A Matter of Trust: Strategies for Creating a Harassment-Free Workplace

The #MeToo movement has changed the workplace landscape, bringing heightened attention to people and institutions that engage in, or enable through inaction, behaviors that breach ethical and legal standards, and create a climate that tolerates harassment. Stories of these breaches are widespread and span industries, and higher education institutions are among this field in alarming numbers. As the scope of the problem has become more apparent, employees have increasingly demanded that employers act to eliminate harassment, and an unprecedented number of consumers have demanded the same from the companies they patronize.

This new landscape provides important leverage for HR practitioners to influence organizational leadership toward higher standards and accountability. With this in mind, the University of Massachusetts-Lowell (UMass Lowell) explored three questions:

• What actions can chief HR officers (CHROs) initiate to leverage the widespread demand, by men and women, for a harassment-free workplace?
• How can they do so proactively (before they become the next headline)?
• How can they help foster a harassment-free climate?

Leadership Response Demonstrates Commitment

Sexual harassment occurs at every college and university as well as in society at large, and UMass Lowell is no exception. The institution has made great progress in addressing sexual harassment over the past decade by dedicating more resources to the Offices of Equal Opportunity and Outreach (EOO) and Student Conduct, implementing significant revisions to align policies across the UMass system, restructuring reporting and investigation procedures, establishing the UML Prevent website aimed at increasing visibility of policies and reporting options, and investing in improved system-wide training. Still, much work can be done to create a welcoming, safe and inclusive environment for everyone.

Last spring, members of the UMass Lowell community learned about a complaint of sexual harassment that had been made several years prior. The complaint had been investigated, and administrative action had been taken to sanction the accused and to mitigate risks of any recurrence of harassment. Still, there was dissatisfaction expressed by many students, faculty and staff. Questions were not so much about how the matter was investigated, but rather about how decisions were made following the finding of a violation of university policies, whether the sanctions were sufficiently severe and whether steps taken to mitigate risk of recurrence were adequate.

The institution found itself in the middle of a dilemma. What information about the investigation and sanction needed to be treated as confidential, and how much information could or should be shared? Regardless of how the institution answered these questions, this incident had spurred anger in the community, and the only effective way to respond was to engage the community in a comprehensive and open dialogue about these issues.

To that end, the chancellor convened a task force to review the university’s Title IX policies and procedures, educational efforts, culture and climate, and communications on these issues, and to make a set of recommendations to the executive cabinet for future improvements. The members of the task force were selected from across the university community, ensuring opportunities for broad campus engagement. The task force undertook this work over the next eight months and presented a comprehensive report to the executive cabinet, which included over 40 recommendations in areas from policies to university climate.

Sexual Harassment Task Force Process

Community Representation on Task Force

The first decision was how to assemble members of the task force with representation from the various stakeholder groups across campus, such as faculty across six colleges, staff across five executive areas, faculty and staff in various levels/rank, undergraduate and graduate students, and representatives from each of the nine campus unions.

Furthermore, it was important to include some of the most vocal and passionate community members. This process began by posting in the university’s daily announcements a call for volunteers and nominations. The announcements were then posted on the website and distributed to student and employee emails. After identifying gaps in representation and reaching out to deans, department heads and union leaders for additional nominations, a 35-member task force that broadly represented UMass Lowell was assembled. The group included undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, staff, unions, colleges and academic disciplines, underrepresented populations, and human resources and student affairs experts in preventing and responding to sexual harassment.

Appointment of Task Force Leadership

The next step was to select task force leadership. Three individuals who were highly respected members of the community, but not content experts, were selected to serve as co-chairs. These three individuals broadly represented the administration, academic affairs, faculty and student affairs. Task force leadership was then broadened to include experts who would serve as advisors to the co-chairs. These experts were drawn from HR/EOO, student affairs and faculty. Together the co-chairs and the advisors constituted the Steering Committee of the Sexual Harassment Task Force.

Task Force Work Plan

At the outset, the institution recognized that the journey on which the task force was about to embark would require difficult, emotion-laden conversations. In response, UMass Lowell decided that investing time up front for the task force members to get to know one another and develop a shared understanding of, and agreement on, the overall goal would help to build the trust necessary to enable candid and productive dialogue. The first meeting was dedicated to this relationship-building work.

