SubGrapHR:I think TXHR, as he sincerely always does, has an excellent point with the informal conversation. I passed an assumption that the original post was made by a female in which, from shared experiences in the past, can be difficult for a female to speak in regards to this situation to a male and vice versa. When I have addressed men in the past, I too have geared my conversation to be along the lines of a non-chalant, buddy-type talk. However, when I address the females in the workplace, I tread cautiously to make sure my message is not misconstrued and prefer a formalized approach. Opinions vary--either way this is not easy.
You raise a good point. To be honest, I've never had an "adjustment"-like conversation with a woman (I'm male) so I'm not sure what I would do there. I did write my response from a first person perspective. However, I've used an informal approach in cross-gender cases and I require a witness in either case (typicall the individual's direct supervisor). I try to convey a sense that I'm as uncomfortable as they are but we're all in this together and we just need to address this issue and move on. I cannot recall a time except one hygiene case that persisted beyond that initial contact. If you are a female HR practitioner (as the majority are), this may be a case where there are benefits to having a male supervisor do the talking and have HR stand as witness. I try to keep my practices as racial- and gender-neutral as possible, which I extend even to the extent of not considering the race or gender of my witness choice in a disciplinary meeting or coaching session. So far, so good, but I can understand why that may not work for some people or some businesses.