Unlawful racial discrimination

Fundamental to the nature of racism is the view that people can be sorted based on inherent and accidental characteristics such as ethnicity or regional origin, and that some groups are superior to others because of these between-group characteristics. Subjugation of the minority group by the majority group arises from this perceived superiority (Brewer, Reference Brewer1999; Leidner, Castano, Zaiser, & Giner-Sorolla, Reference Leidner, Castano, Zaiser and Giner-Sorolla2010). Countries vary in the extent to which racial discrimination is legally prohibited in terms of contractual matters, business practices, education, and service provision. In the United States, for example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin regarding interstate commerce, voting, education, and employment, the latter under Title VII (42 U.S. Code Section 2000e-2; the Act outlines narrow exceptions to all these prohibitions). Private and public organizations may have their own prohibitions in their codes of conduct or ethical standards.

The implications of racial bias can be assessed across a broad range of outcomes. At the individual employee level, a meta-analysis by Triana, Jayasinghe, and Pieper (Reference Triana, Jayasinghe and Pieper2015) regarding the impact of perceived racial bias on organizational outcomes found that perceived racial bias had consistent negative correlation with individual-level job attitudes (rho = –.38), perceived support for diverse employees (diversity climate; rho = –.32), psychological health (rho = –.14), and organizational citizenship behaviors (rho = –.14). McKay et al. (Reference McKay, Avery, Tonidandel, Morris, Hernandez and Hebl2007) found that diversity climate perceptions were a significant correlate of the individual’s intent to quit the organization. At the organizational level, consequences of unlawful racial discrimination can range from legal action (e.g., the 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Company decision; 401 U.S. 424) to social criticism and resultant public contrition (e.g., the Starbucks training situation). At the federal government level, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, n.d.) reported that the number of Civil Rights Act claims brought under Title VII, which would primarily affect employers, has increased for claims of violations based on employee color from fiscal year 2010 (n = 2,780 claims) to fiscal year 2018 (n = 3,166 claims), decreased for claims based on national origin from fiscal year 2010 (n = 11,304 claims) to fiscal year 2018 (n = 7,106 claims), and decreased for claims of violations based on race from fiscal year 2010 (n = 35,890 claims) to fiscal year 2018 (n = 24,600 claims).

In line with increased reports of violations of Title VII based on race, there have been a variety of social movements reflecting a rising public awareness of issues around unlawful racial discrimination. From the Starbucks incident to recent shootings of unarmed African American men, the need for effective race-based bias interventions at all levels of society is clear. Nearly one-third (32.2%) of all complaints filed with the EEOC in fiscal year 2018 were based on race (EEOC, n.d.). Organizations may be particularly motivated to address illegal race discrimination, as there are multiple direct and indirect costs associated with such accusations. Attrition due to race discrimination costs institutions millions in lost profits and opportunities, as well as increased time for recruitment and training (e.g., Kapor Center for Social Impact, 2017). Many organizations rely on their good reputation both for new employees and for sales figures, which can be diminished by having a reputation for condoning apparently racist behaviors (Goldman, Gutek, Stein, & Lewis, Reference Goldman, Gutek, Stein and Lewis2006; Kapor Center for Social Impact, 2017; Sickler, Reference Sickler2018). Thus, there are short- and long-term consequences for not preventing and addressing unlawful racial discrimination in the workplace.

Sexual harassment

Although there are various forms of sexual discrimination, this article will focus specifically on sexual harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment can involve intimidation or actions taken against a single individual based on gender characteristics. Sexual harassment does not require evidence that a practice, such as not promoting women, affects a certified class of affected individuals; this is covered in the United States by the Civil Rights Act. A classic formulation of sexual harassment (U.S. Code of Federal Regulation, Title 29) involves either a quid pro quo work arrangement (coercion to perform sexual acts in exchange for favorable organizational outcomes) or the existence of a hostile work environment that unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance. Johnson, Bidnall, and Benya (Reference Johnson, Bidnall and Benya2018, p. 2) differentiate the hostile workplace concept into gender harassment (e.g., derogatory comments about a gender) or unwanted sexual attention. It is notable that while coercion involves volitional behavior targeting a particular person, creation of a hostile work environment might not target anyone in particular. Alternatively, the person engaging in actions deemed by others as harassing may not be aware that others find the behaviors harassing.

