Evaluating an Organizational Intervention to Transform Workplace Climate and Prevent Sexual Harassment

Background and Purpose: Experiencing sexual harassment, workplace incivility, and other forms of workplace harm can impact career trajectory through increased anxiety, depression, and PTSD as well as decreased productivity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The impacts of sexual harassment extend beyond direct victims, as observing sexual harassment or incivility and perceiving an organization as unresponsive to sexual harassment is linked to lower job satisfaction. These findings suggest the need for novel approaches to address the widespread harms of sexual harassment and transform workplace climate.

We partnered with a university to evaluate a program designed to improve workplace climate after harm had occurred through an approach to healing grounded in transformative justice. The program uses strategies such as leadership consultation, individual and group listening sessions, focus groups, and community conversations to collaboratively identify root causes of harm. The program staff and unit then identify collective action plans that engage the unit in building a healthier workplace climate.

Methods: We identified and invited campus stakeholders and employees in workplace units that had engaged in the program to participate in qualitative interviews. A total of 11 stakeholders and 15 employees who participated in the program were interviewed in the Fall of 2022 and Spring of 2023.

We used thematic analysis to a) understand the aspects of the program that participants found most beneficial, b) identify factors that can facilitate program success, and c) identify barriers that can impede change. All transcripts were coded by the two authors to identify themes and patterns of meaning.

Results: Key elements of program implementation include the non-judgmental demeanor of the facilitators, the individualized training and technical assistance provided to leaders who felt they otherwise lacked the skill and nuance to navigate the toxic environments without causing more harm, and the concrete skills that interventions built among employees. Identifying shared values, developing skills for setting boundaries, and improving communication were especially noted as valuable components of intervention. Participants primarily described their involvement in this program as a relief that instilled hope and renewed their commitment to their work. However, in some cases, toxicity seemed persistent and difficult to transform, suggesting a need for prolonged intervention. Facilitators included leadership buy-in, the intensive and extended involvement of program staff, and the focus on building partnership and relationship. Barriers include insufficient follow through from leaders, structural issues in academia (competing priorities, hierarchy), the on-going presence of individuals who engage in harm, and competing priorities that units may face (e.g. budget shortfalls).

Conclusions and Implications: Our findings provide preliminary evidence of the potential of this approach as a structured method of improving workplace climate, nurturing employee well-being, and preventing further harm. Organizations searching for strategies to improve workplace climate should consider strategies that involve leaders in engaging in a process of collective repair. Our findings suggest that this process may require extended support from skilled and non-judgmental facilitators.