There are currently six states in the U.S. that have laws requiring companies to provide sexual harassment prevention training. These states are California (CA), New York (NY), Illinois (IL), Delaware (DE), Maine (ME), and Connecticut (CT). However, 44 other states do not have such laws. The question arises whether mandatory sexual harassment prevention training has reduced the number of incidents of sexual harassment in the six states that have enacted laws. Surprisingly, a Harvard University professor found that compared to the 1980s when training was not implemented, the number of sexual harassment cases has hardly decreased. On the contrary, the number of female managers seems to have recently declined. If true, this report is alarming.
In addition to sexual harassment prevention training, most companies (95%, according to Harvard University) now have an internal sexual harassment report system that allows employees to report sexual harassment when it occurs. Nevertheless, the number of sexual harassment cases has not decreased, and the promotion of female managers has not been successful. Whether they know it or not, the number of states that have enacted laws requiring sexual harassment prevention training has not increased. In conclusion, whether sexual harassment prevention training is required by law and whether or not a company has a sexual harassment report system, there has unfortunately been no apparent effect on eliminating sexual harassment itself.
As a provider of sexual harassment prevention training to Japanese companies, I would like to discuss why sexual harassment has not decreased at all in these companies as a matter of self-reflection and self-awareness. First, I can say that it is probably because companies that employ workers in states where training is required by law provide training only because it is the law. In other words, it is a situation of “making a Buddha but not putting his soul into it. (It’s just the form but not the spirit.)” As proof of this, many companies are using free videos provided by state employment regulatory agencies (DFEH: Department of Fair Employment & Housing in CA, DOL: Department of Labor in NY, DHR: Department of Human Rights in IL, etc.) to provide training to their employees. Many companies may only allow their employees to watch free videos provided by the state employment regulators during working hours.
Training is not the end of the process, and all states that mandate it by law require companies to provide ongoing training. It is acceptable to start by showing the state’s free video, but it is useless to the company if it must repeat the same video the next time. This is not to criticize the free videos provided by the states, but if the training is all that is required, then the company may end up watching the same free videos produced by the states every time. This is why I suggest that this is the reality of “making a Buddha but not putting his soul into it,” as mentioned above.
Both CA and NY state sexual harassment prevention training include a section on “Bystander Intervention,” which must be included in the training. Bystander intervention is a prevalent training approach in which a bystander objects or gives a warning when others are misbehaving in the workplace. Bystanders can be anyone. With proper practice and a little courage, we can prevent sexual harassment in the workplace by alerting people when encountering a sexual harassment situation, for example, by teasing a subordinate or colleague with a vulgar or sexual joke!
Neglecting scenarios that could apply to anyone, no matter how many unrealistic case studies are unlikely to occur, will not result in effective and efficient training. In other words, no matter how much training is mandated by law, ineffective and impractical training alone will not lead to a decrease in sexual harassment. Over 300 colleges and universities, as well as the U.S. Army and Air Force, have actively incorporated bystander interventions into their training programs, and the training has been practical, with sexual harassment on the decline.
Finally, the key to more effective training is to conduct it in the employee’s native language. The Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) guidelines for sexual harassment prevention training recommend that training be provided in the employee’s native language. If the training is conducted in English, a foreign language to the employee, and the employee’s understanding of the content is less than half due to cross-cultural differences, the training will not be as practical as expected. Considering the overall situation and background, it is paradoxical that no matter how much sexual harassment prevention training is mandated by law, the number of sexual harassment cases has not decreased. Now is the time to break through the boundaries of conventional training, which is based on the principle of “make a Buddha, but don’t put your soul into it.
【Author】
Ken Sakai
President & CEO
Pacific Dreams, Inc.
kenfsakai@pacificdreams.org
