How to reduce hostile, sexist behavior in frontline workplaces
Employees in frontline roles experience high rates of hostile, sexist behavior at work — largely driven by a climate of silence.
Executive Summary
Six in 10 employees in frontline roles report experiencing hostile, sexist behavior at work within the past year, with women (61%) and men (58%) nearly equally at risk according to a survey of nearly 4,500 employees in the manufacturing, retail, hospitality, banking, extraction, utilities, and transportation and warehousing industries in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.1
Organizational climate of silence is a major driver of this type of behavior at work and is pervasive. Most frontline employees (89%) feel pressure to conform, leading to increased insults and hostility based on gender stereotypes.
Our findings also show that women are not alone in bearing the impacts of gender norms and the behaviors aimed at reinforcing them. In fact, we found that most men in frontline roles are boxed in by rigid standards of masculinity.
DEI practitioners: This research shows you how to take action to address climate of silence and reduce hostile, sexist behavior at work.
Breaking down gender inequities and gender stereotypes in partnership with men – not despite men – can more effectively drive change for people of all genders. It also ultimately increases employee satisfaction and retention, which can lower turnover costs.2
Key findings
- Six in ten women (61%) and men (58%) in frontline roles report experiencing hostile, sexist behavior at work within the past year.
- 89% of frontline employees report experiencing a climate of silence: being restrained from constructively speaking up about work-related problems, challenges, or concerns.
- 75% of men in frontline roles do not feel like they are their authentic selves when they are expected to be aggressive, competitive, and independent at work.
- 87% of men in frontline roles would prefer to work in environments that enable them to show empathy and kindness.
- In a climate of silence, men who work in frontline roles are nearly 3x more likely to report concern that they aren’t living up to society’s rigid masculine standards.
- Organizations can address climate of silence and hostile, sexist behavior through fair treatment.
Hostile, sexist behavior is common at work
The majority of employees in frontline roles experience hostile, sexist behavior at work. We found that women (61%) and men (58%) experience these behaviors at similar rates — highlighting how gender stereotypes are perpetuated and reinforced for everyone.
What is hostile, sexist behavior?
Hostile, sexist behavior — also known as gender harassment — involves unwanted, demeaning behavior that conveys offensive gender attitudes.3
This shows up in two main ways:4
- Sexist Insults: Derogatory, sexist behavior, such as comments that certain types of work are best suited for one gender and not another.
- Crude Comments: Crass, lewd, and offensive behavior that reinforces gender stereotypes, such as derogatory comments about a person’s body, appearance, or sexual activity (e.g., “locker room talk”).
Although overall rates of hostile, sexist behavior are similar for women and men in frontline roles, women (55%) are significantly more likely than men (46%) to experience sexist insults.5 Within the context of pervasive systemic sexism against women,6 it is unsurprising that women are disproportionately targeted with these comments at work.
Hostile, sexist behavior is encouraged when speaking up is discouraged
Our data show that hostile, sexist behavior is enabled by a climate of silence, which occurs when employees feel restrained from constructively speaking up about organizational or work-related problems, concerns, or challenges.7
The data show a direct link between level of climate of silence and the likelihood of experiencing hostile, sexist behavior.8
Climates of silence breed fear. In this environment, employees are restrained from speaking up about the issues they’re facing at work — such as experiences of hostile, sexist behavior — allowing sexism and mistreatment to proliferate.
A climate of silence impacts employees negatively
Climate of silence has wide-ranging ramifications. In addition to increased rates of hostile, sexist behavior, climate of silence reduces psychological safety9 and doubles the likelihood of burnout10 and turnover.11
In a climate of silence, employees in frontline roles are:
less likely to experience psychological safety.
more likely to report high levels of burnout.
2x
more likely to report turnover intentions.
Men in frontline roles feel trapped by rigid masculine stereotypes
Hostile, sexist behavior is rooted in stereotypes about how women and men “should” behave at work, and studies consistently show that women, trans, and nonbinary employees are targeted with these behaviors if they don’t conform.12
Our data show that men, too, report being trapped by gender stereotypes at work — 91% of men in frontline roles feel that they must behave according to a rigid set of expectations about what it means to be a man at work.13
These expectations are at the heart of masculine anxiety — the distress men feel about adhering to rigid standards of masculinity — which we found is experienced by 92% of men in frontline roles.14
These findings have important implications for how employees of all genders — including men — stand to benefit from breaking down stereotypes at work. Of note, the majority (87%) of men in frontline roles would prefer to work in environments that enable them to show empathy and kindness, which are essential elements to overcoming a climate of silence and discouraging hostile, sexist behavior.
Also, nearly 8 in 10 (75%) men in frontline roles do not feel like they are their authentic selves when they are expected to be aggressive, competitive, and independent at work.
These findings show that men in frontline roles want to break free from rigid gender stereotypes but are under immense pressure to conform or they risk being targeted with hostile, sexist behavior.
A climate of silence exacerbates pressure on men
Everyone suffers in a climate of silence, but a climate of silence also places unique pressure on men to conform to stereotypically masculine behaviors and discourages them from speaking up about gender inequities.