Statistics regarding the incidence of sexual harassment and assault are dependent upon reporting comfort and definitions of harassment. Defining sexual harassment only in terms of coercion will result in a lower incidence rate than defining harassment in terms of the more extensive concept of gender harassment. Where or when the harassment or assault occurs—in an educational setting, at work, in the military—also enters into consideration. For example, Anderson (Reference Anderson2015; see also Burns, Eaton, Long, & Zapp, Reference Burns, Eaton, Long and Zapp2019) claimed that about 20% of women have been sexually assaulted based on studies of collegiate settings, but that the rates of unreported incidents are likely much higher. However, Fedina, Holmes, and Backes (Reference Fedina, Holmes and Backes2018) reviewed studies of college campus assault from 2000 through 2015 and found wide variation in assault incidence based on how these incidents were categorized, for example, as physical contact or coercion to engage in unwelcomed behavior. A comprehensive RAND study of sexual harassment in the U.S. military (Jaycox et al., Reference Jaycox, Schell, Morral, Street, Farris, Kilpatrick, Tanielian, Morral, Gore and Schell2015, table 3.11) found that prior to joining the military, 8.17% of female respondents to its survey had experienced a sexual assault while 0.91% of male respondents had experienced a sexual assault, but since joining the military those proportions had risen to 14.69% of women and 2.1% of men. Jaycox et al. (Reference Jaycox, Schell, Morral, Street, Farris, Kilpatrick, Tanielian, Morral, Gore and Schell2015, table 3.13) also studied reporting rates. They found that 24% of all respondents who had experienced a sexual assault while in the military indicated that they had not reported the event as a means to minimize its impact (e.g., they thought it was not serious enough to report), while another 29% feared retaliation or thought reporting it would make the reporting service member look bad, etc. Analyses of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and quid pro quo prevalence were also included in the RAND study (Farris et al., Reference Farris, Jaycox, Schell, Street, Farris, Kilpatrick, Tanielian, Morral, Gore and Schell2015). In this analysis, 1.66% of female respondents and 0.35% of male respondents reported being the target of a quid pro quo attack (table 4.2); 21.57% of females and 6.61% of males reported experiencing sexual harassment (table 4.3); and 12.4% of females and 1.73% of males reported experiencing gender discrimination (table 4.4). At the federal government level, the EEOC (n.d.) reported that the number of Civil Rights Act harassment claims brought under Title VII, which would primarily affect employers, has varied in a small range over time from fiscal year 2010 (n = 7,944 claims) to fiscal year 2018 (n = 7,609 claims).Footnote ²

Finally, psychologists at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB; 2018a, 2018b) aggregated U.S. government employee survey data from 1994 and 2016 regarding 12 discrete behaviors indicative of sexual harassment.Footnote ³ These behaviors can be categorized into one of three dimensions: sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, and gender harassment. In 1994, MSPB estimated that 44.3% of female U.S. government employees and 19.1% of male U.S. government employees reported having experienced any of these behaviors; in 2016, those figures had dropped to 20.9% of women experiencing any of these behaviors and 8.7% of men having experienced any of these behaviors.

Recent societal trends, such as #MeToo and #TimesUp, show that interventions for workplace sexual harassment and assault are timely and needed. Harassment and discrimination are costly for organizations (e.g., litigation, blemished company reputation, etc.; Brown, Sabat, Follmer, Jenkins, & Martinez, Reference Brown, Sabat, Follmer, Jenkins and Martinez2018) and victims (e.g., higher turnover, decreased job satisfaction, and increased absenteeism, etc.; Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina, & Fitzgerald, Reference Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina and Fitzgerald2002; Kaylor & Weaver, Reference Kaylor and Weaver2018; Offermann & Malamut, Reference Offermann and Malamut2002) alike. According to the EEOC (n.d.), approximately $56.6 million in fines was awarded in fiscal year 2018 for cases that were not resolved before trial, a nominal 78.2% increase on a per-resolved-case (reasonable cause, successful conciliations, unsuccessful conciliations, merit resolutions) basis since fiscal year 2010. This illustrates the financial importance of preventing and addressing workplace sexual harassment and assault for organizations.

What are the prerequisites for effective training?

Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, and Smith-Jentsch (Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012) published a systematic review of training research indicating five broad prerequisites of effective training programs: identifying workforce and organizational training needs, careful training content and program development, establishing leadership’s support of training, integration of technology into training without overreliance on technology, and promotion of ongoing integration of training and on-the-job functions.

Campbell, Kuncel, and Kostal (Reference Campbell, Kuncel, Kostal, Ones, Anderson, Viswesvaran and Kepir Sinangil2018) summarized their integrative review of the training literature by stating that four key issues (pp. 534–536) must be addressed for training to be effective in improving or altering behavior: (1) development of a model of training design, implementation, and evaluation; (2) the nature of the aptitude by training treatment interaction, which is presumed to exist for any human attribute; (3) a definition of the outcomes to be altered by training and assessed in training evaluation; and (4) instructional system design that is built on known models of how people learn. Medeiros and Griffith (Reference Medeiros and Griffith2019) elaborate on some of these topics and processes specifically within the context of training for sexual harassment and assault prevention. Campbell et al. (Reference Campbell, Kuncel, Kostal, Ones, Anderson, Viswesvaran and Kepir Sinangil2018) concluded that training evaluation science shows that while training “does work” (p. 590) from the perspective of overall measurable changes in outcomes pre-/post-training, there are many caveats and cautionary boundary conditions on this overall conclusion. For example, Salas et al. (Reference Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch2012), after Arthur, Bennett, Stanush, and McNelly (Reference Arthur, Bennett, Stanush and McNelly1998), noted that regardless of training program feature, training effects decay if the job does not afford the opportunity for practice. Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph, and Salas (Reference Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph and Salas2017, tables 3 and 4), in a review of manager training literature, found that while management-oriented training “works,” it is less effective when trainee participation is involuntary and when interpersonal, rather than intrapersonal or business skill, knowledge is trained.

Does anti-harassment or anti-racial discrimination training work?

Organizations that implement high performance work programs such as skills-oriented training may get return on investment by having better human resource practices overall (e.g., Huselid, Reference Huselid1995; Kim & Ployhart, Reference Kim and Ployhart2014). Arthur, Bennett, Edens, and Bell (Reference Arthur, Bennett, Edens and Bell2003) showed that training for interpersonal skills results in significant organizational outcomes (average d-prime of about .78), even though improvement in behavior for individual employees via transfer of training to the job is variable (average d-primes varying from .22 to .94; see also Lacerenza et al., Reference Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph and Salas2017, on training outcome definitions). Arthur et al. (Reference Arthur, Bennett, Edens and Bell2003, p. 242) concluded that this variability shows that the “favorability of the posttraining environment play[s] an important role in facilitating the transfer of trained skills to the job.” However, while harassment and discrimination might be signs of poor interpersonal skills, and while training might effectively improve skills in general, damage to the organization’s reputation (and the well-being of employees) arises from the behavior of individual employees irrespective of the organization’s liability protection from training.

One criterion of effective training (Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Kuncel, Kostal, Ones, Anderson, Viswesvaran and Kepir Sinangil2018) is a definition of outcomes to be targeted through training. The criteria and concepts of typical antidiscrimination or antiharassment training may be ill-defined. Employees may be unaware of their tendencies to treat persons from minority communities unfairly, or that their attitudes toward people from distinct demographic backgrounds could be negative. Organizational decision-makers might harbor unconscious biases regarding individuals from identifiable subgroups or minority communities and thus potentially act negatively toward these individuals (e.g., Ghumman, Ryan, & Park, Reference Ghumman, Ryan and Park2016; Hebl et al., Reference Hebl, Bigazzi Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002; State of New South Wales, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Behavioral Insights Unit, 2016). Unconscious biases among organizational decision-makers might limit promotion or participation of minority individuals in leadership roles. In terms of attitudes and beliefs about training, employees may not know or believe, or have realized, that certain behaviors or attitudes are harmful or illegal. They may believe that what matters at work is task performance, that some people are simply more prone to feeling harassed, or that some people file false harassment or discrimination claims. Finally, employees may believe that efforts designed to defeat discrimination and harassment a priori assume all majority group/nonprotected members are perpetrators, leading to a defensive or defiant attitude before training. Without assessing and addressing these beliefs and behaviors, training may focus on the wrong outcomes. For example, what would constitute “humanity and inclusion” as an outcome of Starbucks’s training?

