faced all kinds of 

problems. One woman was called into her Division Chief's office and "after a verbal shakedown, he threatened me, became more violent, 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (34 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

lunged over the desk at me, offered promotions in exchange for sexual behaviors, and threatened to fire me if I didn't go along." A woman 

whose only access to a telephone is in her superintendent's office says that whenever she (or other women) uses the phone "the 

superintendent persists in putting his arm around me, kissing me, making obscene suggestions about what I should do with him, suggesting I 

go away for long weekends with him and his buddies so they can show me a really 'good' time." The male supervisor of a sandblaster grabs 

him while he's working on a scaffold. Another man finds his 'apartment and car broken into and packages of women's undergarments left 

there. 

Less direct behaviors are also common. One Federal worker reported that her District Director "practically sits in my lap when I ask a 

question, embarrassing me with his constant twisting of every word I say into some sexual connotation." Another complains, "I resent being 

asked into someone ' s 'private office' to confer on legitimate business and then being confronted with walls papered with nudes." She adds: 

"No government office is so 'private' that such a display can be justified." A third worker felt harassed by her supervisor's excessive interest in 

her personal life, his questioning in "private little chats" about her marital plans, family planning, and other matters she feels are none of his 

business. 

The "most severe" form of harassment--attempted or actual rape or sexual assault-- was also the least common experience, faced by only 

about 1% of Federal workers (see Figure 3-1). Still, this means that around 12,000 people had to deal with this problem. At least 300,000 

victims were subjected to "severe" sexual harassment, while at least half that number experienced "less severe" harassment."[4]

We say "at least" that many workers faced "severe" and "less severe" harassment because many people indicated they had experienced more 

than one of the seven forms of behavior asked about. When this happened, the victim was counted only once, on the basis of the most 

severe form of harassment he or she had en countered.[5] Thus, the number of incidents was considerably larger than the number of people 

experiencing harassment, as reported on Figure 3-1. 

As the next section shows, there we're marked differences between male and female Federal workers. 

Women Are Sexually Harassed More Than Men

Sexual harassment of women is far more common than harassment of men. While about twice as many men as women hold Federal jobs 

(1,168,000 vs. 694,000), two out of three victims were women (294,000 women out of a total of 462,000 victims). 

Eight in every 20 women (42%), but only 3 in every 20 men (15%), were subjected to harassment on the job over the 2-year period (see 

Figure 3-2). While far more women than men were harassed (294,000 women compared with 168,000 men), the patterns for the two groups 

were similar. The largest group of victims had experienced at least one form of severe harassment, and only a small percentage--though still 

a significant number considering the seriousness of the behavior--had faced attempted or actual rape or assault. 

Most Forms of Harassment Are Common 

Every form of sexual harassment except actual or attempted rape or sexual assault was experienced by a sizeable number of men and 

women. 

Figure 3-3 

Incidence Rate Among Various Forms of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Female and Male Federal Employees Who Experienced Each Form of Sexual Harassment 

Between May 1978 and May 1980 (Question 17) 

LESS SEVERE

Sexual Remarks Reported by 33% of Women

Reported by 10% of Men

Suggestive Looks Reported by 28% of Women

Reported by 8% of Men

Pressure for Dates Reported by 26% of Women

Reported by 7% of Men

SEVERE

Deliberate Touching Reported by 15% of Women

Reported by 3% of Men

Pressure for Sexual Favors Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 2% of Men

Letters and Calls Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 3% of Men

Reported by 1% of Women

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (35 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

MOST SEVERE Actual or Attempted Rape or Assault Reported by 0.3% of Men

Note: Many respondents indicated that they experience more than one form of sexual harassment. 

As Figure 3-3 shows, 1 in every 3 women employed by the Federal Government reported having been subjected to unwanted sexual re 

marks, 1 in 4 had been deliberately touched or cornered, 1 in 10 had been pressured for sexual favors, and 1 in 100 had faced actual or 

attempted rape or sexual assault. Since respondents were allowed to report more than one kind of behavior, many are counted more than 

once in these figures. 

What kinds of experiences are these women talking about when they say they've been sexually harassed? A woman who works in a 

production area reports that she and other women employees are constantly subjected to suggestive remarks and propositions as they go 

about their jobs. She added that supervisors participate in this and frequently send women on unnecessary errands through the area just to 

give the men another opportunity to act this way. Another woman writes that a great deal of sexual innuendo and joking goes on in her 

office and everyone feels obligated to contribute or tolerate it. "It is very uncomfortable to me," she says, "so I consider it a kind of 

harassment." A clerical worker says her boss stands touching her while she works. When his "buddies" stop by his desk, he makes remarks 

that imply that she cooperates sexually with him. He offers to share her "services" with his buddies, in a tone and manner that make clear it 

is not clerical services he's talking about. 

Suggestive looks and gestures often accompany the joking and remarks. One woman, for example, says that her fellow employees make 

obscene gestures and remarks to and about her. Her supervisor thinks it's funny and does nothing about it. 

Deliberate touching and cornering is cited by a large number of women. A supervisor stands so close to a female subordinate while giving 

instructions or looking over her work that he touches her-and while so doing makes suggestive body movements. "The last time the Regional 

Director was here," writes another victim, "the head secretary had to come to my rescue as the Director was practically breathing down my 

shirt. " 

Many women find materials of a sexual nature bothersome. One woman dislikes the way her male coworkers pass around and put up 

pornographic cartoons in work spaces. When she objects, her boss tells her she's too sensitive. 

Pressure for dates and sexual favors are also cited by women. Their descriptions indicate that their experiences not only were bother some, 

but sometimes had serious consequences. One woman says when she ignored her boss' advances, he began to treat her cruelly; for example, 

he made her take 4 hours of dictation, made her stay late to transcribe it, then in her presence threw it all away because "He didn't need it." 

Another woman's boss kept pestering her for dates and for favors and kept making personal remarks. When she would not change her mind 

and play around with him, he had her transferred to a less desirable job. During her first week on the job, reports a temporary trainee, her 

supervisor kept rubbing her back and shoulders while she typed and filed. Later he made a point blank advance, which she refused. Within a 

week she was let go on the grounds that she could not adapt to the office. The woman described earlier, whose Division Chief became 

violent when she refused to grant sexual favors sought medical help to calm her nerves but finally quit working altogether be cause of the 

experience. "I'm afraid to go back," she says. 

Far smaller percentages of men have been the object of these unwanted attentions, but the pattern is similar. Generally, the less severe the 

behavior, the more likely the worker was to experience it, with sexual remarks and suggestive looks leading the list for both men and women 

and actual or attempted rape or sexual assault being relatively rare. It is more difficult to discern what kinds of experiences men are talking 

about when they say they've been sexually harassed, because few chose to de scribe their experiences in the open-ended comment section 

provided in the questionnaire. Information from other sources indicates that men tend to describe homosexual harassment, such as the 

experiences cited earlier. 

It is interesting that the three most common forms of harassment-"sexual remarks," "suggestive looks," and "deliberate touching"--are the 

least direct and perhaps the most subject to different interpretations. One person's appreciative glance might be another person's suggestive 

look. Questioning about personal life might be intended as an expression of concern or caring but felt as an invasion of privacy. Writes one 

Federal worker, "the sexual harassment that goes on in my office is supposed to be in jest, but is very offensive and embarrassing." Another 

notes that the man in her office who tells sexual jokes and teases thinks the women enjoy his attention and remarks. Regardless of the 

possible ambiguity of some behavior, how ever, the important point is that a large number of Federal workers had found themselves the 

objects of this uninvited attention and had not wanted it-however innocent it had been or however innocuous it might have seemed to the 

initiator. 

Sexual Harassment Occurs Repeatedly 

To learn whether harassment is a one-time only experience or occurs repeatedly, we asked Federal workers how often they had been the 

object of the seven forms of uninvited, unwanted attention during the 2-year period--once, once a month or less, or once a week or more 

often.[6] Their responses made it clear that harassment is not a one-time-only phenomenon. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (36 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Generally, the less severe the harassment the more likely women were to experience it more than once. However, more than half the female 

victims of five of the seven forms of harassment (all of the less severe forms and two of the three severe forms) had been subjected to that 

behavior more than once (see Figure 3-4). Only for female victims of actual or attempted rape did the experience tend strongly to occur only 

once. 

The experiences of men were similar, though for most forms a smaller percentage of male victims had experienced the behavior repeatedly. 

A marked difference between men and women was the frequency of actual or attempted rape or assault. More than half the men who 

reported this experience, but only one-fifth of the women, said they had faced it more than once. The experiences of men are somewhat 

surprising, as it was not anticipated that such serious behavior would occur repeatedly in more that half the reported cases. The sharp 

difference between men and women may reflect a difference in perceptions about what constitutes attempted rape or sexual assault. Further 

research might shed some light on this. 

Incidents May Last Several Weeks or More

To add to the picture of harassment of Federal workers, victims were asked to describe in detail one particular incident, either their only 

experience, their most recent experience, or the one that had had the greatest effect on them. Victims who did so were termed "narrators, " 

and the episodes they reported on were termed their "critical incidents."[7]

One question asked of these narrators was "How long did this unwanted attention last?"[8]

FIGURE 3-4 

Frequency of Sexual Harassment Incidents 

Percentage of Female and Male Victims of Each Form of Harassment Who Experienced That Form of Sexual Harassment 

More Than Once* (Question 17) 

LESS SEVERE

Sexual Remarks Reported by 77% of Women

Reported by 71% of Men

Suggestive Looks Reported by 73% of Women

Reported by 61% of Men

Pressure for Dates Reported by 55% of Women

Reported by 45% of Men

SEVERE

Deliberate Touching Reported by 62% of Women

Reported by 54% of Men

Pressure for Sexual Favors Reported by 52% of Women

Reported by 40% of Men

Letters and Calls Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 38% of Men

MOST SEVERE Actual or Attempted Rape or Assault Reported by 20% of Women

Reported by 56% of Men

* Once a month or less, 2-4 times a month, or once a week or more.

Their responses indicated that incidents of harassment can last varying lengths of time, but that most go on a week or more--and a sizeable 

percentage persist for more than 6 months. 

Responses of female narrators were some-what evenly distributed among the closed choices presented in the questionnaire-less than 1 week 

(31%), several weeks (19%), 1 to 6 months (22%), and more than 6 months (28%). For one-third of the female victims of actual or 

attempted rape (33%), the incident was over in less than a week--but for an equal number the incident lasted a fairly lengthy time, from 1 to 

6 months. 

The incidents of male narrators also lasted varying lengths of time, but a somewhat larger percentage indicated their critical incidents were 

over in less than a week (39% compared with 31% for women). As with females, for one-third of the male victims of actual or attempted 

rape (32%) the experience lasted less than a week. In contrast with women, however, the largest group of these male victims (38%, 

compared with 17% of females) said their experience went on longer than 6 months. Again, this finding is somewhat surprising, one that 

might warrant further examination. 

Sexual Harassment Is No Worse in Federal Workplace 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (37 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

The findings that large numbers of men and women are sexually harassed, that many are harassed more than once, and that the incidents 

last a relatively long time indicate that sexual harassment is a problem in the Federal work force. But is it any worse a problem in the Federal 

workplace than in the private sector, or for employees of state and local governments? Since we could not conduct a comprehensive survey 

of non-Federal workers, we sought to shed some light on this question by asking Federal workers who had held jobs outside the Federal 

Government what they thought.[9]

Their responses suggest that harassment is not worse in the Federal workplace. Of the men and women who had held jobs outside the 

Federal Government and had an opinion on the subject, around two-thirds (68% of the women and 61% of the men) thought there is about 

the same amount of sexual harassment in Federal and non-Federal jobs. An additional 20% of the women and 29% of the men thought there 

is more harassment in non-Federal jobs. The remainder thought there is less harassment in non-Federal jobs. 

Although we have no data with which to validate this overwhelming consensus that sexual harassment is no worse in the Federal workplace, 

there seems no reason to dispute the opinion, since Federal workers probably reflect the cultural values and behavior of the larger U.S. 

society. 

Conclusion 

Clearly, sexual harassment is a problem for many women working for the Federal Government, and to a lesser extent for men. Indeed, 

evidence presented later (see Chapter 5) indicates that many harassers bother more than one person. Thus, a picture of the experiences of 

Federal workers begins to emerge: sexual harassment occurs repeatedly, frequently lasts a month or longer, occurs in multiple forms for 

many victims, and is part of an overall pattern of sexual harassment perpetrated by the harasser.

Footnotes -- Chapter 3

1 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service on Sexual Harassment in the 

Federal Government, 1st sess., October 23, November 1, 13, 1979, pp. 71-74. 

2 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding, Appendix E. 

3 Survey Question 17; see Appendix C. 

4 See Appendix B for explanation of levels of severity of sexual harassment. 

5 For example, a person who reported both deliberate touching, a form of "severe" harassment, and pressure for dates, a "less severe" 

behavior, was treated as a victim of "severe" harassment. 

6 See Survey Question 17. 

7 See Appendix B for a complete discussion of narrators. 

8 Survey Question 22; see Appendix D, Figure 0 for data. 

9 See Survey Question 8; see Appendix D, Table B for data. 

4. Victims of Sexual Harassment

● Age, marital status, and sexual composition of the employee's work group have a relatively strong effect on whether a Federal 

employee is sexually harassed. 

● Factors having a somewhat weaker relationship are employee educational level, race or ethnic background, and job classification,

traditionality of the employee's job, and sex of the employee's immediate supervisor. 

● Some Federal agencies have a greater incidence of sexual harassment than do others. 

● Sexual harassment is more likely to occur in work environments where employees have poor communications with their supervisors 

and feel pressured to participate in activities of a sexual nature. 

One in every four Federal employees reports having to deal with uninvited, unwanted sexual attention on the job. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (38 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

One in 20 has been pressured for sexual favors. 

One in 100 has faced actual or attempted rape or assault. 

Who are these 462,000 men and women who have had to deal with sexual harassment on the job? And who are the people bothering them? 

This and the following chapter look at the victims and perpetrators of sexual harassment, at the same time exploring what are thought to be 

some of the causes of the problem. 

Many people see sexual harassment as an expression of power, specifically a tool used (primarily by men) to keep other workers (typically 

women) in their place--and an expression of hostility toward workers (again, typically women) intruding in a world once exclusively the 

domain of the other sex.[1] This chapter addresses a corollary theory--that the people most likely to be sexually harassed are the powerless 

(those working in low-status jobs) or the pioneers (those working in jobs traditionally reserved for the opposite sex). 

We hoped to determine whether victims of sexual harassment are found in disproportion-ate numbers within certain Federal agencies, job 

classifications, geographic locations, racial categories, age brackets, educational levels, and grade levels.[2] We also wanted to learn whether 

there are any personal or job characteristics 

related to the incidence of sexual harassment that management could change to reduce the incidence of the problem. Such information is 

useful in framing remedies appropriate for different target groups. 

The factors that showed a relatively strong relationship with experience of sexual harassment were employee age, marital status, and sexual 

composition of the employee's immediate work group (see Table 4-1). Factors that showed a somewhat weaker relationship were education 

level, race and ethnic background, job classification, traditionality of job, and sex of supervisor. In addition, the rate of incidence of sexual 

harassment varied somewhat from agency to agency. 

A detailed discussion of these personal and organizational characteristics and a brief look at general work environments follow.

Table 4-1 

Characteristics of Federal Workers Most Likely To Be Sexually Harassed On the Job

Women Most Likely To Be Sexually Harassed Are... 

● Young (under 34) 

● Single or divorced 

● Well educated (college degree or higher) 

● Members of either a minority or non minority group (black, 

Hispanic, other minority, or white) 

● Very dependent on their jobs 

Men Most Likely To Be Sexually Harassed Are...

● Young (under 34) 

● Widowed, single, or divorced 

● Relatively well educated (at least some college) 

● Members of a minority group (black, Hispanic, American 

Indian, Alaskan Native, or other minority) 

● Very dependent on their jobs 

And the Women are Working ... 

● For the Departments of Labor, Transportation, or Justice, 

"Other Defense Department" agencies, the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, the Air Force, Navy, or 

Marine Corps, the Veterans Administration, or other 

agencies 

● In any geographic region, but particularly in the North 

Central and Upper Midwest 

● At any salary level, but particularly for less than $11,000 

annually 

● As a GS-1 through GS-15 or in pay classification "Other" 

● In any occupation, but particularly as a trainee or in a 

professional/ technical position

● In a nontraditional position (though most victims hold 

traditional positions)

● For an immediate supervisor who is male, or for several 

supervisors, both male and female

● In a predominately or completely male immediate work 

group 

And the Men are Working ... 

● For the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare; 

Justice; or Housing and Urban Development; the Veterans 

Administration; or the General Services Administration

● In any geographic region, but particularly in the Pacific 

region

● At lower salary levels (under $15,000 annually)

● As a GS-1 through GS-8 or in an ungraded job

● In any occupation, but particularly as a trainee or in an 

office/clerical position

● In a nontraditional position (though most victims hold 

traditional positions)

● For an immediate supervisor who is female, or for several 

supervisors, both male and female

● In a predominately or completely female immediate work 

group 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (39 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Female Victims Also Tend To... 

● Have varying degrees of privacy in their workspaces, but 

particularly to have no workspace to call their own, to 

have a workspace that can be seen from one to three 

sides, or to have only a semi-private office 

● Be working in a non supervisory capacity 

● Have worked for the Federal Government for varying 

numbers of years 

● Be working full time on a permanent basis 

● Be working either regular daytime hours or on other 

schedules 

● Be working in immediate work groups of all sizes, from 

groups of 1-5 persons to groups of 25 or more 

Male Victims Also Tend To...

● Have varying degrees of privacy in their workspaces, but 

particularly to have no workspace to call their own 

● Be working in either a supervisory or non-supervisory 

capacity 

● Have worked for the Federal Government less than 1 year 

● Be working full time on a permanent basis or to be a part 

time, seasonal, or temporary employee or a consultant 

● Be working on a schedule other than regular daytime 

hours (e.g., nights, weekends, alternating shifts) 

● Be working in immediate work groups of al sizes, from 

groups of 1-5 persons to group of 25 or more 

FIGURE 4-1 

Age of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Ages Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 61)

Ages 16-19 

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 67% of Women

Reported by 27% of Men

Ages 20-24 Reported by 59% of Women

Reported by 20% of Men

Ages 25-34 Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 18% of Men

Ages 35-44 Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Ages 45-54 Reported by 33% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Ages 55 and older Reported by 22% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Several Personal Characteristics Are Related to Sexual Harassment 

Since few studies have looked at men as potential victims, we had few expectations about the characteristics of male victims. We anticipated 

that most female victims would have similar personal and organizational characteristics that would make them more vulnerable to being 

harassed, and that generally they would have less power and lower status than women who are not harassed. We found that in some ways 

women with relatively little power and status, as measured by certain personal and organizational characteristics, were more vulnerable to 

sexual harassment and in some ways they were not. 

We expected to find that young, unmarried Federal workers, those less educated, very dependent on their jobs, and members of minority 

groups, were more vulnerable than others to sexual harassment. We found that age and marital status have a relatively strong relationship 

with sexual harassment, and educational level and race or ethnic background a somewhat weaker relationship. 

Younger Workers Are More Vulnerable 

Age makes a difference in whether a Federal worker, particularly a woman, is sexually harassed[3] (see Figure 4-1). Although men and 

women in all age brackets were victims, generally the lower the age bracket, the more likely the experience. The youngest workers (aged 16-

19) had the highest incidence rates. These young workers, though they represented the fewest number of victims, were far more likely than 

workers in the oldest age bracket (aged 55 and older) to be sexually harassed--younger women were more than three times as likely and 

younger men twice as likely. 

Single and Divorced Workers Are Likely Victims 

Generally, unmarried workers were more likely than married workers to have been sexually bothered by others, but there were some

differences between women and men[4] (see Figure 4-2). 

FIGURE 4 - 2 

Marital Status of Victims 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (40 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment, by Marital Status (Question 62) 

Single

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 22% of Men

Divorced Reported by 49% of Women

Reported by 21% of Men

Married Reported by 37% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Widowed Reported by 31% of Women

Reported by 30% of Men

Single and divorced women were more likely than married women to have been sexually harassed, but widowed women were least likely to 

have had the experience. The reason for their lower rate is uncertain. One might speculate that widows, as a group, tend to be older than 

other groups, as are widowed victims (88% were 45 years or older). Their relatively greater age may have made them less vulnerable to 

sexual harassment. 

Like women, single and divorced men were more likely than married men to report sexual harassment. But, in contrast to women, widowers 

had the highest incidence rate among men (though the majority, like women, were 45 or older). Despite their relatively high incidence rate, 

however, widowed men accounted for only a very small percentage of male victims, only 2% (or approximately 3,000) out of 168,000 male 

victims. The reasons for this might be a subject for further research. 

Education Level Shows a Weaker Relationship 

Contrary to expectations, higher educated men and women had a greater likelihood of reporting they had been sexually harassed than their 

less educated counterparts[5] (see Figure 4-3). Of the 74,000 women with at least a college degree, around half--48% to 53% reported 

having been bothered by uninvited sexual attention. Incidence rates for the 221,000 women with less than a college degree were lower, 

ranging from 31% to 45%. 

Somewhat surprised by this finding, we examined the responses of these women victims to several other survey questions. It seemed 

possible that the higher incidence rates reported by higher educated women might be attributable to greater awareness or sensitivity on their 

part or to some other factor. Higher educated women victims (those with at least a college degree) generally were not more likely than lower 

educated women victims (those lacking a college degree) to label uninvited sexual attention sexual harassment,[6] but there were differences 

in attitudes that may indicate greater sensitivity on their part. 

For instance, higher educated women victims were considerably more likely than lower educated women victims to call something sexual 

harassment even if the person doing it did not mean to be offensive (47% compared with 25%).[7] This could indicate that higher educated 

women are more likely to view with suspicion the perceived motive or demeanor of the person initiating a behavior, and thus more likely than 

their lower educated counterparts to regard that behavior as sexual harassment. 

As relevant as this difference in attitudes seems, it may not be great enough to explain the difference in incidence rates between the higher 

and lower educated women. Another explanation may lie in the types of jobs these women hold. As data presented later in this chapter 

show, women who are among the first of their sex in a job report higher rates of harassment than women who are not. On this factor--

traditionality of job--the higher and lower educated female victims differed considerably.[8] The more educated victims were more than 2 1/2 

times more likely than their lower educated counterparts to hold nontraditional jobs (23% compared with 9%). These additional findings--

that higher educated women are more likely to be the first of their sex in their jobs and more sensitive to offensive behavior than are lower 

educated women--may help explain the difference in rate of harassment between the two groups. 

Higher educated men also tended to be more likely than their lower educated counterparts to report unwanted sexual attention. Men with a 

high school diploma, Graduate Equivalency Degree (GED), or less were less likely to be sexually harassed than those with more than a high 

school diploma. Further, men with some college experience or with graduate degrees were more than twice as likely to be harassed as those 

with less than a high school diploma. 

