(FORTUNE Magazine) – WHO COULD WATCH the controversy surrounding Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill without wondering how a case alleging sexual harassment might be handled in his or her own office? How to respond if you are preyed upon, or if you, as a manager, are charged to investigate an allegation? Says Labor Secretary Lynn Martin: ''If any good comes from the Thomas situation, it will only be a wider discussion of the issue of harassment.'' That issue, always sensitive, has become increasingly subtle and confusing as legal definitions of harassment expand from obvious barbarities to encompass acts that over time create a ''hostile work environment.'' Business stands on the front line in the battle against harassment, pushed there by judicial decisions in the 1980s that hold employers financially liable for workers' transgressions unless the company actively strives to prevent offenses and responds effectively when they occur. As a result, corporations are getting tough about the subject: crafting intensive seminars for employees, such as those that take place at Honeywell and Corning; establishing 24-hour hotlines and providing security for victims fearful of reprisals, as Du Pont does; and initiating and completing inquiries swiftly, as AT&T strives to do. / The results? No big gains so far -- it may be early, and there are precious few data from the past to compare with. But the experience of large organizations at work on change offers valuable lessons for any company or concerned employee. While even a single case of harassment is one too many, the extent of the problem may be overblown, particularly in assertions that 75% or 90% of women have been victimized. The most authoritative data on the pervasiveness of harassment in its various guises come from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, a federal agency. In 1980 it polled 20,000 federal employees about the incidence of sexual harassment in government offices. It repeated the survey in 1987, asking the same questions of another 8,500 government workers. The results of both polls were remarkably similar: 1% of female respondents claimed to be victims of actual or attempted rape or assault; 6% reported pressure for sexual favors. Only a few incidents involved a boss demanding a quid pro quo from a subordinate -- have sex with me if you want that promotion or want to keep your job. Most incidents occurred between peers or colleagues. In these cases job security isn't at stake, but the work environment can become abusive. Offensive conduct, according to the women polled, took the form of remarks (cited by 35% of women), suggestive looks (28%), touching (26%), pressure for dates (15%), and unwanted love letters and calls (12%). Men suffered all the same kinds of harassment, but the incidence was about a third that of women. Men were far less apt to talk about it or report it to supervisors. Merit Systems found that the most likely victims -- female or male -- were single or divorced. Women were at above-average risk if they had college educations or graduate degrees; men, if they worked in clerical jobs. The risk was also higher for workers in places where the vast majority of their co- workers were of the opposite sex. Harassment isn't just a matter of one employee's victimizing another. Clients and customers can also use the power of their position -- go along or I'll give the sale to somebody else -- as a license for licentiousness, especially in such fields as law, consulting, and advertising. In a 1989 National Law Journal survey of 900 female attorneys, 10% said that clients exerted unwanted pressure for dates, 9% complained of touching, cornering, or pinching, and 4% cited pressure for sex, sometimes as a prerequisite for getting the client's business. So what should a company do to keep its employees -- and itself -- safe? Educating employees is vital but not easy, because there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about what harassment is (see table). Legal doctrine has evolved fitfully since the landmark 1986 Supreme Court decision Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. That case expanded the definition of harassment to include verbal or physical conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment or unreasonably interferes with an employee's job performance. Unfortunately, men and women harbor different notions of what's intimidating, hostile, or offensive. A survey conducted in 1981 by sociologist Barbara Gutek of 1,200 people in Los Angeles County found that 67% of the men said they would feel flattered if a colleague of the opposite sex propositioned them, while 63% of women would be offended. Another survey by Redbook magazine and Harvard Business Review indicated that 24% of the women believed that a man giving a female worker a visual once-over was harassment, while only 8% of men thought so. The best corporate practice calls for companies to create and publicize a forceful policy against sexual harassment. In 1989, Honeywell clarified its once obscure and legalistic harassment statement by distributing handbooks in plain English to every employee and putting up posters in conspicuous places. As a result the number of reported incidents has increased significantly, a good sign suggesting that more victims are seeking help. Corporate education programs typically start out by sensitizing employees to the issue of harassment and then use role playing or other techniques to rehearse tactics to counter it. Du Pont's efforts are a worthy model. In 1988 the company began offering its employees a four-hour workshop on harassment called ''A Matter of Respect.'' So far 65,000 workers have gone through it. Explains Dar Di Sabatino, a director of the workshop: ''We were hearing about subtle situations of harassment. The individuals didn't know what they could do about it or if they should do anything about it.'' Each workshop is led by a specially trained man and woman; these teams are recruited from all areas of the company, not just from human relations. Small groups -- always a balanced mix of men and women -- watch videos portraying incidents that can be from real life, then discuss appropriate responses. THE SIMPLEST and most effective way to put an end to harassment in most instances is to ask or tell the person to stop. This just-say-knock-it- off tactic worked for 61% of the women who tried it, according to the Merit Systems survey. Telling other colleagues, or simply threatening to do so, proved the second-best response, effective 55% of the time. Pretending to ignore the offensive behavior -- a common ploy -- usually doesn't work at all. When employees can't resolve the situation on their own, or feel unsure about what to do, employers should make it easy and safe for them to seek help. Since 1985, Du Pont has run a unique 24-hour hotline that offers advice on personal security and sexual harassment. Callers need not identify themselves, calling does not constitute bringing charges, and confidentiality is assured. ''The hotline is a real source of comfort,'' says Di Sabatino. ''It gives people direction and helps them think the issues through before they take any action.'' If a victim of or witness to harassment lodges an official complaint, there must be an immediate response. At Du Pont, the employee's supervisor usually handles the matter, but if he or she is the accused, or the employee feels uncomfortable talking to the supervisor, a personnel specialist can do the job. Sometimes a full-fledged investigation may be necessary. Alas, fact finding is often difficult or impossible, since there may not be any witnesses or physical evidence of harassment. Paula Winkler, who looks into charges for AT&T, which, like Du Pont, has a policy of immediate investigation, observes that another problem is proving the sexual attention was unwanted. ''One of the first questions we ask the victim,'' she says, ''is, 'Did you tell the person you didn't like it, and how many times?' '' Quick action is essential. In the early 1980s the federal government took an average of 482 days to resolve a harassment complaint filed by one of its employees. Not surprisingly, many victims said they lacked confidence in the system and didn't enlist its aid. Winkler says AT&T strives to complete its inquiries in three to 20 days. Even that period can seem nerve-rackingly long: Du Pont sometimes engages security guards to prevent retaliation against complainants during investigations. If allegations are proved, companies must find an appropriate response -- from warnings to reassignment to termination of the offender. Du Pont automatically reassigns the harasser unless the victim specifically requests a transfer. Occasionally the accuser is the guilty party. Winkler estimates that some 5% of allegations at AT&T prove false. They are commonly the work of employees taking revenge against a boss -- often following a disappointing performance review -- or conniving to switch departments. AT&T suggests that these people go through counseling, and some companies subject them to penalties, such as demotion. A final, and timely, word of warning: Sexual harassment tends to be less common in stable companies where employees feel some loyalty to the corporation and to one another. They realize they must treat everyone with respect and sensitivity, if only because they are all going to be working together a long time. One ugly consequence of restructuring and recession is that they may jeopardize that kind of stability, creating work environments more conducive to harassment.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE CREDIT: FORTUNE CHART/SOURCE: U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 1987 CAPTION: How women and men differ on what constitutes harassment . . .by a supervisor . . .by a co-worker