Review of organizational diversity training intervention research

Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews have been published regarding diversity training interventions that might be used in organizations.

Topic 1: Organizational training commitment

Training is the most obvious intervention option for addressing sexual harassment or unlawful racial discrimination: it is scalable from the work group to the organization, it is a face-valid process, and it is within the I-O and applied psychology skill set. We suggest that more attention is needed to align training goals, learning theory, and expectations.

Kath and Magley (Reference Kath, Magley, Chen and Cooper2014, p. 323) conceptualized sexual harassment training as a form of organizational socialization rather than skill building. While socialization conveys expectations of organizational values and normative behavior, skill-oriented training creates an expectation of attainment of minimum proficiency. Kath and Magley noted that trainee motivation depends in part on wanting to apply what was learned in training on the job. Another concern is not being cynical about the rationale for training. If the rationale seems largely to focus on minimizing organizational liability, then trainees are likely to be unmotivated and disengaged. In contrast, meta-analysis has established the positive role of training motivation (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000) in achieving organizational goals and behavior change. It seems possible that training to reduce harassing or biased behavior might be more effective if it is framed as under the individual’s control (Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000, p. 694) or integrated into an effort to increase morale rather than as a mandatory condition of employment (Dobbin & Kalev, Reference Dobbin and Kalev2016; Holladay, Knight, Paige, & Quiñones, Reference Holladay, Knight, Paige and Quiñones2003). For both sexual harassment and racial discrimination, training that has follow-ups or lasts longer should be more effective than short-duration training (Devine, Forscher, Austin, & Cox, Reference Devine, Forscher, Austin and Cox2012). Kath and Magley (Reference Kath, Magley, Chen and Cooper2014) noted that as with any change-oriented initiative, ongoing executive commitment to a workplace free of harassment and discrimination, and organizational support for key nonharassment values are required for training to be effective.

Topic 2: Increasing training impact

An organizational climate that is intolerant of sexual harassment and assault can lead to lower levels of sexual misconduct (Bergman et al., Reference Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina and Fitzgerald2002; Fitzgerald et al., Reference Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand and Magley1997; Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, & Drasgow, Reference Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman and Drasgow1999; Glomb et al., Reference Glomb, Richman, Hulin, Drasgow, Schneider and Fitzgerald1997; Wasti, Bergman, Glomb, & Drasgow, Reference Wasti, Bergman, Glomb and Drasgow2000). Offerman and Malamut (Reference Offermann and Malamut2002) found that female service members who perceived that their supervisor made efforts to stop sexual harassment reported feeling significantly freer to report the misconduct and felt more satisfied with the reporting process compared to service members who felt their supervisor was tolerant of sexual harassment. When an organization expresses to its employees that sexual harassment is considered to be a serious matter, employees are more willing to report the sexual misconduct (Brubaker, Reference Brubaker2009). Not only can this attitudinal change improve the climate of the workplace, it may also lead the organization to take reports of sexual misconduct more seriously (Bergman et al., Reference Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina and Fitzgerald2002). This literature suggests that changes within the organizational climate and leadership response to these behaviors may help to prevent sexual harassment and assault from occurring by increased reporting at earlier stages and improving how sexual misconduct reports are handled (Kaylor & Weaver, Reference Kaylor and Weaver2018).

Trainee receptivity may be distributed as power functions rather than normal distributions (e.g., O’Boyle & Aguinis, Reference O’Boyle and Aguinis2012). Bezrukova et al. (Reference Bezrukova, Spell, Perry and Jehn2016) reported uneven meta-analytic moderation based on whether training was mandatory or voluntary, with better results for behaviorally oriented outcomes in mandatory training but more favorable reactions to training in voluntary attendee conditions. Rather than have all employees regardless of enthusiasm attend the same training, typical organizational tools such as surveys or assessments can be used strategically to anticipate predisposition to escalation of violence or harassment behaviors among business units or individuals. Psychologists can use this form of insider threat practice to devise intervention strategies aligned with the training or remediation needs of individuals or areas prone to escalation. Similarly, there may be employees who are enthusiastic about antidiscrimination or harassment initiatives who could help design intervention programs or processes on a peer-to-peer basis (see Kulik, Pepper, Roberson, & Parker, Reference Kulik, Pepper, Roberson and Parker2007).