FIGURE 4-3 

Education Level of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Education Levels Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 60) 

Less than high school diploma Reported by 31% of Women

Reported by 8% of Men

High School diploma or GED 

(Graduate Equivalency Degree)

Reported by 35% of Women

Reported by 11% of Men

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (41 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

High school diploma plus 

technical training or 

apprenticeship 

Reported by 39% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Some college Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 17% of Men

Graduated from college (B.A., B.

S., or other bachelor's degree 

Reported by 50% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Some graduate school Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 15% of Men

Graduate or professional degree Reported by 48% of Women

Reported by 17% of Men

FIGURE 4-4 

Racial and Ethnic Background of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Racial and Ethnic Backgrounds Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 59) 

Other

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 48% of Women

Reported by 27% of Men

Hispanic Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 19% of Men

White, not of Hispanic origin Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Black, not of Hispanic origin Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 21% of Men

Asian or Pacific Islander Reported by 36% of Women

Reported by 16% of Men

American Indian or Alaskan native Reported by 35% of Women

Reported by 22% of Men

In summary, there does appear to be a relationship between education level and experience of sexual harassment. Higher educated men and 

women tend to be more likely than their lower educated counterparts to report harassment, but for women, some of the difference may be 

explained by other factors. Despite these differences, it is clear that the problem of unwanted sexual attention affects a sizeable number of 

Federal workers of all education levels, particularly women. 

Racial or Ethnic Background Makes Some Difference 

Although unwanted sexual attention is a problem for women and men of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, there does appear to be some 

relationship between incidence rates and this personal characteristic, particularly for men.[9]

As can be seen in Figure 4-4, incidence rates for Hispanic, black, and non-minority white women--the categories representing the great-est 

number of female Federal workers--10,100, 59,300, and 212,800 respectively--were similar. While women in other minority categories were 

both more likely or less likely than these three groups to report harassment, they accounted for a relatively small number of victims. For 

example, women who classified themselves as "other," had the highest rate of sexual harassment, but only accounted for 2,400 of the 

women victims. Likewise, Asian and American Indian women had lower rates of sexual harassment but accounted for only 3,500 and 4,300 of 

the women victims. 

Unlike women, men who are members of minority groups did report higher incidence rates than non minority men. The lowest rate of sexual 

harassment for men of any racial or ethnic group was found among non-minorities (13%). Minority men, however, had higher rates of 

harassment ranging from 16% to 27%. As with women, the men with the highest rate of sexual harassment-those classified as "other"--were 

also the fewest in number (2,200). 

Thus it appears that racial or ethnic background has some effect ,on whether men are sexually harassed, but less on women. 

Most Victims are Very Dependent on Their Jobs 

Perhaps not surprisingly, we found that most victims were very dependent on their jobs. This showed clearly in the responses of narrator 

victims to the question, "At the time of this experience, how much did you need this job?"[10] 

Nearly 7 in 10 female narrators said that at that time they needed their job a great deal (the other four possible responses ranged from 

"quite a bit" to "not at all "). It is interesting that women who had faced actual or attempted rape or assault were more likely than others to 

have needed their jobs a great deal at the time of harassment (79% compared with 70% of female narrators who described "severe" 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (42 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

experiences and 66% of those who had "less severe" sexual harassment).[11]

The responses of male narrators were similar to those of women. 

Personal Characteristics Do Have an Impact on Incidence of Sexual Harassment 

In summary, we found that age and marital status have a strong relationship with experience of sexual harassment, and educational level 

and racial or ethnic background have a somewhat weaker relationship. Although sizeable numbers of women of various backgrounds 

experience sexual harassment, young, unmarried, and relatively well educated women appear to be more vulnerable to sexual harassment 

than others. This pattern holds true for men, as well, but racial or ethnic background also plays a role for men. Male minorities are more likely 

than non minorities to report having been sexually harassed. 

Several Organizational Characteristics Are Related to Sexual Harassment 

Continuing our investigation by looking at whether victims with certain organizational characteristics were more likely to be bothered by 

unwanted sexual attention, we explored the popular theories about sexual harassment.[12] The literature suggests that victims tend to be 

working in low status jobs with little power. Based on this we expected that typical victims would be non supervisors who were relatively new 

to the Federal work force, working for a low annual salary (or perhaps as a part time or temporary employee), or working in a job 

traditionally held by a member of the opposite sex. 

To some extent these expectations were realized. Organizational characteristics that had some relationship with rates of sexual harassment 

were job classification (e.g., trainee, office/clerical or administration/ management), traditionality of job, sex of victim's supervisor, and sexual 

composition of victim's workgroup. 

Incidence Rates Vary By Agency 

For both men and women, incidence rates varied considerably from agency to agency[13] (see Table 4-2). For women, incidence rates 

ranged from a high of 56% (nearly 6 women in every 10) in the Department of Labor to a lower rate of 31% (3 women in 10) in the 

Department of Agriculture. In nine agencies the incidence rate exceeded the 42% overall rate for women in the Federal workforce, and in 

four of these agencies at least half of the female employees indicated that they had been sexually harassed. 

Table 4-2 

Incidence Rate of Sexual Harassment In Each Agency 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Different Agencies Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 55) 

Female Victims 

Agency[1] Most Severe Severe Less Severe Total Victims 

Department Labor 2% 47% 8% 56%

Department of Transportation 1% 45% 9% 55%

Department of Justice 4% 33% 16% 53%

All Other Department of Defense Agencies[2] 3% 37% 10% 50% 

All Other Agencies[2] 1% 30% 16% 48%

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

1% 29% 18% 47%

Department of the Air Force 1% 34% 12% 46%

Veterans Administration 2% 33% 12% 46%

Department of the Navy, including the Marine 

Corps 

2% 30% 12% 44%

Department of Interior 1% 28% 12% 41% 

Department of the Army 1% 31% 9% 41%

Department of Commerce 0.3% 20% 20% 40%

Department of Energy 1% 27% 10% 38%

Department of Treasury 0 22% 15% 37%

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (43 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

[3] 

1% 25% 9% 35%

General Services Administration 0 22% 13% 35%

Department of Agriculture 2% 18% 11% 31% 

Federal Government wide 1% 29% 12% 42% 

Male Victims

Agency[1] Most Severe Severe Less Severe Total Victims 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

[3] 

1% 13% 9% 22% 

Veterans Administration 0.4% 13% 8% 22% 

Department of Justice 0.3% 10% 6% 16%

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

0 11% 5% 16%

General Services Administration 0 9% 7% 16% 

Department of the Army 0.4% 9% 5% 15%

Department of Treasury 0.2% 9% 5% 14% 

Department of Interior 0.1% 6% 7% 14%

Department of Energy 0 7% 6% 14% 

Department of the Navy, including the Marine 

Corps 

0.3% 9% 5% 14% 

All Other Department of Defense Agencies[2] 0 7% 6% 13%

Department of the Air Force 0.1% 9% 4% 12% 

Department of Agriculture 0.2% 7% 5% 12%

Department of Commerce 1% 3% 8% 12%

All Other Agencies[2] 0.3% 5% 5% 10%

Department of Labor 1% 7% 2% 10% 

Department of Transportation 0 5% 4% 9%

Federal Government wide 0.3% 9% 6% 15% 

Note: All figures for each agency may not add up due to rounding. Percentages in bold are higher than Federal 

Government wide percentages.

Table 4-2 footnotes:

1 Ranked in order of highest percentage of sexual harassment among total victims for each sex. 

2 See Appendix B for explanation. 

3 The Department of Health, Education and Welfare was abolished and two new agencies (Department of Health and 

Human Services and the Department of Education) were formed in May 1980.

Incidence rates also varied somewhat by severity of harassment experience: women in six agencies reported having faced actual or

attempted rape or sexual assault at a rate higher than that of the Federal work force as a whole; in nine agencies, the rate of "severe" sexual 

harassment was higher than the national average for that level of severity, and in six agencies the rate of "less severe" sexual harassment 

exceeded the Federal average. 

Incidence rates for men also varied by agency, but the agencies having rates exceeding the 15% average rate for men in the Federal work 

force--five agencies in the case of men--were somewhat different. Again, incidence rates also varied by severity of harassment experience: in 

five agencies the rate for men who faced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault exceeded the Government wide average, in four the rate 

for "severe" sexual harassment exceeded the Federal average, and in five the rate of "less severe" harassment was higher. 

Although the specific agencies with higher overall incidence rates differ somewhat for men and women, in three agencies--Justice, Housing 

and Urban Development, and the Veterans Administration--the rates for both men and women were higher than the Federal rate. 

We also found that the majority of narrators in the Federal Government--83% of women and 86% of men--reported that the harassment 

incident occurred on their current job as of May 1980.[14]

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (44 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

For both men and women, this finding varied somewhat by agency and with the severity of the experience. For example, 98% of female 

narrators who experienced some form of harassment at the Department of Housing and Urban Development were in the same jobs where

the harassment occurred compared with 65% at the Department of Energy. Moreover, all female and male narrator victims of actual or 

attempted rape or assault at the Department of Justice reported that they had left the job where they had been working at the time of 

harassment. 

In summary, the incidence rate of sexual harassment varies substantially from agency to agency, and the majority of victims are still working 

in the jobs they held when they were harassed. 

Regional Differences Are Minor 

Sexual harassment is not limited to any particular geographic region or regions, and what regional differences were found are judged to be 

small[15] (see Figure 4-5). In 6 of the 11 geographic regions, the incidence rate for women exceeded the Federal average for women, the 

highest rates being in the North Central and Upper Midwest regions[16] (48% and 47% compared with the Federal average of 42%). In 

three regions the rate was lower than the Federal average, the lowest being in the Pacific Northwest (37%) and the Southeast (38%). 

FIGURE 4-5 

Geographic Location of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Each Geographic Region Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 56) 

Geographic Location Percent of Federal Employees 

North Central Reported by 48% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Upper Midwest Reported by 47% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Midwest Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 15% of Men

Pacific Reported by 44% of Women

Reported by 20% of Men

Washington DC area Reported by 44% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

New York Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Southwest Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Mid Atlantic Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 16% of Men

New England Reported by 40% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Southeast Reported by 38% of Women

Reported by 142% of Men

Pacific Northwest Reported by 37% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

For men, the highest rates were in the Pacific and Mid-Atlantic regions and the lowest were in the Southeast, New England, and Southwest 

regions (20%, 16%, and 12% compared with a Federal average for men of 15%). 

Differences Among Salary and Grade Levels Vary Slightly 

Contrary to what might have been expected, sexual harassment is not concentrated in any particular salary level. Although incidence rates 

did vary somewhat by salary bracket, the differences were small.[17] As Figure 4-6 shows, women in the lowest salary bracket (which 

comprised 39% of all women victims) were somewhat more likely (47%) than others to be sexually harassed, but generally the rates were 

similar for all income groups. 

Having expected to find a greater contrast among income groups, and suspecting that salary level might not reflect job status as well as 

grade level, we looked closer at the women in white collar jobs, classified under the General Schedule pay plan.[18] Since most women 

employed by the Federal Government are classified under the General Schedule, we thought this might be an appropriate measure of job 

status. The incidence of sexual harassment was pretty much the same among most white collar workers, those in grades GS 1-15.[19]

Women in the "other" category had a somewhat higher incidence rate, and those in Executive positions (GS 16 or above or in the Senior 

Executive Service) were somewhat lower, but those two groups account for a very small number of women. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (45 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

As Figure 4-6 indicates, men in the two lowest salary brackets were somewhat more likely than other men to be sexually harassed (19% 

compared to 11% to 14%). However, it should be noted that a relatively small number and proportion of victims fall into these two lower 

salary brackets (34% or 56,800 men) compared with women (72% or 212,800 women). The finding that men in lower salary brackets are 

somewhat more likely to be sexually harassed is supported by an analyses of incidence among men in General Schedule grades. The 

incidence rates ranged from a high of 54% for men in ungraded positions to a low of 9% for men in the executive positions (GS 16 or above, 

or Senior Executive Service).

FIGURE 4-6 

Annual Salary of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Different Annual Salary Brackets Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Annual Salary Percent of Federal Employees 

Low Income ($1 to $10,999) Reported by 47% of Women

Reported by 19% of Men

Low medium Income ($11,000 to $14,999) Reported by 39% of Women

Reported by 19% of Men

Medium income ($15,000 to $19,999) Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Medium high income ($20,000 to $23,999) Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 11% of Men

High income ($24,000 and up) Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

In summary, the problem of sexual harassment is not concentrated in any particular salary or grade level, but men in lower income brackets 

and grade levels are more likely than others to experience harassment.

Job Classification Shows a Relatively Weak Relationship

While there were some variations in incidence rates, it is clear that sexual harassment is not concentrated in any category of job[20] (see 

Figure 4-7). Contrary to expectations arising from popular theory, there was no clear pattern that women in low-status jobs having little 

power were generally more vulnerable to sexual harassment than were other women. As Figure 4-7 shows, the incidence rate was highest for 

trainees, but was next highest for women in professional/technical positions. 

FIGURE 4-7 

Job Classification of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees of Different Job Classifications Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 57)

Trainee

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 51% of Women

Reported by 16% of Men

Professional, technical Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 15% of Men

Administration, management Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 15% of Men

Other Reported by 42% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Office, clerical Reported by 40% of Women

Reported by 17% of Men

Blue collar, service Reported by 38% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

The finding for trainees was not unexpected since trainees, being new on the job, usually have little power or control over their work 

situation. Further, they tend to be young (81% of female trainee victims were 16-34 years old).[21] As data presented earlier in this chapter 

show, younger victims are more likely to be sexually harassed. In addition, female trainee victims were more likely than female victims in 

other job classifications to be in nontraditional jobs (35% of female trainee victims were in nontraditional positions compared with around 

20% in administrative, blue collar, and professional/technical positions).[22] However, very few female victims--only 3%--were trainees. 

Contrary to what might have been expected, female office/clerical workers were not more likely to be sexually harassed than women in 

higher status positions. Also contrary to findings of other studies, women in blue collar/service occupations had a relatively low incidence rate 

(38%). The relatively low incidence rate may be attributable to the fact that few of these women were in nontraditional positions for their sex 

(only 17%, or 5,200 of 31,600 female blue collar workers); in the private sector more female workers in blue collar/service occupations may 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (46 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

be holding nontraditional jobs. 

Results for men tended to be as anticipated. As Figure 4-7 shows, incidence rates for men were highest in office/clerical positions (typically 

female jobs) and lowest in blue collar/service positions (typically held by men). However, only 6% of all male victims (approximately 9,600 

men) held office/clerical positions, compared with 17% (or 28,500) in blue collar/service positions. It is noteworthy that male office/clerical 

workers who reported sexual harassment were almost twice as likely to be one of the first of their sex in their jobs compared to male office/

clerical workers who were not harassed (13% compared with 7%). 

In summary, although most sexual harassment is not concentrated in any particular job classification, women trainees are considerably more 

likely to be harassed than are those in other jobs. 

Working in a Nontraditional Job Makes a Difference 

We expected that workers who were among the first of their sex in their job (i.e., in nontraditional jobs) would be more likely to be sexually 

harassed than those in more traditional jobs for their sex. Examples of nontraditional jobs are female law enforcement officers and 

construction workers and male secretaries and nurses. The literature does not address this issue for men, but suggests that this occurs to 

women because men see women entering their "territory" as a threat, and respond by using sexual harassment to try to limit the women’s' 

success or to get them to leave. We found the expected relationship present to some extent: men and women in nontraditional jobs for their 

sex were somewhat more likely to be sexually harassed than others.[23] 

FIGURE 4-8 

Traditionality of Jobs of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Traditional and Nontraditional Jobs For Their Sex Who Experienced 

Sexual Harassment (Question 52) 

Nontraditional job 

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 20% of Men

Traditional job Reported by 41% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

As Figure 4-8 shows, fully 5 in every 10 women in nontraditional jobs reported unwanted sexual attention on the job, compared with 4 in 10 

women in other jobs. However, few women--only 12%, or 35,800 in 291,700--reported working in nontraditional positions. As with women, 

men in nontraditional jobs were somewhat more likely to experience harassment than others, but this group comprises an even smaller 

percentage of male victims--5%, or 8,700 out of 164,700. 

Sex of Immediate Supervisor a Factor 

We had expected to find that women workers with supervisors of the opposite sex were more vulnerable to sexual harassment, since the 

literature suggests that most incidents of sexual harassment are perpetrated or tolerated by supervisors.[24] This expectation that the sex of 

the immediate supervisor makes a difference was borne out for both men and women.[25]

FIGURE 4-9 

Sex of Supervisor(s) of Victims 

Percentage of Federal Employees Who Experienced Sexual Harassment, by Sex of Immediate Supervisor(s) (Question 50)

Male supervisor Reported by 45% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Male and female supervisors Who Experienced Sexual Harassment Reported by 44% of Women

Reported by 25% of Men

Female supervisor Reported by 38% of Women

Reported by 23% of Men

As Figure 4-9 shows, women were somewhat more likely to be sexually harassed if their immediate supervisor was a man than if the

supervisor was a woman. Even more consistent with expectations, we found that men were almost twice as likely to be sexually harassed if 

their supervisor was a woman, than if the supervisor was a man.[26] 

These findings--that women are somewhat more likely to be harassed if their supervisor is male and men are almost twice as likely to be 

harassed if their supervisor is female--implies that sex of supervisor has some bearing on whether an employee is likely to be sexually 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (47 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

harassed, although most incidents of sexual harassment are perpetrated by coworkers. It also may suggest that supervisors are more likely to 

allow sexual harassment to occur to their subordinates if those employees are of the opposite sex. 

Male-Female Ratio in Immediate Workgroup Is Strongly Related 

We expected to find that most sexual harassment occurs between members of the opposite sex and is greater where the victims have fewer 

same sex coworkers who might serve as a support system. We thought women in primarily male work groups might be especially vulnerable 

because they could be seen as outsiders who threaten the "old boy network " in the workgroup. 

As expected, both men and women were more likely to be bothered by unwanted sexual attention if they worked in work groups composed 

wholly or primarily of members of the opposite sex.[27] As Figure 4-10 shows, the greater the proportion of men in the work group, the 

likelier women were to be sexually harassed. More than half the women who worked in all male workgroups, and nearly half who worked in 

predominately male workgroups, reported having had to deal with unwanted sexual attention, compared with just over one-third of women in 

predominately female work groups, and one-fifth of women in all female groups. A sizeable percentage of female victims--44% or 127,700 

out of 292,800--were working in wholly or predominately male work groups at the time they were harassed. 

FIGURE 4-10 

Sexual Composition of Victims' Work Groups 

Percentage of Federal Employees in Different Kinds of Work Groups Who Experienced Sexual Harassment (Question 51) 

All men Reported by 55% of Women

Reported by 8% of Men

Who Experienced Sexual Harassment

Predominately men Reported by 49% of Women

Reported by 13% of Men

Equal number of men and 

women 

Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 19% of Men

Predominately women Reported by 37% of Women

Reported by 22% of Men

All women Reported by 22% of Women

Reported by 22% of Men

Men also were more likely to be bothered by unwanted sexual attention if they worked in groups composed wholly or predominately of 

members of the opposite sex. However, relatively few male victims--only 20% or 33,600 out of 167,000--were working in mostly or all female 

groups when they were harassed; the largest number (62%) were working in all or predominately male workgroups, where the incidence rate 

is relatively low (8% to 13%). 

Thus, it appears that sexual composition of work groups does affect the likelihood of women and men becoming victims of sexual 

harassment. The greater the concentration of members of the opposite sex in the work group, the greater the incidence of harassment. This 

has a greater impact on women since a greater proportion of women than men are likely to work in groups composed wholly or primarily of 

members of the opposite sex. 

The finding that sexual composition of the work group, like sex of the supervisor, has a relationship to incidence rate of sexual harassment 

also may be attributable to the finding reported in the next chapter--that Federal employees are sexually harassed by coworkers more often 

than by supervisors. 

Other Organizational Characteristics Showed Little Relationship with Sexual Harassment 

Six other organizational characteristics exam-ined showed little relationship to the incidence of sexual harassment. Four were expected to 

shed some light on the theory that people with the least status and power are most vulnerable: level of privacy, supervisory status, length of 

Federal service, and work schedule. The other two--work hours and size of workgroup--were designed to explore workplace characteristics. 

Relationship between privacy on the job and likelihood of bothersome attention is uncertain. Some observers have speculated that workers 

having no personal workspace or an open workspace would be more vulnerable to harassment since their working conditions do not afford a 

sense of privacy; others have suggested just the opposite, that those having private workspaces would be more vulnerable since much sexual 

harassment, particularly in its more severe forms, occurs in private. Thus, we asked victims whether, at the time they were harassed, they 

had a workspace they could call their own, and if they did, what it was like: open (worker could be seen from all sides); semi-open (seen 

from 1 to 3 sides); semi-private (with door that can be closed); or pri-vate (with door that can be closed).[28] We found that no one type of 

workspace was typical of victims of sexual harassment. 

While there were some differences for women, there was not a clear pattern. Women having no workspace, a semi-open space, or a semiprivate space were somewhat more likely to be bothered with unwanted sexual attention than those with open workspaces or a private office 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (48 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

(44% to 46% compared with 39%). 

The slightly greater likelihood of harassment of women who had no personal workspace might be due to their lack of privacy. The slightly 

greater vulnerableness of women having semi-private offices might reflect the finding (discussed in the next chapter) that most women were 

bothered by coworkers in the same office; the semi-private office would seem to afford a relatively greater freedom to harass. Any 

conclusions on the question would be premature, but the findings would seem a fruitful area for future research. 

Men experienced sexual harassment at about the same rate, regardless of the degree of privacy of their workspaces (13%-16%). 

Nonsupervisors were not found to be more vulnerable to sexual harassment than supervisors.[29] Although female nonsupervisors were 

somewhat more likely than female supervisors to report unwanted sexual attention (43% compared with 39%), and male nonsupervisors 

slightly more likely than supervisors (15% compared with 14%), these differences are judged to be small. While it is true that most victims--

88% of female victims and 73% of male victims--are nonsupervisors, there are also far more people working in a nonsupervisory capacity for 

the Federal Government. 

The relationship between length of Federal service and likelihood of unwanted sexual attention was different for men and women.[30]

Women on probation (i.e., with less than 1 year of Federal service) were somewhat more likely to report sexual harassment than those not 

on probation (i.e., more than 1 year of Federal service) (45% compared with 42%), but this difference was judged small. The difference in 

incidence rates for men was more marked: 20% of men on probation, but only 14% of those not on probation, reported having been 

harassed. The overall impact of any true differences is probably insignificant since relatively small numbers of Federal workers have less than 

1 year of Federal service and most victims are women, who show only slight differences in incidence rates. Most victims of sexual 

harassment, both men and women, had been working for the Federal Government for more than 1 year when they were harassed. 

Work schedule--permanent, full-time or another arrangement such as parttime, temporary, or seasonal--showed only a slight relationship 

with incidence of sexual harassment, and then only for women.[31] Women working in permanent full time jobs were somewhat more likely 

than others to be bothered with unwanted attention (43% compared with 37%) but men showed the same rate regardless of work schedule 

(15%). 

