| I can understand the reluctance, up to a point. I'm male, I've been accused of sexual abuse, and it was thrown out because it became exceedingly clear that it never happened. That was extremely unpleasant to go through, and I'd rather never go through it again. However, it hasn't had an ongoing effect on my relationships with women, just the one woman. I'm still more than happy to work with my coworkers regardless of their sex, and I'm more than happy to guide anyone who happens to fall under my leadership. Anybody accused is first judged by the audience. A certain amount of guilt is assumed. That you let yourself into a potentially compromising situation, or you sought out the situation. And I imagine the higher you are up a managerial chain, the higher the stakes are when you get accused. There is a human cost, even if "nothing comes of it". I imagine many of these managers are terrified of the ordeal, of lawyers, they don't know if the company will support them until a judgement is made or kick them to the curb. Of the effect it may have on their family, where they might already have strained relationships with their spouses. They don't want to potentially risk it, because the power dynamics at play are not in their favour from the outset. The system is biased to find fault, rather than first determine if there was fault. At the same time, we can't cut the authority of the system in any way - the people it protects, who genuinely need protection, often are already in a power imbalance of their own. The fears are justified to an extent, but the simple truth it comes down to is... You're a manager. It is your responsibility to be responsible for those under you. If you can't be, then perhaps a management position is not appropriate for you. Perhaps you need to learn to thrive in a different role. Harsh, certainly, but as the environment stands, ignoring those under your care will only help to promote an environment where women are once again second-class citizens. |
A lot of people aren't squeaky clean paragons of virtue in everything they do in combination with being secure and confident in their position in the corporate hierarchy. So your suggestion seems to be boiling down to 'figure it out'. What is your fallback if the required behaviors are complicated or hard to figure out? Men-women relationships are fundamentally asymmetrical and unbalanced, and it is the case that most people are poor communicators.
There is an underlying theme to these conversations that everyone should have a basic expectation that they can come to work and enjoy a safe, respectful work environment. That applies to managers just as much as subordinates - if companies are going to act on accusations then they need very clear policy on how much evidence is needed to put a manager's career at risk.
Unless the state of the field is very clear, it isn't reasonable to tell the managers that their role is to put themselves at risk professionally and work it out as they go. The conversation needs to be more detailed about what, exactly, the managers are expected to do outside the formal frameworks and what level of evidence is needed for them to get into trouble.