Topic 3: Training content

The typical training model presumes that aside from their motivation, trainees know how to be trained and transfer the training to work. Adler et al. (Reference Adler, Blies, Pickering, Hammermeister, Williams, Harada and Ohlson2015) tested this presumption in a randomized study of mental skills training. Their study focused on creating “mental skills,” which were specifically cognitive control (learning how to learn more effectively) and emotional regulation (including reduced anxiety and effective allocation of emotional resources; Adler et al., Reference Adler, Blies, Pickering, Hammermeister, Williams, Harada and Ohlson2015, p. 1753), among soldiers in basic training. The goal was to establish the extent to which learning these skills led to improved training performance. Adler et al. found that soldiers in the mental skills conditions relative to those in a control condition were significantly better able to learn and eventually performed better in some basic training tasks through instilling better learning and transfer habits.

Social psychology research on resilience training and attitude change might also be relevant. Cialdini et al. (Reference Cialdini, Demaine, Sagarin, Barrett, Rhoads and Winter2006) found that training using injunctive norms (“don’t do this”) was more effective in stopping unwanted behavior than was training using descriptive norms (“this is what other people do”). Cacioppo et al. (Reference Cacioppo, Adler, Lester, McGurk, Thomas, Chen and Cacioppo2015) examined a training intervention for social resilience, defined by Cacioppo, Reis, and Zautra (Reference Cacioppo, Reis and Zautra2011, p. 44) as “the capacity to foster, engage in, and sustain positive relationships, and to endure, recover from, and grow as a result of life stressors and social isolation.” An ability to empathize with others also defines social resilience. Cacioppo et al. (Reference Cacioppo, Adler, Lester, McGurk, Thomas, Chen and Cacioppo2015) found that social resilience training was effective in creating empathy and perspective-taking. In summary, Cialdini et al.’s (Reference Cialdini, Demaine, Sagarin, Barrett, Rhoads and Winter2006) results show that sexual harassment or unlawful racial discrimination training should focus on what not to do—maybe along the lines of do n0t harass, bully, or otherwise discriminate against people—while Cacioppo et al.’s (Reference Cacioppo, Adler, Lester, McGurk, Thomas, Chen and Cacioppo2015) results suggest that additional training components could replace the negative behavior (bias, bullying, harassment) with positive target behavior (using social resilience to build empathy, perspective-taking, and community). The meta-analysis by Forscher et al. (Reference Forscher, Lai, Axt, Ebersole, Herman, Devine and Nosek2019) and further work by Lai (Reference Lai2019) demonstrate that changes in bias-related attitudes occur through substituting negative attitudes with positive ones. Models of sexual harassment and unlawful racial discrimination training generally focus on the trainee as the source of the behavior that should be mitigated. However, sexual harassment training has shown positive results for those who have been harassed (traditionally, women or racial minorities; O’Leary-Kelly et al., Reference O’Leary-Kelly, Bowes-Sperry, Bates and Lean2009; Pina et al., Reference Pina, Gannon and Saunders2009; Walton & Cohen, Reference Walton and Cohen2007). Alternative training content might focus on training employees to intervene in a harassing or demeaning/biased setting as bystanders (e.g., Kleinsasser, Jouriles, McDonald, & Rosenfield, Reference Kleinsasser, Jouriles, McDonald and Rosenfield2015). Intervention or self-advocacy might also increase a sense of community and self-efficacy, which itself could have reinforcing effects on reducing bias and harassment.

Taken together, social psychological research seems to suggest that training regarding specific attitudes and correspondingly specific behavior may reduce bias and discrimination. Training also benefits targeted individuals. A challenge for organizational practitioners is identifying the specific attitude–behavior linkages amenable to training for both discrimination targets and those who might exhibit harassment or bias.