The typical working hours of an employee--day time or other arrangements such as night time, weekends, shifts, or frequent overtime--

seems to bear no important relationship to whether the employee is subjected to bothersome sexual harassment.[32] Women working 

regularly in the day time were just about as likely to be bothered as working nights, weekends, shifts, or a lot of overtime. Although men 

working "other" hours were a little more vulnerable than day time workers to being harassed (17% compared with 14%), this disparity 

probably is not great enough to make a real difference. 

The size of the immediate work group of the employee--small (1-5 people), medium (6-15 people), large (16-25 people), or very large (more 

than 25)--had no relationship with likelihood of sexual harassment.[33] The largest group of female victims were working in medium sized 

work groups (40%), but the incidence rates for the four different sized groups were about the same (41% to 45%). The range of incidence 

rates for men was even smaller (13% to 15%). 

Organizational Characteristics Have an Impact on the Incidence of Sexual Harassment 

In summary, of the 13 characteristics of an employee's job or work place examined, one clearly showed a relatively strong relationship with 

incidence of sexual harassment: male-female ratio in the immediate workgroup. Women working in work groups composed completely or 

primarily of men were more likely to be subjected to unwanted sexual attention, and conversely, men in wholly or primarily female 

workgroups were more likely to be sexually harassed. 

Three other organizational characteristics showed some relationship with harassment: sex of immediate supervisor, traditionality of job, and 

job classification. Generally a worker whose immediate supervisor was of the opposite sex, or who had more than one supervisor, both male 

and female, was more vulnerable than a worker whose supervisor was of the same sex. Although most victims, both male and female, were 

working in traditional jobs when they were harassed, the likelihood of being harassed was greater for those in jobs usually held by the 

opposite sex. This effect may have been seen somewhat in the slightly greater vulnerability to harassment of men in office/clerical positions--

but relatively few male victims were working in such jobs when they were harassed. 

Women working in professional/technical jobs, and both female and male trainees, were somewhat more likely to be bothered with unwanted 

attention--but it is clear that Federal workers in all job classifications, particularly women, experience harassment. 

Victims See Their Work Environments Differently Than Nonvictims 

We also were interested in whether the general atmosphere in a work place had any relationship with sexual harassment. Are some work 

environments more conducive to sexual harassment than others? To explore this issue we compared the responses of victims[34] by sex (i.e., 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (49 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

female victims with female nonvictims, etc.) to two sets of attitudinal questions, one that attempted to assess general relations with 

supervisors and one designed to measure the general level of sexual activity in the office. 35 

We expected to find that victims had worse relations with their supervisors, felt more pressured to engage in sexually oriented behavior, and 

generally felt their organization was not as helpful as it might be in curtailing sexual harassment of its employees. This turned out to be true. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, victims, particularly women, were considerably more likely than nonvictims to feel uninvited, unwanted sexual 

attention was a problem where they worked. (See Table 4-3) Specifically, male and female victims were more inclined to feel they were 

expected to flirt and make sexual comments about the opposite sex and to think employees in their offices use (or used) sexual favors to 

advance on the job. 

Victims also were more likely to indicate employee-supervisor relationships in their immediate workgroups were not what they might be. They 

were twice as likely as their nonvictim counterparts to feel unable to bring work related concerns to their immediate supervisors and to feel, if 

they did, that their supervisors would not do anything about the situation, even if it were possible. Finally, victims were more likely than 

nonvictims to feel their organization was not doing everything it could to stop unwanted sexual attention among its employees. 

While there could be several explanations for these differences in attitudes between victims and nonvictims, one possibility is that work 

atmosphere does have some affect on the incidence of sexual harassment. Further research on this issue would be interesting and helpful in 

designing means of eliminating the problem. 

Conclusion 

We have reviewed in detail the personal and organizational characteristics of victims and how they affect the vulnerability of women and men 

to sexual harassment. Some characteristics affect the rate of sexual harassment more than others, and some characteristics are more subject 

to control by managers who wish to reduce the rate of sexual harassment in their organization. 

Table 4-3 

Perceptions of Work Environment 

These are statements used to describe the general work setting in the immediate work group. Percentages are of Federal workers who 

agreed or disagreed with the following statements. (Question 44) 

Respondents

General Relations with Supervisors Female 

Victims 

Female 

Nonvictims 

Male 

Victims 

Male 

Nonvictims 

a. Disagreed with: I feel free to bring up general work 

related concerns or suggestions to my immediate 

supervisor.

21% 8% 26% 7%

b. Disagreed with: I feel that my supervisor would correct 

general work related concerns or suggestions if possible. 24% 20% 20% 21% 

Level of Sexual Activity 

c. Agreed with: Where I work, I feel I am expected to flirt. 23% 2% 21% 2%

d. Agreed with: Where I work, I feel I am expected to 

make sexual comments about the opposite sex. 9% 2% 28% 5%

e. Agreed with: Uninvited and unwanted sexual attention 

is a problem for employees where I work. 27% 4% 22% 7%

f. Agreed with: Where I work, employees use their sexual 

favors for advancement on the job. 30% 23% 27% 22%

g. Disagreed with: My organization makes every effort to 

stop unwanted sexual attention among its employees. 

34% 23% 32% 28%

Note: Percentages are based on "Agree" and "Strongly Agree" and '"Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" responses to 

statements. 

Sexual harassment is a problem of virtually all Federal agencies studied. Variation in incidence rates suggests the problem is more salient in 

some agencies than in others, but in none is it absent. As noted, a number of generic demographic characteristics are related to sexual 

harassment. As the composition of the workforce varies from agency to agency, so too may the incidence of sexual harassment. Although this 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (50 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

has not been investigated, agency managers need to be aware of the composition in their workforce to identify the workers in their agency 

most likely to be victims. This is a first step toward reducing the problem. 

In addition, certain working conditions appear related to sexual harassment, and many of these conditions can be changed by management 

in an effort to reduce sexual harassment. Consequently, managers need to be made aware that sexual harassment is a problem and that they 

are held accountable for dealing with it. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 4 

1 See Chapter 1. 

2 See Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

3 Based on responses to Survey Question 61; see Appendix C. 

4 Based on responses to Survey Question 62; see Appendix D, Table P for data on marital status by age of victim. 

5 Based on responses to Survey Question 60. 

6 Based on responses to Survey Questions 2-7, b, d; see Appendix D, Table C, for data. 

7 Based on responses to Survey Question 1 (i); see Appendix D, Table D, for data. 

8 Based on responses to Survey Question 52; see Appendix D, Figure B, for data. 

9 Based on responses to Survey Question 59; see Appendix B for an explanation of racial or ethnic categories. 

10 Survey Question 35. 

11 See Appendix D, Figure C for data. 

12 See Appendix G for a survey of the literature on sexual harassment. 

13 Based on responses to Survey Question 55; the State Department was not included in this analysis because the response rate from those 

employees was too low to provide reliable data. 

14Based on responses to Survey Question 19; see Appendix D, Table E for data.

15 Based on responses to Survey Question 56; see Appendix C. 

16 See Appendix B for list of states included in each region. Regional breakdowns are those used by the Office of Personnel Management. 

17 Based on responses by group or stratum number; see Appendix B for explanation of salary levels. 

18 That is, those who gave the first response to Survey Question 53. 

19 See Appendix D, Figure D for data. 

20 Based on responses to Survey Question 57. 

21 See Appendix D, Figure E for data. 

22 See Appendix D, Table F for data.

23 Based on responses to Survey Question 52. 

24 However, as the next chapter shows, most Federal workers were harassed by other workers rather than supervisors. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (51 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

25 Based on responses to Survey Question 50. 

26 However, as the next chapter shows, of the men who report being harassed, only about 7% are harassed by female supervisors. 

27 Based on responses to Survey Question 51. 

28 Question 49; see Appendix B for explanation of terms; See Appendix D, Figure F for data. 

29 Based on responses to Survey Question 58; see Appendix D, Figure G for data. 

30 Based on responses to Survey Question 45; see Appendix D, Figure H for data. 

31 Based on responses to Survey Question 46; see Appendix D, Figure I for data. 

32 Based on responses to Survey Question 47; see Appendix D, Figure J for data. 

33 Based on responses to Survey Question 48; see Appendix D, Figure K for data. 

34 As determined by responses to Survey Question 17; see Appendix C. Victims responded in terms of the offices they were in when they 

were harassed; nonvictims described their current jobs. 

35 Based on responses to Survey Questions 44a-44g.

5. Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment 

● Most victims are sexually harassed by people of the opposite sex. 

● Most harassers act alone rather than in concert with another person. 

● Most harassers of women are older than their victims, and most harassers of men are younger. 

● Most harassers are married, but many men report being harassed by divorced or single women as well. 

● Most harassers are of the same race or ethnic background as their victims, but most minority men report being harassed by those of a 

different race or ethnic background. 

● Most harassers are coworkers, but many women are harassed by supervisors. 

● Many harassers are reported to have bothered more than one person at work. 

● Few employees report having been accused of sexually harassing others. 

More than half the women in four Federal agencies ... one-fifth of the men ,in another agency ... two-thirds of all women aged 16 to 19 ... 

nearly one-third of all divorced men .. . half of all female trainees ... one-fifth of all men working in nontraditional jobs...

These are the victims of sexual harassment in the Federal workforce. The next step is identifying the perpetrators of these incidents, the 

people who are offending others with their sexual comments and deliberate touching, are pressuring others for sexual favors, and in some 

cases are committing the criminal offense of rape or sexual assault. 

We were interested in learning a number of things about the perpetrators of sexual harassment: whether they are found in disproportionate 

numbers within certain job classifications, racial categories, age brackets, educational levels, and grade levels;[1] whether harassers of men 

and women are similar in most ways or differ markedly; whether certain types of victims typically are bothered by certain types of harassers; 

and whether incidents tend to be one time acts, or whether some harassers show a pattern of sexually bothering others. 

Such information would indicate what remedies might--or might not--work and would help in developing remedies appropriate for different 

target groups. It seemed especially important to look at the harassers of women since the problem of sexual harassment affects women in 

far greater numbers, at greater rates, and with greater severity than it does men. 

We found that women typically are harassed by a male coworker who is married, older than the victim, of the same race or ethnic 

background (or a different background if the victim is a minority), and likely to have harassed others at work (see Figure 5-1).

FIGURE 5-1 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (52 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Sex of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Sex of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32a) 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Male 

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 79% of Women

Reported by 18% of Men

Two or more males Reported by 16% of Women

Reported by 4% of Men

Both males and 

females 

Reported by 2% of Women

Reported by 6% of Men

Female Reported by 2% of Women

Reported by 60% of Men

Two or more females Reported by 1% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Unknown Reported by 1% of Women

Reported by 0.3% of Men

Men typically are harassed by a female coworker who is married (but frequently is divorced or single), younger than the victim, of the same 

race or ethnic background, and somewhat likely to have harassed others at work. 

More detailed descriptions of perpetrators of sexual harassment are given in the sections that follow. Descriptions are based on the responses 

of narrators (i.e., victims who described one incident of harassment in detail) to survey questions 32-34. Most findings presented represent 

the responses of victims of all forms of sexual harassment. Analysis of responses by severity of harassment experience revealed that in most 

cases the harassers were similar regardless of severity of experience. Only the notable exceptions are described. 

FIGURE 5-2 

Age of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Age of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32b) 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Older

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 68% of Women

Reported by 29% of Men

Younger Reported by 12% of Women

Reported by 38% of Men

Same Reported by 11% of Women

Reported by 18% of Men

Various Ages Reported by 7% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Unknown Reported by 2% of Women

Reported by 3% of Men

Harassers of Women Are Strikingly Similar 

The harasser of a woman is usually a man. In 95 cases of sexual harassment out of every 100, the incident was perpetrated by a man--in 79 

incidents by a lone man and in 16 incidents by two or more men. Few women were harassed by other women. 

The harasser of a woman usually acts alone. In 81 incidents out of every 100 the harasser acted alone rather than in concert with others--in 

79 incidents as a lone male and 2 incidents as a lone female. 

The harasser of a woman is usually older than the victim. In 68 incidents out of every 100 the harasser was older than the victim, in 12 

incidents younger, and in 11 incidents of the same age. In 7% of the incidents there were several harassers, of various ages, and in 2%, the 

women did not know their harasser's age. (See Figure 5-2) 

FIGURE 5-3 

Marital Status of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Marital Status of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32d)

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Married

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 67% of Women

Reported by 35% of Men

Mixed Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (53 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Unknown Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 7% of Men

Single Reported by 8% of Women

Reported by 20% of Men

Divorced, Separated, 

Widowed

Reported by 7% of Women

Reported by 25% of Men

The harasser of a woman usually is married. Two-thirds (67%) of all incidents were perpetrated by someone who was married; only 15% 

were initiated by an unmarried person (8% single and 7% divorced, separated, or widowed). In 9% of the incidents there was more than one 

harasser, of different marital statuses, and in an equal number the woman did not know her harasser's marital status. (See Figure 5-3) 

The harasser of a woman usually is someone of the same race or ethnic background. In 63% of all incidents the harasser was of the same 

race or ethnic background as the victim. (See Figure 5-4) However, there were some striking differences in the experiences of minority and 

nonminority women harassed by men.[2] While most nonminority female narrators (75%) and most women in some minority groups were 

harassed by a man of the same race or ethnic background, most black, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander women (53%, 62%, and 88%, 

respectively) were bothered by men of different backgrounds. 

The harasser of a woman usually has no supervisory authority over her, but sometimes is a supervisor. Harassers of women usually (in 

65% of all incidents) are coworkers or "other" Federal employees having no supervisory authority over the victim. In a sizeable number of 

incidents (37%), however, women were harassed by their immediate supervisor or a higher level supervisor. Subordinates were harassers in 

only 4% of the incidents; in 6% of the incidents the supervisory status of the harasser was unknown.[3] Victims of the relatively uncommon 

most severe form of harassment, actual or attempted rape or sexual assault, were harassed by an immediate or higher level supervisor 

almost as often as by a coworker or "other " Federal employee (51% of the incidents perpetrated by a supervisor compared with 57% by a 

coworker or other em-ployee). In many incidents involving more than one harasser, both supervisors and coworkers were identified. (See 

Figure 5-5) 

FIGURE 5-4 

Ethnic Status of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Indicated the Ethnic Status of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 32c) 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Same

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 63% of Women

Reported by 68% of Men

Different Reported by 26% of Women

Reported by 17% of Men

Some the Same and 

Some Different

Reported by 9% of Women

Reported by 12% of Men

Unknown Reported by 2% of Women

Reported by 3% of Men

FIGURE 5-5 

Organizational Level of Harasser 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Identified the Organizational Level of the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually (Question 33)

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Coworker or Other 

Employee

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 65% of Women

Reported by 76% of Men

Immediate Supervisor 

or Other Supervisor

Reported by 37% of Women

Reported by 14% of Men

Unknown Reported by 6% of Women

Reported by 5% of Men

Subordinate Reported by 4% of Women

Reported by 16% of Men

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that more than one party bothered them. 

Many women are harassed by someone who has harassed others on the job. While the majority of female narrators (53%) did not know 

whether the harasser had bothered others, 43% did know this to be the case and only 3% knew it not to be true. Victims of the most severe 

and severe forms of sexual harassment were more likely to be bothered by repeat offenders than were victims of less severe harassment 

(38% and 49% compared with 32%). (See Figure 5-6) 

FIGURE 5-6 

Has the Harasser Sexually Bothered Others at Work? 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (54 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Were Sexually Harassed and Who Indicated Whether the Person(s) Who Bothered Them Sexually Had

Sexually Bothered Others at Work (Question 34) 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Did not know 

Who Bothered Them Sexually 

Reported by 53% of Women

Reported by 61% of Men

Harasser had bothered 

others 

Reported by 43% of Women

Reported by 31% of Men

Harasser had not 

bothered others 

Reported by 3% of Women

Reported by 8% of Men

Harassers of Men Also Are Similar 

The harasser of a man usually is a woman. In 72 out of every 100 cases, the incident was perpetrated by a woman--in 60 incidents by a lone 

woman and in 12 cases by two or more women. Men were more likely than women to be victims of homosexual harassment; 22% reported

being harassed by one or more men, while only 3% of the women reported harassment by one or more women. 

The harasser of a man usually acts alone. In 78 out of every 100 incidents the harasser acted alone rather than in concert with others--in 60 

out of 100 incidents as a lone female and in 18 as a lone male. 

The harasser of a man most often is younger than the victim. In 39% of the incidents the harasser was younger than the victim, but in 29% 

the harasser was older, and in 18% the two were the same age. 

The harasser of a man most often is married. Slightly over one-third of the male narrators (35%) said their harasser was married, but a 

larger proportion was currently unmarried--either divorced, separated, or widowed (25%) or single and never married (20%). 

The harasser of a man usually is someone of the same race or ethnic background. This was true in 68% of all incidents, but, as in the case 

of female victims, race or ethnic background of the victim made a difference. In nearly 9 in every 10 (89%) incidents involving a non minority 

male victim and a female harasser, the harasser was of the same background (i.e., also a nonminority). Black men were about as likely to be 

harassed by a woman of a different background as by a black woman (46% of the cases involving female harassers compared with 51%), 

and Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander men were more likely to be bothered by a woman of a different race than by one of their own race 

(69% and 100% of the cases involving female harassers, respectively). 

The harasser of a man usually has no supervisory authority over him. Three-fourths of the male victims (76%) reported their harasser was a 

coworker or another Federal worker having no supervisory authority over the victim. In addition, the harasser was more likely to be 

subordinate than a supervisor (16% of all cases compared with 14%). 

A number of men are harassed by someone who has bothered others on the job. While most male narrators (61%) did not know whether 

their harasser had bothered others, 31% did know this to be the case, and 8% were certain it was not the case. 

Experiences of Men and Women Differ 

In some ways the harassers of female and male victims were quite similar. For instance, most harassers of men and women acted alone 

rather than with others. In other ways, the experiences of men and women were noticeably different. For example, while most harassers 

were of the opposite sex of the victim, men were considerably more likely to be victims of homosexual harassment (22% of male narrators 

were bothered by one or more men, but only 3% of female victims reported homosexual harassment). 

Most harassers of women (68%) were older than the victim, but the pattern for men was less obvious. The largest group of men (39%) were 

bothered by someone younger, but a sizeable number (29%) were bothered by an older person. Most harassers of women (67% of the 

incidents). While men were most likely to be bothered by a married person, this was true in only 35% of the incidents described. Thus, 

women were nearly twice as likely as men to have been harassed by someone who was married. 

Most harassers of men and women were coworkers or other Federal employees who had no supervisory authority over the victim. This

finding is particularly significant in the case of women since it appears to contradict the popular notion that the greatest part of the problem 

of sexual harassment originates with (male) supervisors who wield formal power over their (female) victims. It may be, however, that some 

supervisors, while not themselves readily identifiable as the perpetrators of specific sexual harassment incidents, may be giving tacit approval 

to the behavior and thus creating an environment wherein sexual harassment is not only tolerated but encouraged. As one Federal employee 

wrote on the survey questionnaire: "A major problem is that the major portion of 'management ' is male, and if they do not participate in the 

games themselves, there is tacit approval of activity. Any objection is met with a wry smile and the reaction that maybe you are imagining 

things and perhaps overemphasizing your own charms. " 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (55 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

It appears that the "coercive," or "shake down" element of sexual harassment--to the extent that it was present--operated more in the case 

of women. While both men and women were most likely to have been harassed by work associates or peers, this was more true for male 

victims (76%) than for females (65%). Likewise, while both men and women were less likely to be harassed by an immediate or higher level 

supervisor, this was also more true for men (14%) than for women (37%). The finding that the majority of sexual harassment incidents are 

perpetrated by coworkers or other work peers does suggest that any institutional efforts to eliminate the problem of sexual harassment might 

need to involve Federal workers at all levels rather than only supervisors. However, since supervisors ultimately are responsible for the 

conduct in their workplaces, training for them regarding sexual harassment should certainly be stressed. 

Of the men and women who knew, most said their harassers had also bothered others. That 43% of all female victims could with certainty 

state that their harasser had bothered others at work[4] suggests that the problem of sexual harassment should not be viewed solely as a 

number of isolated instances of personal sexual attraction. For a sizeable number of women (98,000), their experience was part of an overall 

pattern exhibited by a harasser. Since most harassers of women are men, it seems fair to assume that the majority of repeat offenders in 

harassment of women are men. Thus, it appears that certain men are more likely to harass than others and that sexual harassment is not 

necessarily part of the normal interaction among men and women on the job, or that all men and women engage in it, as has been intimated 

by some. 

A similar case could be made for the harassers of men. For 31% of male victims, their experiences were part of an overall pattern exhibited 

by the harasser. Thus it seems likely that a number of female harassers were also repeat offenders. However, since the number of men 

harassed is far smaller than the number of women, it seems fair to conclude that the problem of repeat offenders among male harassers is 

far more significant. 

Some Harassers Reported on Themselves 

It is important to note that we attempted only to construct a general profile of harassers in terms of general personal and job characteristics; 

obviously a more in depth examination, including investigation of psychological variables, was beyond the scope of this study. However, we 

did attempt to gain more information about harassers by asking several questions of people willing to identify themselves as harassers. 

Only 10,500 men and 1,100 women indicated that during the 24-month period they had been accused of sexually bothering someone. Since 

most of the accused were men, we looked only at their responses, not at the women's. The vast majority of those men, 82%, felt they had 

been unjustly accused by ,their victim--and 8% thought the accusation had been fair (the remaining 10% were not sure whether the charge 

was fair or not).[5]

Few Federal workers admitted they have been accused of sexual harassment--far fewer than the numbers who claim to have been harassed. 

Most men who do report having been accused felt the charge was unfair. When asked why they considered the charge unfair, 48% said the 

accuser had misunderstood their motives, 45% said the accuser wanted to create trouble, 29% felt they had done nothing wrong.[6] Only 

one-third indicated that management subsequently found the charge to be false, although there is no indication of how many of these cases 

were reported to management. Since far fewer men report being accused of sexual harassment, whether fairly or not, than the number of 

women who report being harassed by men, it would appear that few women victims confront their harassers. This absence of confrontation 

may perpetuate the problem of sexual harassment. 

Conclusion

This chapter has presented a profile of typical perpetrators of sexual harassment as described by their victims. We have seen that the typical 

harasser of women differs from the typical harasser of men, principally in terms of sex and age, and, to a lesser extent, in marital status and 

race or ethnic background. We have also seen that few individuals admit to having been accused of sexual harassment. 

The next chapter explores in more depth the sexual harassment incidents. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 5 

1 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

2 Too few women in some minority groups reported harassment by more than one man or by women to allow separate analysis in regard to 

background of those harassers. See Appendix D, Table G for data on the race or ethnic background of victims and their harassers.

3 Since respondents harassed by more than one person were allowed to give more than one answer to this question (Survey Question 33), 

percentages total more than 100%. 

4 This is particularly telling in that, as shown in Chapter 6, the survey found that most victims do not talk to others in their offices about their 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (56 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

experiences. 

