A popular up-and-coming social media company shocked its employees and the public with the announcement that the company was severing ties with one of its senior managers. The manager was a social media mogul, well known and respected by the public. The company’s decision was made in response to emerging media reports indicating that the manager had abused, sexually assaulted, and harassed several women in both private and work contexts. It wasn’t long before further details emerged, with more than a dozen women making allegations of violent sexual acts, and several more individuals complaining of workplace sexual harassment. The allegations dated back several years. The accused manager, once a powerhouse, became isolated, having lost many of his supporters in both the public and private spheres. Eventually, he was formally charged with multiple counts of sexual and physical assault.

Why was this manager able to engage in such inappropriate behaviours at work for so long before being disciplined? As a well-known spokesperson for the social media company, the accused manager enjoyed celebrity status in public, and therefore had a great deal of formal and informal power within the company. Sandra, a former employee who worked in the accused manager’s department, explained how he would harass and intimidate her with impunity. She reported that he had made violent, sexualized comments, and would inappropriately grab and touch her at work. When she complained to her immediate supervisor, Sandra was told that this behaviour was normal for the manager and that she would need to learn to ignore it. Sandra believed that the company allowed a two-tiered workplace to emerge, one in which the most powerful employees didn’t have to comply with the law or workplace norms as long as they were keeping the company profitable and popular in the public eye. Regular workers only had job security if they accepted these abuses of authority. Sandra further observed that no other managers who were complicit in creating or maintaining this toxic environment were disciplined. Genevieve, another complainant who had made sexual harassment allegations about the manager several years earlier, reported that the company’s human resources department met with her and tried to make the workplace less toxic, but they realized that even they were fairly powerless as long as the perpetrator maintained his celebrity status with the public. Genevieve’s union was ineffective at addressing her complaints for similar reasons. Both Genevieve and Sandra eventually took their complaints to the media.

The social media company remains in damage-control mode. Senior executives have denied any awareness of sexual harassment allegations, and the company has retained an employment lawyer to lead an independent investigation. The company has committed to preventing similar occurrences in the future by revisiting their policies and procedures related to sexual harassment.

But were policies and procedures really the problem in the first place?

Can policy overcome the types of power politics seen in this situation?

1. The media firm involved is re-examining their sexual harassment policies and procedures. Were the policies and procedures really the problem in the first place? Explain your answer.

2. What type(s) of power did the media celebrity described in this scenario have and why was he able to wield it so effectively?

3. When people in formal authority failed to respond, what sources of power were left to victims to help them address and cope with this situation? What form of power would be most useful to them and why?