INFORMAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AT WORKPLACE …ijrpublisher.com/gallery/54-may-1198.pdf ·...
Transcript of INFORMAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AT WORKPLACE …ijrpublisher.com/gallery/54-may-1198.pdf ·...
INFORMAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AT WORKPLACE
Chandranshu Sinha
(Professor, Amity Business School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida)
Namita Aggarwal
(Postgraduate Student, Amity Business School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida)
ABSTRACT
The study undertaken explored the factors of informal discrimination against women in organizations. The
study focused on 120 employees holding middle managerial positions in Indian healthcare organizations.
The Cronbach’s alpha of the questionnaire was found to be 0.996 & Pearson correlation was
0.924(p<0.001). The factor analysis of the component formal discrimination and informal discrimination
against women led to the extraction of two factors from various organizations respectively. The two
emerging factors for informal discrimination were “marginalization and invisible hurdles” and the second
one was “quality of relationships, involvement and failure to exercise influence”. The results indicate that
these factors have substantial roles to play in relation to informal discrimination of women at middle
managerial level.
Keywords: gender discrimination, informal discrimination, women at workplace
International Journal of Research
Volume VIII, Issue V, MAY/2019
ISSN NO:2236-6124
Page No:410
1. INTRODUCTION
Employment discrimination based on sex or gender includes the unfair treatment of a person based on
the sex of the person, regardless of whether they are applying for a job or whether they are an existing
employee. The essence of sex discrimination is the difference in treatment based on gender. The
treatment is not just different, but it is unequal, so it is unfair.Discrimination against women in the
workplace means that the employer’s attitude towards female employees is less favorable than is
against the male employees because of their genders.Examples of discrimination against women in the
workplace are in cases when women who are denied employment, women who are lost to unqualified
male employees or women who suffer any harm due to gender. Workplace discrimination refers to the
way in which employers treat male or female employees by gender. Workplace discrimination is often
referred to as gender discrimination or gender discrimination.
Literature indicates that informal discrimination which women experience at work place existsthough
on the surface, this discrimination does not seem to exist, or is more difficult to prove(Welleand
Heilman,2007). Indirect gender discrimination occurs when a requirement or condition applies equally
to both men and women but this situation has the effect that in practice it would make one gender more
discriminated or at a disadvantage than the other gender because they find it difficult to comply with
the conditions, and reasons other than gender cannot justify them(Welleand Heilman,2007).The
discrimination faced by women employees creates negativity and inequality in the organisation. This
study intends to explore the factors which affect informal discrimination against women at Indian work
place. In brief the study understands the dynamics of informal discrimination faced by women
employees.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
On the surface, the informal discrimination does not seem to exist, or is more difficult to prove.
Indirect gender discrimination occurs when a requirement or condition applies equally to both men and
women but this situation has the effect that in practice it would make one gender more discriminated or
at a disadvantage than the other gender as they find it difficult to comply with the conditions, and
reasons other than gender cannot justify them (Ross, 2008). A brief introduction and review of
variables in relation to informal discrimination examined in this study are provided in the following
section.
Social exclusion- Social exclusion is an act that makes some people in the organization feel isolated
and unimportant.Welleand Heilman(2005) point out that member of the organisations perceive that
women would not perform well or are inferior which would lead to their exclusion denying them from
becoming central player in organization. However, not all forms of discrimination in the workplace are
visible. Recent studies suggest that gender discrimination is also less evident. A number of studies have
shown that many women who hold senior positions in companies and businesses believe that social
exclusion is an obstacle to the professional development of women. Examples of such less obvious
prejudices include the lack of guidance, the exclusion from informal communication networks and a
negative corporate culture. (Welle, B., &Heilman, M. (2005)
International Journal of Research
Volume VIII, Issue V, MAY/2019
ISSN NO:2236-6124
Page No:411
Quality of relationships between employees: Relationship between all employees in the organization:
between colleagues, between employees and their superiors, between two members of the
management.A recent study by Heilman and his colleagues has shown that women who succeed in men
type work are punished for a negative assessment of their personal qualities. Although they have the
necessary required quality for a successful performance, they are referred to as hostile, manupulative,
aggressive, agile and often different.
Involvement/ information-sharing- Creating an environment in which people become more involved
in day-to-day decision-making and information sharing.The research of Welle, B., &Heilman, M.
(2005) suggested that women's contributions may be considered less valuable and also they are more
likely to be ignored from important discussions and decision making. Also they are avoided in informal
groups that provide a context for exchanging information.Men have a wider social network, including
important members of the organization who are influencial than women. Women at work face more
difficulty in establishing teaching/mentoring relationships with male colleagues in comparison to men.