Topic 4: Bystander programs

By influencing attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors surrounding sexual harassment and assault, bystander programs encourage and train individuals to intervene when they witness situations of harassment (Berdahl & Raver, Reference Berdahl, Raver and Zedeck2011; Buchanan, Settles, Hall, & O’Connor, Reference Buchanan, Settles, Hall and O’Connor2014; Burns et al., Reference Burns, Eaton, Long and Zapp2019). Some bystander programs even boast empirical support, such as “Green Dot” (Coker et al., Reference Coker, Cook-Craig, Williams, Fisher, Clear, Garcia and Hegge2011, Reference Coker, Fisher, Bush, Williams, Clear and DeGue2015, Reference Coker, Bush, Fisher, Swan, Williams, Clear and DeGue2016), “Bringing in the Bystander” (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, Reference Banyard, Moynihan and Plante2007; Senn & Forrest, Reference Senn and Forrest2015), and “One in Four” (Foubert & Perry, Reference Foubert and Perry2007). Although bystander intervention programs have been found to be broadly effective in high school and college students (Coker et al., Reference Coker, Cook-Craig, Williams, Fisher, Clear, Garcia and Hegge2011, Reference Coker, Fisher, Bush, Williams, Clear and DeGue2015, Reference Coker, Bush, Fisher, Swan, Williams, Clear and DeGue2016; Lee, Guy, Perry, Sniffen, & Mixson, Reference Lee, Guy, Perry, Sniffen and Mixson2007; Senn & Forrest, Reference Senn and Forrest2015), future research should analyze these programs and how they can be tailored for prevention of sexual harassment and assault within the workplace.

Another disadvantage of the current research on bystander intervention is that it has been primarily researched using Caucasian populations and focused on sexual harassment (e.g., Diamond-Welch, Hetzel-Riggin, & Hemingway, Reference Diamond-Welch, Hetzel-Riggin and Hemingway2016; Kleinsasser, Jouriles, McDonald, & Rosenfield, Reference Kleinsasser, Jouriles, McDonald and Rosenfield2015; see Mulvey, Palmer, & Abrams, Reference Mulvey, Palmer and Abrams2016, and Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Dunn, Paradies, Pederson, Sharpe, Hynes and Guerin2010, for exceptions). There is very little research examining bystander interventions regarding race/ethnicity bias; those few studies are primarily composed of student populations and have shown mixed results (Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Dunn, Paradies, Pederson, Sharpe, Hynes and Guerin2010). Additional areas for exploration within bystander programs are both harassment and unlawful racial discrimination, socioeconomic status, and intersectionality (Edwards, Mattingly, Dixon, & Banyard, Reference Edwards, Mattingly, Dixon and Banyard2014; McCall, Reference McCall2005; Settles & Buchanan, Reference Settles, Buchanan, Benet-Martínez and Hong2014; Shields, Reference Shields2008). Current studies on race-based bullying and bystander intervention show reason to suspect that bystander intervention programs could have a powerful impact on reducing incidences of racial and sexual harassment in the workplace (Mulvey et al., Reference Mulvey, Palmer and Abrams2016).

Topic 5: Training medium

Campbell et al. (Reference Campbell, Kuncel, Kostal, Ones, Anderson, Viswesvaran and Kepir Sinangil2018, p. 550) warned that training via gamification or virtual reality may be well-received by trainees but could suffer from poor design and operationalization of parameters. At the same time having a gamification intervention might be a way to monitor trainee progress and have more time spent on a “fun” activity.Footnote ⁵ The effectiveness of this training regimen would need to be evaluated carefully, but psychologists have been successful modifying behavior with a gamification approach (Weir, Reference Weir2018). It is difficult to balance engagement with training with effectiveness in changing behavior; as Bezrukova et al. (Reference Bezrukova, Spell, Perry and Jehn2016) showed, voluntary participation (i.e., engagement in training) is related to positive attitudes about training but not necessarily behavioral change. Because training engagement is not a reliable indicator of training effectiveness, there should be alignment of program goals with implementation.

Topic 6: How can academic research clarify, and how can practitioners utilize, a continuum of harm approach for interventions?

Instead of starting with a method or program of training or organizational change, researchers and practitioners might start by defining a continuum of targeted behaviors including sexual harassment or unlawful racial discrimination behaviors, etiologies, and protective factors. A continuum implies that the negative behaviors start in one form or level of intensity, maybe as jokes, then escalate, possibly as threats. Codifying the target behaviors that comprise harassment or bias along a continuum presents an opportunity to confront these behaviors via training and policy, and to clarify consequences.

