A Slight Case of Sexual Harassment

What would you do if someone made an inappropriate remark (of a sexual nature) to you—for example, during a professional meet-up to discuss something that might help advance your career? What if that someone is a very influential person in your field? What if they persist even after you express dismay and discomfort with their behavior?

This is what one woman did: She posted a description of the incident online and asked others who may have experienced something similar to contact her.

That description is not one of my hypothetical situations but a real one involving a well-known science blogger, Bora Zivkovic (A Blog Around The Clock), who resigned as blog editor for Scientific American after being accused of and admitting to sexual harassment. This event stirred up a firestorm in the blogosphere back in October (I started this post then, but got sidetracked). Anyway, in case you missed it, here's a recap: Zivkovic's victim (Monica Byrne) described what happened in a detailed blog post here (9 October 2012); initially, she did not identify her harasser by name but only that he was a "prominent science editor and blogger". Her post has since been amended to name him. Another female victim, upon hearing about the reaction of disbelief and anger from some bloggers about the incident, posted her own story about an encounter with Zivkovic. Then yet another woman detailed her interactions with Zivkovic extending over several years in a blog post, along with a series of emails (they do come back to haunt you) she received from him. Others chimed in on various blogs with reactions to both the revelation of the harassment itself as well as to how it was revealed. A more recent description by another victim, Kathleen Raven, was published in December by Nature (World View).

I first read about this event in an editorial in Nature News and Comment (22 October 2013). The gist of the editorial was that "we have not adequately addressed the problem of harassment, perhaps because it is difficult to quantify". The editorial describes such harassers in the scientific community as "Dr Inappropriate", someone who makes inappropriate sexual remarks or has wandering hands. Many of us (in science) have either observed Dr Inappropriate in action or been his victim. It may be the professor who has a reputation of making comments of a sexual nature to female students or colleagues. Or it may be a lab director who gives new meaning to the phrase "a hands-on kind of supervisor".

Those who have never been on the receiving end of sexual (or other) harassment sometimes have difficulty understanding what all the fuss is about ("The guy's a loser; just ignore him"; "He's just teasing; don't get your shorts in a twist."). If you read the encounters in the links given above, you saw that some of these incidents were subtle and downright difficult to describe in concrete terms. So it's not surprising that the reaction might be to think that the victim is being overly sensitive. The picture gets even murkier when the harasser is generally well-liked and has a lot of good qualities (as was apparently the case with Zivkovic).

What bystanders often fail to grasp, however, is the power dynamic that is at play here. If someone who has no power over you or your career makes an inappropriate remark to you, it is easy to ignore them or to challenge their behavior. This is how most people view such situations—from their bystander viewpoint, not the victim's. However, if the harasser is your superior or otherwise has the power to help or hinder your career, then you quickly find yourself between a rock and a hard place. Speaking up, even only to express discomfort with a superior's behavior, can have serious professional repercussions. If you are just starting out, the wrong move can end your career before it even gets off the ground.

The women mentioned above were vulnerable because their harasser was someone with the power to help them in their careers. Otherwise, they might never have agreed to meet him/interact with him. In hind-sight, they probably realized that they should have left/broken off the relationship as soon as things began getting weird. They did not, however, probably because of a combination of things in addition to wanting his support:  they likely did not want to be rude, hoped that the encounter would get back on a professional track, wondered if they were imagining things, etc. Some women in particular are vulnerable in such situations because they don't want to offend anyone, even someone who has put them into an uncomfortable position. Young people who are taught to respect their superiors are also reluctant to call out someone like this. Harassers (like con artists) rely on other people's reluctance to offend (and on bystanders' reluctance to intervene).

When I was in my twenties, I encountered sexual harassment much worse than what Zivkovic did, but I was afraid to confront my harasser or report it. That changed after I became more experienced and more confident that I would be taken seriously. If someone made me feel uncomfortable, and I could not redirect the conversation/encounter, I would just leave. I didn't make excuses; I just got out. If I could not avoid the person, I took steps to document their actions.

