INTRODUCTION
 
Sexual behaviour in the workplace is not a recent phenomenon,
but the concept of sexual harassment is of recent origin in
this country. The term sexual harassment conveys a picture of
male aggression and allows an examination of the matrix of
male/female relations in the workplace (Farley, 1978).
 
In reality, sexual harassment in the workplace is a problem for
all, as harassment can damage employees' prospects Or gaining
employment, advancement and wages. In addition, harassment can
create an offensive, hostile, and intimidating work environment
that interferes with one's performances and job success.
 
What is Sexual Harassment?
 
Sexual harassment is an unwelcome or uninvited behaviour or
sexual nature, which is offensive, embarrassing, intimidating
or humiliating and may affect an employee's work performance,
health, career or livelihood. For many years, Lin Farley's
definition was quoted most often: "Sexual harassment is best
described as unsolicited non reciprocal male behaviour that
asserts a women's sex role over her function as a worker"
(Farley, 1978: 14-15).
 
In the past, such unwanted sexual comments and advances have
been taken for granted in the workplace, and regarded as so
much a part of normal working life that few people, apart from
the victim, are aware of their happening. The recent interest
in the issue indicates that this situation is changing.
 
In Malaysia, sexual harassment is seen in accordance with the
two main legal criteria (Kementerian Sumber Manusia, 1999). It
is quite similar to the one developed in the United States.
According to the Ministry of Human Resources, under the Code of
practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment
in the Workplace, sexual harassment can be divided into two
categories: sexual coercion and sexual annoyance. The first
looks at harassing behaviour in purely contractual terms,
sometimes called quid pro quo harassment. It means in order to
obtain a job, win promotion, or gain access to training
opportunities or other benefits, the granting of sexual favours
becomes a contractual term, either explicitly on implicitly.
Failure to comply may lead to non- employment, denial of
training and promotional opportunities, demotion, poor work
assignments, or dismissal.
 
The second is related to the creation of a hostile working
environment, that is sexual annoyance where there might be no
direct contractual dimensions involved. There may be no clear
contractual gain or penalty, but a pattern of behaviour based
on sex develops and creates an uncomfortable and hostile work
situation for the victim. Such behaviour has the purpose or
effect of unreasonably interfering with a person's performance
on the job or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
working environment.
 
However; a major problem in dealing with sexual harassment in
organizations is its perceptual nature (Popovich, Gehlauf,
Jolton, Somers, and Godinho, 1992:609) because men and women
generally differ in what they perceive to be sexual harassment
(DunwoodyMiller & Gutek, 1985; Reilly et al., 1992; Riger,
1991). What is dispelled by one as sexual harassment is likely
to be considered an incident by the other.
 
Gender and Sexual Harassment
 
Gender is one of the strongest predictors of sexual harassment
(Fitzgerald & Ormerod, 1993). A review of the literature shows
that researchers have found a number of differences with the
most consistent findings on sexual harassment being gender
differences in perceptions of incidents (Booth-Butterfield,
1984; Tannen, 1990; Malovich & Stake, 1990; Riger, 1991). Riger
(1991:499), for example, stated that, "the variable that most
consistently predict variation in people's definition of sexual
harassment is the sex of the rater." In addition, she suggested
that men generally do not perceive the behaviour to be
offensive and, therefore, they do not see it as a crime or
problem.  As a matter of fact, men label fewer behaviours at
work as sexual harassment and tend to find sexual overtures
from women flattering, whereas women find similar approaches
from men insulting (Konrad & Gutek, 1986; Gutek, 1985).
 
Hence, men and women tend to differ in what they perceive to be
sexual harassment. Women generally see sexual harassment as a
more serious problem than men. Overall, they have broader
definitions of sexual harassment than males, have more negative
attitudes, are less tolerant and consider teasing, looks,
gestures, unnecessary physical contact and remarks to be sexual
harassment (Mazer and Percival, 1989; McKinney, 1990; Johnson,
Stockdale & Saal, 1991). Contrarily, men typically do not End
the same behaviours to be offensive and label teasing, looks,
gestures and comments as "normal" interactions between males
and females (Johnson, Stockdale and Saal, 1991).
 
Most studies also indicate that women are the majority of
victims of sexual harassment (Gutek, 1985). It is an exception
when men are sexually harassed (Fitzgerald it Ormerod, 1993).
Men are also less likely to report sexual harassment when it
does occur (Konrad & Gutek, 1996). One explanation is that men
are constrained by the "sex role" they are supposed to fit
(Vaux, 1993).
 
