The Effect Of Gender Partiality On Employees Efficiency Business Essay

The swerve of gender partiality is deep rooted in the past; however, it has become a veering trend in present day organizations. Consequently, employees across the globe are experiencing pronounced victimization of sexual partiality in one way or the other. The large scale precarious implications of the menace also entail the need for studying its repercussions in Pakistani organizational culture. Hence, this study is intended to explore and colligate various constituents and attributes of gender partiality, responsible for affecting the workforce efficiency. Primarily, two lineaments of sexual partiality are delineated in this research i.e. bias in recruitment, and rewards and promotions discrimination (independent variables). The study demonstrates the association between gender partiality and employee’s efficiency / productivity (dependent variable) in Pakistani telecommunication sector, narrowed down to Mobilink GSM (Islamabad and Peshawar regions as unit of analysis). The quantitative results portray inauspicious effects of sexual bias on efficiency / productivity of the employees. The study has also been incorporated with several indicators of gender partiality and employee’s performance / productivity. The indicators of employee’s performance / productivity are perceived to neutralize the gender bias, subject to the existence of organizational justice. The study in hand encourages further exploration with regard to instituting and implementing the concept of organizational justice, so as to safeguard the endangered species of human Resource from inequalities like gender partiality.

Key Words

Sexual partiality, Glass ceiling, Organizational justice, Employee efficiency, Organizational productivity

Type

Research paper

Introduction

Morgan (2006) condignly observes employees as valuable assets that can lend cachet to the organizational image, provided they are given equal and appropriate grounds to contribute in the activities of organization (p. 36). Organizational productivity thus, undoubtedly entails the need for induction of quality workforce. Subsequently, to ensure sustenance of the human resource and to align their capabilities with the organizational goals, effective tanning, and conducive working environment, equilibrate grant of privileges / rewards, creation of opportunities for future growth, and equality on the basis of performance and capability are the inevitable essentials. This is possible only if equality prevails in organizations; free of all sorts of biasness and discrimination, gender partiality in particular. Gender discrimination exists in various dimensions and magnitudes, subjected to the organizational culture and managerial antecedences. Besides other aspects, sexual partiality at work place may comprise of recruitment discrimination, biasness in remuneration and rewards, partiality in promotions, and facilitation ascribed to gender based discrimination. Employee, being the pivot of organizational activities, if affected by gender partiality, may experience occupationalism displacing selflessness and altruism. Resultantly, big question mark appears when it comes to Organizational Justice. Injustice makes it difficult for employees to obtain valued outcomes at work. In fact, it signals to employees that they are not valued by their organization. Resultantly, important social norms are jeopardized. Thus it seems likely that organizational justice perceptions may mediate the effects of workplace discrimination on well-being and job satisfaction (Stephan, Johan, & Karen, 2012).

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Purpose of the study

The study in hand will inquire into factors resulting gender discrimination and the precarious implications of gender bias on employee’s productivity. This study is an attempt to establish a nexus with the past researches and reveal the vital factor of gender partiality which is significantly liable for reducing the workforce productivity. Thus providing a food for thought to different tiers of management so as to address the issue efficaciously. This study has been extended to Pakistani organizational culture to test and ascertain the effects of gender partiality. Employees (both genders) of Mobilink GSM (Islamabad and Peshawar regions) constitute the population sample for this study. The purpose of including both men and women in the sample is to eliminate the possible gender distinction in attributions to sexual partiality. From the target’s viewpoint, majority of scholars and researchers centering upon gender partiality account for female as the target, and focus on women participants alone. Thus, in contributing to research concentrating upon gender studies, it is inevitable to examine men’s attributions to sexism and that how men’s and women’s ascription to sexual partiality can be compared to each other.

Literature Review

Researchers have identified several forms of sexual partiality in organizations originating from unjust practices of the employer. In literature pertaining to organizational research, notwithstanding the fact that gender related problems were initially exposed in 1950s, but the issues relating sexual partiality were later more pronounced in organizational and management studies during 1980s & 1990s.

Sexism or sexual partiality

World Health Organization (1998) defines sexism as a distinction, exclusion, or restriction which is made primarily on the foundation of socially built gender functions and norms. The terminology of “sexual identity” holds several illustrations and connections, only few of which transpire within an intergroup structure. Traditional concepts of sexual identity ordinarily refer to an early consciousness of a person as man or women. More recently, an additional notion of gender identity has emerged, one that emphasizes gender as a social / collective identity or gender-derived social identity (Sharon, Hang, & Raymond, 2006).