Sometimes, all it takes to stop all but the most determined harasser is to let them know that you've initiated documentation of their behavior. I've short-circuited harassment simply by sending an email saying something along the lines of, "I was very uncomfortable with our conversation this morning and the comments 'x, y, and z' you made during our meeting [date/time] or "I would like to summarize my reaction to our conversation on [date/time]....If I've misunderstood, then please explain what you meant by x, y, and z." Often, such an email will prompt an immediate apology or an attempt to explain what they "really meant".

Even if the harasser ignores such an email and does not respond in writing, the email will create a dated record, which establishes (1) a timeline, (2) what happened or was said (from the victim's viewpoint), (3) that the behavior was unwelcome, and (4) that it is negatively impacting the work environment. Establishing that the behavior is unwelcome is a critical element in making a case for sexual harassment, should that be necessary. Note: it's important to forward such email documentation to yourself at a private email address or print out copies to keep on file at home, not in your office. Such documents can be critical in any subsequent adverse actions or litigation.

Back to the Zivkovic scandal. I think everyone can learn something from this unfortunate event. It seems that these women and perhaps a lot of young women like them (and men) are not certain what constitutes sexual harassment. By not being aware of what harassment looks like (or thinking that it no longer occurs), makes people vulnerable to sexual predators. For women in science, an early negative experience or repeated experiences can lead to their departure for another line of work.

Those clueless people who engage in such unwelcome behavior risk their jobs and careers—possibly their families. Maybe they'll get away with it for a while or maybe they'll end up like Zivkovic. Employers who fail to deal with harassers risk lawsuits, loss of good employees, tarnished reputations— and so on.

I'm not sure what can be done to make things change, but being aware of the problem is a start.

How to Spot a Con Artist: Part 3

In the previous two posts, I described strategies or behaviors used by con artists and social manipulators to gain someone's confidence or to control other people. These are techniques described in greater detail by Gavin De Becker in his book, The Gift of Fear.  This is a book I frequently recommend to young women...not to make them overly fearful or suspicious, but to encourage them to trust their instincts when dealing with other people.

In this post, I finish up with the descriptions of these techniques (see previous two posts for the others).

Typecasting

In this strategy, the con artist labels a woman or other victim in a slightly critical way: snob, stuck-up, not a team player, lone wolf, etc.  The idea is that the victim will then be compelled to disprove this charge.  On the street, a stranger might use this method to get a woman to talk to him by accusing her of being a "snob" or something similarly negative.  (as I write this, I wonder how many men have ever had this particular experience?).  The defense in that situation is to simply walk away.  If someone at work does this, the solution may be a bit more complicated (see previous posts).

Loan Sharking

The Loan Shark does you a favor, not because he's a nice guy, but because he wants you in his debt.  Then, when he asks you for something later, you will find it more difficult to refuse. There are some kindly strangers out there who will offer their help; the problem is those people who are not so kindly.  Again, you can distinguish between the two by how they respond to refusal.  The social manipulator will react badly to your refusal to accept his "favor".

Promises, Promises

In this strategy, the con artist offers an unsolicited promise.  "If you listen to my ideas, I promise I'll leave you alone."  "If you'll let me into your office, I promise I'll be brief."  De Becker warns that you should be suspicious of any unsolicited promise, regardless of the context.  He says that a promise is not a guarantee of anything....but is instead a way to convince you of something.  A promise seems to be offering something, but in reality it is not.  The defense is to say to yourself that the promise is a warning sign and to carefully consider what you are being asked to do.  Perhaps it will cost you only time; but perhaps it will cost you more to ignore the warning signs in other situations.

Not Taking "No" for an Answer

Have you ever had this experience?  You tell someone that no, you do not need their help or advice or whatever, but they proceed to give it anyway?  Of all the signs one should pay attention to, this is the one that De Becker emphasizes.  He says that "no" is a "a word that must never be negotiated, because the person who chooses not to hear it is trying to control you".  Criminals apparently go through a "victim selection" process involving an "interview" in which they test the victim to see if they can be controlled.  One of those tests is to ignore the victim's protests to see how they react.  Again, I can think of coworkers who routinely ignore me (or try to) when I've said no to something they've suggested.  They may not be up to something criminal, but they are certainly trying to control me.

Well, those are a few ways to spot a con artist or social manipulator.  I hope you never run into someone like this, but some of you will at some point in your career. It may be a stranger on the street or someone at work.  It could be a coworker, a superior, or a subordinate who uses one or more of these techniques to control you.  By being aware, we can avoid being taken in by such strategies.

