Imagine this scenario. You're at work. During your lunch break, you're in the staffroom with your colleagues, one of whom tells a joke he'd heard the night before. The joke's about Jewish people. One of your other colleagues, who's also present, happens to be Jewish. What do you do?
For many people, that scenario doesn't need to be imagined. It's a realistic account of what occurs regularly at their place of work, which is why it was used as the basis of a recent study, the results of which were published earlier this year in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.
The researchers wanted to find out the factors that compel people to intervene when they observe religious harassment in the workplace. In their first study, they surveyed 100 employees in the US who had witnessed religious harassment in the preceding year. Half admitted they hadn't intervened, preferring instead to be silent bystanders.
The reasons may surprise you. For example, you might think a one-off incident would only rarely result in intervention since employees may be more forgiving of a colleague's occasional blunder. They may be less forgiving when it's a repeated occurrence. The reality, however, is that repetitive acts weren't found to be any more inflammatory than isolated ones.
Now let's say the witness is religious themselves. Would that then lead to higher rates of intervention? After all, you could reasonably expect them to be just as offended by the spiritual dig since they similarly believe in a higher power. The answer, though, is no. But what if they share the same religion? Again, the answer is no.
Unless those two factors are combined. In those cases, when an observer of religious harassment is both intensely religious and also of the same faith as the victim, the combination generates the most likely possibility for them to speak up against the bigotry.
One of the participants, for instance, told this story: "We have an Arab cook … He is a male Muslim and everyone cracks jokes behind his back. They say things like 'If you don't like his food he will put a jihad on you'."
If that situation were to play out in our own workplace, the findings suggest we'd be far more inclined to intervene if we, too, were highly committed to the Islamic faith. But if there were no connection at all, it wouldn't be unusual for us to just sit back and remain quiet. Or even laugh.
In the second study, almost 600 individuals participated in an experiment that asked them to respond to imaginary situations such as the one that began this article. Only 23 per cent said they'd intervene by confronting the perpetrator or by reporting their behaviour to a manager. Forty-two per cent said they'd intervene but in a roundabout way, perhaps by subtly steering the conversation into safer territory. The remaining 35 per cent said they wouldn't bother at all.
In other words, only a minority of respondents would send a public message that the commentary was unacceptable. Also, keep in mind that what people indicate they'd do in a hypothetical scenario is often very different to what they'd do when faced with the real thing. Which means there's little doubt the figure of 23 per cent is inflated.
As the scholars note, "One way to prevent harassment in the workplace and to promote a climate of tolerance is to have third parties intervene in harassment incidences". If people are reticent to do so, prejudice is destined to continue.
This isn't just about religion, of course. A pervasive silence in regards to any type of harassment effectively condones it, thereby turning it into a cultural norm; a problem that's much harder to break.
Have you witnessed religious harassment in your workplace? What did you do?
James Adonis is the author of Employee Enragement.
0 comments
New User? Sign up