5 Based on responses to Survey Questions 36 and 37; see Appendix D, Table H for data. 

6 Based on responses to Survey Question 38; see Appendix D, Table Q for data. 

6. Incidents of Sexual Harassment 

● Those who are sexually harassed by supervisors and those who experience the more severe forms of sexual harassment are more 

likely than other victims to foresee penalties or possible benefits for not going along or for going along with the unwanted sexual 

attention. 

● Most victims respond to sexual harassment by ignoring it, but few find that technique improves the situation. The most assertive

actions are found to be the most effective. 

● Few victims talk about their experiences with others but those who do find talking to someone with independent authority or 

organizational responsibility to be more helpful than talking with coworkers, family, or friends. 

● Few victims take formal actions, but many who do find them helpful. 

● The reported response of agency officials to informal and formal charges of sexual harassment has been mixed.

462,000 people having to deal with uninvited, unwanted sexual attention while working at their jobs for the Federal Government, two thirds 

of them women ... 300,000 confronted by behaviors that a minimum of two-thirds of the Federal workforce considers sexual harassment ... 

12,000 facing actual or attempted rape or sexual assault, a criminal offense ... most of them bothered by coworkers of the opposite sex, but 

a sizeable number harassed by people with supervisory authority over them... 

The picture of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace is taking shape. We know who the victims are, how many are facing what kinds of 

unwanted attention, and who is perpetrating the offensive behavior. To complete the picture we needed to know more about the episodes 

themselves, the details of the individual incidents that, when taken together, would place the many facts and figures in context. Only then 

would the picture be a clear image of the problem of sexual harassment as it affects Federal workers. 

We wanted to know about the element of coercion--or enticement--in sexual harassment incidents: Do harassers use explicit or implied 

leverage to ensure cooperation from their vic-tims?[1] Do victims think something harmful will happen if they don't go along, or something 

beneficial if they do? How do victims deal with the unwanted behavior? Do they simply ignore the situation, hoping it will go away? Does any 

particular response seem most effective in getting the behavior stopped? Is management helpful in this regard? Such information is essential 

in developing remedies that are likely to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment. 

We found that the answers to these questions depended somewhat on the sex of the victim, who was perpetrating the offensive behavior, 

and what kind of unwanted attention was involved. 

Employees bothered by others who had supervisory authority over them, and those who faced actual or attempted rape or assault, were 

most likely to see penalties for not going along and rewards for going along. The use and effectiveness of various formal and informal 

responses, including talking with other people about the situation and filing formal complaints, depended somewhat on the sex of the victim 

and the severity of the situation. Some victims found management helpful, but many did not. 

Again, findings in this chapter are based on the response of narrators--those victims who agreed to describe in detail one experience of 

sexual harassment, either their only or their most recent experience, or the one that had the greatest effect on them. For simplicity, these 

people are referred to as victims, although, to be precise, they make up only a subgroup of victims. 

Fear of Penalties and Expectation of Rewards 

Most victim narrators did not think anything bad would happen to them if they did not go along with the unwanted attention. Nor did most 

anticipate that something beneficial would happen if they did go along. Men and women tended to agree on these points. The large majority 

of female victims (70%) thought there would be no adverse consequences if they did not go along with the harasser.[2] We speculated that 

the reason for this was that most reported being harassed by presumably less powerful coworkers rather than supervisors (see Chapter 5). 

Indeed we found that the victims' perceptions of consequences differed somewhat depending on who was bothering them and what kind of 

unwanted attention they were getting. 

Women who were harassed by coworkers having nonsupervisory authority over them were more likely to think nothing adverse would 

happen to them than were women bothered by immediate supervisors (70% compared with 44%) (see Figure 6-1). Interestingly, women 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (57 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

harassed by their immediate supervisors were less likely to think that nothing would happen to them (44%) and thus more likely to fear 

penalties than those bothered by higher level supervisors (57%); likewise, those harassed by their coworkers were less likely to think that 

nothing would happen to them (70%) and thus more likely to fear penalties than those bothered by "other" employees (79%). This suggests 

that harassers having direct organizational contact with the victim are seen as more coercive or threatening than those whose relationship is 

more distant. 

In addition, the more severe the form of harassment the woman was facing, the more likely she was to perceive adverse consequences (see 

Figure 6-1). Victims of actual or attempted rape or assault were most likely to perceive adverse consequences regardless of whether the 

harasser was a coworker or a supervisor. Only 15% to 23% of these women thought nothing would happen to them if they did not go along. 

FIGURE 6-1 

Perceived Penalties for Not Going Along 

Percentage of Narrators Who Were Harassed by Their Immediate Supervisor or Coworker Who Thought the Following Would Happen to Them 

if They Did Not Go Along With the Sexual Harassment (Question 24)

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

My working assignments or 

conditions would get 

worse 

Reported by 46% of 

women and 100% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 41% of 

women and 50% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

The person(s) or other 

workers would be 

unpleasant or would 

embarrass me 

Reported by 37% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 67% of 

women and 45% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would be unable to get a 

promotion, step increase, 

good rating, or reference 

Reported by 62% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 30% of 

women and 55% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would Lose my job Reported by 37% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 41% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I did not think anything 

would happen 

Reported by 23% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 15% of 

women and 18% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

My working assignments or 

conditions would get 

worse 

Reported by 45% of 

women and 44% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 19% of 

women and 12% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

The person(s) or other 

workers would be 

unpleasant or would 

embarrass me 

Reported by 25% of 

women and 19% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 26% of 

women and 20% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would be unable to get a 

promotion, step increase, 

good rating, or reference 

Reported by 47% of 

women and 38% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 14% of 

women and 10% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would Lose my job Reported by 6% of women 

and 12% of men who were 

harassed by their 

immediate supervisor 

Reported by 2% of women 

and 3% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I did not think anything 

would happen 

Reported by 40% of 

women and 49% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 65% of 

women and 73% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

My working assignments or 

conditions would get 

worse 

Reported by 28% of 

women and 31% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 7% of women 

and 9% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

The person(s) or other 

workers would be 

unpleasant or would 

embarrass me 

Reported by 23% of 

women and 13% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 13% of 

women and 20% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would be unable to get a 

promotion, step increase, 

good rating, or reference 

Reported by 17% of 

women and 37% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 5% of women 

and 5% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I would Lose my job Reported by 4% of women 

and 4% of men who were 

harassed by their 

immediate supervisor 

Reported by 0% of women 

and 1% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (58 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

I did not think anything 

would happen 

Reported by 56% of 

women and 40% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 82% of 

women and 77% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

My working assignments or 

conditions would get 

worse 

Reported by 41% of 

women and 38% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 16% of 

women and 12% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

The person(s) or other 

workers would be 

unpleasant or would 

embarrass me 

Reported by 25% of 

women and 16% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 22% of 

women and 20% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would be unable to get a 

promotion, step increase, 

good rating, or reference 

Reported by 39% of 

women and 37% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 11% of 

women and 9% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would Lose my job Reported by 6% of women 

and 8% of men who were 

harassed by their 

immediate supervisor 

Reported by 2% of women 

and 3% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I did not think anything 

would happen 

Reported by 44% of 

women and 44% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 70% of 

women and 74% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

For the women who did perceive adverse consequences, the difficulties they foresaw, not unsurprisingly, were related to who was harassing 

them. Women harassed by their supervisors were more likely to fear consequences related to job status and pay--being unable to get a 

promotion or losing their jobs, for example. On the other hand, women bothered by coworkers or other employees were more likely to feel 

the quality of their personal relationships would suffer if they did not go along (for example, "the person(s) or other workers would be 

unpleasant or would embarrass me"). 

Women harassed by their supervisors also were more likely to perceive benefits for going along with the unwanted behavior; the majority 

harassed by coworkers (81%) foresaw no benefits.[3] This difference in perceptions held true for victims of all forms of sexual harassment 

except the few who experienced actual or attempted rape or assault. For this group, those harassed by immediate supervisors were more 

likely than those victimized by coworkers and other workers to foresee no benefits (71% compared with 47%). A reason for this difference in 

perceptions might be in the nature of the behavior itself: those confronted by super visors in this most assaultive way felt extremely 

threatened and could see no benefits, only penalties, whereas other victims, not being in direct control of their harasser, felt less threatened 

and could foresee possible rewards for going along. 

The perceptions of men about leverage used to secure compliance were similar to that of women. Again, most men did not think anything 

bad would happen if they did not go along, but men harassed by immediate supervisors and those experiencing the more severe forms of 

harassment were more likely than others to fear penalties. Men were somewhat more likely than women to perceive benefits in going along 

with the unwanted attention; but, like women, those harassed by supervisors were more likely than others to foresee possible rewards for 

their compliance. 

In summary, most victims do not perceive any penalties for not going along with the harasser or rewards for going along. The supervisory 

status of the harasser and the type of behavior they were confronted with seems to have an effect on their perceptions of leverage. Men and 

women bothered by individuals having direct organizational control over them--their supervisors, and particularly their immediate supervisors--

are much more likely to feel leverage is being used against them. In addition, workers harassed by their supervisors are much more likely to 

see good working conditions and job betterment as more powerful incentives for going along than improved relations with their harassers. 

FIGURE 6-2 

Perceived Benefits for Going Along 

Percentage of Narrators Who Were Harassed by Their Immediate Supervisor or Coworker Who Thought the Following Would Happen to Them 

if They Did Go Along With the Sexual Harassment (Question 25) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

My working assignments or 

conditions would get 

better 

Reported by 16% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 53% of 

women and 32% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

The person(s) would 

become more pleasant

Reported by 13% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 2% of women 

and 26% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (59 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

I would get a promotion, 

step increase, good rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 24% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 52% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would get a better job Reported by 16% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 41% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I did not think anything 

would happen 

Reported by 71% of 

women and 0% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 47% of 

women and 42% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

My working assignments or 

conditions would get 

better 

Reported by 26% of 

women and 54% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 10% of 

women and 13% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

The person(s) would 

become more pleasant

Reported by 24% of 

women and 37% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 17% of 

women and 27% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would get a promotion, 

step increase, good rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 36% of 

women and 37% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 11% of 

women and 6% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would get a better job Reported by 15% of 

women and 31% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 6% of women 

and 4% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I did not think anything 

would happen 

Reported by 55% of 

women and 30% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 77% of 

women and 66% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

My working assignments or 

conditions would get 

better 

Reported by 13% of 

women and 15% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 5% of women 

and 3% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

The person(s) would 

become more pleasant

Reported by 24% of 

women and 23% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 8% of women 

and 13% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I would get a promotion, 

step increase, good rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 11% of 

women and 17% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 3% of women 

and 2% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I would get a better job Reported by 2% of women 

and 9% of men who were 

harassed by their 

immediate supervisor 

Reported by 2% of women 

and 1% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I did not think anything 

would happen 

Reported by 67% of 

women and 59% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 89% of 

women and 84% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT

My working assignments or 

conditions would get 

better 

Reported by 23% of 

women and 35% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 9% of women 

and 9% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

The person(s) would 

become more pleasant

Reported by 24% of 

women and 30% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 14% of 

women and 21% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

I would get a promotion, 

step increase, good rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 29% of 

women and 27% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 9% of women 

and 5% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I would get a better job Reported by 12% of 

women and 20% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 5% of women 

and 2% of men who were 

harassed by a co-worker

I did not think anything 

would happen 

Reported by 58% of 

women and 44% of men 

who were harassed by 

their immediate supervisor 

Reported by 81% of 

women and 74% of men 

who were harassed by a coworker

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (60 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Assertive Responses Are the Most Effective 

To find out how victims deal with incidents of sexual harassment, we asked which of nine possible responses they had made and what the 

effect of each had been.[4] The effectiveness of these informal efforts varied, depending on the sex of the victim and the severity of the 

harassment experience. 

Most women responded passively to the unwanted attention, by ignoring it (61%) or[5] avoiding the harasser (48%). Their reasons for doing 

this may have been similar to those of the victim whose situation was related by a supervisor in another unit: "She was afraid to report the 

incident for fear her supervisor would not allow her to work overtime. She refused his advances and began to avoid him whenever possible, 

hoping it would 'blow over'." 

The women's next most frequent response to sexual harassment was taking direct action by asking or telling the harasser to stop; half the 

women reported doing this. Although most women ignored the behavior, they found this one of the least effective actions to take (see Figure 

6-3). Only 28% of those who did so found it "made things better," and a number found it made the situation worse. 

The small number of women who went along with the behavior indicated that this was by far the least effective course to take; only 8% 

reported that things improved as a result. On the other hand, direct, assertive responses such as "asking or telling the person to stop" and 

"reporting the behavior to a supervisor or other officials" were found to be effective by the majority of women who took those actions (54% 

and 53%, respectively). However, since many women did not find these actions made things better, it cannot be assumed that most women 

could get sexual harassment to stop simply by reporting it or asking the offender to stop. 

Although the relatively rare action of disciplining the harasser[6] was found to be the most effective response (74% of the women who did 

this found it made things better) few women are in a position to discipline their harasser since relatively few women work in supervisory 

capacity. 

Like women, most male victims (65%) ignored the unwanted attention. However, proportionately fewer men avoided the offender or asked 

or told the person to stop. For men, the most effective actions were "asking or telling the person to stop," "disciplining the harasser" (also a 

rare response for men), and "avoiding the person(s)"; (67%, 56%, and 53% of men who took those actions found them to make things

better). 

As with women, the effectiveness of the various actions for men differed according to the form of sexual harassment being faced. The few 

male victims of actual or attempted rape or sexual assault found direct responses ineffective. For them, the most effective response was 

going along with the behavior (46% of those who went along with the situation found that to make things better), whereas this was relatively 

ineffective for men dealing with other forms of unwanted behavior. That such a large proportion of men but so few women, would find going 

along with such assaultive behavior to "make things better" raises some questions. Perhaps the difference is based in cultural and perceptual 

differences of opinion about what constitutes an instance of actual or attempted rape or assault.

FIGURE 6-3 

Narrators' Informal Responses to Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated that Taking These Informal Actions "Made Things Better" (Question 23) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Transferred, disciplined or gave a 

poor performance rating to the 

person 

Reported by 72% of women and 

9% of men 

Asked or told the person(s) to stop Reported by 40% of women and 

13% of men 

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 57% of women and 

11% of men

Avoided the person(s) Reported by 20% of women and 

32% of men 

Made a joke of the behavior Reported by 52% of women and 

7% of men 

Threatened to tell or told other 

workers 

Reported by 30% of women and 

19% of men 

Ignored the behavior or did nothing Reported by 12% of women and 

27% of men 

Went along with the behavior Reported by 14% of women and 

46% of men 

Transferred, disciplined or gave a 

poor performance rating to the 

person 

Reported by 79% of women and 

87% of men 

Asked or told the person(s) to stop Reported by 53% of women and 

69% of men 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (61 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 54% of women and 

46% of men

Avoided the person(s) Reported by 42% of women and 

51% of men

Made a joke of the behavior Reported by 32% of women and 

45% of men 

Threatened to tell or told other 

workers 

Reported by 35% of women and 

29% of men 

Ignored the behavior or did nothing Reported by 24% of women and 

41% of men 

Went along with the behavior Reported by 3% of women and 

32% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Transferred, disciplined or gave a 

poor performance rating to the 

person 

Reported by 59% of women and 

33% of men 

Asked or told the person(s) to stop Reported by 60% of women and 

68% of men 

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 52% of women and 

17% of men 

Avoided the person(s) Reported by 54% of women and 

58% of men 

Made a joke of the behavior Reported by 43% of women and 

57% of men 

Threatened to tell or told other 

workers 

Reported by 36% of women and 

21% of men

Ignored the behavior or did nothing Reported by 36% of women and 

45% of men

Went along with the behavior Reported by 18% of women and 

13% of men

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Transferred, disciplined or gave a 

poor performance rating to the 

person 

Reported by 74% of women and 

56% of men

Asked or told the person(s) to stop Reported by 54% of women and 

67% of men

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 53% of women and 

35% of men

Avoided the person(s) Reported by 45% of women and 

53% of men 

Made a joke of the behavior Reported by 36% of women and 

49% of men 

Threatened to tell or told other 

workers 

Reported by 35% of women and 

24% of men 

Ignored the behavior or did nothing Reported by 28% of women and 

42% of men 

Went along with the behavior Reported by 8% of women and 

25% of men 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated that they took more than one action. 

In summary, many informal responses to sexual harassment made things better for some victims--even making a joke of the behavior and 

telling, or threatening to tell, other workers. The responses that generally proved most effective were: 

● reporting the behavior to a supervisor or other officials, 

● asking or telling the person(s) to stop, and 

● avoiding the person(s). 

Other more specific techniques for victims to take to stop sexual harassment are discussed in publications listed in Appendix H. In addition, 

Mary P. Rowe, a prominent and knowledgeable observer in the field, has found that one of the most effective techniques is for the victim to 

write a personal confidential letter to the harasser outlining the offense and asking that the behavior be stopped. According to Dr. Rowe, this 

technique has the advantage of stopping the harassment quickly and effectively, preventing recurrence, and enabling the victims to take 

assertive action on their own.[7]

Actions that generally proved least effective (and in many instances had a deleterious effect) were: 

● going along with the behavior, and 

● ignoring the behavior or doing nothing. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (62 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Talking with Others 

To understand more about how people respond to sexual harassment, we asked victims whether they had discussed their experiences with 

anyone and, if so, with whom and with what result.[8]

About half the women and one-third of the men who answered this question[9] had talked with someone about their experience. Women 

most frequently had talked to other workers or to friends and relatives (68% and 60%, respectively, of the women who answered this 

question). Men also most frequently spoke to those groups of people (of those who answered this question, 65% spoke to other workers, and 

53% talked to friends or relatives). 

It should be mentioned however, that relatively few of the men and women we have been calling "narrators" do in fact talk to anyone. For 

example, although other workers were the most likely to be told, only 37% of the women we have termed "narrators"--83,700 out of

223,700--and 20% of the 97,500 male narrators indicated they had talked with other workers. It appears that victims prefer to keep their 

experiences private. 

The benefit of talking to various parties depended on the type of harassment and the sex of the victim (see Figure 6-4). When asked whether 

their discussions made things better or worse, or made no difference, women generally indicated they found talking to outside contacts 

(lawyers, civil rights group, Congress, or officials in another agency) or a supervisor or other officials more effective than talking with other 

workers; of those who had talked with those groups, 44%, 48% and 23%, respectively, said the action made things better. 

However, female victims of severe harassment found talking to the various parties about equally effective, while the small number of women 

who had faced actual or attempted rape found talking to EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) or union officials to be harmful or to have no 

effect. 

The results for male victims were even more mixed. As a group they found the best results from talking to personnel officials (41% who did 

so said it made things better) and the worst results from talking to union officials (18%). Male victims of actual or attempted rape or assault 

found talking with outside contacts helpful and talking to unions to have no effect, whereas victims of less severe harassment found neither 

of these actions to have an effect, but did find talking to EEO officials useful. 

While these findings are so mixed that few generalizations can be made, it might be noted that although talking with other people can make 

things better (sometimes just in the victim's ability to endure the situation), the best people to talk to are those who can do something to 

change the situation--not coworkers, friends, or relatives. Since relatively few victims talk to agency officials, publicizing the availability of 

both organizational and outside parties may be indicated. In addition, training may be indicated to help agency officials resolve problems of 

sexual harassment.

FIGURE 6-4 

Parties Contacted by Narrators 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated That Talking to These Parties "Made Things Better" (Question 27) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Supervisor(s) or other officials Reported by 51% of women and 

17% of men 

Outside contact (lawyer, civil rights 

group, Congress, other agency, 

etc.) 

Reported by 80% of women and 

100% of men 

Personnel office Reported by 41% of women and 

48% of men

Equal Employment Opportunity 

official (EEO counselor, Federal 

Women's Program manager, etc.) 

Reported by 0% of women and 0% 

of men 

Freinds, relatives Reported by 39% of women and 

46% of men 

Union Reported by 0% of women and 0% 

of men 

Other workers Reported by 42% of women and 

51% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Supervisor(s) or other officials Reported by 47% of women and 

23% of men 

Outside contact (lawyer, civil rights 

group, Congress, other agency, 

etc.) 

Reported by 32% of women and 

26% of men 

Personnel office Reported by 35% of women and 

38% of men

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (63 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Equal Employment Opportunity 

official (EEO counselor, Federal 

Women's Program manager, etc.) 

Reported by 33% of women and 

25% of men

Freinds, relatives Reported by 29% of women and 

33% of men 

Union Reported by 28% of women and 

26% of men 

Other workers Reported by 24% of women and 

21% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Supervisor(s) or other officials Reported by 51% of women and 

13% of men 

Outside contact (lawyer, civil rights 

group, Congress, other agency, 

etc.) 

Reported by 70% of women and 

0% of men 

Personnel office Reported by 15% of women and 

43% of men 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

official (EEO counselor, Federal 

Women's Program manager, etc.) 

Reported by 39% of women and 

100% of men 

Freinds, relatives Reported by 32% of women and 

22% of men 

Union Reported by 49% of women and 

0% of men

Other workers Reported by 20% of women and 

21% of men

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Supervisor(s) or other officials Reported by 48% of women and 

20% of men

Outside contact (lawyer, civil rights 

group, Congress, other agency, 

etc.) 

Reported by 44% of women and 

26% of men

Personnel office Reported by 33% of women and 

41% of men

Equal Employment Opportunity 

official (EEO counselor, Federal 

Women's Program manager, etc.) 

Reported by 33% of women and 

39% of men 

Freinds, relatives Reported by 30% of women and 

30% of men 

Union Reported by 30% of women and 

18% of men 

Other workers Reported by 23% of women and 

22% of men 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated that they contacted more than one party. 

Few File Formal Complaints 

Only 6,600 women (approximately 3% of all Federally employed women who described their sexual harassment incidents) and 1,700 men 

(2% of all male narrators) indicated that they filed formal complaints.[10] Of the 8,300 formal actions taken, most were requests for an 

investigation by the organization (2,800) or adverse action appeals (2,500).[11] Filing a discrimination complaint, the most widely known 

remedy, was chosen somewhat less often than other formal remedies except for "requesting an investigation by an outside agency," which is 

the least known remedy. Infrequent use of the discrimination complaint system may be explained by the fact that until recently sexual 

harassment generally was not considered to fall under the jurisdiction of the EEO complaint system.[12]

The majority (59%) of the 8,300 men and women who took formal action found these actions were effective (i.e., they "made things better") 

Conversely, 3,400 men and women found their effort had no effect--or made things worse.[13]

Most of the women who requested an investigation by their agency or filed a discrimination complaint found those actions effective (70% and 

66%, respectively). However, the effectiveness of remedies differed somewhat depending on the severity of the behavior involved (see 

Figure 6-5). 

