"Vi for op som ulve - og faldt ned som lam": MeToo i et ledelsesmæssigt perspektiv

Abstract

The MeToo debate has been “hot” in recent years. Many, typically women, have told terrible stories about violations they have been subjected to and about managerial failures. While debate has often been over employees’ perspectives, this project considers MeToo from a managerial perspective. MeToo can be an existential life crisis for those involved. The task for the manager is to step into character as a human being, and to balance power and care towards employees. The project focuses on MeToo-cases where no legal verdict has been passed, but a female employee has experienced a violation. I ask the question: What considerations and dilemmas do managers experience in handling MeToo cases? And what factors do managers emphasize in the assessment of MeToo cases? As empirical evidence, I interviewed five managers who have all dealt with a MeToo case. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and at the end respondents were presented with a vignette story about a MeToo case. As a theoretical framework I primarily use Camilla Sløk's work on power and care (2014, 2020), including the distinction between professional, private and personal. I use Lotte Luscher's three existential paradoxes in management (2014): Proximity–distance, Power– powerlessness and Guilt–innocence. The project is divided into three sub-analyses. Analysis 1 focuses on themes of doubt, guilt and responsibility, and apology and reconciliation. The conclusion is that managers experience several dilemmas: Are there any guidelines to refer to? How to handle such a private subject? What should the sanction be, if any? In addition, those involved in the case often do not agree on the story, but managers must accommodate all perspectives. Managers are therefore reluctant to talk about “blame”, and as a result it becomes difficult to apologize. We normally distinguish between apologia (includes an explanation on what happened) and apology (includes not necessarily an explanation, but a sorry that things happened). The analysis shows, however, that in MeToo cases it is often a third kind that prevails: a ritual apology. With a ritual apology those involved pretend to agree on what happened to close the case, so that the organization can move on. Analysis 2 indicates that managers emphasize that everybody involved – including the victim – has a responsibility to find a joint solution. On the other hand, there is a difference in leaders' attitude to how far back in time one can go in MeToo cases, what the consequences should be, and how much the leaders must adapt to the "popular mood" or act according to their own principles. Analysis 3 is “a greeting from the backstage”, focusing on what lies between the lines. Here it appears important for leaders to position themselves as competent, even though they may have been uncertain in the specific case. In addition, it is clear that MeToo is taboo. Several of the managers laugh in an embarrassed way or lower their voices when they talk about MeToo. Thirdly, the leaders do not (yet) have a clear leadership persona in MeToo cases. They waver between private and professional values. Finally, the analysis reveals that the media affect leaders’ reaction in MeToo. Leaders are worried if the MeToo story comes out and they feel a pressure to act. Furthermore, MeToo is more about a generational difference than a gender difference. Several of the leaders point out that young people under the age of 30 have a different perception of harassment than older generations. This makes it difficult for the leaders who are all +30.