برآورد هزینه های سازمانی از آزار و اذیت جنسی هم جنس: مورد ارتش ایالات متحده

Abstract A general model for estimating the organizational costs of workplace sexual harassment is applied to same-sex sexual harassment incidence data for the Army gathered as part of a large-scale survey of the US military services. Results indicate that the total annual cost of same-sex sexual harassment in the US Army was over $95,000,000. Organizational implications are discussed.

Results and discussion The aggregate total annual dollar value (in 2005 dollars) of the same-sex sexual harassment in the Army's workplace is estimated to be over $95,000,000 (see Table 1). As noted above, this figure likely underestimates the total annual cost of same-sex sexual harassment in the Army for two reasons. First, this figure is based on an estimation-related strategy that selected more conservative estimates where a range of estimates was possible. As noted above, this occurred in a number of instances. Second, this figure excludes a number of potential costs that could not be reliably estimated (e.g., all the “other” costs of same-sex sexual harassment, such as the cost of investigating and litigating a complaint and/or the cost of harassment-related medical and counseling services). Clearly, the most significant costs associated with same-sex harassment in the Army's workplace involve those costs incurred by the Army when a soldier decides to leave due to same-sex sexual harassment. These costs (which include the cost of separation and replacement) amount to $47,794,186 in the current study—approximately 50 percent of the aggregated total annual cost of the harassment reported above. Interestingly, over 99 percent of the total estimated cost of same-sex sexual harassment in the Army is associated with the harassment of males by males (the military population at the time of the survey was 90 percent male). However, we want to emphasize that the same-sex harassment reported in the DMDC survey cannot be identified as either homosexual- or heterosexual-based. Both of these types of harassment likely exist in the military but the survey results do not permit this level of identification. In some (or many) cases, same-sex harassment may be a form of institutionalized hazing that includes behavior of a sexually demeaning nature (Knapp et al., 2005). Moreover, it should be pointed out that even though less than 1 percent of the cost of harassment is due to the harassment of females by females, females represented more than 10 percent of the total population of the Army at the time of the DMDC survey. Thus, they bore a disproportionately minute share of the total annual cost of same-sex sexual harassment relative to their male counterparts in the Army in 1988. In fact, we calculated that the per-incident cost of the sexual harassment of men by men in the Army was nearly ten times the per-incident cost of the harassment of women by women. There are those who would argue that the cost of same-sex sexual harassment in the Army is further evidence that supports the military's policy regarding homosexuals. However, the cost of same-sex harassment is overwhelmed by the cost associated with opposite-sex harassment in the Army, and we doubt that the military would call for the dismissal of heterosexuals based on this fact (see Faley et al., 1999).