FIGURE 6-5 

Narrators' Formal Responses to Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated That Taking These Formal Actions "made things better" (Question 28) 

Requested an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 84% of women and 

28% of men 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (64 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filed a discrimination complaint or 

lawsuit 

Reported by 81% of women and 

26% of men 

Requested an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 92% of women and 

100% of men

Filed a grievance or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 0% of women and 

26% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Requested an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 73% of women and 

50% of men 

Filed a discrimination complaint or 

lawsuit 

Reported by 52% of women and 

15% of men 

Requested an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 27% of women and 

0% of men

Filed a grievance or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 31% of women and 

43% of men

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Requested an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 44% of women and 

0% of men 

Filed a discrimination complaint or 

lawsuit 

Reported by 90% of women and 

0% of men 

Requested an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 52% of women and 

100% of men 

Filed a grievance or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 85% of women and 

0% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Requested an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 70% of women and 

29% of men

Filed a discrimination complaint or 

lawsuit 

Reported by 66% of women and 

12% of men

Requested an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 58% of women and 

100% of men

Filed a grievance or adverse action 

appeal 

Reported by 45% of women and 

33% of men

NOTE: Some respondents indicated that they took more than one formal action. 

Men who requested an investigation by an outside agency were most likely to think their action had made things better, but, in contrast with 

women, few who filed a discrimination complaint found that action useful. Again, the effectiveness of remedies varied somewhat depending 

on the severity of the behavior the men had experienced. 

In summary, the type of formal action taken and the perceived effectiveness of the action varied with the sex of the victim and the severity of 

the behavior the victim faced. However, the perceived success rate was only 59% (i.e., 4 victims in every 10 who took formal action did not 

find their efforts made things better). This middling success rate was cited by Congresswoman Gladys Spellman during Congressional hearings

[14] as a possible reason so many employees consider formal actions ineffective or think nothing would be done if incidents of sexual 

harassment were reported. Said Spellman: "If the success rate is only 50%, it isn't going to be a great incentive to moving ahead" (i.e., to 

changing attitudes so more Federal workers will have confidence that something will happen if incidents are reported). 

For a number of Federal workers, filing a formal complaint not only did not make things better, but actually made matters worse.[15] One 

survey respondent related on her questionnaire what happened when she filed a grievance, which eventually went to arbitration: "My 

supervisor was found to have sexually harassed--but the end result was I was literally forced by my supervisor and management to transfer 

to another installation. The action I took against my supervisor cost me psychologically as well as prevented promotions. " 

Response of Management 

In general, the response of agency officials to formal and informal actions was reported to be mixed[16] (see Figure 6-6). 

FIGURE 6-6 

Organizations' Responses to Formal Actions Taken by Narrators 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated That Their Organizations Responded as Follows (Question 29) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

Took action against the harasser Reported by 74% of women and 

20% of men 

Found narrator victim's charge to 

be true 

Reported by 49% of women and 

14% of men 

Did not know whether management 

did anything 

Reported by 0% of women and 

46% of men

Corrected the damage done to 

narrator victim 

Reported by 17% of women and 

5% of men 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (65 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

HARASSMENT The action is still being processed Reported by 0% of women and 0% 

of men 

Did nothing Reported by 17% of women and 

0% of men 

Were hostile or took action against 

narrator victim

Reported by 2% of women and 0% 

of men 

Found charge to be false Reported by 0% of women and 

15% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Took action against the harasser Reported by 44% of women and 

38% of men 

Found narrator victim's charge to 

be true 

Reported by 44% of women and 

37% of men 

Did not know whether management 

did anything 

Reported by 17% of women and 

23% of men

Corrected the damage done to 

narrator victim 

Reported by 20% of women and 

0% of men

The action is still being processed Reported by 8% of women and 

16% of men 

Did nothing Reported by 5% of women and 0% 

of men 

Were hostile or took action against 

narrator victim

Reported by 4% of women and 

23% of men 

Found charge to be false Reported by 0.2% of women and 

0% of men

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Took action against the harasser Reported by 31% of women and 

0% of men 

Found narrator victim's charge to 

be true 

Reported by 40% of women and 

0% of men 

Did not know whether management 

did anything 

Reported by 36% of women and 

0% of men 

Corrected the damage done to 

narrator victim 

Reported by 0% of women and 0% 

of men 

The action is still being processed Reported by 10% of women and 

0% of men 

Did nothing Reported by 4% of women and 0% 

of men

Were hostile or took action against 

narrator victim

Reported by 6% of women and 

16% of men

Found charge to be false Reported by 3% of women and 0% 

of men

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Took action against the harasser Reported by 44% of women and 

27% of men

Found narrator victim's charge to 

be true 

Reported by 43% of women and 

25% of men

Did not know whether management 

did anything 

Reported by 19% of women and 

25% of men

Corrected the damage done to 

narrator victim 

Reported by 16% of women and 

4% of men 

The action is still being processed Reported by 8% of women and 9% 

of men 

Did nothing Reported by 6% of women and 0% 

of men 

Were hostile or took action against 

narrator victim

Reported by 4% of women and 

16% of men 

Found charge to be false Reported by 1% of women and 4% 

of men

NOTE: Many respondents indicated that management responded in more than one way. 

Although female narrator-victims who did pursue formal remedies were more likely to encounter a favorable and corrective response than 

apathy or hostility, the results depended on the severity of the experience they had faced. More than 8 out of every 20 female narrators who 

answered this question said management found the charge to be true or took action against the offender, and only around 1 in 20 said 

management was hostile or did nothing. The more severe the harassment experience, the more likely management was to do something

about it. However, only 16% of the group of female narrators (and none of the victims of less severe harassment) reported the damage had 

been corrected--and for some it may have taken awhile. Wrote one woman who had been bothered by a Branch Chief: "My harasser's 

supervisors took no action until they were ordered to by outside sources. The sexual harassment continued over several years with several 

different women, two of whom resigned under pressure from this man. The situation eventually was rectified by removing him from a 

management position." 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (66 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

The finding that no female victims of "less severe" harassment reported that damage from the harassment had been corrected may reflect 

the difficulty in correcting damage caused by ambiguous behavior such as unwanted sexual comments, and suggestive looks and pressure for 

dates. The negative consequences for these victims may be more in the realm of the psychological. 

Although men who took formal action also were more likely to find a favorable rather than a hostile management response, they were less 

likely than women to do so and four times more likely than women to encounter hostility, particularly if they had experienced the less severe 

forms of sexual harassment. Thus, it would seem that men who allege sexual harassment are less likely than women to be taken seriously by 

management, possibly because sexual harassment often is seen as a problem that happens only to women. There is other evidence that the 

complaints of men are not taken as seriously as those of women in the low number who found reporting the behavior and talking to a 

supervisor or other agency officials to be effective. Around half the women found reporting (53%) or talking (48%) to these officials to make 

things better, but only one-third (35%) of the men found reporting the behavior helpful, and only one-fifth (20%) found talking to officials 

useful (see Figures 6-3 and 6-4). 

The comments respondents wrote on their questionnaires clearly indicate that some managers approach the problem more seriously than do 

others. One victim reported that when she attempted to get help from her harasser's superior officer, she was told she should be more 

tolerant of him and make allowance for him. Another wrote of taking a complaint to the top administrator, who said he was powerless to 

admonish for "hearsay" In contrast, a supervisor reported, "My deputy tried sexual harassment pressure on my secretary until I dealt with the 

matter rather bluntly for the future of his work record." Adds this respondent: "I have advised counseling for the victims and filing charges 

against the perpetrators." 

Conclusion 

This chapter has explored the behavior of victims and harassers during sexual harassment incidents and the attempts of victims to stop the 

harassment. Few victims talk to organizational officials about their problems and only a handful file formal complaints. It may be that most 

victims simply want the harassment to stop and see no need to escalate the situation by filing a formal complaint. 

Thus, informal actions carried out by victims or those with organizational or independent authority to correct the situation are seen as the 

most effective available remedies. Exploration of this possibility continues in the next chapter. 

Clearly, the findings reported in this chapter indicate that there is much management can do to improve its effectiveness in reducing sexual 

harassment. Agency officials must be clearly informed of their responsibilities in this regard. In addition, victims need to be informed of the 

most effective informal responses to stop sexual harassment. They also need information on formal remedies so that option is open to those 

who choose to take it. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 6 

1 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

2 Based on responses to Survey Question 24; also see Appendix D, Table R for additional data.

3 Based on responses to Survey Question 25. 

4 See Survey Questions 23a and 23b; see Appendix D, Figure L for additional data. 

5 Respondents were asked to indicate all actions they had taken, and many did. 

6 Fewer than 4,000 women, or 2% of all female narrators who answered this question, took this action. 

7 Mary P. Rowe, Ph.D., Assistant to the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, conversation, March 1981.

8 See Survey Questions 27a and 27b; see Appendix D, Figure M for additional data.

9 A number of narrators, i.e., those who responded to Survey Question 20, did not answer Question 27. 

10 Based on responses to Survey Question 28b, see Appendix D, for additional data. 

11 See Chapter 8 for a description of the various formal complaint procedures. 

12 In November 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission helped to clarify the issue by adopting guidelines in which sexual 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (67 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

harassment under certain conditions was interpreted to be a form of discrimination on the basis of sex; see Appendix E. 

13 See Appendix D, Table I for data. 

14 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service on Sexual Harassment in the 

Federal Government, 2nd Sess., September 25, 1980, p. 28. 

15 See Appendix D, for additional data. 

16 Based on responses to Survey Question 29. 

7. Impact and Cost of Sexual Harassment 

● The cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government between May 1978 and May 1980 is conservatively estimated to have been 

$189 million. 

● Although their experiences do not change the careers or work situations of most victims, a sizeable number of men and women do 

leave their jobs or suffer other adverse job consequences. 

● A majority of victims do not think their personal well-being or work performance declined as a result of their experiences, but a 

sizeable minority do. 

● Victims are much more likely to think sexual harassment negatively affected their personal wellbeing or morale than to believe that 

their work performance or productivity suffered. 

● Most victims report that as far as they know the morale and productivity of their immediate workgroups are little affected by their 

personal experience of sexual harassment. 

"I really stored a lot of feelings over one particular sexual advance." 

"My boss kept pestering me for dates and kept making personal remarks. When I wouldn't change my mind and play around 

with him, he had me transferred to a less desirable job." 

" Because I will not cooperate with my supervisor, he is giving me bad references so I can 't get another job in order to get out 

of the situation." 

The problem of sexual harassment does not end when the harasser walks out of the room or when a new day begins in the office. Victims 

are affected by their interpersonal problems and crisis experiences just as all people are. How strongly and in what way they are affected 

undoubtedly depends on a complex combination of personal variables--who they are, how they view the world, how many options they have--

and situational variables--what sort of experience they had, what sort of office they were working in. 

Nor does the problem of sexual harassment necessarily end with the victim. The problems of the victim or between the victim and the 

harasser may spill over into the workgroup, becoming a distraction if not a cause of additional office problems. In extreme cases, the impact 

of individual incidents may extend far beyond the office--to the Federal Women's Program manager called in to hear a complaint, or to the 

personnel specialist called on to write a vacancy notice for a job left by a victim. 

Thus, while the picture of sexual harassment incidents is fairly complete, more questions must be asked to gain an understanding of the true 

extent of the problem of sexual harass-ment in the Federal work force. What is the impact of sexual harassment on a victim's physical and 

emotional condition, work performance, career well-being, and job turnover? What effect does sexual harassment have on, the morale and 

productivity of the victim's immediate workgroup?[1] And how do all these things--each of them costly to some extent in some way--add up 

to a total cost to the Federal Government? 

While most victims did not think their experiences had had a negative effect on their work performance or productivity, or on that of their 

work group, enough did report these and other negative consequences to bring the estimated cost of sexual harassment to the Federal 

Government over the 2-year period of the study to $189 million. This overall cost is discussed first, and then the responses of the victims on 

which the estimates were based are examined in greater detail. 

Sexual Harassment Is Costly to the Federal Government 

Sexual harassment of its employees cost the Federal Government an estimated $189 million during the period May 1978 to May 1980-$102 

million for the harassment of women and $87 million for the harassment of men. These figures represent the costs of: 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (68 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

● replacing employees who left their jobs because of sexual harassment, 

● paying medical insurance claims for service to employees who sought professional help because of physical or emotional stress 

brought on by their experiences, 

● paying sick leave to employees who missed work, and 

● absorbing the costs associated with reduced individual and work group productivity. 

The starting point for making cost estimates derives from those victims who agreed to describe at least one harassment incident they 

experienced in greater detail. We term these individuals narrators. The incident they describe may be a "most recent" experience or one they 

felt had the greatest impact on them. 

Obtaining the cost estimates on sexual harassment required that several general assumptions be made. Fundamental among these is that 

those respondents defined as narrators are representative of all victims and that we may generalize from them to the total population of 

victims. A second important set of assumptions concerns the derivation of costs of harassment. Largely, cost was calculated by inferential 

extrapolations from questions included in the survey. This was necessary since no direct questions were included in the survey which would 

provide information about the nature and amount of medical benefits used as a consequence of sexual harassment, the reason for or the 

amount of sick leave taken, work time missed, or estimated amount of work time devoted to harassment reduction activity. 

Cost of Job Turnover: $26.8 million 

Projecting figures for the entire groups of victims, not just narrators, we estimated that 29,350 Federal employees--24,660 women and 4,690 

men--left their jobs over the 2-year study period as a result of being sexually harassed.[2] Replacing an employee usually involves three 

types of measurable costs: personnel costs asso-ciated with offering the job to a replacement; costs of a background check on the 

replacement; and the cost of training the replacement. Assuming that each person who left the job due to sexual harassment was replaced, 

that a background check of some type was made on each replacement, and each replacement received formal training in the new position, 

the loss to the Federal Government due to job turnover resulting from sexual harassment is estimated to have been $26.8 million--$22.5 

million for women and $4.3 for men (see Table 7-1). 

These figures are conservative in that they assume that the first person offered the job accepted it. They also do not include the costs 

associated with having a job vacant (e.g., work not done or overtime for other employees) and with taking one employee off, and putting 

another on, the payroll. The estimated number of Federal employees who quit because of sexual harassment also is conservative in that the 

survey, by its nature, did not reach the people who left the Federal Government altogether as a result of their sexual harassment experience. 

Table 7-1 

Costs of Sexual Harassment 

Job Turnover

Women

Men Total

Cost to offer a job[1] $ 6.4 $ 1.2 $ 7.6

Background checks[2] 2.0 0.4 2.4 

Training[3] 24.1 2.7 26.8

Total Cost of Job Turnover $ 22.5 $ 4.3 $ 26.8

Individual Productivity 37.7 34.4 72.1

Emotional Stress 3.9 2.1 5.0

Absenteeism 5.3 2.6 7.9 

Work Group Productivity 32.6 44.3 76.9

TOTALS $ 

102.0 

$ 86.7 $ 188.7

[1] Source: Office of Program Management and Evaluation, Office of Personnel Management

[2] Source: Division of Personnel Investigations, Office of Personnel Management 

[3] Source: "Employee Training in the Federal Service--FY 1979," published by the Office of Personnel Management, Workforce 

Effectiveness and Development Office. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (69 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Cost of Emotional and Physical Stress: $5 million 

Dollar loss due to emotional and physical stress was measured in terms of estimated use of Governmental health benefits plans. An estimated 

128,200 victims indicated that their experience of sexual harassment had a negative impact on their emotional and physical health.[3] We 

assumed that such physical and emotional stress would result in symptoms for which some victims would seek professional services--and that 

the employees' Government health benefit plans would cover 40% of the cost of these services. We also assumed that the need for medical 

help would vary by the severity of the harassment experience of the victim. Thus, we assumed that the victims of the "most severe" form of 

sexual harassment who said their emotional or physical condition had declined (7,560 women and 1,590 men) would seek on the average 

$200 worth of medical services, that victims of "severe" forms of sexual harassment (74,000 women and 22,000 men) would seek on the 

average $100 in services, and that each vic tim of "less severe" sexual harassment (17,850 women and 5,200 men) would seek on the 

average $50 in services. On this basis we estimate the loss to the Government in use of health benefits plans due to emotional and physical 

stress to have been $5 million-$3.9 million for women and $1.1 million for men. 

Cost of Absenteeism: $7.9 million 

Dollar cost to the Government due to absenteeism was measured in terms of extra sick leave paid to the estimated 50,430 Federal employees 

whose time and attendance at work suffered as a result of their sexual harassment experiences.[4] We assumed that victims of "most 

severe" sexual harassment (4,320 women and 660 men) took 5 days on the average of sick leave, while victims of "severe" sexual 

harassment (28,000 women and 8,000 men) took 3 days on the average, and those victims of "less severe" harassment (4,250 women and 

5,200 men) took 1 day on the average. Furthermore, assuming that the average daily salary of men and women is $80 and $48, respectively,

[5] we project the approximate work time lost due to sick leave absenteeism to cost $8 million ($5,3 million for women and $2.6 million for 

men). Note, this estimate does not reflect tardiness at work or absenteeism not due to sick leave. 

Cost of Decline in Individual Productivity: $72.1 million 

Dollar cost of diminished victim productivity was measured in terms of self reported decreases in quality and quantity of work. First we 

assumed that the productivity of the estimated 47,290 employees whose work quality and quantity became worse[6] declined by 10%, and 

that this loss translates into a loss to the Government of 10% of the workers' annual salaries. Figures are based on calculations of average 

annual salaries of male and female victims of each of the three levels of severity of sexual harassment experience.[7] On this basis we 

estimate the loss to the Federal Government due to decreased productivity of victims of sexual harassment to have been $72.1 million--$37.7 

million for female victims and $34.4 million for male victims (see Table 7-1). 

We believe a 10% loss in productivity to be a very conservative figure. In 1970, the General Accounting Office estimated that lost productivity 

of individual workers due to alcoholism was at least 25%.[8] It seems possible that the problems generated by sexual harassment, at least in 

severe cases or when, as is commonly the case, the harassment continues over a 'lengthy period,[9] could approach in severity the problems 

associated with employee alcoholism. 

If the 25% GAO figure were used to estimate loss due to decreased worker productivity, the cost to the Federal Government over the 2-year 

study period would amount to $180.2 million. It should be mentioned that the estimated loss does not take into account any decline in 

productivity of the harasser, who might be assumed also to have been less productive during the duration of the harassment incidents. 

Cost of Decline in Workgroup Productivity: $76.9 million 

Decrease in workgroup productivity was measured in terms of victims' assessment of this factor.[10] We estimated that 30,680 workgroups 

were affected.[11] If workgroup productivity can be assumed to decline by 1%, dollar costs for this decreased produc-tivity are likely to be at 

least 1% of the average salaries of members of the workgroup. These average workgroup salaries were estimated on the basis of sizes[12]

and sexual composition of workgroups[13] reported by narrator-victims. Again on the basis of calculations from survey data, women in the 

workgroups were assigned an average annual salary of $12,000, and men an average annual salary of $20,000. On this basis, the loss to the 

Federal Government due to decreased productivity of employees who worked in close association with the victims of sexual harassment is 

estimated to have been $76.9 million--$32.6 million for workgroups containing female victims and $44.3 million for workgroups containing 

male victims. 

The General Accounting Office study cited earlier estimates that the productivity of an alcoholic employee 's workgroup could decline as much 

as 5% to 10%. If these percentages were applied to the workgroups of victims of sexual harassment, the loss to the Federal Government 

over the 2-year study period would have amounted to $384.5 million (5% loss) or $769 million (10% loss) (see Table 7-1). 

Total Cost of Sexual Harassment of Federal Employees: $189 million 

The cost to the Federal Government of sexual harassment of Federal workers was estimated on the basis of what victims said about how 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (70 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

their experiences affected them personally and their coworkers. Estimates of dollar losses due to job turnover, increased absenteeism, 

physical and emotional stress, and decreased individual and workgroup productivity were based on seemingly reasonable sets of assumptions 

and deliberately were conservative. The estimated overall cost, $189 million, while likely a minimum amount, is still enough to pay the 

salaries of all the executives in the Federal Government--both the 465 top agency executives and the 7,000 members of the Senior Executive 

Service--for 6 months.[14]

As indicated, these cost estimates were based on the negative consequences of sexual harassment on victims and their workgroups as 

perceived by victim-narrators. The overall impact, as indicated by this group, is discussed in detail in the sections that follow. 

Work Situation of Most Victims Did Not Change 

The job status and working conditions of the majority of victims did not change as a result of sexual harassment, but this clearly depended 

on the severity of the experience[15] (see Figure 7-1). Nearly half (49%) of the women who expe-rienced actual or attempted rape or sexual 

assault, compared with 1 in 5 female victims of "severe" forms of sexual harassment (22%) and 1 in 10 victims of "less severe" sexual 

harassment (10%), reported some change in their working conditions or careers as a result of sexual harassment, that is, did not indicate "no 

changes happened in (their) work situation." Most of the changes were for the worse. Wrote one victim: "I transferred out of state because 

of sexual harassment I received from my immediate supervisor because I chose not to tell her of my social life off the job." Another reported: 

"Because of my refusal to grant favors to my immediate supervisor I have been prevented from obtaining the fulltime status I had prior to my 

graduate studies in management." 

FIGURE 7-1 

Changes in Narrators' Work Situations as a Result of Sexual Harassment 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated These Changes Actually Occurred (Question 26) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

No changes happened in work 

situation

Reported by 51% of women and 

52% of men 

Working assignments or conditions 

got worse 

Reported by 22% of women and 

25% of men 

Was denied a promotion, step 

increase, good performance rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 14% of women and 

7% of men

Transferred or quit to take another 

job 

Reported by 12% of women and 

4% of men 

Was reassigned or fired Reported by 2% of women and 9% 

of men 

Received a promotion, step 

increase, good performance rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 9% of women and 7% 

of men 

Working assignments or conditions 

got better 

Reported by 6% of women and 9% 

of men 

Quit without having another job Reported by 0% of women and 0% 

of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

No changes happened in work 

situation

Reported by 78% of women and 

85% of men 

Working assignments or conditions 

got worse 

Reported by 10% of women and 

9% of men 

Was denied a promotion, step 

increase, good performance rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 8% of women and 6% 

of men

Transferred or quit to take another 

job 

Reported by 7% of women and 2% 

of men

Was reassigned or fired Reported by 2% of women and 1% 

of men 

Received a promotion, step 

increase, good performance rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 2% of women and 

0.4% of men 

Working assignments or conditions 

got better 

Reported by 1% of women and 1% 

of men 

Quit without having another job Reported by 1% of women and 

0.3% of men

No changes happened in work 

situation

Reported by 90% of women and 

91% of men 

Working assignments or conditions 

got worse 

Reported by 5% of women and 5% 

of men 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (71 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Was denied a promotion, step 

increase, good performance rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 3% of women and 2% 

of men 

Transferred or quit to take another 

job 

Reported by 3% of women and 2% 

of men 

Was reassigned or fired Reported by 1% of women and 

0.3% of men 

Received a promotion, step 

increase, good performance rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 0.3% of women and 

0.2% of men

Working assignments or conditions 

got better 

Reported by 1% of women and 1% 

of men

Quit without having another job Reported by 0.3% of women and 

0% of men

ALL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

No changes happened in work 

situation

Reported by 81% of women and 

87% of men

Working assignments or conditions 

got worse 

Reported by 9% of women and 8% 

of men

Was denied a promotion, step 

increase, good performance rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 7% of women and 5% 

of men

Transferred or quit to take another 

job 

Reported by 6% of women and 2% 

of men 

Was reassigned or fired Reported by 2% of women and 1% 

of men 

Received a promotion, step 

increase, good performance rating, 

or reference 

Reported by 1% of women and 

0.4% of men 

Working assignments or conditions 

got better 

Reported by 1% of women and 1% 

of men 

Quit without having another job Reported by 1% of women and 

0.1% of men

NOTE: Many respondents indicated that management responded in more than one way. 

