Sexual Harrassment

and Paradox of
Power
Case Study of Holly : first woman in upper
management at a manufacturing firm

By Anoushka Srivastava, Vivekananda School

of Law and Legal Studies, VIPS
Original Case
Study
Holly, the first woman in upper management at her manufacturing firm, heard derogatory remarks
from men at work. Her subordinates sometimes joked, “If we had somebody with balls in this
position we’d be getting things done.” Holly was sexually harassed by a client at a company
dinner, being groped throughout the evening by the vice president of an influential firm. She
explained, “I didn’t know who this guy was, I had no idea. I’m just sittin’ next to him and I’m the
only girl at the table. . . . And he’d put his arm around me and pull me towards him and, kind of
uncomfortable, and I’d push away. And he kept saying . . . ‘Oh, I love her. She’s beautiful.’” Holly
continued, “He just kept going on and touching me and put his hand on [my] leg very forcefully
and then he was playing the game of trying to unhook the bra/undergarment with two fingers,
which he did after I tried to get up and get away.” If Holly had not been a supervisor, she would
not have been invited to this evening event. Management positions in many manufacturing
industries continue to be dominated by men (Hultin 2003; Williams 1992), and supervisors like
Holly are often the only women in the room. Holly explained how she was targeted because “I was
the only girl there. There were no other girls. Like I said, there’s a female in management in
customer

2
service but there’s always been a girl in management in customer service. But many of the positions above that, which are directly
below our owner, there’s not been a woman in any of those positions in eons” (emphasis added). Holly suggested her isolation as a
woman in management may have been a key mechanism
linking her supervisory status to her harassment. Her story also shows how hegemonic masculinity operates through collective
practice (Connell 1987; Martin 2006; see also Pascoe 2007 on compulsive heterosexuality).
Although her co-workers noticed the harassment, it went on for hours before anyone took action to stop it. Even after others
stepped in, it was only to encourage Holly, and not her harasser, to leave the event: Somebody from our company noticed that [the
client] had his hands all over my lap and [my co-worker] goes, “Where are his hands?” and I go, I was sitting like this [shows her
legs crossed tightly] and I go, “Exactly where you think they are.” And I pushed [the client] away and so that’s when [my co-
worker] realized and motioned and said, “I want the bill. We’re outta here.” Although Holly left after their bill arrived, the men
(including the co-worker who intervened) stayed behind for drinks at the bar. No one other than Holly directly confronted her
harasser that evening. Several colleagues made it clear to Holly that they did not condone the client’s behavior, but they did not
speak out against it. Instead, they privately and individually took her aside and urged her to leave. To the extent they played the role
of protectors, Holly’s colleagues further undermined her authority.

3
Brief
Introduction
to the case The aforementioned case is about a woman named Holly who worked for a manufacturing firm
in the US. She was the first and only woman in the upper management of the manufacturing firm
and despite her position had to face harassment at the hands of subordinates and clients. They
often undermined her authority owing to her gender and joked about it. At one of the business
dinners she was sexually harrassed by a client.
She tried resist being groped or touched but to no effect, the client continued to pass
uncomfortable comments and harass her. For a long time nobody at the table stopped him or
confronted him despite noticing his actions. The co-workers did not approve of his actions but
didn’t stop him either, rather they told Holly to leave the dinner and not the harasser.
He and other men continued to stay for drinks after the dinner. When interviewed Holly
connected the treatment meted out to her to her supervisory position and that she was the only
woman at the table.

4
Question 1 Sexual harrassment in the workplace is a common phenomenon. How was this case
different?

Sexual harrassment by superiors in the workplace is very common. Usually it is seen

that superiors tend to use their position to exploit and sexually harrass women working
under them however this case was different. Here the woman being harassed was in fact
a supervisor who was part of the upper management of the manufacturing firm. She was
amongst the people placed directly below the owners yet she had to face unacceptable
remarks from her subordinates and was sexually harrassed by a client.
This kind of situation falls under the domain of contrapower harassment or the power
threat paradox. Recent studies have shown that women in positions of authority were in
fact more likely to face sexual harrassment from subordinates than women working at
lower levels.
In the present case as well Holly’s subordinates felt that she being a woman was not
meant for supervisory positions and a male member would be more effective. The client
misbehaved with her despite her position and evident discomfort.