How to Spot a Con Artist: Part 2

In the last post, I began describing some of the strategies that con artists and social manipulators use to control victims.  These behaviors are described in detail in Gavin De Becker's book, The Gift of Fear.  I read this book many years ago and have recommended it to women ever since.  In this post, I describe two more techniques used by social manipulators.

Charming Stranger

De Becker has little good to say about charm.  He believes that charm is "almost always a directed instrument, which, like rapport building, has motive.  To charm is to compel, to control by allure or attraction."  Charming people do not all necessarily have sinister motives, but because it is a strategy used by con artists and social manipulators, it is prudent to be aware of it.  De Becker particularly warns women to rebuff unwanted approaches. He specifically makes the point that women are expected to respond to any and all communications from men (and those who are not willing and compliant are viewed as being cold and uncooperative).  He's mostly talking about strangers, but it's worth considering in a work situation when someone is being overly insistent. 

Details, Details

Another trick that people use to try to deceive others is a simple technique, which De Becker describes as "too many details".  You've probably encountered this with students or others who were trying to convince you of something.  When someone is speaking the truth, they don't feel the need to elaborate, because they know what they've said is verifiable.  The liar, on the other hand, may sound credible to you, but not to himself.  Consequently, he keeps on talking, adding more and more details to his story.  I've experienced this a number of times with certain people.  If I just stare at them, without comment, their detailing gets more and more elaborate.  The situations De Becker describes involve women being accosted by male strangers who throw so many details and information at them, they become confused and overwhelmed.  Which is the intended outcome, of course.  The defense is to simply be aware of the situation and to ask yourself why this person is offering so much information.

In the next post, I will finish up with the list of strategies used by social manipulators.

Image: Ted Bundy, www.clarkprosecutor.org

How to Spot a Con Artist: Part 1

In the last post, I described a situation in which a postdoctoral scientist fabricated data, lied about his degree (didn't have one), jeopardized a major research project, and disappeared leaving the PI in a pickle.  Although this event actually happened in a lab where I once worked, it is not common. Nonetheless, it's worth examining because it reveals something about how vulnerable we are to people who are unscrupulous.

I suggested that this postdoc was a con artist.  He fooled everyone into thinking that he was trustworthy, hardworking, and qualified for the job he was hired to do.  How do you spot someone who is skilled at social manipulation?  It's not easy, as victims will probably attest.  According to Gavin De Becker, a security consultant and author of the book The Gift of Fear, con artists and social manipulators use similar tactics and therefore exhibit similar behavior in their interactions with others.

Forced Teaming

De Becker uses the David Mamet film House of Games (see previous post) to discuss how con artists work and, in particular, use a behavior known as "forced teaming".  Forced teaming is a strategy designed to establish a premature trust between strangers: being stuck in an elevator or waiting for a bus. The con artist uses this manipulation to create a sense of "togetherness", which is actually false because it is intentionally created by the manipulator.  In House of Games, one of the cons depicted involves forced teaming: two men waiting at a Western Union office for a money order.  The two commiserate over their respective predicaments involving money, and the con artist says to the other man, "Hey, if my money comes in first, I'll split it with you so you can buy your bus ticket in time; you can send the money to me later when you get your money.  I'm sure you'd do the same for me." Of course, the con artist has no money order coming in, so the other man's money is the only one to arrive; he insists on giving a portion to the con artist.  Note that the con artist, played by Joe Mantegna, is actually setting up his female companion, a psychologist played by Lindsay Crouse, for a bigger con by showing her some of his techniques.  Here's the scene from that film:



In a work situation, a social manipulator might use phrases such as "We're some team!" or "How are we going to handle this situation?" or "I see you are in the same boat as I am; we need to work together."  I can think of at least three people I have known in my career who used this manipulation to try to impose a relationship (with me) that I did not want.  Now, some instances in which someone voices such statements might be totally innocent.  Your gut will tell you whether they are being helpful or manipulative: if you feel uncomfortable and want to have nothing to do with them (but don't want to appear to be rude), be alert.  A key test is how that person reacts to a clear refusal to follow along with a fictitious shared experience or problem.  If you politely decline to play along and simply say that you are not in need of help or advice but the other person persists, even trying to make you feel guilty, then you are dealing with a manipulator.