Attitude towards Women and Sexual Harassment
 
The difference in perception towards sexual harassment is also
found to be related to sex role identity. Sex role identity is
one variable that has been studied in rela6on to understanding
the differences in gender perceptions. Some scientists,
including Malovich and Stake (1990), posit that men and women
with traditional sex-role orientations are more willing to
tolerate unwelcome sexual behaviour and less inclined to label
it harassment than persons with nontraditional orientations.
They also implied a traditional man may not be able to
recognize the negative impact of the relationships due to his
traditional ideology.
 
It appears that what men believe about women often affects how
they relate to them. More specifically, a number of studies
have shown that men's behaviour towards women as well as their
perceptions of and responses to women's actions are mediated by
their basic attitudes towards women. F6r example, Shotland and
Goodstein (1983) found that subjects who had more egalitarian
attitudes according to the Attitudes Towards Women Scale
(Spence & Helmreich, 1972) were found to be less likely to see
the situation as violent than those with less egalitarian
views.
 
Conservative views of women are highly correlated with beliefs
that women are responsible for preventing rape (Field, 1978).
Other studies by Koss, Leonard, Beezly and Oros (1985) found
that men who have adversarial attitudes towards women have been
consistently more involved in sexually aggressive actions
towards women than those with egalitarian attitudes.
 
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
 
There are two objectives to this study The first is to see the
gender differences in the perception of sexual harassment. The
second objective is to see the relationship between perceptions
of sexual harassment and attitudes towards women.
 
METHODOLOGY
 
This empirical study was conducted in a government organization
in Kedah. The organization consisted of 286 employees. Everyone
in the organization was taken as sample for this study.
Questionnaires were distributed during working hours, to groups
of respondents between five and 20 workers. The research was
conducted in a room provided by the organization. A total of
266 respondents participated in the study voluntarily.
 
Research Instruments
 
Two instruments were used in this study. The Utara Sexual
Harassment Perception Questionnnaire - USHPQ (Sabitha, 1999)
was used to measure the perception of workers towards sexual
harassment. The questionnaire consists of questions on verbal,
non-verbal, visual and physical forms of sexual harassment
behaviours.  This instrument obtained high reliability scores
when used among public administrators (Sabitha, 1999), factory
workers (Mazlinda, 1999/2000), and students (Sabitha, 1999b).
Respondents were asked how each behavior affects them at the
workplace.  Possible responses were varied on a four-point
scale from one (not disturbing) to four (very disturbing).
 
Secondly, the sex role identity was measured using the Attitude
Towards Women Scale (AWS) that was constructed by Spence,
Helmreich, and Stapp (1973). A number of studies have
substantiated the validity of this measure by finding that
women score more liberally on the AWS than men (Beach & Kimmel,
1976; Doyle, 1975, Etaugh, 1975)
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 
The population of the study comprised 61.3 per cent men and
38.7 per cent women. The majority were Malay (96.2%), and only
a minority were Chinese (1.5%) and Indians (1.5%). The return
rate for this study was 98.8 per cent of the respondents, 943
per cent were married, only a small number were single (2.6%)
or widowed (2.7%).  Mean, bivariate and bivariate elaboration
table was used to analyse the data.
 
Gender and perception
 
Table 1 and Table 2 show the comparison between male and female
perceptions towards sexual harassment (SH). The study indicated
that female respondents have a higher mean score than male
respondents. This means female respondents have a higher
tendency to perceive sexual harassment behaviours as disturbing
compared to male respondents.
 
The differences might be due to the threshold towards SH.
According to Saal, Johnson and Weber (1989), males have a lower
"threshold" than females in interpreting friendly behaviour as
sexual.  This means that as women's interpersonal behaviour
varies on a continuum ranging from unfriendly and distant to
friendly and outgoing, men are quicker than women to label
increasingly friendly behaviour as sexy or sexually motivated.
 
