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)

[email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

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)



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



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



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



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.



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.



ISSN NO:2236-6124

Page No:416

informal discrimination against women at workplace …ijrpublisher.com/gallery/54-may-1198.pdf ·...

Documents