Third, women who do file complaints face retaliation—66% of them, according to one survey of federal workers (11).
Finally, the adversarial grievance process itself can harm victims; studies comparing women who file complaints to women who keep quiet show worse career, mental health, and health outcomes for those who file (7, 8).
Positive and negative program effects are found in different sorts of workplaces.
In 1998, the Supreme Court vetted the two most popular corporate sexual harassment programs, sexual harassment grievance procedures and training.
Grievance procedures should make it more likely that women will leave their jobs, reducing women in management.
The second prediction concerns sexual harassment training for managers which, while little studied itself, resembles bystander intervention training in important ways.
Training and grievance protocols were virtually unknown in 1980, but, by 1987, three-quarters of federal workers had completed training, and, by 1994, four-fifths knew how to file a grievance. When asked about six specific forms of harassment, 42% of women reported in both 19 that they had been harassed in the past 2 y. Much of the subsequent research also suggests that sexual harassment grievance procedures and training may be managerial snake oil. To assess whether harassment grievance procedures and training for managers and employees have reduced harassment we estimate the effects of these programs on the share of women in management.
Because it often causes women to leave their jobs (4, 7, 8), harassment should reduce women in management.
While harassment is hard to measure, and thus program effects are hard to gauge, some studies suggest that grievance procedures and training may not reduce harassment.
Early evidence came from surveys of federal workers in 1980, 1987, and 1994.