Why sexual harassers are bad for business

TVF’s sexual harassment scandal has once again brought to head the goings on in corporate India. While the matter is still under investigation, and its best not to pass judgements on anything that has happened yet, the fact of the matter is that sexual harassment is not entirely uncommon. It is no wonder, that Indian companies with over 10 employees are legally bound to have a sexual harassment committee in place. Despite all the noise about women’s rights and the persistence of patriarchal, entitlement mentalities among many, it seems that not all companies are still taking sexual harassment very seriously. TVF being a case in point, which did not have the committee in place.

While its possible that companies are only just adjusting to these ideas, it would be good for them to get up to speed as quickly as possible. It is uncomfortable to even think about sexual harassment and its awful to discuss it, but it needs to be done. Risking sexual harassers running amok in companies, can prove to be hazardous to companies’ business, not just the person harassed.

Here are the 4 ways in which companies suffer from sexual harassers, and why its bad business to let them be in the organisation:

1.     Reputational Risk: The most obvious – if there are sexual harassers in the organization, and there are no ways of identifying them through a formal complaint mechanism, the business is running a reputational risk. If any of the employees then complains outside of the organization – on a blog, for instance, as in this case, about the untoward behaviours taking place, not only does it become clear to third parties that the company can’t keep its house in order, don’t be surprised if the number of women who want to work in the organization starts trickling down. (Note: I understand that a harasser can be either man or woman, as can be the harassed, but let us just go with the most common instance here). In the age of diversity, the last thing you want is to be unable to explain why women just won’t work with you.  

2.    Personality challenges: It can often happen that sexual harassment is a grey area. It can be a cultural misunderstanding (women who {insert the opposite of expected cultural stereotype of good behaviour} are sluts), an inappropriate touch (which can be just something that happened by mistake, unless it happens once to often and to one too many people), a gaze in the wrong direction (hello chests/backs), and in the same vein, words that come out a wrong way. It is entirely possible that these are unintended, or the individual acting them out wants them to be seen as somewhat grey to keep safe. However, the TVF variety of sexual harassment is blatant and explicit and is another league altogether. Most sexual harassers of this kind are either on an ego trip, have a deep seated psychological imbalance that compels them to behave in the manner, or just want to keep women intimidated, and what better way than sexual intimidation. Either of these varieties running loose seems like an unwise business decision. Sooner or later all these types will create at least a minor hell. Avoiding it is best. Moreover, if they are driven so much by their ego or untameable psychological urges, they are unlikely to be taking rational professional decisions in other areas too. In any organization, decisions need to be made for the company, and not to assuage any individual’s blind needs.

3.     Multiplying the harassers: If one sexual harasser (or any other kind of harasser) is allowed to run free in an organization, especially, if they are in a position of power, you have virtually guaranteed the birth of more harassers. Because people take on the colours of those around them. And if a person of some dominance is going to make a ritual of poor behaviors, be sure, soon the entire work culture would be in a very unfortunate place. And a bad work culture is not one where good work gets done, it's one where dirty politics get played, ethics get compromised, questionable decisions get taken and the organisation’s quality whittles down to nothingness over time.

4.     A shadow on the leader: Related to above, unfortunately, if the leader(s) is squeamish about accepting the existence of sexual harassers (assuming that the leader is not a harasser, as is alleged in the case of TVF), it suggests that the leadership is not taking the matter seriously enough. And the last thing any organisation wants, is to come across as a having a leader who simply does not address issues because it is somewhat inconvenient to do so. Not much leadership, that. Avoiding a hard decision today, can cost very highly tomorrow.