Policy is not the forte of organizational practitioners and scientists, but organizational science and practice inform policy. Applied psychologists have already begun to investigate this notion of a continuum (Lim & Cortina, Reference Lim and Cortina2005). Other efforts (Cortina, Rabelo, & Holland, Reference Cortina, Rabelo and Holland2018) have sought to define and clarify the scope of issues at stake by coining the term “perpetrator predation” to distinguish those who are targets from those who commit the discriminatory or harassing acts. Organizational practitioners should leverage insights from peers in domains such as social psychology and public health. For example, analysts at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO; 2017) surveyed behavioral etiology, incidence, and protective factors surrounding sexual violence in the U.S. Department of Defense. This report drew heavily on work by public health scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Basile, Smith, Breiding, Black, & Mahendra, Reference Basile, Smith, Breiding, Black and Mahendra2014; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004; Wilkins, Tsao, Hertz, Davis, & Klevens, Reference Wilkins, Tsao, Hertz, Davis and Klevens2014) that placed sexual harassment within a continuum of harm including noncontact unwanted sexual behaviors, sexual harassment, and physical sexual assault. In an approach reflecting this continuum, organizational practitioners might work with the organization’s equal employment opportunity office or insider threat office (or some equivalent) to develop strategy, intervention goals, means to identify organizational culture or managerial “problem spots,” and metrics to evaluate progress. The objective might be to identify issues at a lower level of development (e.g., incivility) before they flare into incidents of discrimination or harassment. The GAO report’s main lessons are that organizational phenomena, such as culture, leadership, and team, and intra-individual processes can inform interventions, performance management, and training in organizations, which are not the forte of policy makers.

Applied psychologists might expand awareness of the continuum of harm by building from previous research demonstrating the negative organizational consequences of culture and climate surrounding harassment and bias. Meta-analysis (Willness, Steel, & Lee, Reference Willness, Steel and Lee2007), individual studies (e.g., Antecol & Cobb-Clark, Reference Antecol and Cobb-Clark2009; Lim & Cortina, Reference Lim and Cortina2005; McKay et al., Reference McKay, Avery, Tonidandel, Morris, Hernandez and Hebl2007; Sadler, Mengeling, Booth, O’Shea, & Torner, Reference Sadler, Mengeling, Booth, O’Shea and Torner2017), and systematic literature reviews (Johnson, Bidnall, & Benya, Reference Johnson, Bidnall and Benya2018) have documented the impacts that harassment or bias have on organizations and employees, frequently in terms of increased quit rates from organizations or careers. These studies have specifically found that the perpetuation of these harassing or discriminatory behaviors is enabled when organizational culture and climate do not clearly address harassment and bias. Research on employee misconduct (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, Reference Kish-Gephart, Harrison and Treviño2010) shows that employee conduct codes that are not reinforced are flouted, and unethical behavior becomes more likely. From a continuum of harm perspective, if there is not intervention for harassment and bias at early stages of the continuum, one might wonder what other organizational problems also have not been addressed. The same research (McKay et al., Reference McKay, Avery, Tonidandel, Morris, Hernandez and Hebl2007; Porath, Gerbasi, & Schorch, Reference Porath, Gerbasi and Schorch2015; Ruggs, Martinez, & Hebl, Reference Ruggs, Martinez and Hebl2011) shows that strong management action endorsing the value of diversity, or simply setting expectations for treating people well, leads to increased retention, performance, and ethical behavior.

A continuum of harm model implies a dynamic process.Footnote ⁶ Some might prefer a dimensional one (e.g., Gelfand, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, Reference Gelfand, Fitzgerald and Drasgow1995). Academic research could clarify whether harassment or unlawful discrimination is dynamic and continuum-based, where unlawful racial discrimination behaviors seem innocent or vague at first but then escalate in intensity or type, or dimensional and construct-oriented, where unlawful racial discrimination behaviors do not escalate in intensity or type. We suggest that practitioners favor a continuum of harm model. Leaders and practitioners should treat identification and mitigation of these issues preferably at an early stage as part of the criteria of being a good leader. Organizational survey research (McKay et al., Reference McKay, Avery, Tonidandel, Morris, Hernandez and Hebl2007; Medeiros & Griffith, Reference Medeiros and Griffith2019; Rubino et al., Reference Rubino, Avery, McKay, Moore, Wilson, Van Driel and McDonald2018) can identify problem areas at the team or division/department level, as harassment and discrimination are signs at some point on a continuum of counterproductive behavior.