5
Question 2 What could be the possible reason for a woman in a position of authority facing
sexual harrassment as in the case of Holly?

There could be a variety of reasons for women like Holly to face sexual harrassment
despite being in positions of authority. Ideas of misogyny and gender stereotypes have
been ingrained in our psyche since centuries. Even today a large section of people
believe that women are not or less suited for the professional field. In the given case,
Holly was working in a largely male dominated field, that is, the manufacturing
industry. Consequently, her rise to a position of authority was not taken well by her
subordinates and others around. They felt that someone “with balls” could get things
done. As also pointed out in various researches men tend to be threatened by women in
authority and consequently display notorious behaviour men’s harassment of women in
authority has more to do with keeping women “in their place” and marking their own
turf than with sexual attraction or arousal(Eisenberg 2001; Quinn 2002)
Further, Holly being the only woman in upper management lead to a lack of support
against such acts. She herself quoted that she was being targeted because she was the
only girl in the room.

6
Question 3 How did the co-workers respond to the situation faced by Holly? Was it
justifiable?

Initially, the co-workers ignored what was happening with holly despite the acts of the
clients being extremely evident. Despite her resistance the client continued to sexually
harrass her and it was much later that one of the co-workers brought attention to the
unacceptable situation. He too however did not confront the harasser rather the co-
workers advised Holly to leave the dinner probably as a means to “protect her” . They
talked to her individually and made it clear that they did not approve of the harasser’s
behaviour yet urged Holly to leave.
This stand was indeed unjustifiable since the victim was being asked to leave the
situation while the harasser enjoyed drinks after dinner. Mere disapproval of a situation
is not enough, some action should have been taken by the co-workers. They might have
desisted from doing so in order to avoid creating a scene at a business dinner but calling
out inaappropriate sexual behaviour is indespensable.
From the past behaviour and statements of her subordinates and co-workers it was clear
that they did not approve of her holding a position of authority. This might be another
reason why people did not stand in her support. They might have that she did not belong
in a position of authority.

7
 What does Holly’s harassment in the presence of several silent co-workers
Question 4 say about the frequency of such events? Would the presence of more women
alter this situation?

Holly was sexually harrassed and misbehaved with in the presence of several co-
workers most of whom did not confront the harrasser. They in fact conveniently
ignored the situation for long as if it was “normal”. This makes it clear that such a
situation would not have been uncommon. The high frequency of such incidents
involving harassment of women in positions of authority might have made it ignorable.
Holly herself felt that her being the only woman at the dinner made her a target. The
presence of more women might alter the situation, it might give greater confidence to
the victim to stand up against the harasser. Other women at the table would identify
with the victim and would stand up in her support. Since they themselves would be
women in positions of power, they would not have ego clashes with another senior
management employee because on her gender. Consequently, they would not try to put
her in her place or demean her based on her gender. More women would also mean that
the harasser would be uncomfortable doing such acts
Further, the presence of more women would counter the idea that women do not belong
in authoritative or management roles.

8
Conclusion
The case study of Holly brought to the furor a relatively less explored form
of sexual harrassement in the workplace. The aforementioned case study
highlighted how women in positions of authority are equally or more likely
to face sexual harrassment compared to women in subordinate roles. Ego
clashes and using sexuality as a means to “put a person in there place” was
one of the key causes for the same. Besides, the lack of women in senior
management, especially in male dominated fields like manufacturing
industry leads to targeting of women in authoritative positions. Alienating the
victim was another observation wherein the woman being harassed was
asked to leave instead of the harasser being confronted.

9
Areas of
Organizational
Behaviour The areas of organizational behaviour discussed in the above mentioned case
study were of diversity, sexual harrassment in the workplace and power and
Discussed politics. The concept of power threat paradox and contrapower harassment was
& practical discussed. This case study gave certain practical takeaways. Usually we believe
takeaways that it is only the superiors or men in authoritative positions who use their power
to sexually harrass and exploit women in subordinate positions. We feel that
women in power are in a dominant position and thus unlikely to face such
situations. This case study and research on related topics however, made me
conclude that women in authoritative positions were in fact more likely to face
sexual behaviour. The authority of women in senior management is often
undermined to an extent where subordinates, co-workers and clients sexually
harrass them in public spaces as well.

10
 Thank You
Questions Please

11