sex·ism (sek’siz’?m)
n.
1. The belief that one gender is superior to the other, especially that men are superior to women.

If he invited the other men to get together outside of work, not sure that is of any concern of the company, unless it violates law or an active policy against such action that was previously agreed upon by all parties. Further, he asked, didn’t demand (we assume), that his peer call in the reservation. That could have been for any number of reasons which we’re not aware of. She could have respectfully said no and explained why. I also agree with Rebecca that a second crucial conversation with everyone would only stir the pot and would not be beneficial and could in fact raise tensions.

Michael,

I would tend to agree with you, However, while his intentions may have been benign, there would still be some benefit from making him aware of how his request was perceived by others. Some in this particular work environment are sensitive to the issue and it should not be ignored if everyone wishes to maintain strong working relationships.

If a person wants to invite specific individuals to lunch where NO discussions well be held that would put other individuals at a disadvantage monetarily or in career progression then that may be “sexist” but allowed in this country and certainly not something one would expect a company policy to prohibit. Most companies don’t care what you do on your lunch break, if it’s off company property and you don’t come back in a condition unsafe to do work. The problem with only inviting male workers is that it may be perceived (which creates a mistrustful work environment) and may be true (which can create even worse situations) that the result of the “bonding” will give the male workers an advantage in future choice assignments, raises or promotions. This used to be called “the good old boy network,” where you got ahead by who you know rather than your ability to excel at the job. New guy may well have not understood this, therefore conservations on some level should occur to try and repair the damage to the work environment. After a female coworker may be in a position one day to impact new guy’s career and take revenge for the perceived affornt caused by male only invite.

1. Don’t women have lunch together often, exclusive of men?

2. If a man is generally friendly, but respectful towards women, don’t many women, especially if they are in a relationship or not attracted, offended a man would ask them to do something socially, seeing it as inappropriate and uncomfortable?

This man in the question posed in this feature may have used the wrong words but he was hardly being sexist. My word. He was trying to build friendships. It didn’t infer that he disrespected women.

Sounds like a shoot first ask questions later type of response. Is he a jerk by choice or merely by happenstance. And, if you gave him another choice, would he choose it? If he really thought women were just there to fill his administrative needs, why ask her for advice on where to go? Why not ask a man for manly advice? Perhaps he had made friends with her, but felt a bit ignored by some of the men.

The “why would a reasonable person do or think that” is to help you have that rational, logical, kind and considerate conversation you want to have because you’re that kind of person. You don’t want to look like a jerk in front of all your colleagues as you cut him down to size, then later find out that you’ve over-reacted.

Most jerks and bullies I know are really quite fragile people with poor social skills. Often they know this and are over protective of the weakness (imagine putting that on your resume). If you offer friendship instead of a verbal arms race, perhaps you can make the world a better place one person at a time. Perhaps next time he’ll come to you to ask what people will think of his actions. If not, at least you can say you gave him a second chance while you ask management to help him find a new company he’s more suited to.

I would hope the outcome in this case would not be the same based on gender. To exclude workers from a company sponsored/condoned event opens the company up to discrimination suits. That is why most companies have policies against that. The company cannot however determine who a person invites to a private lunch as long as they don’t use company resources to arrange it and they don’t conduct company business such as who should get the upcoming promotion.

Would it rise to the level of a Crucial Conversation?

I just wonder?

Sometimes when you reverse the roles, a different outcome will appear. We should always look at issues from a different paradigm. At least that’s what I learned from Stephen Covey.