Although workplace policies are written in neutral terms that give the appearance of rationality, research shows that policy meanings are in fact constructed and negotiated through discursive practices. Sexual harassment policies illustrate this phenomenon. Sexual harassment is a highly complex and fluid phenomenon that is dependent on context and culture for its meaning. Although sexual harassment policies tend to use language that appears to lie outside of the interpretive stream, these policies are in fact always subject to discursive interpretation. One particularly powerful form of discursive interpretation lies in the interplay between binary logics and binary language. This study explored the interplay between macro-level binary logics, mezzo-level sexual harassment policy and micro-level binary language during organizational members’ discussions about their organization’s sexual harassment policy. Our analysis of focus group and interview data revealed that participants discursively produced what we have termed a complex binary web that reshaped the meaning of the policy, such that usage of the policy contradicted organizational norms and values. Understanding sexual harassment policy discourse as constructed in a binary web reveals that rational assumptions underlying sexual harassment policy may be inconsistent with the lived experiences in organizational cultures.
AlvessonM (2004) Organizational culture and discourse. In: GrantDHardyCOswickCPutnamLL (eds) SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: SAGE, 317–335.
2.
AlvessonMKarremanD (2000) Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations53(9): 1125–1149.
3.
AlvessonMKarremanD (2011) Decolonializing discourse: Critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis. Human Relations64(9): 1121–1146.
4.
AshcraftKL (2004) Gender, discourse and organization: Framing a shifting relationship. In: GrantDHardyCOswickCPutnamLL (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: SAGE, 275–298.
5.
AshcraftKLMumbyDK (2004) Reworking Gender: A Feminist Communicology of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
BacchiCL (1999) Women, Policy, and Politics : The Construction of Policy Problems. London: SAGE.
7.
Berryman-FinkCRileyKV (1997) The effect of sex and feminist orientation on perceptions in sexually harassing communication. Women’s Studies in Communication20(1): 24–44.
8.
BinghamSG (ed.) (1994) Conceptualizing Sexual Harassment as Discursive Practice. Westport, CT: Praeger.
9.
Bowes-SperryLO’Leary-KellyAM (2005) To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review30(2): 288–306.
10.
BowlesM (1997) The myth of management: Direction and failure in contemporary organizations. Human Relations50(7): 779–803.
11.
BucknerGEHindmanHDHuelsmanTJBergmanJZ (2014) Managing workplace sexual harassment: The role of manager training. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal26(4): 257–278.
12.
BuzzanellPMLiuM (2005) Struggling with maternity leave policies and practices: A poststructuralist feminist analysis of gendered organizing. Journal of Applied Communication Research33(1): 1–25.
13.
CanaryHE (2010) Constructing policy knowledge: Contradictions, communication, and knowledge frames. Communication Monographs77(2): 181–206.
14.
CanaryHEMcPheeRD (2009) The mediation of policy knowledge: An interpretive analysis of intersecting activity systems. Management Communication Quarterly23(2): 147–187.
15.
CirksenaKCuklanzL (1992) Male is to female as__is to__: A guided tour of five feminist frameworks for communication studies. In: RakowLF (ed.) Women Making Meaning: New Feminist Directions in Communication. New York: Routledge, 18–44.
16.
ClairRP (1993) The bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse: A study of the big ten universities. Management Communication Quarterly7(2): 123–157.
17.
ClairRP (1998) Organizing Silence: A World of Possibilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
18.
CleggSR (1989) Frameworks of Power. London: SAGE.
19.
DoughertyDS (1999) Dialogue through standpoint: Understanding women’s and men’s standpoints of sexual harassment. Management Communication Quarterly12(3): 436–468.
20.
DoughertyDS (2001) Sexual harassment as [dys]functional process: A feminist standpoint analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research29(4): 372–402.
21.
DoughertyDS (2006) Gendered constructions of power during discourse about sexual harassment: Negotiating competing meanings. Sex Roles54(7): 495–507.