Even when women find trainers ,meantors and develop social networks, the relationships formed are
less likely to produce positive career results, such as promotion and compensation in comparison to
men. (Welle, B., &Heilman, M.,2005)
Opportunities to exert influence have been viewed as the authority or power in order to affect or
achieve something. Women are considered inadequate for leadership positions due to the higher
number of male executives who believe that women are not suitable for senior leadership roles (Wood,
2008). Managers who are women get resistance or face obstacles for their professional development by
both men and women. It was also noted that male executives believe that women do not show an
interactive style of leadership Also, many women are motivated to get to leadership positions but
unfortunately find it impossible to get there, whereas who do they most likely leave the organization
eventually (Koshal et al., 1998).
Glass ceiling/Unseen Barriers have been viewed as invisible but real obstacles preventing women and
minorities from becoming the most high ranked individuals/ people in the company.Gender is seen as
the most influential factor in forming opinions about women as leaders. Organizational culture often
reflects persistent gender stereotypes. Studies have also shown that the concept of "female take care
and male take responsibility" is a general stereotype of the difference between men and women, and
that women do not solve problems as well as men. (Bible & Hill, 2007)
Methodology
This study used a descriptive survey design. The purpose of descriptive surveys, according to Ezeani
(1998), is to collect detailed and factual information that describes an existing phenomenon. A
thorough review of literature was conducted before selecting the topic of the study. In this study, we
focused on understanding the informal discrimination against women in Indian context. The stratified
International Journal of Research
Volume VIII, Issue V, MAY/2019
ISSN NO:2236-6124
Page No:412
random sampling technique was used to select the sample. The target populations of the study were
120 employees holding managerial and supervisory positions from various organizations.
Instrument
A set of five factors (Welle and Heilman, 2007) were selected for the study after going through the
literature. A structured questionnaire was constructed utilizing these six factors (Welle and Heilman,
2007) as discussed in the literature review. The questionnaire was specifically designed to accomplish
the objectives of the study. To assess the validity of the questionnaire, expert judgment method was
applied. It was also noticed that some of the questions needed revision along with some additions and
deletions. The necessary amendments were then made and its content and construct validity were
assured and finally confirmed by other experts. The questionnaire consisted of 20 items. All 20 items
were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”.
Then, to determine the reliability of the questionnaire, it was sent to the organization under study. The
questionnaire was filled out by the research community belonging to middle managerial level from the
organization. After the mentioned questionnaires were filled out, the reliability of the questionnaire
was determined using Cronbach’s alpha and Pearson correlation. The overall reliability co-efficient of
the modified instrument after the pilot survey yielded an r = 0.995 Cronbach alpha, showing that the
questionnaire was reliable.
Result and Analysis
Table 1: Item Total Mean and Standard Deviation of Informal Discrimination
Variable Mean Standard Deviation
Social Exclusion 3.42 .676
Quality of Relationships between Employees 3.41 .864
Involvement/Information Sharing 3.33 .589
Opportunities to Exert Influence 3.57 .786
Glass Ceiling/Unseen Barriers 3.68 .868
The item total means and standard deviation of informal discrimination indicates that both employees
are non-committal towards the presence of informal discrimination in the organization. The overall
perception indicates that the employees are non-committal towards the existence of informal
discrimination against women in the organization
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was used to determine the sufficiency of the sample size, and Bartlet test of
sphericity was applied to calculate the meaningfulness of the correlation matrix. Then, the exploratory
factor analysis was performed with maximum probability approach to identify the rate of loading of
International Journal of Research
Volume VIII, Issue V, MAY/2019
ISSN NO:2236-6124
Page No:413
variables recognized in the component, and Varimax orthogonal approach was used to interpret the
variables. Subsequently, the confirmatory factor analysis was used, with application of Lisrel 8.7, to
verify the fitness of factors achieved during the explanatory factor analysis. The fitness indexes are as
follows: Chi square index, goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index
(NFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), incremental fit index (IFI), related fit index (RFI), adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and root mean
square residual (RMR). However, if CFI, GFI, NFI, NNFI, IFI, RFI and AGFI are higher than 0.90,
and RMSEA and RMR are less than 0.50, it proves a desirable and appropriate fitness (Alexopoulos
and Kalaitzidis, 2004).
4.1 Results
In the first step, the correlation of each identified variable and the internal consistency of all variables
were calculated in the component “Informal Discrimination” for the data.
4.1.1 Informal Discrimination of Women at Workplace
Before the explanatory factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin approach was used to determine the
sufficiency of the sample size for the component, while Bartlet test of sphericity was used to establish
whether the correlation matrix has meaningful difference with zero or not. The sufficiency of sampling
and meaningfulness of the correlation matrix for the (p<0.001), respectively. It showed that the
exploratory factor analysis was permissible. Then, the explanatory factor analysis was performed with
maximum probability approach and the variables were interpreted with Varimax rotation approach.
