LECTORAAT CHANGE MANAGEMENT – De Haagse Hogeschool

Here is yet another case of inappropriate behavior to recently hit the press: Matthijs van Nieuwkerk, host of De Wereld Draait Door is now accused of sexual misconduct and physical assault. And this seems to be just the tip of the iceberg. According to a new report by the Commission Van Rijn, three quarters of all employees at Dutch broadcaster NPO have suffered from some kind of bad behavior over the years.

Only a few days earlier, another study by Commissioner Mariette Hamer revealed that sexual harassment is not only rife at broadcasters in The Netherlands, but also in higher education. Half of the women from 18 to 24 years have experienced some form of sexual harassment. Hamer therefore advises the government to take stronger measures to fight sexual harassment — not only in organizations, but also in universities.

Yet, it is not a lack of measures that seems to be the problem. Most organizations and universities have implemented trainings, legal procedures and enough confidential advisors to fight inappropriate behavior at work. But none of these measures seem to really help. For example, Hamer noted that filing a complaint often brings more damage to victims.

During a talk show on Op1 about the Van Rijn report, Naomi Ellemers, a member of the Commission, outlined the main findings of their research. She explained that the victims are far from the only ones who suffer from bad behavior. “If twenty female colleagues witness one woman being harassed,” she said, “as a result, all twenty will feel unsafe at work. One incident can affect many people indirectly, as they too, won’t feel taken seriously and may feel threatened.”

What I found interesting is that host Sven Kockelmann repeatedly asked Ellemers and Van Rijn whether Matthijs van Nieuwkerk is indeed guilty, since the report contained accusations against him. Even though Van Rijn responded that he didn’t know as they were no police or forensic investigators, Kockelmann kept on pushing. Surely, knowing the truth is essential? he pressed.  

Ellemers responded that they were less interested in what happened and who did what exactly, but were more interested in “social facts.” What kind of effect does inappropriate behavior have on victims and witnesses? How often does an incident occur? Ellemers claimed that even sexist jokes could wreak havoc on employees’ morale, even if these jokes were not addressed to a specific person.

Listening to this discussion, I had a small light bulb moment. Could it be our obsession with facts and having a legal basis for everything that is holding us back from actually tackling the problem efficiently?

For example, bystanders are often considered to be part of the problem for staying silent when they witness a case of harassment at work. During the course of my research on gossip and rumors, I noticed that employees may indeed remain silent officially, but that they certainly do gossip in order to support each other and make sense of cases of harassment and inappropriate behavior. I have often wondered why confidential advisors and management do not give more weight to such gossip (as they most certainly get wind of it).

Of course, confidential advisors and managers would hesitate to do this, as there is often a fine line between gossip and rumors. A story may start off as true and become distorted further down the line. Or a nasty rumor  may come from someone with bad intentions, and can certainly destroy someone’s career and reputation. Matthijs van Nieuwkerk denies the allegations against him and calls these “ruthless.”

Yet, maybe, if instead of dismissing a piece of gossip as being “just gossip,” managers should actually listen. If they took it seriously, they could informally warn a perpetrator, who might then get the signal that they will not be able to get away with bad behavior. They may also have the chance to clear the air before things escalate.

If the perpetrator is innocent, they would actually receive a warning that someone is out to get them, and give them the opportunity to fight back (in the comfort of their workplace rather than in full media spotlight). Such an incident could also inform management that there are definitely nasty dynamics in their team.

One of the major recommendations from the Van Rijn commission is for managers to take signals seriously, even if they cannot prove them. Instead of focusing on individuals and facts only, we should also ask ourselves: What is the corporate culture like at work? What kind of power dynamics are there?

I would therefore recommend to not ignore gossip and rumors. Could this not be an important first step to a meaningful and much needed culture change both of the commissions are referring to?