Victims of gender partiality

Sexism or gender discrimination is often attributed to women; however if practically observed, the phenomenon can be seen imputed to both genders. The intrinsically prejudiced practice of sexual discrimination has affected the global markets precariously. Jennifer (2002) argues that male models of strength and authority within organizations do not have room for the meliorations female bring into the workplace, managerial level in particular. In addition, stereotyping of the female as ‘different’ to male further encourages marginalizing and undermining their dominance and authority.

On the contrary, several researchers grade the feminine gender more dominating when it comes to recruitment and subsequent career progressions. Similar notion has been made by James, Charles and Catherine (1998). They maintain that women have the ability to be considered more likeable than men; though this is a feature which is generally distributed among both men and women. Many of the profession progressing strategies demand for developing relationships with others. Regardless of the sexuality, an individual who is not graded high on the personality measure of likeability would have comparatively lesser likelihood of developing and maintaining relationships with the others. Contrarily, individuals with likeable personalities would have more opportunities to pursue career progressing strategies, entailing relationship building and socializing.

Gender discrimination frequently can be seen in different organizations. Most of the organizations are suffering from such problem of discrimination related to gender. Though there are different laws and polices developed by different countries about gender discrimination. But there is no implication of these laws in real context. Women perceived that they are not rated in a justified manner related to training, appraisals, and career development opportunities as compare to men (Blau, 1998; Blau, Ferber, & Winkler, 1998).

Societal trends

Gretchen & Courtney (2009) are more concerned with the “source” of discrimination. They maintain that the responses of men and women for inquiries pertaining to sexual partiality may differ. Their responses will be subjected to whether the source of biasness is an individual or a policy decision / rule. Researchers have established that victims of gender partiality are mostly compulsive or reluctant to highlight the sexual inequality they experience at workplace. This elucidates that one of the prime reason for presence of gender discrimination is the tendency of individuals not to surface the practice of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the individual’s inability to report this kind of discrimination is more pronounced in countries like Pakistan; whereby, human resource (females in particular) is comparatively less vocal. Furthermore, sexual favoritism at workplace may give birth to gender discrimination, affecting the workforce in terms of career (progression) opportunities.

Antecolet. (2009) is of the point of view that both men and women are dissatisfied with their jobs who experience gender discrimination at workplace. Though according to the results, employment status of male employees is significantly connected to their marital status. On the other hand, employment status of the female is significantly subjected to their performance and productivity.

Females are not discriminated on the basis of conscious decision of the management but most of the time management have some precautions about hiring of females for highly responsible posts because it is a general assumption about women that they are to fulfill their family obligations, so they are not suitable for vital designation of organizations (Crompton & Birkelund, 2000; Glass, 2000; Waldfogel, 1998).

Gender discrimination is not specific for female but often males are also victims of gender discrimination. It depends on the marital status, married males have more chances of getting jobs rather than females. On the other hand, unmarried females have more chances of being selected by the organization than unmarried males (Petersen & Togstad, 2006).

Sexual favoritism and gender partiality

Sexual favoritism and gender partiality / discrimination are often similarly perceived. However, Glenn, James M., & James F (2006) have befittingly differentiated the two. They delineate that sexual favoritism entangles the discerning grant of a gain or opportunity at the workplace; in contrast, sexual partiality / discrimination usually involves the restraining of benefits or opportunities dependent upon an individual’s gender. At the workplace, when romance involves sexual favoritism, it is important to comprehend the cause and extent of the presence of such favoritism i.e. whether this favoritism can give way to other employees (who are not directly involved in the illicit relationship) for claiming themselves as the victims of sexual harassment. This concludes that sexual favoritism and gender partiality bear both direct and indirect implications for employees. Whether favoritism on the basis of sex remains a legitimate shape of discrimination, or whether sexual favoritism stretches to the extent of a restricted form of sexual partiality, is an important question which can only be answered through comprehending the definition of sexual harassment.

