corporate gender discrimination
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Corporate Gender Discrimination
![Page 2: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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.
![Page 3: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Objective• To validate the existence of corporate gender bias, in the
Indian context.Glass ceiling,Sexual harassment,Unequal pay,Preconceived notions of leadership.
![Page 4: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
HypothesisNull Hypothesis (H0) Alternate Hypothesis (H1)
A significant gender bias does not exist at the workplace.
A significant gender bias exists at the workplace.
![Page 7: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Model DevelopmentIndependent variable Gender bias at the workplace
Dependent variables
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
![Page 8: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Data analysis and discussion
![Page 9: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Data reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha
Number of items
.726 20
![Page 10: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
FACTOR ANALYSIS
![Page 11: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
![Page 15: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Limitation
Sensitive questions may have avoided the respondents to give honest opinion.
![Page 20: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Recommendations• Corporate training in gender sensitivity is therefore
recommended
• Gender neutral environment at early stages of life in school and at home.
![Page 21: Corporate gender discrimination](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062300/553a73eb4a7959eb2d8b4576/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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