The results showed that three factors came out from the “Informal Discrimination” component with
special values bigger than 1. The first, second and third factors explained 11.074% and 1.452% of the
total variances of variables, respectively. Therefore, these three factors explained 62.628% of the total
variances of variables for the component “Informal Discrimination” from various organizations.
Regarding this component, the following variables formed the 1st factor:
1. Social Exclusion
2. Glass Ceiling/Unseen Barriers
The 2nd factor was formed by the following variables:
1. Quality of Relationships between Employees
2. Opportunities to Exert Influence
3. Involvement/Information Sharing
International Journal of Research
Volume VIII, Issue V, MAY/2019
ISSN NO:2236-6124
Page No:414
Table 2: Informal Discrimination of Women at Workplace
Variable First Factor Second Factor T
Value
R2
Social Exclusion
.656 5.66 .65
Involvement/Information
Sharing
.400 6.79 .89
Quality of Relationships between
Employees
.990 5.68 .53
Opportunities to Exert Influence .579 4.76 .67
Glass Ceiling/Unseen Barriers .760 6.30 .34
* t>1.96.
In Table 2, the confirmatory factor analysis was made with the use of the software “Lisrel 8.7” for
‘Informal Discrimination’ and then the fitness of the factors achieved was determined (Table 2).
Subsequent to the earlier stated stage, the first and second factors of the component “Informal
Discrimination” were the approved factors named: “Marginalization and Invisible Hurdles” and
“Quality of Relationships, involvement and exercising influence” respectively.
Discussion
The results indicated that the two factors which emerged from the research study for informal
discrimination. The first factor was called “marginalization and invisible hurdles” and the second
one was “quality of relationships, involvement and failure to exercising influence”. The confirmatory
factor analysis for the data, too, indicated that the structural model of these factors was proper.
The findings of this research proved that the components identified and the structural relations
presented as regards the component, “informal discrimination of women at workplace” were
suitable.
REFERENCES
1. Richards, J. R. (2012). The Sceptical Feminist (RLE Feminist Theory): A Philosophical Enquiry.
Routledge.
2. Willey, B., (2000), Employment law in context, England: Pearson Education limited.
3. Ross, E., (2008), Employment relations Third Ed., London, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
International Journal of Research
Volume VIII, Issue V, MAY/2019
ISSN NO:2236-6124
Page No:415
4. Ashbrook, T. (2013, September 03). Women, The Workplace, And 'Second Generation' Gender Bias.
Retrieved from http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/09/03/women-workplace
5. Williams, J., Manvell, J., & Bornstein, S. (2007). " Opt Out" Or Pushed Out?: How the Press Covers
Work/family Conflict: the Untold Story of why Women Leave the Workforce. Center for WorkLife
Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
6. Thornton, M. (2016). Work/life or work/work? Corporate legal practice in the twenty-first century.
International journal of the legal profession, 23(1), 13-39.
7. Rhode, D. L. (2011). From platitudes to priorities: diversity and gender equity in law firms. Geo. J.
Legal Ethics, 24, 1041.
8. Williams, J. C., & Richardson, V. (2010). New Millennium, Same Glass Ceiling-The Impact of Law
Firm Compensation Systems on Women. Hastings LJ, 62, 597.
9. Stone, P. (2008). Opting out?: Why women really quit careers and head home. Univ of
10. Koshal, M., Gupta, A. K., &Koshal, R. (1998). Women in management: A Malaysian perspective.
Women in management review, 13(1), 11-18.
11. Fernandez, J. L. (2009). Intra-occupational gender earnings gaps in Malaysia. JurnalKemanusiaan,
7(2).
12. Mun, E. (2010). Sex typing of jobs in hiring: Evidence from Japan. Social forces, 88(5), 1999-2026.
13. Hutchings, K. (2000). Class and gender influences on employment practices in Thailand: an
examination of equity policy and practice. Women in Management review, 15(8), 385-403.
14. Carr, P. L., Ash, A. S., Friedman, R. H., Szalacha, L., Barnett, R. C., Palepu, A., & Moskowitz, M.
M. (2003). Faculty perceptions of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in academic
medicine. Annals of internal medicine, 132(11), 889-896.
15. Welle, B andHeilman, M.E. (2007). Formal and informal discrimination against women at work: the
role of gender stereotypes in managing social and ethical issues in organizations. - Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publ., ISBN 978-1-59311-555-5., p. 229-252
16. Wood, G. (2008). Gender stereotypical attitudes. Past, present and future influences on women’s
career advancement. Equal Opportunities International, 27(7), 613-628.
17. Bible, D., & Hill, K. L. (2007). Discrimination: Women in business. Journal of Organizational
Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11(1), 65-76.
18. Hagan, J., & Kay, F. M. (2010). The masculine mystique: Living large from law school to later life.
Canadian Journal of Law & Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit etSociété, 25(2), 195-226.
International Journal of Research
Volume VIII, Issue V, MAY/2019
ISSN NO:2236-6124
Page No:416