The threshold phenomenon may apply to Abbey and Melby's (1986)
work. Based on the hypothesis that males and females will have
diverse perceptions of sexual intent due to nonverbal cues,
Abbey and Melby (1986) studied the stimulus effects of three
non-verbal cues: touch, eye contact, and interpersonal
distance. As had been assumed, 1) male and female responses
differed sharply along gender lines in their perceptions of
behaviour, and 2) males rated the female target higher on
sexual traits than females did. In all three studies,males
perceived the target as flirtatious, sexy, and more seductive
than did the women. Also, in the distance and eye-contact
studies, males saw the target as more promiscuous and they were
more sexually attracted to her than were the females to male
targets, "In sum, males tended to see more sexuality in females
than women did, and this occurred with minimum of cues"
(p.297); men tended to misinterpret women's friendliness as an
indication of sexual interest. Though staged interactions and
hypothetical situations were used in the study, the scientist
advocated that much of the survey's findings can be used to
develop "sensitivity" materials to help young people (e.g.
middle and senior high students) and workers become more
sensitive to the other sex's perspective.
 
Tannen (1990) conducted research on the communication patterns
of men and women. She found that males and females employ
different methods to communicate; and, that oftentimes problems
occur because males and females do not understand the messages
being conveyed by the opposite sex. Tannen denoted that women
need to learn to be more direct in articulating messages and
more explicit in expressing to men what is unacceptable
behaviour. More importantly, though, she stressed that men need
to improve their ability to decode females' nonverbal cues,
that they need to understand that just because a women does not
verbally say "NO!" to advances does not mean she consents to
continued actions.
 
According to Booth-Butterfield (1984: 40), males seem to learn
to ignore much of what they hear and to require the
communicator to prove the "value" of what is being said before
they actually listen. This translates into the workplace,
suggests Booth-Butterfield, where "men may not be aware of
emotional messages from their peers.  Male employers may not
listen for subtle feelings, not hearing hurt and frustration
until much damage has occurred in the relationship." Similarly,
Dunwoody-Miller's and Gutek's (1985) findings revealed that men
seem less sure than women whether or not an incident is sexual
harassment and they are less likely than women to label any
sexual harassment incident at work as sexual harassment.
 
Meanwhile, Tannen's (1990) explanation for gender role
differences in perceptions is that childhood socialization
standard influence how and whether or not we accept certain
sexual behaviours.  Specifically, she relates that males are
taught to be aggressive and to "take charge". They are taught
to communicate to affect results. Females, on the other hand,
are taught to be passive, nonassertive and polite - to
communicate to be accepted and liked.  Or, stated more
emphatically, "men are generally socialized to be sexual
initiators, and women as limit setters" (Semonsky & Rosenfeld,
1994: 506). Such behaviours carry over into adulthood and far
too often males, in particular; do not realize and/or accept
that being aggressive and manipulative to acquire sexual
favours is an invasion of the recipient's privacy as well as a
violation of his/her civil rights.
 
Much of the research above suggests that many males are
socialized to act in gender stereotypic manners which
effectively shape the perception, attitudes and actions they
have towards women and one another. However, this argument is
not without its critics, and there are those who argue that the
differences in male/female behaviour, interactions and
perceptions are largely, but not exclusively, the result of
biogenetic programming (Notman & Nadelson, 1991; Treadwell,
1987). This argument purports that characteristics that
differentiate males from females, such as aggression towards
one another and towards females, are largely the result of
innate biological factors. In other words, males and females
orient themselves in the world and respond to the opposite
gender in specific ways because of their natural biological
development.
 
In evaluating the effect of biology on gender differences,
Jacklin and Baker (1993) recognized that genetic differences
play a part in behaviour.  Moreover, they concluded that the
literature substantiates differences between boys and girls in
the area of aggression and language development, but they noted
that these differences are relatively minor and that there are
greater differences within the sexes than there are between
them. Finally, as they reviewed the literature, they argued
that the most important factors in determining gender
differences and attributes are experiences and environmental
factors unique to the individual. It is their contention that
each individual evolves and develops his or her gender specific
behaviours primarily because of environmental factors specific
to them.
 
McEwen (1991), supports this assertion by noting that although
males and females start off their lives with subtle differences
in brain circuitry, it is daily experience which modifies
neuronal activity and underlying chemical responses in the
brain. Thus the chemistry of neurotransmission, reflecting
daily experience, can modify nerve cell structure and function
and can lead to permanent change. Essentially,
neurotransmission can act like hormones leading to alterations
in gene structure and create long-lasting changes in the brain.
The end result is that brain function and behaviour are as
much, if not more, a product of experience than innate
biological characteristics.
 