After recognizing the diverse and varied experiences of task force members, a professional consultant with expertise in addressing sexual harassment in higher ed was brought in to present an educational workshop to help provide the group with a common vocabulary for their discussions. The consultant’s presentation included content on the current and shifting regulatory climate, prevention and education strategies, and effective policies and practices.

Task Force Sub-Committee Structure

Following the chancellor’s charge, the task force divided into four subcommittees, each chaired by one of the task force co-chairs and advised by one or more of the advisory members: Policy/Procedures, Communications, Training/Education, and Culture/Climate. Members of the task force were asked to identify on which sub-committee they preferred to serve. These preferences, for the most part, resulted in an even distribution of task force members and reasonable representation on each sub-committee. We believe this self-selection process helped to build trust and let members invest their efforts in the areas of our work that was most important to them.

Sub-committees started their work with a review of the university’s current practices in their respective areas of focus, and then asked: Where are we now? What’s working? What’s not working? What are the perceptions of the community of the university’s practices?

They explored best practices and developed recommendations  to close the gaps identified and move the institution toward the desired state. The task force drew extensively from the EEOC’s Report of the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace (2016) and the Report of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on Sexual Harassment (2018).

Transparency

A key theme that emerged from the full task force and sub-committee discussions was a desire for increased transparency. There were many ways in which the issue of transparency arose. For example, key areas identified for improvement were the need for more clarity of the process for reporting harassment, as well as how sanctions are determined for members of the community who violate policies and values. Some foundational questions included:

• How do we maintain confidentiality of details of individual cases?
• Does protecting the safety and privacy of those who report harassment strengthen a culture where reporting is encouraged?
• If it does not, how can statutory compliance be reconciled with the desire for just culture?

Much has been written about the tension between these competing values of transparency and confidentiality. Task force discussions concluded that an important way to build trust, knowing that details must be kept confidential, was better understanding and communication of the process.

The principle of transparency was embedded into the work of the task force from the outset. A new website was created where the work of the task force and subcommittees was chronicled. Open forums were held, at which all community members were invited to provide feedback about their experiences with sexual harassment and to offer feedback on university policies and procedures. Clear flow charts were developed that outlined faculty, staff and student processes for addressing complaints, including specific steps in each process and options and resources available to members of the community.

The only way for task force leaders to succeed was to practice transparency. At the outset of the process, many task force members were unsure whether, and to what extent, leadership and HR were participating in good faith. The calls for transparency were perhaps strongest from this group. Group members demanded full transparency, and group leadership was scrupulous in making certain it adhered to the highest standards of transparency. This created a cycle of trust-building that had both an immediate and a long-term impact. In the end, trust was earned by the way the work was done.

Doing the right thing in preventing and responding to sexual harassment, buoyed by the essential ingredient of trust, is a recipe for the best legal defense.

Dialogue and Consensus Process for Decision-Making

Throughout this process, dialogue across the task force and subcommittees was informed by early agreed-upon goals and the shared commitment to delivering a high-quality, comprehensive report to the executive cabinet. Members volunteered as note takers. Notes were taken at all meetings and shared broadly among the task force through a shared drive. Chairs shared facilitation of meetings and presentations and encouraged difficult dialogues to be confronted rather than avoided.

Where co-chairs were not the best facilitators of these difficult dialogues, other members stepped in to assist. These dialogues were, on occasion, most difficult for HR/EOO and student affairs experts whose work was being critically evaluated. These HR/EOO and student affairs task force members carried an extra burden in their dual roles. On one hand, they were contributing members of the task force with relevant and specialized expertise. On the other hand, the dissatisfaction with the current state of policies and practices was a strong component of the impetus for the task force. An invitation to serve on the task force called on their ability to listen, remain composed and engage constructively. Although challenging, this process also called on other task force members to respect and extend trust to them, which happened over time.

This trust-building was a central factor to the success of the process and the outcomes of the task force.  Had these HR/EOO and student affairs practitioners not been open to critical feedback, the process could have easily been derailed. Beyond the task force membership itself, other university leaders were also subject to critiques and demonstrated openness to feedback and willingness to hear community concerns.

