Corporate Gender Discrimination

Introduction• There have been attempts to recuperate female’s working

conditions, yet inequality remains.

• The process of creating gender equality is slow or completely at a halt.

• The famous “glass- ceiling” is not a myth but a sad reality of the 21st century corporate world.

• The mere image of males is a synonym of good manger.

Objective• To validate the existence of corporate gender bias, in the

Indian context.Glass ceiling,Sexual harassment,Unequal pay,Preconceived notions of leadership.

Research methodology

• Questionnaire development: 20 questions The responses to these statements were anchored on a 5 point

Likert scale with 1 indicating a “strong disagreement” and 5 indicating a “strong agreement” with the statement.

• Data collection:110 respondents.Tri- city area (Panchkula, Chandigarh, Mohali)Only working individuals were approached.

Profile of RespondentsVariable Categories of

variableFrequency Percentage

Gender

Male

55

50

Female

55

50

Age

20-35

68

61.81

35-50

34

30.9

50+ 8

7.27

HypothesisNull Hypothesis (H0) Alternate Hypothesis (H1)

A significant gender bias does not exist at the workplace.

A significant gender bias exists at the workplace.

Model DevelopmentIndependent variable Gender bias at the workplace

Dependent variables

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

Data analysis and discussion

Data reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha

Number of items

.726 20

FACTOR ANALYSIS

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

.837

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square504.519

Df120

Sig..000

Factor IBias related to promotions and opportunities

6.712 47.02

Female employees face a “glass ceiling” at the workplace

.919

Females are more likely to fall off the management ladder before reaching the top.

.872

Decisions concerning whom to give the opportunity to are gender sensitive.

.800

Organizations provide increasingly support to females as they travel up the management ladder.

.712

Male bosses are preferred over female bosses.

.610

Females are considered unfit for and hence denied challenging roles.

.515

Factor IISkill related bias

2.514 54.19

Females don't have the same managerial skills as males

.813

Emotional nature of females interferes with their work performance.

.717

Females should not have jobs require extensive travel or involve spending a good deal of time away from home.

.591

Male candidates are preferred for mathematical tasks and female candidates for verbal tasks.

.506

Factor IIIBias due to dual roles.

1.717 67.04

Single females are preferred over married females.

.714

Females frequently blur the line between personal life and professional life.

.703

A female’s family responsibilities act as hurdles to her professional commitment.

.590

Female leaders are more likely to ignore rules and take risks.

.519

Factor IVEconomic inequity

1.542 72.39

Females should be paid equal pay for equal amount of work done.

.618

Economic policies disfavor women.

.603

Career goals are taken less seriously at work place in case of females

.511

Factor VHarassment

1.107 77.16

Male initiated verbal harassment against female employees is common at the workplace

.745

Mistakes made by females are judged more harshly as compared to their male counterparts.

.616

Human resources personnel are likely to select a female candidate based on appearance.

.501

Result of hypothesisFactor labels

Unstandardized regression coefficients

Standardized regression coefficients

T Significance

(p-value)

Collinearitystatistics

B Standard Error

Beta Tolerance

VIF

I -.302 .044 -.436 -7.911 .000* .639 1.519

II .012 .043 .031 .646 .744 .613 1.569

III -.080 .049 -.134 -1.891 .059 .632 1.547

IV -.009 .037 -.030 -.158 .875 .701 1.369

V .056 -.452 -6.111 .002 .601 1.211

Intercept (constant) = 2.667R-square = .281Adjusted R-square = .270

ANOVA for regression

Sources of variation

Sum of squares

Mean square

Computed F Significance

Regression12.700 4.725 25.661 .000

Residual52.154 .175

Total51.044

Limitation

Sensitive questions may have avoided the respondents to give honest opinion.

Recommendations• Corporate training in gender sensitivity is therefore

recommended

• Gender neutral environment at early stages of life in school and at home.

Conclusion

Gender bias in the corporate set up is not a myth; rather it is a harsh reality. The hypothesis is proved correct.Can be divided into:• Maternal barrier

• Double paradigm

• Double truss

• Ambivalent sexism