It is interesting that many of the relatively few women who anticipated penalties would occur if they did not go along[16] did in fact report 

negative consequences, i.e., their fear of negative consequences was found to be justified. These women were much more likely to report 

adverse consequences than the women who had thought that nothing would happen if they did not go along. 

Of the women narrators who reported adverse consequences as a result of their sexual harassment experience, approximately 18,200

indicated they left their jobs (by quitting, transferring, being reassigned or fired) at some point during the 2-year period of the study. 

The experiences of men were similar to those of women. Most men reported that no changes had occurred in their work situations, but this 

again depended on severity of experience, with male victims of the "most severe" form of sexual harassment most likely to experience 

changes (48% did) and victims of "severe" and "less severe" sexual harassment far less likely to report changes (15% and 9%, respectively). 

Around 2,700 men reported they had left their jobs (voluntarily or involuntarily) over the 2-year study period as a result of unwanted sexual 

attention. As with women, men who foresaw penalties or benefits for not going along or going along with the sexual harassment were more 

likely to experience changes in their work situations than those who did not anticipate any consequences. 

Well-Being and Morale of Many Victims Suffered 

Again, although the personal well-being and job morale of most victims apparently did not suffer as a result of their experiences, many did 

report suffering these negative consequences, and their experiences were strongly related to the type of unwanted attention they had faced.

[17] (see Figure 7-2). Approximately 65,500 women (33% of the women who responded to this question) said their emotional or physical

condition became worse as a result of their experiences. Negative physical and emotional consequences were far more common among

women who had faced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault: 82% of the female victims of this most severe form of harassment

reported worsened emotional or physical conditions, compared with 37% and 21% of the victims of severe and less severe forms of 

unwanted attention. One woman, whose Division Chief had become violent in his persistent pressuring of her for sexual favors, described her 

experience in this way: "It was so upsetting I finally went to a doctor for help in calming my nerves. Finally I quit. I've been a housewife 

since then. I'm afraid to go back--it was like being raped." 

FIGURE 7-2 

Impact of Sexual Harassment on Narrators 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated These Aspects of Their Lives "Became Worse" (Question 31a) 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (72 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Feelings about work Reported by 62% of women and 

27% of men 

Emotional or physical condition Reported by 82% of women and 

53% of men 

Ability to work with others on the 

job 

Reported by 32% of women and 

24% of men

time and attendance at work Reported by 48% of women and 

22% of men 

The quantity of work Reported by 28% of women and 

10% of men 

The quality of work Reported by 21% of women and 

6% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Feelings about work Reported by 41% of women and 

20% of men 

Emotional or physical condition Reported by 37% of women and 

22% of men 

Ability to work with others on the 

job 

Reported by 18% of women and 

16% of men

time and attendance at work Reported by 14% of women and 

8% of men

The quantity of work Reported by 13% of women and 

12% of men 

The quality of work Reported by 12% of women and 

13% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Feelings about work Reported by 24% of women and 

17% of men 

Emotional or physical condition Reported by 21% of women and 

17% of men 

Ability to work with others on the 

job 

Reported by 10% of women and 

14% of men 

time and attendance at work Reported by 5% of women and 8% 

of men 

The quantity of work Reported by 6% of women and 8% 

of men 

The quality of work Reported by 4% of women and 6% 

of men

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Feelings about work Reported by 36% of women and 

19% of men

Emotional or physical condition Reported by 33% of women and 

21% of men

Ability to work with others on the 

job 

Reported by 15% of women and 

15% of men

time and attendance at work Reported by 11% of women and 

8% of men 

The quantity of work Reported by 11% of women and 

10% of men 

The quality of work Reported by 10% of women and 

10% of men 

An even larger number of women--74,300, or 36% of all female narrators--said their feelings about work (i.e., their "morale") became worse 

as a result of the unwanted sexual attention. Again, women who faced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault were considerably more 

likely than victims of "less severe " harassment to report this negative consequence (62% compared with 24%). 

Men were less likely than women to report having been adversely affected by their experiences. Only 1 in 5 male narrators (21% or 17,500 

men), compared with 1 in 3 women, reported worse emotional or physical conditions attributed to the unwanted attention they received, and 

only 1 in 5 (19%, or 16,800 male narrators), compared with 1 in 3 women, reported their feelings about work became worse. Like women, 

the subsequent physical and emotional condition of male narrator-victims was strongly related to the severity of the experience they had had. 

More than half of the men who had faced actual attempted rape or sexual assault (53%) reported worsened emotional or physical health, 

compared with only 22% and 17% of male victims of severe and less severe forms of harassment. The feelings of men toward work were 

less dependent than women on type of experience: 27% who had experienced the most severe form of harassment, compared with 17% of 

victims of "less severe" behavior, reported lowered morale. 

Victims Judged Their Own Work Performance and Productivity to Be Unaffected 

The impact of sexual harassment on victims' work performance and productivity was exam-ined in terms of the victims' own assessments of 

changes in their time and attendance at work, their ability to work with others, and the quantity and quality of their work.[18] As Figure 7-2 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (73 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

shows, very few victims reported their work had suffered in any of these ways. 

That only 10% to 15% of women who had received sexual attention they did not invite and did not want (attention that in some cases 

continued 6 months or more) felt their experiences had adversely affected their work performance and productivity seems somewhat

surprising. It may be that most of the behavior, while unwanted, was not perceived as coercive enough to affect individual productivity and 

performance substantially. Some evidence of this (assuming perceived coerciveness is related to severity of experience) shows up in analysis 

of responses by severity of experience: the more severe the harassment incident, the more likely were female narrators to report diminished 

performance and productivity. Also interesting is the finding that victims of the two most severe forms of harassment were likelier to report 

that their time and attendance and their ability to work with others had suffered than that the quality and quantity of their work had 

diminished. 

While the explanation suggested above may have some validity, the finding that so few women--and men, as well--report their harassment 

experience had an adverse effect on their work performance warrants further exploration. 

Sex Assessments of Work Performance Must be Questioned 

When one looks at the victims' self reports of the impact of sexual harassment on personal well-being and work performance, a striking 

difference emerges. It appears that victims, both male and female, are more inclined to state that their emotional and physical condition was 

harmed by sexual harassment than that their ability to do their work was diminished. For example, female victims of "most severe" 

harassment were nearly four times as likely to state that their emotional or physical condition got worse (82%) than that the quality of their 

work declined (21%). A possible explanation for this difference was suggested by Congresswoman Gladys Spellman (Democrat-Maryland) 

during hearings on sexual harassment in the Federal workforce called by the Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Post Office and 

Civil Service:[19]

Mrs. Spellman. I am aware of that question on productivity, and I am puzzled over it. 

Here people have been harassed and had, in some cases, very severe problems. Yet they say it did not affect their 

productivity. 

I am puzzled over that and wondered if, indeed, they were afraid to say that productivity had changed for fear it would have 

an adverse effect on them. As we look at some of the graphs we have here, we find that 82 percent of those responding to the 

survey said their emotional or physical condition was affected; 62 percent said their feelings about work were affected; 48 

percent said their time and attendance at work was affected. 

Surely, that affects productivity. Thirtytwo percent said that their ability to work with others on the job was affected. 

Twentyeight percent specified that their quantity of work was affected, while 21 percent specified that the quality of their work 

was affected. In addition, there are indications that those who have been victims of severe sexual harassment and victims of 

less severe sexual harassment also were affected in those ways but, then, when you ask "was your productivity affected," they 

will say, no. That of course, belies the other statistics that we have, so I think that we can look just a little bit beyond that one 

simple question. 

There is far more to it than meets the eye. 

In sum, although a sizeable number of women, and to a lesser extent men, report physicalical or emotional distress or reduced morale, fewer 

are willing to admit to a decline in productivity. This discrepancy may be perceptual or based on fear of adverse consequences and thus 

should not necessarily be taken at face value. It may be that those who are experiencing stress are not always the most accurate judges of 

the effect of that stress on their own performance on the job. Further research may be needed to put this finding in context. 

 

FIGURE 7-3 

Impact of Sexual Harassment on the Morale and Productivity of Narrators' Immediate Work Groups 

Percentage of Narrators Who Indicated These Effects on the Morale and Productivity 

of Their Immediate Work Groups (Question 31b) 

MORALE

Became better Reported by 2% of women and 

19% of men 

Became worse Reported by 26% of women and 

42% of men

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (74 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Had no effect Reported by 72% of women and 

40% of men 

PRODUCTIVITY

Became better Reported by 1% of women and 3% 

of men 

Became worse Reported by 10% of women and 

11% of men 

Had no effect Reported by 89% of women and 

87% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

MORALE

Became better Reported by 1% of women and 1% 

of men 

Became worse Reported by 13% of women and 

13% of men

Had no effect Reported by 86% of women and 

86% of men 

PRODUCTIVITY

Became better Reported by 0.3% of women and 

1% of men 

Became worse Reported by 6% of women and 

11% of men 

Had no effect Reported by 94% of women and 

89% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

MORALE

Became better Reported by 1% of women and 5% 

of men 

Became worse Reported by 7% of women and 

11% of men

Had no effect Reported by 92% of women and 

84% of men 

PRODUCTIVITY

Became better Reported by 1% of women and 2% 

of men 

Became worse Reported by 3% of women and 6% 

of men 

Had no effect Reported by 96% of women and 

92% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

MORALE

Became better Reported by 1% of women and 3% 

of men 

Became worse Reported by 11% of women and 

12% of men

Had no effect Reported by 88% of women and 

85% of men 

PRODUCTIVITY

Became better Reported by 0.4% of women and 

1% of men 

Became worse Reported by 5% of women and 9% 

of men 

Had no effect Reported by 95% of women and 

90% of men 

Victims Also Judged Their Workgroups to Be Unaffected 

Most male and female narrators thought their personal experiences had no effect on the morale (85% to 88%) and productivity (90% to 

95%) of the people they worked with on a day-to-day basis,[20] but their perceptions depended somewhat on the severity of the behavior 

they encountered (see Figure 7-3).

Women who faced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault were more likely than other women to perceive a decline in their workgroups' 

morale and productivity, and women in general were more likely to judge there had been a decline in morale than a decrease in productivity 

(11% compared with 5%). Men also overwhelmingly reported that their workgroups were affected by their personal experiences. 

Interestingly, male victims of the most severe form of harassment were more likely than their female counterparts to report a decline in the 

morale of their coworkers because of the incident. 

The finding that the workgroup was unaffected by a member's sexual harassment should be interpreted carefully since the finding is based 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (75 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

on the opinions of the victims, not on reports of the coworkers themselves. Victims may or may not have been aware of the effect on their 

coworkers. Conversely, other members of the workgroup may never have known of the incidents. Most incidents of sexual harassment may 

occur in private, and as data discussed in Chapter 6 reveal, only around one-third of female narrators and one-fifth of male narrators spoke 

with other workers about their experiences. Given the data, a generalization about the impact of sexual harassment on the victim 's 

immediate workgroup is unwise. 

Conclusion 

Although sexual harassment was not perceived by the majority of victims to have an adverse impact on their career, morale, or productivity, 

a significant number of women and men indicated they suffered serious adverse consequences in the form of job transfers or dismissals, 

impairment to emotional and physical health, and deteriorated work performance. Aside from compassionate and moral reasons for reducing 

sexual harassment, to do so would save the Government a considerable amount of money--$189 million over a 2-year period, by our 

conservative estimate. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 7 

1 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E. 

2 Figures projected from the 20,900 narrators (18,200 women and 2,700 men) who indicated in response to Survey Question 26 (see Figure 

7-1 and additional data in Appendix D) that they had left their jobs because of unwanted sexual attention, either by quitting or transferring or 

because they had been reassigned or fired. 

3 Figures projected from the number of narrator-victims who indicated in response to Survey Question 31a (Figure 7-2 and additional data in 

Appendix D) that their emotional and physical condition declined as a result of unwanted sexual attention. 

4 Figures projected from the number of narrator-victims who indicated in response to Survey Question 31a (Figure 7-2 and Appendix D) that 

their time and attendance at work declined as a result of unwanted sexual attention. 

5 Daily salaries were based on approximations that the average annual salaries of women and men working for the Federal Government are 

$12,000 and $20,000 respectively. This assumes 250 working days a year and is based on data derived from the questionnaire. 

6 Figures projected from number of narrator-victims who indicated in response to Survey Question 31a (Figure 7-2 and Appendix D) that the 

quality and quantity of their work became worse as a result of unwanted sexual attention. 

7 Rounded average annual salaries of victims of "most severe" sexual harassment were $12,000 for women and $15,300 for men; "severe " 

sexual harassment, $12,400 for women and $20,000 for men; "less severe " sexual harassment, $12,100 for women and $22,100 for men; 

see Appendix D, Table J. 

8 "Substantial Cost Savings from Establishment of Alcoholism Program for Federal Civilian Employees, " GAO Report to Special Subcommittee 

on Alcoholism and Narcotics Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, September 28, 1970, p. 14. The GAO figure of 25% was at 

that time, and still is, considered conservative by many people familiar with the problem of alcoholism in the work force. For example, see 

editorial by Charles Elliott Blackford III, "What Does Employee Alcoholism Really Cost? ", Labor-Management Alcoholism Journal VII (MayJune, 1978). 

9 See Chapter 9 

10 Based on responses to Survey Question 31b. 

11 This is composed of 990 workgroups of female victims, and 330 of male victims, of "most severe " sexual harassment; 12,000 and 11,000 

workgroups of female and male victims of "severe " sexual harassment respectively; and 2,550 and 3,900 workgroups of female and male 

victims of "less severe " sexual harassment. See Appendix D, Table K. 

12 Average workgroup size of male and female victims of each level of severity of sexual harassment experience was determined on the basis 

of responses of narrator-victims to Survey Question 48; the average workgroup size for all female victims was calculated to be roughly 13 

persons, and for all male victims, 16 persons. See Appendix D, Table N. 

13 Sexual composition of workgroups of victims was determined by responses of narrator-victims to Survey Question 51. 

14 Figures provided by Ann Andrews, Coordinator of Executive Personnel and Management Development Information Systems, OPM. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (76 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

15 Based on responses to Survey Question 26. 

16 Those who checked one or more items when responding to Survey Question 24; see Appendix D, Table L for data. 

17 Based on responses to Survey Question 31(a) and (b). 

18 See Survey Question 31a(c)-(f).

19 Congressional Hearings, September 25, 1980, pp- 37-38.

20 Based on responses to Survey Question 31b. 

8. Awareness of Remedies and Their Effectiveness 

● Most victims and supervisors are relatively unaware of the formal remedies available to victims of sexual harassment. 

● Relatively few victims and supervisors consider formal remedies effective in helping victims of sexual harassment. 

● Taking assertive informal action is thought to be the most effective way for employees to make others stop bothering them sexually.

● Most victims and supervisors think there is much management can do regarding sexual harassment. 

What can a person do to get sexual harassment to stop? Can anything be done when rejection of overtures results in negative job 

consequences? More important, what could be done to keep sexual harassment from becoming a problem in the first place? 

There are a number of formal actions Federal employees can take in instances of sexual harassment, including filing a discrimination 

complaint or a grievance or adverse action appeal and requesting an investigation by their own or an outside agency. These are the remedies 

the Subcommittee on Investigations had in mind when it directed that the survey determine "whether victims of sexual harassment are aware 

of available remedies and whether they have any faith in them"[1] We believed it would also be useful to learn whether Federal employees 

thought there were any other actions management might take--or any effective ways an individual could get the bothersome behavior to 

stop. The broad issue of prevention of sexual harassment also seemed important. 

Since victims obviously are the most concerned about remedies, and since supervisors not only are often involved in the complaint process 

but also are responsible for monitoring office behavior, we focused on their responses. There was a great deal of agreement between the two 

groups. Generally, there was a very low level of awareness of formal remedies. With the exception of filing a discrimination complaint, the 

majority of victims--male or female--were not aware of formal remedies available to them. Even fewer felt these formal actions would be 

effective in helping Federal employees who have been sexually bothered by others. Supervisors--Federal employees responsible for advising 

workers of their rights--were only somewhat more aware of formal remedies; nor were they much more confident in the effectiveness of 

these remedies. Despite this lack of faith, most victims and supervisors--men and women alike--believe there is much management can do 

regarding sexual harassment, particularly in the areas of sanctions and penalties. 

A large number of victims and supervisors--at least 4 in every 10--did not think filing a formal complaint per se was one of the most effective 

things employees could do to get sexual harassment to stop. Far greater numbers preferred direct informal actions--asking or telling the 

offender to stop and reporting the behavior to a supervisor or other official as remedies for the behavior. 

In order to provide background information for this chapter, the next section describes the various formal remedies usually available to 

victims of sexual harassment within the Federal Government. 

Explanations of Formal Remedies 

Formal actions or remedies are procedures that have been established by agencies in accordance with law or regulation for use by employees 

to resolve their workrelated complaints. Depending in some cases on the type of formal remedy used, the complaint may concern any 

number of matters, such as unfair office practices, demotion, termination, or racial discrimination. These formal institutional remedies are 

also available to process charges of sexual harassment. 

In some cases, such as filing a grievance, the first step in taking formal action may be contacting the supervisor. The subsequent 

investigation and conclusion of the case remain within the worker's employing agency. In other instances, other agency officials, such as EEO 

officials in the case of discrimination complaints, process the complaint within the agency and the complainant has appeal rights outside the 

agency. At other times, the formal action begins with an outside agency, such as the Office of the Special Counsel within the Merit Systems 

Protection Board. Depending on the circumstances provoking the complaint, more than one channel of formal complaint may be available to 

an employee who alleges sexual harassment--or only one may be apppropriate. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (77 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Complainants have a choice of courses of action to take. For example, alleged victims may want to file a discrimination complaint if they feel 

that the sexual harassment was a result of sex discrimination as interpreted by the EEOC Guidelines on sexual harassment.[2] In summary, 

these guidelines state that sexual harassment is sex discrimination when going along with the behavior is implicitly or explicitly a term or 

condition of employment, when going along or not going along is used as the basis of employment decisions affecting the victim or when the 

behavior has the effect of interfering with the victims' work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. 

Victims may choose to appeal an adverse action (for example, a removal or demotion based on unacceptable performance) which they feel 

was a result of refusing to go along with sexual harassment. Employees may appeal the action to the Merit Systems Protection Board where 

they have a right to a hearing on the merits.[3]

Victims may file grievances with their agency management seeking relief from sexual harassment. There are usually no appeal rights outside 

the agency for grievances. There are two kinds of grievance systems in the Federal Government--an administrative grievance system 

provided by each agency under OPM regulation and a negotiated grievance system provided by a collective bargaining agreement between a 

union and agency management.[4]

Victims may also request internal investigations of their allegations of sexual harassment by their agency Inspectors General if their agency 

has one and if the allegations involve fraud, waste, or mismanagement of Government funds. 

Finally, victims may want to request an external investigation from the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board if the sexual 

harassment involves a prohibited personnel practice such as "taking or refusing to take a personnel action, including promotion of employees 

who submit to sexual advances or refusal to promote employees who resist or protest sexual overtures."[5] The Special Counsel may 

recommend corrective action or ask the Merit Systems Protection Board to "stay" the personnel action. 

FIGURE 8-1 

Awareness of Formal Remedies 

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Knew the Following Formal Remedies Were Available to Victims of Sexual Harassment (Questions 

12a-16a) 

VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Filing a discrimination complaint Reported by 49% of women 

and 53% of men 

Filing a grievance or adverse action appeal Reported by 36% of women 

and 44% of men 

Requesting an investigation by victim's organization Reported by 18% of women 

and 26% of men 

Filing a complaint through special channels set up for sexual 

harassment complaints 

Reported by 10% of women 

and 12% of men 

Requesting an investigation by an outside agency Reported by 5% of women and 

10% of men 

SUPERVISORS

Filing a discrimination complaint Reported by 57% of women 

and 62% of men 

Filing a grievance or adverse action appeal Reported by 45% of women 

and 55% of men 

Requesting an investigation by victim's organization Reported by 27% of women 

and 42% of men 

Filing a complaint through special channels set up for sexual 

harassment complaints 

Reported by 12% of women 

and 18% of men 

Requesting an investigation by an outside agency Reported by 8% of women and 

12% of men 

NOTE: Percentages based on "Definitely Yes" responses to questions. 

In the survey questionnaire, formal remedies were grouped to form five general types of actions:[6]

● filing a discrimination complaint (if the behavior falls under guidelines set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission); 

● filing a grievance or adverse action appeal (that is, using the agency 's internal grievance system, following negotiated grievance 

procedures if a union contract has been violated, or filing an adverse action appeal with the agency, with subsequent appeal rights to 

the Merit Systems Protection Board); 

● requesting an internal investigation by the employing organization (for example, by the agency's Inspector General or Ethics Officer); 

● requesting an investigation by an outside agency (such as the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board if a prohibited 

personnnel practice, as defined in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, is involved); and 

● filing a complaint through special channels set up for sexual harassment complaints. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (78 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

For each type of formal actions, workers were asked: (a) Is this remedy available to employees where you work? (b) Would this be effective 

in helping these employees? 

Available responses to each question were: "definitely not," "probably not," "probably yes," "definitely yes," and "don't know."

Awareness of Formal Remedies Is Not Great 

Most victims and supervisors were not aware of all the formal remedies available to Federal employees who have been sexually harassed. 

Since we wanted to know the level of awareness with some degree of certainty, we looked at only the number of workers who said "definitely 

yes," the remedies are available.[7] On this basis we found that rarely were even half of the victims or supervisors aware that a remedy 

existed. The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint system (that is, filing a discrimination complaint) was the most widely known. 

As can be seen in Figure 8-1, female victims were relatively unaware of all the formal remedies, particularly investigations by an outside 

agency or their own. That they were most aware of the EEO discrimination complaint procedure is interesting since that channel was not 

used as often as other remedies by the victims who did take formal action (see Chapter 6). Since most remedies (except "filing a complaint 

through special channels") are in fact available to victims, their responses indicate a generally low level of awareness. Male victims were 

slightly more familiar with the remedies than were females, but their awareness still was generally quite low. 

Does unawareness of available remedies keep men and women from taking formal action? Apparently so, for nearly 38,000 victims--31,600 

women and 6,200 men--indicated that was the reason they had not taken formal action[8] (see Figure 8-2). Generally, the more severe the 

harassing behavior, the more likely narrators were to say this was their reason for not taking formal action. 

Supervisors as a group also were relatively unfamiliar with formal remedies available to victims of sexual harassment (see Figure 8-1). More 

than half did not know employees could request internal or external investigations, and fewer than two-thirds knew about filing an EEO 

discrimination complaint. As with victims, male supervisors tended to be more knowledgeable about remedies than were female supervisors.

