Companies who employ more women in senior roles are much more likely to dismiss men accused of sexually or physically abusing their colleagues, according to analysis of international and UK data.
Men were more likely to get sacked for abusing a male colleague rather than a female colleague, according to a recent Finnish study, cited in research about the economic impact of violence against women and girls gathered by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
It found that in female-managed organisations (those with a higher than average number of women in high-earning positions) were “significantly more likely to dismiss perpetrators”, while male-managed ones were more likely to see the victim of abuse leave the company.
The IFS cited studies that found women who are sexually or physically assaulted at work experience a major hit to their careers, “including job loss, reduced hours and lower income”. One study found that women who move in with an abusive partner see their earnings drop by an average of 12%. “These losses persist even after the relationship ends, indicating long-term damage to labour market attachment and career progression,” said the IFS.
Please note this article comes out of Great Britain where the usage of the word 'dismiss' means fired.
"Dismiss" is the wrong word to use in that title. Yes, it can mean "fire", but it can also mean "ignore". It seems like this is a case where you want to be clear which interpretation you mean.
So a strange anecdote related to this story -- I've worked for a small company before where there was a husband/wife employee couple, which had DV issues. The female-dominant senior managers, very quietly, would send the man on leave while looking for excuses to fire him each time there was an event. The wife refused to press charges, because she was seemingly the one starting the physical fights, she just lost cause she was weaker -- the guy wasn't a big dude though, so it's not like he could easily just 'restrain' her, hence some visible physical injuries. So the company couldn't use something like a criminal record to justify dismissal. But they still tried to find ways to fire the man, without really caring about who was instigating / innocent until proven guilty, or anything. It's just "Man hits a woman for any reason? Women band together to cast out the man".
These two people stayed together for decades like this, with mgmt periodically going through those motions apparently. Think they're still together. Had like 3 or 4 kids.
Okay great, but do those firms with more women in leadership outpace the profitability of those that let men get away with abuse in the workplace? Because the only thing that really matters is finding out if abusive workplaces make more money so I can do that.
all 43 comments