John Humphrys asks: what type of behaviour is acceptable in the workplace?
The unresolved crisis within the Liberal Democrat Party concerning Lord Rennard and accusations of sexual harassment could well end up splitting the party apart. But the case raises wider questions about what is and what isn’t acceptable behaviour in the workplace. Are we nearer answering them? And how should we do so?
The charge of alleged harassment against Lord Rennard, the man held by many people to have been more responsible than any other individual for the LibDem revival of recent years, goes back almost a decade. Four women party workers accused him of inappropriate behaviour and an inquiry was set up under Alistair Webster QC to investigate the charges. But the inquiry’s findings, far from resolving the issue, has raised the temperature on both sides.
The Webster report – which has not been made public - concluded that the charges made against Lord Rennard could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt but that they were ‘broadly credible’ and that he should therefore apologise. Lord Rennard, who has always denied the charges, says he will not apologise because that would be admitting guilt He says it would open him not only to the risk of being expelled from the party to which he has devoted his life, but also to legal action. He has, though, expressed ‘regret’ that he may have unintentionally ‘hurt’ these women
To those supporting the women Rennard’s refusal to apologise looks like a refusal to acknowledge that his behaviour was unacceptable and is tantamount to claiming that when a boss ‘just’ puts a hand on a young woman’s clothed knee there isn’t a problem.
Neither side show any signs of backing down and the standoff has the potential to turn into a disaster for the party. One LibDem source is reported to be predicting ‘a bloodbath, the like of which the party has not seen before’.
But what (if anything) does the case reveal more broadly about what is and is not acceptable behaviour?
Everyone can agree that it is simply wrong for people with power to exploit their position for their own sexual advantage. Faced with an unwelcome advance, a young employee may feel under pressure to go along with it for fear of losing their job or missing the chance of a promotion that might otherwise come their way. Given the fact that it’s still the case that most bosses are men and heterosexual, many women feel potentially vulnerable to this danger.
But what constitutes an unacceptable advance? The problem is that there is no agreed definition: it is a subjective matter about which fair-minded people can disagree. What to one person is ‘just’ a hand on the knee is to another ‘an invasion of personal space’. But what constitutes an invasion of personal space? Does it, for example, require actual physical contact or does standing a bit too near count? And can’t ‘invasion’ be conducted from a distance? A particular look with the eyes across a desk can imply just as much, or as little, as a hand on the knee. And how much should distress should be involved? Is being made to feel a little uncomfortable just as bad as ending up feeling physically sick and bursting into tears in the corridor?
To some people, especially to many women who see themselves as particularly at risk, the only acceptable solution is to set the bar as high as possible. In other words, we should aim to establish a workplace culture in which, as a norm, only the most formal behaviour between a boss and an employee is tolerable. Even the slightest straying from a stiff code of communication would then ring alarm bells and prevent any worse abuse from happening.
But many people (and not just men) would object that that would dehumanise the workplace to an intolerable degree. Surely, they would say, we don’t need to turn ourselves into bloodless machines, talking to each other like robots, in order to fend off the danger of sexual harassment and exploitation. Isn’t work often dreary and monotonous enough in the first place without our making it worse by denying ourselves the opportunity to relate to each other as human beings, a relationship that involves banter, teasing each other, perhaps seeming to flirt, even touching each other now and again?
People who take this view will tend to conclude that these issues can’t be legislated for and shouldn’t be. In their eyes the very language of ‘invading personal space’ is somehow absurd. Of course we each inhabit our own space but we also live in a common, shared space, and talk of ‘invasion’ of one by another simply denies the reality of how life is lived. The way we negotiate our ‘spaces’ is implicitly to work out strategies for getting along with each other and most women have successfully found ways of fending off unwelcome advances from men even at times when male domination has been far more oppressive than anyone could claim it is now.
To which many women will be tempted to retort: That’s just another way of saying men should be allowed to get away with it just as they have always done. They will ask: Why should a woman be forced to accept a man’s unwelcome advances? And anyway, this particular playing field is not level. Men almost invariably exercise the power.
What’s your view?
- Have you been made to feel uncomfortable (or worse) by the unwelcome advances of a boss?
- How did you handle it? Have you, as a boss, had your own behaviour towards an employee interpreted in a way you thought unjust to you?
- Do you think a term such as ‘the invasion of personal space’ is helpful or not in reducing the incidence of harassment?
- Do you think there are rules we could adopt that would minimise the distress all round, or do you think it has to be left to the people involved to sort these problems out for themselves?
- And do you think we talk too much about workplace harassment, or too little?