Consensus Process for Decision-Making

Trust was reinforced by the intentional use of a deliberate consensus process in task force decision-making. The task force unanimously agreed to engage this consensus process as a tool for vetting and reaching decisions on recommendations that would be included in their final report. When a task force member first broached the idea of consensus decision-making, it was not initially embraced. On reflection, it seemed that there may not have been a shared understanding of what a consensus process was or how it would work. Following the suggestion, the steering committee undertook the task of researching consensus decision-making processes, and the Briggs’ model emerged as a protocol that appeared to be a good fit for the task force’s purposes. Key concepts of this model are that power in decision-making is shared, the decision-making process is effectively facilitated, and participants exercise their right to support or not support a proposal. The process starts with a presentation of a proposal, followed by a facilitated discussion of a proposal. When it appears the dialogue has come to a conclusion, the facilitator calls for a decision whereby a tally is taken of the number of members who block, consent, recuse or stand-aside if they do not have a strong opinion one way or the other. This was done iteratively, with each recommendation from each subcommittee getting a full and open hearing and discussion across multiple sessions.

Final Report and Recommendations

Five key themes emerged in the recommendations from UMass Lowell’s task force sub-committees.

Resources Needed to Support Effective Practices

An overarching theme emphasized in several taskforce recommendations was the need to increase university resources to support effective practices. The most frequently cited needs were for more professional staff to investigate complaints, including appropriate training for staff in conducting comprehensive, timely and trauma-informed investigations; systems/technology to support efficient reporting and tracking of these cases; and further investments, such as budget and staffing to enable increased focus on prevention and education. In recognizing fiscal limitations, the task force recommended creative strategies to engage members of the community beyond HR/EOO and student affairs, who hold primary responsibilities in Title IX. Recommendations were to “train-the-trainers,” or serve as a network of trained allies to increase opportunities for members of the community to access information about policies and resources and/or about options for reporting a concern.

Beyond resources needed, questions about organizational structure arose in the task force’s dialogue, specifically about whether HR professionals can effectively serve both as stewards of the organization’s legal compliance and as facilitators of neutral investigators of sexual harassment complaints. Following this question, the task force called for a review of this structure and the physical location of offices to ensure confidential access to these resources.

Formalizing and Communicating Organizational Values

Recommendations called for the university to establish and broadly communicate a values statement that prioritizes integrity, equity, fairness, safety, inclusivity, consistency and transparency in all interactions among community members, making clear what behaviors are and are not acceptable. Policies, procedures and expectations for behavior of all members of the community could then be aligned with these values. Aligning policies and procedures with our values would serve to increase community trust in the university’s commitment to equity, inclusion and a safe learning and workplace environment for everyone. A redesign and relaunch of the university’s sexual violence prevention and education website would then serve to increase the visibility of these values and provide clarity about institution policies, procedures and resources.

Training and Education

As the task force undertook its work, it became clear that members of the community had very different levels of understanding and information of university policies related to sexual harassment, available resources, and processes for filing a complaint, including the rights and responsibilities of all individuals involved in the reporting and review process.

Recommendations included:

• a call for increased participation in basic online training on sexual harassment;
• more in-person training that extends beyond compliance and raises awareness among the entire community about bias and cultural competence;
• encouraging members of the community to adhere to core values and participate in bystander, microaggression, anti-bias and anti-bullying training; and
• the need for increased education of leaders, managers and supervisors, including strategies for promoting inclusion, respect and civility.

Ongoing Assessment of Campus Climate and Operations

Evident in several recommendations was the importance of short and long-term assessments of the university’s climate as a place of work and learning. Several assessment mechanisms were recommended, including a biennial climate survey; evaluation of roles and settings across the university to identify those that are particularly at risk for harassment, such as events with alcohol, solo assignments, residence halls and situations with significant power or seniority differences; evaluation of the effectiveness of training and education, and the transfer of learning into practice.

Additional recommendations called for a university-wide review of processes and procedures to ensure that they align with the institution’s values of equity, diversity and a harassment-free environment, and that they hold members of the community accountable for appropriate behavior.