22.
DoughertyDSDenkerKJ (2015) Reclaiming connections: Constructing a web-of-feminisms. In: MartinezAMillerL (eds) Challenging Social Norms and Gender Marginalization in a Transitional Era. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 229–245.
23.
DoughertyDSDrumhellerK (2006) Sensemaking and emotions in organizations: Accounting for emotions in a rational (ized) context. Communication Studies57(2): 215–238.
24.
DoughertyDSSmytheMJ (2004) Sensemaking, organizational culture, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research32(4): 293–317.
25.
FaircloughN (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
26.
ForbesDA (2009) Commodification and co-modification: Explicating black female sexuality in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly22(4): 577–613.
27.
FusilierMPenrodC (2015) University employee sexual harassment policies. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal27(1): 47–60.
28.
GreenbaumTL (1988) The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
29.
HoffmanMFCowanRL (2010) Be careful what you ask for: Structuration theory and work/life accommodation. Communication Studies61(2): 205–223.
30.
KeytonJFergusonPRhodesSC (2001) Cultural indicators of sexual harassment. Southern Communication Journal67(1): 33–50.
31.
KirbyELKroneKJ (2002) ‘The policy exists but you can’t really use it’: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research30(1): 50–77.
LindgrenMPackendorffJSergiV (2014) Thrilled by the discourse, suffering through the experience: Emotions in project-based work. Human Relations67(11): 1383–1412.
34.
LindlofTRTaylorBC (2011) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. London: SAGE.
35.
McDonaldPCharlesworthSCeriseS (2011) Below the ‘tip of the iceberg’: Extra-legal responses to workplace sexual harassment. Women’s Studies International Forum34(4): 278–289.
36.
MumbyDK (2005) Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach. Management Communication Quarterly19(1): 1–26.
37.
MumbyDK (2011) What’s cooking in organizational discourse studies? A response to Alvesson and Kärreman. Human Relations64(9): 1147–1161.
38.
MumbyDKPutnamLL (1992) The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review17(3): 465–486.
39.
OkunT (2010) The Emperor Has No Clothes: Teaching about Race and Racism to People Who Don’t Want to Know. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
40.
PM Magazine (2001) Sexual harassment policy checklist. PM Magazine83(1): 38.
41.
PutnamLLMumbyDK (1993) Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. In: FinemanS (ed.) Emotions in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 36–57.
42.
RanneyFJ (2000) Beyond Foucault: Toward a user-centered approach to sexual harassment policy. Technical Communication Quarterly9(1): 9–28.
43.
RittelHWJWebberMM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences4(2): 155–169.
44.
RiveraKD (2015) Emotional taint: Making sense of emotional dirty work at the U.S. Border Patrol. Management Communication Quarterly29(2): 198–228.
45.
ScarduzioJA (2011) Maintaining order through deviance? The emotional deviance, power, and professional work of municipal court judges. Management Communication Quarterly25(2): 283–310.
46.
ScarduzioJAGeist-MartinP (2008) Making sense of fractured identities: Male professors’ narratives of sexual harassment. Communication Monographs75(4): 369–395.
47.
SmithFLDoughertyDS (2012) Revealing a master narrative discourse of retirement throughout the working life cycle. Management Communication Quarterly26(3): 453–478.
48.
SmithsonJStokoeEH (2005) Discourses of work–life balance: Negotiating ‘genderblind’ terms in organizations. Gender, Work & Organization12(2): 147–168.
49.
TretheweyA (2001) Reproducing and resisting the master narrative of decline: Midlife professional women’s experiences of aging. Management Communication Quarterly15(2): 183–226.
50.
WeedonC (1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: B. Blackwell.
51.
WodakRMeyerM (2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd edn). London: SAGE, 1–33.
52.
ZakMW (1994) ‘It’s like a prison in there’. Organizational fragmentation in a demographically diversified workplace. Journal of Business and Technical Communication8(3): 281–298.