Additional arguments against the dominance of the biological
model stem from studies of the effects of testosterone on male
aggression.  Testosterone is often cited as a primary factor in
the development of aggressive behaviour (Hall, 1990; Treadwell,
1987). However, the link between aggression and hormones,
particularly testosterone, is equivocal. Studies of criminal
sex offenders and sexually aggressive males, as well as non
criminal and non sex offender populations have been
inconclusive in that both positive and negative findings have
been reported regarding testosterone and sexual and non sexual
aggression (Hall, 1990).
 
The effects of hormone or lack thereof on male behaviour would
be most evident in the males who lack the receptor for
testosterone. From a biological perspective, it would be
expected that such males would be less aggressive and probably
adopt the female gender role. However, research does not
support this position. Money and Ehrardt (1972) found that
males lacking the receptor for testosterone adopt gender roles
as a result of the manner in which they are raised, supporting
the hypothesis that it is environment which determines their
role orientation.
 
Attitudes towards Women and Perceptions of Sexual Harassment
 
Although bivariate analysis showed there are differences in
perception between male and female respondents in the
perception of SH; further analysis by employing Bivariate
Elaboration table, using Attitude Towards Women as a test
factor, showed that only men and women with liberal attitudes
towards women have relationship with perceptions of sexual
harassment. Tables 3 and 4 show the relationship between
gender, perceptions of sexual harassment and attitudes towards
women.  Respondents who have a tendency to have traditional
views towards women have almost no relationship with the
perceptions of sexual harassment.
 
The information found in this study, that men who hold
traditional views of women perceive less sexual harassment and
have more tolerant attitudes toward it, parallels the findings
of a number of studies on men's attitudes toward women.
Stockdale (1983) stated the non-acceptance of feminist
attitudes about sexual harassment is associated with the
tendency of men to sexually misperceive and distort women's
friendly behaviour as sexiness.
 
Most studies indicate that men with conservative attitudes
towards women are less likely to classify aggressive actions
toward women negatively and/or are likely to believe that the
women are complicit in aggressive actions directed towards
them. For example, Shotland and Goodstein (1983) found that
subjects with traditional views towards women were more likely
to see the victim in a rape scenario as wanting sex. Similarly,
Muehlenhard, Friedman and Thomas (1985) found that men with
traditional values were more likely to justify date rape than
those with egalitarian views toward women, and Burt (1980)
found that men who believe in traditional female roles are more
likely to believe rape myths than those who do not.
 
Muehlenrand and Linton (1987), in referring to sexual
aggression, suggested two reasons why males with traditional
views might perceive less and have more tolerant attitudes
toward sexual harassment than those with more egalitarian
views: a) traditional males may buy into the sexual script
which depicts women as never admitting they want sex and men
pursuers who must overcome token resistance, and to traditional
males me likely to believe that leading a man on justifies the
use of force. Previous studies have found that men often imbue
"normal" female behaviour with sexual meaning (Johnson,
Stockdale & Saal, 1991; Saal, Johnson & Weber, 1989).
Therefore, traditional males may feel that a woman, by her
supposed sexual behaviour, has provoked the sexual harassment
she receives.
 
Consequently, men who have more traditional attitudes towards
women or negative attitudes toward women or both often believe
it is women who initiate sexual contact and are therefore
responsible for the sexual overtures they encounter.  This
position takes the responsibility for aggressive sexual actions
away from men and makes it easier to take the position that
women, as the source of sexual provocation, get what they
deserve.
 
Meanwhile, women with less liberal attitudes towards women also
tend not to perceive sexual harassment behaviours as
disturbing. According to Jensen and Gutek's (1982) findings,
victims of sexual harassment who maintained feminist attitudes
were less likely to blame themselves for incidents of sexual
harassment. According to Tangri, Burt, and Johnson (1982), this
may be related to cultural sex status norms and the feminist
presumption of male dominance. Society expects and rewards
males for aggressive behaviours and females for passivity and
acquiescence, and the workplace is just another sphere of this
society (Gutek, 1985). Hence, women with more traditional
attitudes tend not to perceive sexual harassment, reasoning
that such behaviour is normal for men towards women.
 
According to the socio-cultural model (Tangri, et al., 1982),
women are seen as powerless, with damaged self-worth, and few
economic options. Because women are socialized to seek self-
worth through the evaluation of men, they are predisposed to
interpret male attention as flattery and are less likely to
define unwanted attention as harassment. Women are slow to
trust their own judgment about what is happening to them. Those
victims who are more dependent on their jobs, and have fewer
options will suffer greater consequences.
 
