The man in the middle of a sexual harassment accusation for this week is the chair of the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and head of The Energy Research Institute (TERI), Dr RK Pachauri. A research assistant, who worked at TERI, has filed a police case against Pachauri alleging sexual misconduct. Text messages and email exchanges published by various media organisations make for most cringe-worthy reading and demonstrate not just a deluded sense of romance, but also classic Bollywood stalker-like behaviour on the part of the 74-year-old. (Here’s a sample – “Just to prove to you how much I love, I shall go on a fast after the cricket match tomorrow. I will break the fast only when you tell me that you believe I love you with sincerity and unfathomable depth.”) The allegations have prompted Pachauri to resign from IPCC and go on long leave from TERI.
The yardstick by which media and public interest in a sexual harassment case is measured continues to be the allegations against Tehelka’s former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal. Yet, the Pachauri case further proves the reality of workplace harassment. For long, middle-aged ‘leaders’ (think Phaneesh Murthy, Justice A K Ganguly, among others) have been the bane of women employees. These are often predators who are aware that their success, power and influence insulate them against potential complaints. And often they do.
While it exists in some form or the other around the world, victim-shaming is a particularly potent weapon in the Indian arsenal. A young executive who finds herself at the receiving end of unwanted affection from her boss not only risks her job if she complains, she almost always risks her entire career. Despite the images routinely aired around Women’s Day, of lady CEOs of banks and insurance companies, senior management is still a boys’ club, and snuffing the career of a young, up-and-coming executive is merely a matter of seconds. Even in those rare jobs where performance can be absolutely and objectively evaluated, vague parameters such as ‘attitude issues’ and ‘not fitting in with company culture’ are easily introduced to HR files and provide a motive for eventually terminating employees.
Now that there is public precedence of victims complaining about all-powerful male bosses, more women are finding the courage to come out and seek justice for the harassment they face. While a legal framework and the existence of the Vishaka Guidelines are often cited as the reason victims are choosing to speak out, the real hero is social media. Earlier, the victim could, at best, count on the support of an immediate circle of friends and colleagues. But now, with Twitter and Facebook, they are able to take the stories of their harassment to a much wider audience. While the boss is able to control the flow of communication within the company, he is relatively powerless online. The threat of a leaked WhatsApp chat or a naked selfie is real and this does make some potential offenders go easy on the send button.
However, social media is also a double-edged sword. As the threat of senior executives embarrassing the organisation and themselves — by their questionable behaviour with female staff members — becomes more and more real, HR executives are finding ways around the problem. By not hiring many women. “Given all things are equal — qualifications, track record, company fit, etc — today, I would rather hire the male candidate over the female,” the HR head of a 10,000-strong organisation told me recently. “There are all kinds of potential problems, especially in a company like ours, where employees travel a lot and have to spend time at client locations. I would rather avoid the potential headache of an allegation of sexual harassment than unnecessarily take chances. But, if a female candidate is far superior to the male candidates, then of course, I’m willing to take the risk of future problems,” he says.
While companies make all kinds of statements claiming they are equal opportunity employers, off the record, that is far from the truth. The fear of a potential suit — and bad publicity — is so high that fewer women are hired, especially at key positions, despite the fact that most organisations now have a diversity quota to fulfil and need to have a certain percentage of female employees on their rolls. In short, companies would much rather have fewer women on their premises than ensure that men behave appropriately.
When I point out this distortion, Mr HR Head says he would rather look into the variables he can control (like hiring fewer women) than the variables he cannot (like making sure men behave). “We have all the deterrents in place. But that does not mean everyone consistently complies,” he says.
While the spate of complaints against high-profile male bosses is likely to inspire many more women to come forward, in the short run, no matter how much you deny it, this would go against women themselves. Certainly, there would be fewer jobs. Certainly, this would imply that women have to be twice as good to be treated at par with the men. None of this bodes well. But tectonic changes rarely occur without any immediate damages. So things will get better. But first they will get worse. And that’s okay.
(Veena Venugopal is editor BLink and author of The Mother-in-Law . Follow her on Twitter @veenavenugopal )