As can be seen in Figure 8-1, for all remedies, both male and female supervisors were more likely to be aware than were female victims--and 

to some extent than were male victims. Nevertheless, given their responsibilities for advising employees of their rights, supervisors indicate a 

surprisingly low level of awareness of formal complaint channels, par-ticular avenues other than filing an EEO complaint, or a grievance or 

adverse action appeal. 

To see if awareness of formal remedies is lower in agencies having relatively high rates of sexual harassment, we looked at the responses of 

victims and supervisors in the 10 agencies "grouped as "other" where rates were higher than rates for the Federal work force as a whole.[9]

We found that in many of these agencies the awareness level of victims and supervisors was lower than for the Federal work force in general. 

10 For example, in three agencies (Departments of Labor and Transportation and the Veterans Administration) plus in those agencies 

grouped as "other," victims and supervisors tended to be less aware than the Governmentwide averages. 

In other agencies such as the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, other Defense agencies, and the General 

Services Administration, there are sex based differences. For example, in other Defense agencies, male supervisors tended to be more aware 

of remedies and female victims and supervisors less aware than the Governmentwide averages. 

Formal Remedies Are Not Seen as Effective 

FIGURE 8-2 

Reasons For Not Taking Formal Action 

Percentage of Narrator Victims Who Gave the Following Reasons for Not Taking Formal Actions in Response to the Sexual Harassment

(Question 30) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Saw no need to report it Reported by 16% of women and 

36% of men 

Thought it would make work 

situation unpleasant 

Reported by 50% of women and 

22% of men 

Did not think anything would be 

done 

Reported by 50% of women and 

31% of men

Thought it would be held against 

me or that I would be blamed 

Reported by 44% of women and 

22% of men 

Did not want to hurt the person 

who bothered me 

Reported by 41% of women and 

43% of men 

Was too embarrassed Reported by 44% of women and 

21% of men 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (79 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Did not know what actions to take Reported by 37% of women and 

12% of men 

Thought it would take too much 

time and effort 

Reported by 13% of women and 

2% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Saw no need to report it Reported by 54% of women and 

65% of men 

Thought it would make work 

situation unpleasant 

Reported by 40% of women and 

21% of men 

Did not think anything would be 

done 

Reported by 36% of women and 

19% of men

Thought it would be held against 

me or that I would be blamed 

Reported by 25% of women and 

11% of men

Did not want to hurt the person 

who bothered me 

Reported by 21% of women and 

31% of men 

Was too embarrassed Reported by 16% of women and 

10% of men 

Did not know what actions to take Reported by 17% of women and 

6% of men 

Thought it would take too much 

time and effort 

Reported by 6% of women and 3% 

of men

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Saw no need to report it Reported by 72% of women and 

74% of men 

Thought it would make work 

situation unpleasant 

Reported by 24% of women and 

24% of men 

Did not think anything would be 

done 

Reported by 24% of women and 

14% of men 

Thought it would be held against 

me or that I would be blamed 

Reported by 14% of women and 

9% of men 

Did not want to hurt the person 

who bothered me 

Reported by 15% of women and 

13% of men 

Was too embarrassed Reported by 9% of women and 9% 

of men

Did not know what actions to take Reported by 8% of women and 7% 

of men

Thought it would take too much 

time and effort 

Reported by 5% of women and 5% 

of men

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Saw no need to report it Reported by 61% of women and 

71% of men

Thought it would make work 

situation unpleasant 

Reported by 36% of women and 

23% of men

Did not think anything would be 

done 

Reported by 33% of women and 

17% of men

Thought it would be held against 

me or that I would be blamed 

Reported by 23% of women and 

11% of men 

Did not want to hurt the person 

who bothered me 

Reported by 20% of women and 

25% of men 

Was too embarrassed Reported by 15% of women and 

10% of men 

Did not know what actions to take Reported by 15% of women and 

17% of men 

Thought it would take too much 

time and effort 

Reported by 6% of women and 4% 

of men

NOTE: Most respondents gave more than one reason for not taking formal action.. 

To get a clear picture of the opinions of victims and supervisors about the effectiveness of formal remedies, we again looked only at the 

"definitely yes" responses." On this basis it must be concluded that little faith is placed in formal remedies. In no case did more than 1 in 5 

victims think a remedy would be effective (see Figure 8-3). Supervisors were not much more confident. 

The EEO complaint system and the grievance or adverse action appeal process tended to receive the most support, and generally male 

victims were more confident in the remedies than were female victims. Likewise, a greater percentage of male supervisors than female 

supervisors rated the remedies effective. 

Why so few victims and supervisors indicated they believe formal remedies would be effective is uncertain. The way the question was posed 

may have been a factor. Perhaps the majority simply thought formal action would not be effective in the circumstances described---helping 

"persons who have been sexually bothered by others"; more might have thought a formal action would be effective had the situation been 

more clearcut, for example a worker suffering negative emotional, physical, or job consequences from the harassment. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (80 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Some support for this notion, at least in regard to victims, comes from reasons narrators gave for not filing a formal complaint. As Figure 8-2 

shows, the most common reason given by narrators reporting severe and less severe harassment was "I saw no need to report it." However, 

this reason was given by far smaller percentages of narrators who had experienced actual or attempted rape or sexual assault. Clearly, 

victims of the less intense forms of harassment saw filing a formal complaint as an unnecessary response. 

FIGURE 8-3 

Perceived Effectiveness of Formal Remedies 

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Formal Remedies Would Be Helpful To Victims of Sexual Harassment (Questions 12b16b) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filing a discrimination complaint Reported by 18% of women and 

23% of men 

Requesting an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 22% of women and 

26% of men 

Fileing a grievance or adverse 

action appeal 

Reported by 18% of women and 

30% of men

Filing a complaint throught special 

channels set up for sexual 

harassment complaints 

Reported by 15% of women and 

19% of men 

Requesting an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 8% of women and 

19% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Filing a discrimination complaint Reported by 14% of women and 

20% of men 

Requesting an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 11% of women and 

18% of men 

Fileing a grievance or adverse 

action appeal 

Reported by 13% of women and 

21% of men

Filing a complaint throught special 

channels set up for sexual 

harassment complaints 

Reported by 10% of women and 

15% of men

Requesting an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 7% of women and 

14% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Filing a discrimination complaint Reported by 13% of women and 

20% of men 

Requesting an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 10% of women and 

15% of men 

Fileing a grievance or adverse 

action appeal 

Reported by 11% of women and 

19% of men 

Filing a complaint throught special 

channels set up for sexual 

harassment complaints 

Reported by 10% of women and 

14% of men 

Requesting an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 9% of women and 

11% of men 

TOTAL VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND 

SUPERVISORS 

Filing a discrimination complaint Reported by 14% of women and 

20% of men 

Reported by 16% of female 

supervisors and 28% of male 

supervisors 

Requesting an investigation by 

victim's organization 

Reported by 11% of women and 

17% of men 

Reported by 13% of female 

supervisors and 27% of male 

supervisors 

Fileing a grievance or adverse 

action appeal 

Reported by 13% of women and 

20% of men 

Reported by 15% of female 

supervisors and 28% of male 

supervisors 

Filing a complaint throught special 

channels set up for sexual 

harassment complaints 

Reported by 10% of women and 

14% of men 

Reported by 12% of female 

supervisors and 16% of male 

supervisors 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (81 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:36 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Requesting an investigation by an 

outside agency 

Reported by 8% of women and 

12% of men 

Reported by 8% of female 

supervisors and 11% of male 

supervisors 

NOTE: Percentages are based on "Definitely Yes" responses to questions. 

Another explanation for the lack of confidence in formal remedies might be unfamiliarity with available courses of action. The fact that 

supervisors were both more aware of remedies and more favorable toward them might suggest this is the case. A third possible explanation 

for the low ratings given the formal remedies is that victims and supervisors generally do not think that taking an informal action is the most 

effective course of action for any work related problem. When asked which of six actions they thought were the most effective actions 

employees could take to make others stop bothering them sexually,[12] fewer than 6 in 10 victims and supervisors chose "filing a formal 

complaint" (see Figure 8-4). Whether these responses indicate a true lack of faith in the available formal remedies or simply a belief that 

other actions are more effective for remedying sexual harassment is unknown. 

Certainly some amount of dissatisfaction and distrust was expressed by narrator victims who took no formal action (97% of the female 

narrators and 98% of the male narrators). As Figure 8-2 shows, a substantial percentage of female narrators gave as their reason--or one of 

their reasons--for not filing a formal complaint that it would make the work situation unpleasant, nothing would be done, or filing would be 

held against the accuser. 

Smaller percentages, but still representative of a large number of male narrators, also gave those reasons. Contrast these beliefs with the 

results of the small number of victims who actually took formal actions. Although a majority (59%) of these female and male victims found 

the formal actions effective (see Chapter 6), a sizeable number (41%) did not. This middling success rate may contribute to a lack of faith in 

available remedies. 

FIGURE 8-4 

Perceived Effectiveness of Individual Actions 

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Employee Actions Would Stop Sexual Harassment (Question 10) 

VICTIMS OF MOST SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 78% of women and 

61% of men 

Reporting the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 66% of women and 

59% of men 

Filing a formal complaint Reported by 48% of women and 

48% of men

Ignoring the behavior Reported by 50% of women and 

50% of men 

Avoiding the person(s) Reported by 50% of women and 

34% of men 

There is very little employees can 

do 

Reported by 19% of women and 

28% of men 

Threatening to tell or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 17% of women and 

18% of men 

VICTIMS OF SEVERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

Asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 87% of women and 

82% of men 

Reporting the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 68% of women and 

70% of men 

Filing a formal complaint Reported by 52% of women and 

61% of men

Ignoring the behavior Reported by 48% of women and 

44% of men

Avoiding the person(s) Reported by 48% of women and 

42% of men 

There is very little employees can 

do 

Reported by 10% of women and 

5% of men 

Threatening to tell or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 15% of women and 

17% of men 

VICTIMS OF LESS SEVERE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT 

Asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 83% of women and 

84% of men 

Reporting the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 71% of women and 

72% of men 

Filing a formal complaint Reported by 55% of women and 

56% of men 

Ignoring the behavior Reported by 45% of women and 

45% of men 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (82 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Avoiding the person(s) Reported by 44% of women and 

39% of men 

There is very little employees can 

do 

Reported by 5% of women and 5% 

of men 

Threatening to tell or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 16% of women and 

21% of men 

VICTIMS OF ALL FORMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT AND SUPERVISORS 

Asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop 

Reported by 85% of women and 

83% of men 

Reported by 86% of female 

supervisors and 85% of male 

supervisors 

Reporting the behavior to the 

supervisor or other officials 

Reported by 69% of women and 

71% of men 

Reported by 71% of female 

supervisors and 78% of male 

supervisors 

Filing a formal complaint Reported by 53% of women and 

59% of men 

Reported by 49% of female 

supervisors and 57% of male 

supervisors 

Ignoring the behavior Reported by 47% of women and 

45% of men 

Reported by 49% of female 

supervisors and 42% of male 

supervisors 

Avoiding the person(s) Reported by 47% of women and 

41% of men 

Reported by 45% of female 

supervisors and 40% of male 

supervisors 

There is very little employees can 

do 

Reported by 9% of women and 5% 

of men 

Reported by 6% of female 

supervisors and 2% of male 

supervisors 

Threatening to tell or telling other 

workers 

Reported by 16% of women and 

19% of men 

Reported by 13% of female 

supervisors and 19% of male 

supervisors 

NOTE: Many respondents indicated more than one action would be effective. 

Perhaps the men and women who thought filing a formal complaint would make their work situations unpleasant had heard of an incident 

similar to that reported by a victim whose sex discrimination complaint was in process: "My supervisor continues to make remarks which are 

just on the 'safe' side of the line. I have been followed while leaving work by coworkers who get away with making suggestive remarks to me 

on the job." Perhaps those who felt filing a complaint would be held against them agreed with comments written on questionnaires returned 

by two survey respondents: "At my station," wrote one, "you will find very few complaints of sexual harassment, not because it isn't there, 

but because there is fear of consequences." Observed the other, "If you file a complaint against someone harassing you, you will be eased 

out of your job or your working conditions will become so miserable you will quit or transfer." 

Maybe those who feel nothing would be done had observed, as had one respondent who wrote on the questionnaire, that "managers either 

ignore or squash the complaint." The concerns of even the small percentage of narrators who thought filing a complaint would take too much 

time and effort may be justified. Wrote one survey respondent: "The discrimination complaint process is ineffective for handling problems in 

areas it was designed to cover because the process takes too long." Another survey respondent noted an additional problem related to formal 

remedies: "Sexual harassment can be very subtle and difficult to prove." 

Whatever their reasons, it is clear few victims of sexual harassment or supervisors believe formal remedies would be effective in helping 

people who have been sexually bothered by others. It also should be mentioned that most of the men and women who do file complaints are 

victims of the more severe forms of sexual harassment, actual and attempted rape and assault or "severe" sexual harassment. It may be that 

they tend to use the formal complaint procedures because of the severity of their harassment or because they believe that they have strong 

cases which have a greater chance of success. 

In summary, taking formal action is not necessarily the best course of action for all victims. Few victims of "severe" and "less severe" 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (83 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

harassment filed formal complaints. Their most common reason was that they saw no need to report it. The system of formal remedies may 

be less effective in some agencies than in others. Some victims may be unable to document their cases. Others may prefer to handle the 

harassment informally. As the next section shows, there is general agreement that other types of action are more effective in getting 

harassment stopped. 

Assertive Informal Remedies Are Seen as Most Effective 

Their reasons for not doing so indicate that a sizeable number of narrator-victims do not see filing a formal complaint as a viable option (see 

Figure 8-2). Many worry that the solution might add to the problem by making the work situation unpleasant, or that filing a complaint might 

backfire, with them ending up being blamed. Many would be too embarrassed to make the matter known. An even larger number seem to 

feel it would be an empty exercise (nothing would be done), perhaps requiring too much time and energy. Hurting the offending person is 

also a concern. 

To the largest number of victims, however, particularly those who have not faced the most severe form of harassment, filing a formal 

complaint simply is not an appropriate response. 

We were interested in what victims would consider the most effective things employees can do--not necessarily to get relief from negative job 

consequences, but simply to get others to stop bothering them. Would they agree with the victim who transferred jobs because "you just 

don't make a big racket when the attainment of your doctorate depends on your evaluations." Would they approve the directness, if not the 

technique, of the victim who wrote: "When he made one of his comments, I told him if I heard him say something like that again to me, I 

would 'haul off' and belt him in the mouth." Would they think it best to ask a third party to intervene? Or would their response reflect the 

hopelessness one respondent seemed to feel when she wrote, "Sexual harassment is (widespread) and is now a problem I cannot handle." 

Most victims believe people can do something to stop the unwanted behavior; as can be seen in Figure 8-4 only 2 in 20 women and 1 in 20 

men felt there is little employees can do. More female victims endorsed the most direct informal response, "asking or telling the person(s) to 

stop," as being more effective than any other action. The next most frequent response was "reporting the behavior to the supervisor or other 

officials." Fewer than half the female victims endorsed the most passive actions, "ignoring the behavior" and "avoiding the person(s)." The 

most coercive direct response, "threatening to tell or telling other workers," was regarded as effective by the fewest number, presumably 

because other workers, as opposed to supervisors, rarely have authority over the annoying person. Thus female victims consider the most 

effective actions to be those involving direct confrontation with either the annoying person or someone who has authority over that person. 

These actions were judged most effective in getting the harassment stopped by more victims than the direct formal action, filing a formal 

complaint. As with females, more male victims endorse the most direct responses, with fewer, but still a large percentage, regarding a formal 

complaint as most effective. 

That direct informal action can be effective in getting offensive behavior stopped was confirmed by several respondents who commented on 

their personal experiences. Wrote one victim: "I put a stop to the situation by speaking to the individual concerned. Some (people) ... (do) 

not realiz(e) that they are offensive. Only with me (or others) saying something to them will they realize they are being offensive...." The 

offending party may even find this the best approach. Wrote one man: "The lady confronted me and requested that I stop as my gestures 

were sexy. Her request was granted and the lady and I are good friends." 

Several respondents also indicated that re-porting to a supervisor or higher authority can be a successful tactic. One described how an 

incident was reported to a higher authority (informally) and an apology was given publicly. Said the commentor: "The initiator of the 

unwanted advances lost esteem among fellow workers, and this action effectively nipped in the bud any further complications." 

Supervisors tended to agree with victims about the most effective ways to get unwanted sexual attention stopped, with the largest number 

endorsing the direct informal actions (see Figure 8-4). That male supervisors were more likely than others to endorse reporting the behavior 

to the supervisor may indicate that supervisors (the majority of whom are men) wish to be informed about sexual harassment problems. 

Another finding, that male supervisors seemed to have more faith in the complaint system than did female supervisors, is consistent with the 

finding reported in Fig-ure 8-3 that greater percentages of male supervisors than female supervisors endorsed specific avenues of formal 

complaint. 

Although more victims and supervisors--male or female--considered asking or telling the person(s) to stop an effective action, this does not 

necessarily indicate that is all they think is needed to get the behavior stopped. Indeed, many believe it is not enough.[13] While the majority 

felt "nearly all instances of unwanted sexual attention can be stopped if the person receiving the attention simply tells the other person to 

stop," a sizeable number--approximately 1 in every 4 men and supervisors and 1 in 3 women and victims--disagreed. That the responses 

break down this way, with men (22%) and supervisors (24%) being less likely to disagree that telling the person to stop will stop the 

behavior than women (35%) and victims (37%) is not surprising, since most supervisors are men and most victims are women. Nevertheless, 

it is clear that a majority of Federal workers feel telling a person to stop is adequate and effective in getting unwanted sexual attention 

stopped. 

Management Can Help 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (84 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Most victims and supervisors think there is much an organization's management can do to reduce the rate of sexual harassment. Their 

optimism showed through clearly in their responses to the question, "Which are the most effective actions for an organization's management 

to take regarding sexual harassment?"[14] As Figure 8-5 shows, only around 1 in 20 men, women, and supervisors felt there is little 

management can do to reduce sexual harassment on the job. Management actions involving tougher sanctions and enforcement generally 

were endorsed more often than other management actions. A majority of victims and supervisors also endorsed actions involving publicizing 

management policy regarding sexual harassment. Actions intended to help victims cope with sexual harassment were less popular, with 

women noticeably more likely than men to think a special counseling service would be effective. 

The importance of effective management involvement can be seen in the comments that respondents wrote on their questionnaires. Few 

were as cynical as the Federal worker who said there is very little management can do because "management does not want to reduce sexual 

harassment on the job"--or as discouraged as the person who wrote, "upper management in my agency is generally unconcerned about

subjects like sexual harassment; senior executives feel they have more important things to do." But a number implied that greater support 

from management is indicated. Wrote one person: "A major problem is that among management there is tacit approval." 

Swifter investigations and action against managers who knowingly allow behavior to continue might seem appropriate to the Federal worker 

who wrote that supervisors took no action against the offender, a Branch Chief, until they were ordered to by outside sources. Noted the 

respondent: "The sexual harassment continued over several years with several different women, two of whom resigned under pressure from 

the harasser." Awareness training on management responsibilities for decreasing sexual harassment might seem like a good idea to the 

Federal worker who observed: "When one complains to the supervisor about an employee whose comments and filthy jokes are annoying 

and embarrassing, she always says, `Oh, I know, he's always been like that,' but she never does anything about it." 

FIGURE 8-5 

Perceived Effectiveness of Management Actions 

Percentage of Victims and Supervisors Who Thought Management Actions Regarding Sexual Harassment Would Be Effective (Question 11) 

IMPOSING TOUGHER SANCTIONS AND STRICTER ENFORCEMENT 

Conduct swift and thorough investigations of complaints of sexual 

harassment 

Reported by 77% of women and 71% of men 

Reported by 81% of female supervisors and 78% of 

male supervisors 

Enforce penalties against managers who knowingly allow this 

behavior to continue 

Reported by 59% of women and 61% of men 

Reported by 62% of female supervisors and 60% of 

male supervisors 

Enforce penalties against those who sexually bother others Reported by 74% of women and 71% of men 

Reported by 71% of female supervisors and 74% of 

male supervisors 

Publicize the availability of formal complaint channels Reported by 63% of women and 63% of men 

Reported by 67% of female supervisors and 60% of 

male supervisors 

PUBLICIZING MANAGEMENT POLICY 

Establish and publicize policies which prohibit sexual harassment Reported by 69% of women and 69% of men 

Reported by 75% of female supervisors and 73% of 

male supervisors 

Provide training for managers and EEO officials on their 

responsibilities for decreasing sexual harassment 

Reported by 61% of women and 57% of men 

Reported by 65% of female supervisors and 57% of 

male supervisors 

HELPING VICTIMS COPE 

Establish a special counseling service for those who 

experience sexual harassment

Reported by 44% of women and 37% of men 

Reported by 44% of female supervisors and 37% of male 

supervisors 

Provide awareness training for employees on sexual 

harassment 

Reported by 53% of women and 43% of men 

Reported by 54% of female supervisors and 43% of male 

supervisors 

NOTHING CAN BE DONE

There is very little that management can do to reduce sexual 

harassment on the job

Reported by 6% of women and 5% of men 

Reported by 3% of female supervisors and 4% of male 

supervisors 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (85 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

NOTE: Many respondents indicated more than one action would be effective. 

Respondents' comments also indicated that management action can be--or is thought likely to be--helpful. As cited above, management 

investigation and discipline of the offending person "effectively nipped in the bud" any further problem. Publishing a policy "along the vein of 

'you don't have to put up with this' could go a long way toward encouraging people to speak up," wrote another Federal worker. However, a 

third cautions, "the Federal Government spends a lot on developing policy and providing training, but they are not very serious about doing 

anything practical to correct the problem." One reports that agency employees are "... periodically given memoranda citing the section of the 

law so we will know how to report or file a complaint if we encounter sexual harassment." 

Conclusion 

Although few victims and supervisors considered current formal remedies for sexual harassment effective, many thought a number of 

management actions regarding sexual harassment would be helpful, and most endorsed management actions involving sanctions and 

enforcement of penalties. Awareness of existing complaint channels is relatively low (particularly in a number of agencies having high rates of 

harassment), and most victims and supervisors felt publicizing the availability of these channels would be helpful. A number of victims and 

supervisors indicated that filing a formal complaint is not one of the most effective actions employees can take to stop sexual harassment, 

and a number of victims indicated that their reasons for not taking formal action are related to the system itself. The overwhelming support 

for management action involving sanctions and penalties, but lack of faith in current formal remedies, may reflect unfamiliarity of 

dissatisfaction with the existing complaint system. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 8 

1 Congressional Memorandum of Understanding; see Appendix E.

2 See Appendix E. 

3 See Section 204, of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. Law 94-454, 92 Stat. 1111, codified at 5 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. and 7501 et 

seq. 

4 See 5 C.F.R. Part 771. 

5 See Section 202 of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 cited in footnote 3 and the OPM Policy Statement, Appendix E. 