Topic 7: Professional competence and beliefs about change

Part of the answer to Research Question #6 concerns graduate training and development. If unlawful racial discrimination or sexual harassment behavior is a continuum of harm, there should be a commensurate continuum of intervention. The model I-O graduate psychology curriculum (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc., 2016) does not include training on how to understand or address harassing or discriminatory behavior. Sexual harassment is mentioned once in the 2016 document, in passing, as a subset of occupational health psychology, and unlawful racial discrimination is not mentioned anywhere in the document. The graduate curriculum guidelines state, under General Knowledge and Skills, part 1, Ethical, Legal, Diversity, and International Issues, that “I-O psychologists should have knowledge of and should behave in accord with relevant ethical guidelines when consulting as well as conducting research” and then cites as an example the American Psychological Association’s (2002, amended 2010) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct Footnote ⁷ for reference. It is fair to conclude that applied psychologists are expected to maintain personal integrity and have general knowledge about sexual harassment and unlawful racial discrimination, but not to be educated in how to identify or provide guidance on how to intervene when organizations turn to them for expertise in dealing with these issues.

We call for an intentional focus from graduate curriculum or professional development perspectives in addressing issues of sexual harassment and unlawful racial discrimination. Consulting psychologists have developed methods and models of behavioral change (e.g., Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Van Ijzendoorn, Reference Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van Ijzendoorn2007; Osatuke, Yanovsky, & Ramsel, Reference Osatuke, Yanovsky and Ramsel2017) that could serve in part as the bases for intervening with those at risk of engaging in these behaviors; there is a similar lack of a curriculum knowledge base or practice guidelines for building resilience among those affected. Applied psychologists and organizational practitioners should believe people can change and that professionals can intervene effectively to create the conditions for change for individual contributors, work groups, and leaders. At the very least, training research, as bleak as its lessons are regarding transgressor behaviors, seems to show positive impacts in terms of improving the coping behavior of people who have been affected by harassment or unlawful racial discrimination.

Topic 8: Incorporating corporate social responsibility and reputation management as part of an intervention strategy

Applied psychologists should consider that leadership attention put toward reducing discrimination and harassment might fit well within a corporate social responsibility (CSR) framework (Aguinis & Glavas, Reference Aguinis and Glavas2013; Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman, & Siegel, Reference Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman and Siegel2013) as part of the intervention continuum approach. CSR research and practice has had an outward-facing “macro” perspective (Morgeson et al., Reference Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman and Siegel2013, p. 812) in which it has been studied and practiced from a strategy perspective (Aguinis & Glavas, Reference Aguinis and Glavas2013, p. 316). Yet improved intergroup relationships and “strengthening communities” are points of pride for some organizations. We propose that ongoing bias and harassment training for employees will integrate bias-free behavior as an aspect of embedded CSR. Current efforts at many organizations regarding harassment and unlawful racial discrimination might be described as peripheral to a true CSR approach, that is, something that is ongoing but “not integrated into an organization’s strategy, routines, and operations” (Aguinis & Glavas, Reference Aguinis and Glavas2013, p. 314). An example of antidiscrimination and harassment efforts that are part of an organization but are not truly embedded in a CSR framework might include diversity reporting by Google (Brown, Reference Brown2018) or by the U.S. Department of Justice (2018): While it is good that the organization supports awareness, it is unclear how the organization will use the information to inform its practices. An embedded CSR approach to reduction of discrimination and harassment would form the basis of a continuum-based intervention and better mobilize the workforce.

Embedding antiharassment training and diversity programs into a CSR framework would be further effective in helping to shape cultures of diversity and acceptance within an organization, which has been shown to be distinctively effective in reducing harmful behaviors in a variety of contexts (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, Reference Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly2006; Miller & Prentice, Reference Miller and Prentice2016; Tankard & Paluck, Reference Tankard and Paluck2016). By embedding ongoing training into a CSR framework, organizations would take a step toward creating a cultural norm of inclusion and openness. Organizations with a strong cultural norm against biased and harassing behaviors have fewer incidences of such behaviors, and find that people are more willing to speak out when such behavior does occur (Buchanan et al., Reference Buchanan, Settles, Hall and O’Connor2014; Keenan, Reference Keenan2002; McKay et al., Reference McKay, Avery, Tonidandel, Morris, Hernandez and Hebl2007; Porath et al., Reference Porath, Gerbasi and Schorch2015; Ruggs et al., Reference Ruggs, Martinez and Hebl2011).