Outside of work, I've encountered strangers (male) who tried "force-teaming" on me and then turned nasty when I politely declined their insistence that we are having a "shared experience".  Women are particularly vulnerable to this strategy because we hate to be accused of being rude.

In the next post, I will continue with the warning signs of social manipulators and con artists.

Comfort Level

In the last post, I described a hypothetical situation in which a female project leader (Jennifer) is having difficulty with some of her male colleagues.  Instead of contacting her directly with some important information affecting her project, the manager of a refuge where she is conducting a study has contacted someone else in Jennifer's organization who has no involvement in the project (Bob). To make matters worse, Bob is attempting to "help" her by answering these emails (instead of simply forwarding the messages to her and informing the sender of his error).

Over the years, I've experienced variations of this annoying situation.  Female colleagues have also mentioned this problem.  The details change, but the underlying theme is the same. Instead of contacting the woman who should be receiving the message directly, the message sender instead talks or writes to another man who may be the woman's supervisor, employee, student, collaborator, husband, or the guy in the next office. The man who receives the message typically forwards the message, sometimes immediately, sometimes not. He may inform the sender of his error, or not.    

So what's going on here?

First, I think that people want to deal with people with whom they feel most comfortable.  They prefer communicating with someone who is similar to themselves. This is the reason the refuge manager in the hypothetical scenario persists in contacting someone he knows and feels at ease with.  Similarly, the instances I've personally encountered involved men who seemed to be more comfortable communicating with other men and who were uncomfortable interacting with a woman (of equal status).  In these cases, it's male workers who feel more at ease interacting with other males, especially concerning more "masculine" endeavors.  We can imagine other situations in which the gender roles are reversed or which involve other contrasting types of people. 

I imagine that there are also those men who, because of their stereotypical thinking, feel that their message cannot be understood by a woman and needs to be communicated to a man (who will understand and might have more experience communicating with the woman in question).  There are fewer of these dinosaurs nowadays, but they still exist.

Second, this situation is exacerbated by an intermediary who tries to help out by responding to the message. This man may be trying to be helpful or he may be doing something else entirely.  In our hypothetical scenario, Jennifer's colleague, Bob, is receiving messages about Jennifer's project and instead of simply forwarding them to her, is responding on her behalf.  We don't have enough information to know whether Bob is trying to be helpful or has an ulterior motive for his actions. Regardless of his motives, however, by responding to the message (instead of informing the sender of his error), Bob has set himself up as Gatekeeper of communications between Jennifer and the refuge manager.

This type of situation may be a minor annoyance or it might be a Problem.  If Bob is trying to help, it's just a brief irritation.  On the other hand, Bob may be taking advantage of the situation to undermine her.  Jennifer is a new employee in a consulting company, where competition among employees may be intense.  Bob may be trying to insert himself into a project that he wanted to lead, but instead was given to Jennifer.  She is new, so may not be fully aware of office politics or have had time to identify the sharks.

Jennifer responded initially by contacting the refuge manager directly to say that she had received the information (but did not point out his error in contacting Bob).  I think this action was appropriate, given the circumstances.  She sent a clear message to the refuge manager that she was the rightful recipient of the information (which hints that they should contact her directly in the future).  This was the minimum action that someone in Jennifer's situation should have taken. 

However, Jennifer did not address Bob's actions. She should have asked him not to respond to any future messages from the refuge on her behalf and to simply forward the messages to her.  Actually, this step was critical not only to insuring that Bob could not interfere, but so that the refuge manager would have no other option except to contact her directly. As long as Bob was available, the refuge manager could ignore Jennifer's request for direct communication.  Also, by dealing with Bob in such a direct way, she would also gain some insight into his motives for interfering in the first place (critical information for Jennifer to survive in her new workplace).  If Bob persists in his role as Gatekeeper, then Jennifer will know that he is not simply trying to "help" her. 

If Bob continues to intercept messages meant for Jennifer, then she has a much bigger problem on her hands....one that will take some creative thinking to resolve.  In the next post, I'll consider how Jennifer might handle Bob's persistent interference.

Image Credit: Still image from "Cool Hand Luke" (1967), Jalem Productions