For example, previous Catalyst research found that in a climate of silence, men are less likely to step in and address sexism when they witness it at work – in part because they fear retaliation for promoting gender equity.16
In this report, we find that men in frontline roles who work in a climate of silence are nearly twice as likely to feel that they are trapped by rigid gender stereotypes about what it means to “be a man” in their workplace and are nearly 3x more likely to suffer from a high level of masculine anxiety at work.17
In a climate of silence, men in frontline roles are:
2x
more likely to feel that they are trapped by gender stereotypes in their workplace.
3x
more likely to report high levels of masculine anxiety at work.
Fair treatment can reduce climate of silence
So how can organizations address climate of silence and its harmful outcomes? We found that when fair treatment is the norm at organizations — when managers and decision-makers intentionally treat employees equally, rather than with favoritism and discrimination — employees are less likely to experience high levels of climate of silence.18
Fair treatment is also directly associated with positive employee outcomes. For example, we found that employees in frontline roles are 36% less likely to experience hostile, sexist behavior when they are treated equally.19 This further strengthens the case for why organizations must root out bias and discrimination at work, helping employees of all genders to thrive.
With fair treatment, employees in frontline roles are:
Take Action
It’s essential that leaders recognize the realities, harm, and costs of hostile, sexist behavior and a climate of silence for both employees and the business, and to take steps to reduce these behaviors.
Organizations can focus on two areas as they strive to reduce hostile, sexist behavior and a climate of silence at work.
1. Establish systems that ensure fair treatment
HR and learning and development leaders can work with both employees and managers to upskill everyone on how to build a work environment where frontline employees can thrive.
- Build policies that protect and ensure fair treatment of employees.
- Build empowering environments for managers who oversee frontline teams with conflict resolution and situational-based training.
- Create and promote channels that enable workers to report issues anonymously.
- Review Moments That Matter, a series of scenario-based learning cards and a collection of video and audio microlearnings that help managers tackle challenging workplace situations.
- Explore this e-book, featuring three key ways to improve workplace culture.
- Share these inclusive communication skill posters and infographics.
- Frontline leaders can explore Window to the Front Line, an action-oriented toolkit to help attract, develop, and retain women in frontline roles. Resources include a worksheet, checklist, and leading practices. Watch the demo.
2. Encourage partnership across genders
DEI leaders need to recognize that the changes they’re pushing for — such as authenticity, positive team dynamics, breaking down stereotypes — are changes that men both want to be a part of and also stand to benefit from.
- Develop gender equity efforts that take into account men’s lived experiences with feeling trapped by “acceptable” behaviors. This will result in employees who are better equipped to speak up and help break the cycle of silence and inaction around gender stereotypes and experiences of hostile, sexist behavior at work.
- Adopt a gender partnership framework to help people of all genders understand how gender equity benefits everyone and needs everyone’s participation.
- Take stock of which behaviors are valued in your workplace and assess whether they are linked to rigid gender stereotypes.
- Implement MARC for the Front Line training to drive conversations about gender stereotypes in frontline workplaces.
- Help leaders learn to identify and address a climate of silence and start taking actionable steps to promote gender partnership.
How to cite: Brassel, S. (2024). How to reduce hostile, sexist behavior in frontline workplaces. Catalyst.
Regional breakouts
Hostile, Sexist Behavior
Climate of Silence
Workplace Gender Stereotypes Harm Men in Frontline Roles
Industry breakouts
Hostile, Sexist Behavior
Climate of Silence
Workplace Gender Stereotypes Harm Men in Frontline Roles
Endnotes
- We surveyed 4,452 employees in the manufacturing (n = 924), retail (n = 845), hospitality (n = 776), banking (n = 616), extraction (n = 269), utilities (n = 348), and transportation and warehousing (n = 674) industries in Canada (n = 1,299), the United Kingdom (n = 1,335), and the United States (n = 1,818). Our sample comprised women (49%, n = 2,174), men (50%, n = 2,237), and trans and nonbinary employees (1%, n = 38). Most respondents were White (71%, n = 3,139) and our sample included representation from other racial and ethnic identities as well (e.g., Black, Indigenous, Asian, Multiracial, Latine employees; 29%, n = 1,270). Most respondents identified as heterosexual/straight (86%, n = 3,702), and our sample represented other sexual identities as well (e.g., asexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, queer employees; 14%, n = 606). Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 73, with an average age of 41 years. All participants were in non-management roles and worked in positions that required them to be physically present at a work site (as opposed to working remotely). Note that participants could skip demographic questions, so totals may not equal 100%.
- Catalyst & Accenture. (2024). Team dynamics on the front line: How managers and organizations impact this overlooked key to retention. Catalyst.
- Brassel, S. (2021). Sexual harassment at work: What it is, what it isn’t, and how it harms your organization: Topic overview. Catalyst.
- Brassel, S. (2020). It’s not just “bad apples” – It’s also about the barrel: Critically analyzing organizational and social factors in sexual harassment rates and outcomes. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. Deep Blue Data; Leskinen, E., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Dimensions of disrespect: Mapping and measuring gender harassment in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 107-123.
