What the Avalanche of Sex Scandals Says About the Future of Power

The list of people in trouble from sexual harassment accusations is huge and gets larger every day, maybe every hour. This list includes entertainers and media figures such as Louis C. K., Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Pixar's John Lasseter; politicians such as Alabama's Roy Moore, Al Franken, Bill Clinton, and Anthony Weiner--along with a less well-known story unfolding in Florida where the Democratic Party chairman resigned in shame and a Republican state senator faces expulsion for sexual harassment; and news figures such as Charlie Rose, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Halperin, and Glenn Thrush. As the website Axios accurately commented, "more allegations are coming."

Sexual harassment is a form of bullying, and both behaviors occur mostly when there are large inequalities in power and few constraints on the use of that power. Therefore, the growing public attention and rapidly-administered consequences to perpetrators once they come to light suggests that, in some fundamental ways, power dynamics inside workplaces, and particularly power dynamics between men and women, are changing.

In the academic year 1985-1986, I met Frances K. Conley, "the first woman to pursue a surgical internship at Stanford Hospital...the first female faculty member at Stanford in any surgical department...the first woman to be granted a tenure professorship in neurosurgery at a U.S. medical school, and...the first to have a full professorship." In 1998, Conley published Walking Out on the Boys, a story of her life in medicine and the pervasive sexism she and other women faced in academic medicine. As detailed in that book and in our conversations (I met her when she took my course on power), when Jerry Silverberg called her "honey" in front of nurses and put his hand on her knee, that display of male power was designed to "put her in her place." Her resignation from Stanford in June of 1991, which she rescinded before it took effect, sparked widespread media attention and began some profound changes in the processes and governance at Stanford. She resigned to call attention to the fact that being a sexist boor apparently did not disqualify someone from being appointed department chair. If gender dynamics were going to change, Conley argued, power dynamics and leadership would need to change, first. The fact that tolerance for demeaning and harmful behaviors seem to be decreasing suggests, therefore, that power dynamics are finally changing--and changing in profound ways.

It is significant that in many if not most of the recent cases, the revelations that have prompted resignations, firings, and legal suits are not new. People knew about the "shower trick" of Charlie Rose. Women recall that as teenagers in the mall on Saturday night, they did not want to make eye contact with then-assistant district attorney Roy Moore and face the attempts at seduction that would follow. Once the Weinstein scandal surfaced, some 70 women came forward to talk about what had happened to them going back many years.

What is new is that, finally, people have been able to come forward and be believed and there have been consequences, serious consequences. The very fact of these consequences will deter similar behaviors in the future. And the fact that women--and men--have come forward and had their stories heard, told, and shared--for instance using the #MeToo hashtag on Twitter--means that it will be easier, more legitimate, and more likely that others will tell their stories in the future.

It is the case that norms are established by behavior and the consequences of that behavior. What "everyone" does, even when that behavior is unethical or illegal, becomes accepted and expected--until it is no longer tolerated. In that sense, even though the behaviors that have come to light are inexcusable, they are understandable, in that many, all too many, behaved inappropriately and harmfully with no penalty. Recent events clearly signal changing norms about what is going to be tolerated in interpersonal interactions.

Research shows that people with more power are more focused on the goals they are seeking and that power is associated with attention to rewards, less thoughtful information processing, and, most importantly, fewer inhibitions or perceived constraints on behavior. People in power get to break the rules, they think--and they do. Although research has mostly focused on the effects of having or not having power on the power holder, it is logical to expect that the greater the power difference between the individuals with power and others, the more likely and extreme the effects of power on behavior will be.

The pervasiveness of workplace bullying is another, albeit different, manifestation of workplace power imbalances that permit people to get away with actions that harm--psychologically, physically, and emotionally--others. So the backlash against sexual harassment may have the fortuitous consequence of sparking more discussion of and less tolerance for other forms of workplace abuse.

People can and do have debates about the extent to which there is really an "end of power" and the extent to which new forms of power are ascendant. But there is little doubt that we are seeing profound changes in what people will tolerate as acceptable manifestations of power imbalances. Who knows? Perhaps other outcomes of unequal power--such as vastly unequal incomes and job control (decision-making discretion) may face changing levels of acceptance, too.