Collaboration With Nine Campus Unions

As noted above, each of the nine campus unions was represented on the task force. They proved particularly important, as several task force recommendations called for changes to the university’s collective bargaining agreements with a particular focus on establishing consistent language on anti-discrimination policies and procedures, the incorporation of a consensual amorous relationship policy, the exploration of a sanctions panel or panels to review findings of violations of university Title IX policies, and sanctions for faculty and staff found responsible.

Further, the task force identified graduate students as a particularly vulnerable population, specifically in their relationship with faculty mentors who have tremendous power to influence their future careers. The task force called for further review of graduate students’ experiences and needs and has worked with the Graduate Student Organization to implement responsive strategies.

Aligning Prevention and Compliance With Values

The #MeToo movement has provided the social change required for the real work to begin. Most HR professionals possess the needed legal expertise and organizational acumen to guide strategies to prevent sexual harassment and, when there is a breach, to take appropriate action and defend their organizations against legal liability. These organizational prevention and defense strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, they are most effectively aligned when HR has a reputation and track record for leading positive change and for collaborating with leadership in creating and maintaining a harassment-free workplace. If done well, HR will accrue more social capital because it generates trust, an expectation of a meaningful outcome. If HR fails to do so, the opposite can happen. This phenomenon presents opportunities and challenges for HR practitioners. Doing the right thing in preventing and responding to sexual harassment, buoyed by the essential ingredient of trust, is a recipe for the best legal defense.

The National Academy of Sciences compares this HR agency to the agency role of administrators who are responsible for ensuring integrity in research. Internal mechanisms to ensure research integrity and compliance are deeply seeded in institutions of higher education, dating back to the establishment of the Nuremberg Code in 1947. In a 2018 report on Sexual Harassment of Women, the National Academies call for academic institutions to “consider sexual harassment equally important as research misconduct” and to increase organizational collaboration in the pursuit of compliance and the issuance of appropriate sanctions.

In a recent communication to the UMass Lowell community, the chancellor wrote, “Organizations with cultures built on honorable foundations are strengthened by difficult conversations.”

As a university, the tendency should not be to shy away from these challenges. It is clear that a systemic approach to prevention and response to sexual harassment is in order across industries and in all settings. Oftentimes, this work requires organization-wide engagement and commitment. The EEOC and other research-based agencies have provided a clear roadmap of evidenced-based strategies to support this process, and HR leaders must be prepared to lead this change.

COVID-19 update from the author: The entirety of our university operations has been impacted by the unprecedented circumstances resulting from the coronavirus, and our plans to advance work of our sexual harassment task force was no exception. At the outset of spring break, leadership was developing plans to update the campus community on planned next steps, which included reconvening the task force to provide feedback on recommendations, prioritize next steps, and develop implementation strategies for recommendations identified for early action. 

On March 11, the university announced a two-day extension of spring break and a shift to a fully virtual instructional environment. Since then, nearly every member of our community and every resource has been dedicated to facilitating this swift operational pivot and to providing support to ensure the continued success of our students. We have faced dozens of decisions since then, as new information continues to emerge. At this point, it’s difficult to predict when we will return to normalcy. 

With that said, we learned today that the Title IX regulations have cleared the OMG/OIRA review process and have been transmitted to the Department of Education. It’s unclear when they will be published in the Federal Register to begin the final APA implementation process; however, rumors suggest they will be issued as soon as this week or next, and that institutional compliance may be required by August 14.  Several advocacy groups are communicating with the DOE, calling for a deferral of the issuance of the regulations in light of the national emergency.

Regardless of the timing, we are confident that our community commitment to this important work will sustain. Some initiatives will go forward despite constraints. An active bystander training session will take place this semester online. Campus equity leaders continue the development of a “2.0” version of bystander training addressing issues of intersectionality. And, given the level of uncertainty, it will be developed in both online and in-person formats. Our greatest concern going forward is whether resources needed to support the task force recommendations will be available given the financial impacts we currently face. 

About the authors: Lauren Turner is senior associate vice chancellor for HR organizational effectiveness & strategy; Michael Beers is assistant teaching professor of organizational learning, knowledge management and change management, both of the University of Massachusetts Lowell.