- Hostile, sexist behavior was measured on a scale of 0 (never) to 4 (many times). Participants were asked to indicate “During the past year, how often did people in the company do the following UNWANTED behaviors?”. Scores of 1 through 4 were coded as experiencing hostile, sexist behavior at work. A chi-square analysis determined that women (55%) were significantly more likely than men (46%) to experience sexist insults: χ2(1) = 35.76, p < .001. There were no significant differences between women and men for rates of crude comments or hostile, sexist behavior overall.
- Feagin, J. & Ducey, K. (2017). Elite White men ruling: Who, what, when, where, and how. New York: Routledge.
- Shaffer, E., Sattari, N., & Pollack, A. (2020). Interrupting sexism at work: How men respond in a climate of silence. Catalyst.
- A chi-square analysis determined that rates of hostile, sexist behavior significantly varied by level of climate of silence, χ2(2) = 457.45, p < .001.
- Psychological safety was measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Scores of 4 through 6 reflect experiencing psychological safety at work. A binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how climate of silence shapes experiences of psychological safety. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 1043.21, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .28. As climate of silence increased by one unit, employees were 57% less likely to experience psychological safety, b = -.84, Exp(B) = 0.43, [LLCI = .41; ULCI = .46], p < .001.
- Burnout was measured on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). Scores of 4 through 6 reflect high levels of burnout. A binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how climate of silence shapes experiences of burnout. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 757.07, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .21. As climate of silence increased by one unit, employees were 1.99 times more likely to experience burnout, b = .69, Exp(B) = 1.99, [LLCI = 1.89; ULCI = 2.13], p < .001.
- Turnover intentions were measured on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). Scores of 2 through 5 reflect employees that are considering leaving their jobs. A binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how climate of silence shapes turnover intentions. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 588.74, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .17. As climate of silence increased by one unit, employees were 1.83 times more likely to have turnover intentions, b = .60, Exp(B) = 1.83, [LLCI = 1.74; ULCI = 1.93], p < .001.
- Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 425-437; Leskinen, E. A., Rabelo, V. C., & Cortina, L. M. (2015). Gender stereotyping and harassment: A “catch-22” for women in the workplace. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 192-204; James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.
- A subset of men received the questions about experiences of feeling trapped by stereotypes of masculinity at work (n = 777). Feeling trapped was measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The percentages presented reflect scores equal to 1 (strongly disagree), greater than 1 and less than 4 (some level of agreement) and those equal or greater than 4 (high levels of agreement).
- Masculine anxiety was measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The percentages presented reflect scores equal to 1 (no masculine anxiety), greater than 1 and less than 4 (some anxiety) and those equal or greater than 4 (high levels of anxiety).
- Percentages may exceed 100 due to rounding.
- Shaffer et al. (2020).
- A binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how climate of silence shapes men’s experiences of feeling trapped by gender stereotypes at work. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 105.15, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .18. As climate of silence increased by one unit, men were 1.86 times more likely to feel trapped by stereotypes about masculinity at work, b = .62, Exp(B) = 1.86, [LLCI = 1.64; ULCI = 2.12], p < .001. Another binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how climate of silence shapes men’s experiences of masculine anxiety. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 496.65, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .32. As climate of silence increased by one unit, men were 2.72 times more likely to experience high levels masculine anxiety at work, b = 1.00, Exp(B) = 2.72, [LLCI = 2.46; ULCI = 3.02], p < .001.
- Fair treatment was measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The percentages presented reflect scores of 1 to less than 4 (lacking fair treatment) and those equal to or greater than 4 (with fair treatment). A chi-square analysis determined that workplaces characterized by fair treatment were less likely to have high levels of climate of silence (20%) compared to workplaces without fair treatment (31%), χ2(1) = 70.95, p < .001.
- A binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how fair treatment shapes experiences of hostile, sexist behavior. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 345.12, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .10. As fair treatment by one unit, employees were 36% less likely to experience hostile, sexist behavior, b = -.45, Exp(B) = .64, [LLCI = .60; ULCI = .67], p < .001.
- A binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how fair treatment shapes experiences of psychological safety. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 1520.03, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .39. As fair treatment by one unit, employees were 2.98 times more likely to experience psychological safety, b = 1.09, Exp(B) = 2.98, [LLCI = 2.79; ULCI = 3.19], p < .001.
- A binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how fair treatment shapes experiences of burnout. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 270.60, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .08. As fair treatment by one unit, employees were 32% less likely to report high levels of burnout, b = -.38, Exp(B) = .68, [LLCI = .65; ULCI = .72], p < .001.
- A binomial logistic regression was conducted to examine how fair treatment shapes turnover intentions. The model was statistically significant: χ2(1) = 547.57, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .16. As fair treatment by one unit, employees were 44% less likely to report turnover intentions, b = -.58, Exp(B) = .56, [LLCI = .53; ULCI = .59], p < .001.