6 See Survey Questions 12-16. 

7 See Survey Questions 12a-16a. 

8 Based on responses to Survey Question 30. 

9 See Chapter 4 for a discussion of incidence of sexual harassment in individual Government agencies. 

10 See Appendix D, Table M for data. 

11 See Survey Questions 12b-16b. 

12 Based on responses to Survey Question 10. 

13 Based on disagree/strongly disagree and agree/ strongly agree responses to Survey Question 1(h). See Appendix D, Table N for data. 

14 See Survey Question 11.

9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (86 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations that follow grow directly out of the discussions in the preceding eight 

chapters. The major findings are summarized and conclusions drawn to facilitate the development of the policy 

recommendations on ways to remedy sexual harassment in the Federal work force. 

The recommendations are directed to those institutions--Congress, Federal agencies, OPM, EEOC--that have responsibility for 

assuring that the Federal workplace is free from unsolicited and unwelcome sexual overtones. Each of these institutions can 

play an important role in bringing this about by effectively implementing the recommended actions. Most of these actions do 

not require extensive outlays of funds and resources and are cost effective when compared to the dollar, psychic, and 

productivity costs of prohibited sexual harassment on the job.

Summary of Findings 

View Of Federal Workers Toward Sexual Harassment 

1. A variety of uninvited sexual behaviors are considered to be sexual harassment by both men and women.

● Both men and women Federal workers generally agree that uninvited behaviors of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. 

● Federal workers believe supervisors should be held to a higher standard of conduct than other workers regarding sexually oriented 

behavior on the job. 

2. The attitudes of men and women Fed-eral workers about sexual behavior at work vary. 

● Both men and women Federal workers believe sexual activity, whether voluntary or otherwise, should not occur between people who 

work together. 

● Men show a greater tendency than women to think victims are somewhat responsible for bringing sexual harassment on themselves 

and are inclined to believe the issue of sexual harassment has been exaggerated. 

● Both men and women Federal workers think sexual harassment is something people should not have to tolerate. 

Extent Of Sexual Harassment In The Federal Workplace 

3. The incidence rate of sexual harassment in the Federal workforce is widespread. 

● One out of every four Federal employees reported being sexually harassed on the job over a 2-year period. 

● Women are much more likely to be victims than men--42% of all female Federal employees, but only 15% of male employees, 

reported being sexually harassed. 

● Sexual harassment can take many forms, and every form except attempted or actual rape or sexual assault was experienced by a 

sizeable percentage of both men and women.

4. Many sexual harassment incidents occur repeatedly and are of relatively long duration. 

● Sexual harassment is not just a one-time experience--many victims were repeatedly subjected to harassing behaviors, particularly the 

less severe forms. 

● Incidents of sexual harassment are not just passing events--most lasted more than a week, and many lasted longer than 6 months.

5. The majority of Federal employees who had worked elsewhere feel sexual harassment is no worse in the Federal workplace than in 

state and local government or in the private sector.

Victims Of Sexual Harassment 

6. Individuals with certain personal and organizational characteristics are more likely to be sexually harassed than others.

● Age, marital status, and sexual composi-tion of the employee's work group have a relatively strong effect on whether a Federal 

employee is sexually harassed. 

● Factors having a somewhat weaker relationship are employee education level, race or ethnic background, job classification, 

traditionality of the employee's job, and sex of the employee's immediate supervisor. 

7. Sexual harassment is widely distributed among women and men of various backgrounds, positions, and locations. 

● Some agencies have a greater incidence of sexual harassment than do others. 

● Sexual harassment is more likely to occur in work environments where employees have poor communications with their supervisors 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (87 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

and feel pressured to participate in activities of a sexual nature. 

Perpetrators Of Sexual Harassment 

8. The personal and organizational characteristics of those who harass women are somewhat different from those who 

harass men. 

● Most victims are harassed by people of the opposite sex. 

● Most harassers act alone rather than in concert with another person. 

● Most harassers of women are older than their victims, and most harassers of men are younger. 

● Most harassers are married, but many men report being harassed by divorced or single women as well. 

● Most harassers are of the same race or ethnic background as their victims but minority men report being harassed by those of a 

different race or ethnic background. 

● Most harassers are coworkers, but many women are harassed by supervisors. 

9. Many harassers are reported to have bothered more than one victim at work.

10. Few employees report having been accused of sexually harassing others. 

Incidents Of Sexual Harassment 

11. Those who are sexually harassed by supervisors and those who experience the more severe forms of sexual harassment 

are more likely than other victims to foresee penalties or possible benefits for not going along or going along with the 

unwanted sexual attention. 

12. A number of informal actions were found by victims to be effective in stopping the sexual harassment. 

● Most victims respond to the sexual harassment by ignoring it, but few find that technique improves the situation. 

● The most direct and assertive informal responses, such as telling the harasser to stop, are reported to be the most effective actions to 

take. 

● Few victims talk about their experiences with others, but those who do find talking to someone with independent authority or 

organizational responsibility to be more helpful than talking to coworkers, family, or friends. 

13. Filing a formal complaint was also found to be relatively effective for the few who tried it.

● Few victims take formal actions, but many who do find them helpful. 

● The reported response of agency officials to informal and formal charges of sexual harassment has been mixed. 

The Impact And Cost Of Sexual Harassment 

14. The cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government between May 1978 and May 1980 is conservatively estimated 

to have been $189 million.

15. Although their experiences do not change the careers and work situations of most victims, a sizeable number of women 

and men do leave their jobs or suffer other adverse consequences.

● A majority of victims did not think their personal wellbeing or work performance declined as a result of their experience, but a sizeable 

minority do. 

● Victims are much more likely to think sexual harassment negatively affected their personal wellbeing or morale than to believe that 

their work performance or productivity suffered.

16. Most victims report that, as far as they know, the morale and productivity of their immediate workgroup are little 

affected by their personal experience of sexual harassment. 

Awareness Of Remedies And Their Effectiveness 

17. Federal workers are generally unaware of formal remedies and even fewer are convinced of their effectiveness.

● Most victims and supervisors are relatively unaware of the formal remedies available to victims of sexual harassment. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (88 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

● Relatively few victims and supervisors consider formal remedies effective in helping victims of sexual harassment.

18. Taking assertive informal action is thought to be the most effective way for employees to make others stop bothering 

them sexually. 

19. Most victims and supervisors think there is much management can do regarding sexual harassment. 

Conclusions 

These findings lead to five general conclusions that can be drawn about the sexual ha-rassment in the Federal workplace. In addition, several 

views about the nature of sexual harassment are discussed. 

1. Sexual harassment is a legitimate problem in the Federal workplace. 

We have seen that sexual harassment is indeed a widespread and legitimate problem. As shown in Chapter 2, the vast majority of both 

supervisors and others alike agreed that sexual harassment is behavior that should not be tolerated and a sizeable number of victims 

indicated that it was a problem where they worked. Chapters 3 and 4 provided information on how widespread and prevalent sexual 

harassment is among female and male Federal workers. Another indication that sexual harassment is a legitimate problem is the sizeable 

dollar cost to the Federal Government of the effects of sexual harassment, as conservatively estimated in Chapter 7. 

2. In the past, agency managers and su-pervisors have not been as successful as they could be in resolving problems of 

sexual harassment. 

We found that in the past, management overall has been somewhat less than effective in " resolving issues of sexual harassment that have 

been raised. Chapter 5 shows that few victims talked to supervisors for advice or reported the behavior formally and when they did, they had 

only a 60-40 chance of having the problem resolved. 

Problems may also arise when supervisors who do not actually participate in the sexual harassment give tacit approval to the subordinates 

who engage in the behavior. Since these supervisors have responsibility for employee conduct in their offices, they should take charge in 

eliminating it from their workplaces rather than approving or ignoring it. The basis for this lack of commitment may be partially explained by 

the findings, in Chapter 2 that a number of supervisors think that the problem of sexual harassment has been exaggerated and that victims 

are somewhat to blame for bringing the sexual harassment on themselves. Clearly, these attitudes of supervisors tend to undermine the 

authority and force of agency policy statements prohibiting sexual harassment and have the effect of thwarting their implementation. 

3. There is much that management can do about the problem of sexual harassment in the future. 

We found that there is much management can do about the problem of sexual harassment in the future to both prevent its occurrence and 

remedy the effects. Chapter 8 contains information on a number of actions which respondents felt would be helpful in reducing sexual 

harassment. Chapters 4 and 5 provide data on the characteristics of individuals most likely to be harassed and to do the harassing. 

Some of these characteristics are under the control of management and can be adjusted to reduce the rate of sexual harassment. For 

example, individuals in nontraditional jobs, such as women law enforcement officers, have been shown to experience sexual harassment at 

somewhat higher rates than others. Supervisors of these employees as well as the employees themselves can be made aware of this fact and 

appropriate preventive and remedial steps implemented. 

4. There are effective actions that victims can take to resolve the problem of sexual harassment. 

A number of actions have been discussed that victims themselves can take regarding the sexual harassment. As shown in Chapter 5, the 

most assertive informal actions are the most effective: talking to someone with either outside or organizational responsibility sometimes 

helps, and filing a formal complaint as noted above has an average chance of helping the victims. Chapter 8 indicates that victims as well as 

supervisors need to be made aware of the existence of available remedies so that they can use them if needed. However, Chapter 5 indicates 

that most victims would prefer to settle the matter informally rather than taking a formal action that would tend to escalate this highly 

personal matter. Appendix H lists publications that offer additional advice on effective techniques for dealing with sexual harassment. 

5. Sexual harassment has varying effects on victims, which probably account for the differences in repercussions. 

In studying the effects of sexual harassment on its victims, we found variance in the repercussions, depending on a number of factors. It 

appears that some victims experience dramatic consequences as a result of this experience and others do not. The causes are various, but 

contributing factors appear to be the level of severity of the sexual harassment, personal and organizational characteristics of the victim, the 

organizational level of the harasser, and the perceived motive or demeanor of the harasser. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (89 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

Some victims were more likely to be sexually harassed than others, and some reported suffering greater consequences, particularly when the 

harasser had greater power. For example, women victims of actual or attempted rape or assault who were harassed by their supervisors were 

more likely than other victims to report fearing and suffering negative job consequences as a result of their sexual harassment experience. 

These victims of "most severe" sexual harassment were also much more likely to report experiencing emotional or physical problems or 

reductions in their work performance. 

However, it should be pointed out that the findings indicate the level of severity by itself does not control whether adverse consequences will 

occur. Some victims of seemingly mild forms of sexual harassment have reported adverse consequences. For example, an individual who 

received repeated lewd comments ("less severe" behavior) from her supervisor might suffer greater consequences than an individual who 

was pressured for sexual favors ("severe " behavior) by a coworker. 

What Is the Nature of Sexual Harassment? 

Although sexual harassment has been demonstrated to be a problem that management can combat, the question still remains: what is the 

underlying nature of sexual harassment in the first place? Three explanations that were discussed in Chapter 1 have been raised in the 

literature. The first two views are somewhat interrelated in that those who have low power are thought to be more vulnerable to those with 

greater power. Based upon the findings in the study, we concluded that the first two explanations appear valid under some circumstances 

and we rejected the last. The three views are: 

1. That sexual harassment is a form of power that is exercised by those in control, usually men, over low status employees, usually

women. 

2. That individuals with certain low power characteristics, such as youth and low, salaries, are more subject to sexual harassment than 

others. 

3. That sexual harassment is an expression of personal attraction between men and women that is widespread and cannot and should 

not be stopped. 

The following briefly discusses these views in light of the findings from the study. 

Sexual Harassment is an Abuse of Power 

This theory grows out of the view that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination designed to keep women from advancing from low 

paid, powerless, jobs. Women do comprise only about one-third (31%) of the jobs in the Federal workforce and most women occupy the 

lowest paid jobs compared to men.[1]

However, the findings show that most victims, both men and women, are harassed by coworkers rather than supervisors who presumably 

have more power. On its face this finding would tend to disprove the power theory, however, one must look closer at the data. The findings 

also show that victims, regardless of severity of the harassment, were more likely to perceive and experience adverse consequences if their 

harasser was a supervisor rather than a coworker. This seems to indicate that, although not all harassment is an outgrowth of organizational 

power, those cases where consequences are greater are more likely to be examples of abuse of organizational power. The sexual harassment 

by coworkers probably has more to do with personal power and sex roles than with organizationally derived power. In any event, further 

research would be helpful in exploring this issue. 

Individuals with Certain Characteristics are More Vulnerable to Sexual Harassment 

The view that those with low status and power characteristics are more vulnerable to sexual harassment has been proved in some respects 

and disproved in others. Some with low power and status, such as younger men and women and trainees, did report receiving sexual

harassment disproportionately, but others, such as those in low salary levels, low education levels, and women office and clerical workers, did 

not. 

Sexual Harassment is Not an Expression of Personal Sexual Attraction 

The theory that sexual harassment is an expression of personal sexual attraction grows out of a view that sexual harassment is part of 

standard behavior between the sexes and that employers have no business interfering with these matters of love or personal attraction. This 

theory has been disproved on several counts. 

That many harassers were reported to have harassed more than one victim casts doubt on the idea that sexual harassment is simply a matter 

of unique personal attraction. The finding that the rate of sexual harassment is not constant among all Federal agencies also somewhat 

negates the idea that sexual harassment is appropriate sexual behavior that occurs everywhere; that many victims report severe 

consequences also tends to negate that this behavior is and should be standard practice. In addition, the vast majority of respondents stated 

that sexual harassment is not something that "people should have to put up with." All of this indicates that sexual harassment should not be 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (90 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

considered standard behavior at the workplace and is very much a matter of concern for employers such as the Federal Government.

Implications 

Understanding that sexual harassment does not affect all victims in the same way is important in developing recommendations on ways to 

effectively reduce sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. 

To help reduce most instances of sexual harassment, where the effects are not so adverse or presumably debilitating, an awareness 

campaign that focuses on prevention would be the most effective. This campaign should advise managers of their responsibilities and hold 

them accountable, as well as provide aid to victims in informally resolving these matters. 

For the smaller number of instances where the sexual harassment has an extremely adverse or punitive affect, the response of management 

should be swift and thorough in imposing sanctions against the behavior and in aiding the victim. 

These concepts are more thoroughly explored below. 

Recommendations 

Since sexual harassment has been clearly shown to be a problem in the Federal Government, managerial policies should be instituted stating 

sexual harassment is unacceptable conduct that will not be condoned. A number of agencies have already begun to do this.[2] The Federal 

courts and Federal regulations[3] have also stated that under many circumstances, sexual harassment is a violation of both civil law and 

criminal law. Therefore, it is both cost-effective and managerially responsible to take effective steps to reduce the amount of sexual 

harassment in the Federal Government. 

Sanctions and Enforcement 

1. Agencies should provide strong and effective enforcement against sexual harass-ment and issue sanctions where 

appropriate. To do this: 

● Agencies should conduct swift and thorough investigations to discover evidence of sexual harassment and take appropriate action.

● Agencies should emphasize their strong commitment to prohibiting sexual harassment on the job by imposing sanctions where 

appropriate against the behavior, including: 

❍ enforcing penalties against those who sexually bother others, and 

❍ enforcing penalties against managers who knowingly allow this behavior to continue. 

2. Complaint channels for allegations of sexual harassment should be clarified and streamlined. 

Agency management has a responsibility to investigate and eliminate prohibited behavior, such as sexual harassment. The sanctions imposed 

and the remedial action taken, as with other violations of the law, should be commensurate with the violation. What is key, however, to 

render this recommendation effective is that allegations be taken seriously so that forceful and fair resolutions result. This will help to restore 

the faith of victims as well as supervisors in formal channels for processing complaints or grievances. 

No additional legal or regulatory mechanisms appear to be necessary to enforce sanctions against sexual harassment if strong enforcement 

can be accomplished within current channels. However, the channels must be made more efficient and responsive to the fact that sexual 

harassment is a legitimate problem that must be handled as seriously as other violations of the law, standards of conduct, or prohibited 

personnel practices. 

Publicizing Managerial Policy and Commitment 

3. Managers and other agency officials should be made aware of their responsibility and held accountable for enforcing 

Government and agency policy prohibiting sexual harassment at the workplace. This can best be accomplished by agency 

managers:

● issuing strong policy statements 

● otherwise clarifying acceptable behavior for supervisors, and 

● holding supervisors responsible for the conduct of their offices with regard to sexual harassment through the performance appraisal 

system. 

Agencies should emphasize the use of preventive measures and informal resolution of complaints as a means of combating sexual 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (91 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

harassment since processing formal complaints is both time consuming and costly. Since most victims do not file complaints, these measures 

will also affect the largest number of victims and harassers. The costs of preventing sexual harassment may be more than offset by the 

savings to the Government in reducing sexual harassment and, thus, reducing job turnover and increasing job productivity and morale. 

It is also important to note that a knowledgeable observer with a widespread clinical practice for the last decade finds that enunciating 

regulations clearly and specifically can be very effective in reducing sexual harassment.[4] Buttressing this argument is the finding in 

Appendix F that the agency with the highest rate of sexual harassment for women also had not issued a policy statement of sexual

harassment at the time this survey was conducted. 

However, Dr. Rowe cautions that because of heightened awareness caused by publicizing the policy, the number of informal and formal 

complaints of sexual harassment may temporarily increase in the short run. 

4. Agencies should develop a training strategy to aid in preventing sexual harassment; this strategy will be instrumental in 

targeting those groups that should receive training on a priority basis to best utilize limited training resources. 

This training can include inservice classroom training either as a separate course or as part of other courses, publishing pamphlets or 

handbooks for employees and supervisors on the subject, and providing other awareness activities through lectures and short workshops. An 

effective training strategy should include at least three target audiences: 

(a) managers and supervisors whose responsibility is the conduct of the workplace; 

(b) other agency personnel such as personnel and EEO officials who have responsibility to advise victims and supervisors on 

procedural and other matters regarding sexual harassment, and 

(c) victims or potential victims requiring information on their rights as well as useful techniques on coping with the sexual 

harassment informally. 

Providing Assistance to Victims 

5. Agencies should provide information to victims on effective techniques for resolving incidents of sexual harassment. 

Agencies should provide all employees with information (in pamphlet or other written format) regarding: 

● what the most effective actions are for them to take to stop sexual harassment, 

● what their rights of redress of sexual harassment are, including the availability of formal complaint channels, 

● which agency officials have responsibility for processing complaints or assisting with problems associated with incidents of sexual 

harassment; officials may include Federal Women's Program managers, EEO counselors, EEO officers or personnel officers, and 

The study indicates that most victims try to resolve their sexual harassment incidents by ignoring the behavior but that this very rarely solves 

the problem. Victims should be advised that the most assertive responses are the most effective. Since a sizeable number of victims report 

suffering negative personal effects that result in losses to the Federal Government, steps should be taken to mitigate some of these effects. 

6. Outside agencies, such as the Office of the Special Counsel in the MSPB, should also publicize the availability of their 

services as resources allow. 

7. Federal employee labor unions should be encouraged to instruct shop stewards and other union officials about counseling 

techniques and legal redress for union member victims of sexual harassment who seek assistance from the union.

Followup 

8. A number of other activities should be instituted to assure compliance with law and regulation as well as to provide 

followup to this study both within the Federal Government and in the private sector. 

Steps that should be taken include: 

● Copies of the MSPB Final Report documenting the incidence of sexual harassment should receive wide distribution among the 

agencies. 

● The Congress should continue to monitor the activities of the various Federal agencies regarding sexual harassment. 

● Agencies should ensure that their training courses developed to prevent sexual harassment are effective. 

● EEOC should continue its review of actions taken by agencies to combat sexual harassment. 

● Other research groups, both public and private, should be encouraged to do further analysis on this subject using the MSPB data tape 

in order to increase understanding and awareness of the problem; agencies should be encouraged to use the MSPB questionnaire to 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (92 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM
Sexual Harassment 1981 Report

conduct research of organizations within the agencies for purposes of comparison. 

● State and local governments, universities, as well as companies in the private sector should be encouraged to conduct research on 

sexual harassment among their own employees or students. The MSPB survey questionnaire should be made available to use as a 

model. 

As with the laws that the Federal Government enforces against the private sector, the laws and policies regarding sexual harassment in the 

Federal workplace should also be monitored and enforced. The most cost effective approach is to include the monitoring of sexual

harassment policies in conjunction with evaluation programs already in place. 

Footnotes -- Chapter 9 

1 See Office of Personnel Management, Federal Civilian Work Force Statistics, Equal Employment Opportunity Statics, November 1978, p. xv. 

2 See Appendix F for data on these agencies. 

3 See Appendix H for a discussion of the legal analysis of sexual harassment.

4 Mary P. Rowe, Ph.D. Assistant to the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, conversation March 1981.

Text Alternatives

Definition of Sexual Harassment: Percentage of Male and Female Federal Employees Who Agreed that Each of Six Forms of Unwanted, 

Uninvited Sexual Attention Constitutes Sexual Harassment (Questions 2-7, b & d) Actions that male and female employees agreed constitute 

severe sexual harassment are making letters and calls, pressure for sexual favors, and deliberate touching. Less severe actions are pressure 

for dates, suggestive looks, and sexual remarks. If a supervisor took these actions; 93% of women and 87% of men agreed that letters and 

calls constitute severe sexual harassment; 91% of women and 84% of men agreed that pressure for sexual favors constitute severe sexual 

harassment; 91% of women and 83% of men agreed that deliberate touching constitute severe sexual harassment; 77% of women and 76% 

of men agreed that pressure for dates constitute less severe sexual harassment; 72% of women and 59% of men agreed that suggestive 

looks constitute less severe sexual harassment; and, 62% of women and 53% of men agreed that sexual remarks constitute less severe 

sexual harassment. If another worker took these actions; 87% of women and 76% of men agreed that letters and calls constitute severe 

sexual harassment; 81% of women and 65% of men agreed that pressure for sexual favors constitute severe sexual harassment; 84% of 

women and 69% of men agreed that deliberate touching constitute severe sexual harassment; 65% of women and 59% of men agreed that 

pressure for dates constitute less severe sexual harassment; 64% of women and 47% of men agreed that suggestive looks constitute less 

severe sexual harassment; and, 54% of women and 42% of men agreed that sexual remarks constitute less severe sexual harassment. 

Figure 3-1: Pie chart shows of the total federal workforce of 1,862,000, non-victims comprised 75% or 1,400,000; victims of less severe 

sexual harassment comprised 8% or 150,000; victims of severe sexual harassment comprised 16% or 300,000; and, victims of most severe 

sexual harassment comprised 1% or 12,000 employees. 

Figure 3-2: Pie chart 1 shows of the total federal female workforce of 694,000, non-victims comprised 58% or 400,000; victims of less severe 

sexual harassment comprised 12% or 85,000; victims of severe sexual harassment comprised 29% or 200,000; and, victims of most severe 

sexual harassment comprised 1% or 9,000 employees. Pie chart 2 shows of the total federal male workforce of 1,168,000, non-victims 

comprised 85% or 1,000,000; victims of less severe sexual harassment comprised 6% or 65,000; victims of severe sexual harassment

comprised 9% or 100,000; and, victims of most severe sexual harassment comprised .3% or 3,000 employees. 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03-81_harassment/sexual harass 1981 report.htm (93 of 93)3/8/2007 10:49:37 AM