Thus reflecting society at large, the power structure of the
organization is not neutral but a structure of gender power
(Cockburn, 1991).  This means men's historical dominance in
society has led to a fusion of traditional male standards,
assumptions and rules within organizational life (Alvesson &
Due Billing 1992). This accounts for men's numerical
superiority in positions of power in the organization, as well
as their control of the social structure. One of the primary
manifestations of male control is the sexualization of all
social relations.  Sexualization serves to sustain male
authority by bonding men to one another and at the same time
keeping women in their place (Hearn & Parkin, 1987).
 
Implications of the study
 
Overall, the findings show that sexual harassment is an
interpersonal event having both personal and social
determinants. This is in line with the Pryor, La Vite and
Stoller' s (1993) social psychological perspective, which
provides a personal and situational parameters framework.
Situational parameters are focused on local norms which shape
appropriate behaviour. In work organizations, management plays
a powerful role in setting the norms. This is supported by past
studies that respondents rate sexual overtures from bosses as
more disturbing than those that come from their colleagues or
subordinates ((Reilly, Carpenter, Dull & Bartlett, 1982;
Weber-Burdin & Rossi, 1982; Brewer & Berk, 1982; Jones, Remland
and Bruner, 1987).
 
The role of management is two-fold: first, reacting to sexual
harassment, and secondly, providing role models for employees
to emulate.  Management which publicly endorse an
organization's policy against sexual harassment while
themselves practising harassment will give the impression that
harassment is allowed to those who can manipulate the system,
e.g. men (or women) in power. If management responds to sexual
harassment complaints by ignoring or discouraging them, in
effect, the behaviour is condoned.
 
Personality parameters are focused on those personality and
attitudinal factors which may predispose men to harassing
behaviours. These are men who a) hold adversarial sexual
beliefs, b) find it difficult to assume others' perspectives,
c) hold traditional male sex role beliefs d) are high in
authoritarianism, e) report a higher likelihood to rape. These
men fuse, in their minds, ideas about social power and
sexuality. When they know their motives can be situationally
disguised, they are more likely to engage in quid pro quo
sexually harassing behaviour (Pryor, La Vite & Stoller, 1993:
74).  Pryor (1987) found that men who demonstrate these
personality and attitudinal factors are more likely to take
advantage of ambiguous situations, like those offered in the
workplace, and to make sexual gestures toward a female
(Stockdale, 1993).
 
Hence, we can conclude that management can play a major role in
managing sexual harassment at the workplace. That is,
management can act as a role model and provide enough avenues
for victims to complain and indirectly controlling the effect
of traditional attitudes towards women flourishing at the
workplace.
 
Recommendations
 
One of the major ways to eradicate sexual harassment at the
workplace is through effective sexual harassment policy.
Ultimately, the goal of any SH policy is to create an
atmosphere in which instances of SH are discouraged. Among the
recommendations to organizations and employers as to what a SH
policy should include are: a) a definition of SH and prohibited
conduct; b) a policy statement every employee should understand
that sexual harassment will not be tolerated; c) clear
grievance and investigatory procedures; d) assurances of no
retaliation; e) specific remedies and disciplinary programmes
(sanctions should be clear and meaningful); and f) the use of
several methods of communicating the policy to ensure maximum
coverage (personnel manuals, bulletin boards, memos from the
CEO, etc.).
 
In addition, training should also be given to employees. These
workshops should train individuals to recognize SH when it
occurs (Grieco, 1984), and evaluate the situation, since
individuals have different perceptual levels. They also should
be taught to take steps to decrease the likelihood that the
incident will occur again. Training sessions should also focus
on men as well as women. The reason is that men are more often
harassers and studies have shown that many harassers do not
believe they are sexually harassing others (Frierson, 1989).
Clearly, this indicates a need for awareness training.
 
At the national level, there should be a thorough survey to
establish the nature and extent of harassment in the civil
service. In the meantime, all civil servants should be made
aware that sexual harassment at work will not be tolerated and,
if appropriate, will be dealt with as a disciplinary matter.
 
CONCLUSIONS
 
Removing harassment from the workplace requires action against
both individual incidents and those existing practices and
attitudes at work which foster sexual harassment. Hence, it is
not the sole responsibility of the management but also the
employee's responsibility to speak up and not allow themselves
to be victimized. Last but not least, it is also society's
moral responsibility to address valid sexual harassment
lawsuits and to reject malicious, baseless suits which only
exist to destroy organizations, people and the working
relationships that we have with one another.