Glass ceiling during recruitment

Gender discrimination is also termed as glass ceiling. Most of the time sexual partiality begins with the entry of employees (recruitment) in any organization. At the time of recruitment, men are preferred for strategic posts or decision making hierarchal levels while females are mostly preferred for support roles or for selling jobs because organizations have intent to

in cash the appearance of female for enhancement of sales (McDowell, 1997).

Gender bias during career progression

In broader concept, gender segregation does not mean segregation in terms of gender but it means segregation in terms of incentive for performance. For instance, males and females are hired for the same post they are segregated in terms of salary and other incentives (Petersen & Saporta, 2004). The connotation is that sexual discrimination is not associated to the recruitment process alone; in fact, it continues across the entire professional careers of individuals.

Effects of sexual biasness

Stephan, Johan, & Karen (2012) have explained discrimination as the prejudicial handling of individuals. Generally, it is based on association with a certain division or group. Because of discrimination, there is a likelihood of negative effects on the employees’ productivity, well-being and health. They have also mentioned various grounds of workplace discrimination by calling it a systematic refusal of employees’ rights based upon their ethnic affiliation, religion, age, sexual preferences, gender, or other criteria. These bases for sexual partiality may consequently lead to more colloquial verbal maltreatment, making reference to the mentioned attributes.

Böckerman & Ilmakunnas (2006) have effectively illustrated the adverse effects of gender partiality on the performance of employees. Clegg (1983) has also highlighted the negative impacts which gender inequality brings to the employee’s performance. These researchers specifically consider it critical to determine the effects of sexual partiality on the employees’ turnover, job satisfaction, and absenteeism, vis-à-vis the firm’s performance and productivity. Generally, women are less motivated towards their jobs because of gender discrimination. They have less decision making-power, receive less training sessions and are promoted fewer than men.

Sharon, Hang, & Raymond (2006) befittingly sketch the precarious repercussions of sexual discrimination, whereby, employees become discontented and demotivated. They believe that when employees consider themselves as victims of sexual discrimination, their commitment to the organization would be significantly reduced. Resultantly, such individuals would be keen to leave the organization in the pursuit of jobs, where organizations can treat them with more respect and equality.

Organizational justice

Hilary, (2012) makes a firm argument with reference to sexual partiality by calling it differences in human capital investment and stresses upon the need for organizational justice to overcome the peril of glass ceiling / sexual partiality. “Debate continues to swirl, not only around the size of the gap, but around whether the gap is unfair or fair: whether it reflects discrimination visited on women or simply differences in human capital “investments” that women and men bring to the workplace. In this debate, there is a concern, implicitly grounded in the tenets of an equity-based approach to distributive justice, with finding the correct, gender-neutral way to measure equal units of input from women and men so we can fairly assess whether their outcomes (in terms of pay) are equivalent”.

With reference to other literature available on the subject, similar notions are proposed in addressing the issues related to effective tanning, conducive working environment, equilibrate grant of privileges / rewards, creation of opportunities for future growth, and equality on the basis of performance and capability.

HYPOTHESIS

Following hypothesis is proposed for this study:

H1: Sexism is directly associated with employee’s efficiency / productivity.

H2: Gender partiality during induction is adversely related to the employee’s productivity.

H3: Sexual partiality in promotion is adversely proportional to efficiency / productivity of the employee.

H4: Personality and age of the employee, and societal tendency have negative influence on employee’s efficiency through gender discrimination.

H5: Employee’s productivity is positively affected by his / her professional ability and motivation.

Proposed Model

The model illustrated below proposes relationship between independent variable (gender discrimination) and dependent variable (performance and productivity) .

Gender Discrimination in Hiring

Gender Bias in Rewards and Promotion

Employee Performance

Employee Productivity

Professional ability

Motivation

Personality

Age

Societal trend

Independent variables

Dependent variable

Indicators

Methodology

The study is based upon analysis of data acquired through quantitative technique of data collection; i.e. acquisition of data through questionnaires. The selection of variables is influenced by the past research studies. The analysis are applied on both independent and dependent types of variables; gender discrimination being the independent variable, whereas, Productivity is the dependent variable. Employees of the organization (Mobilink GSM) serve as the unit of analysis.

Data Collection Method: In order to execute a more austere test of the proposed model, data has been acquired from diversified respondents through questionnaire. A personally supervised questionnaire has been employed for data collection.

Sample: The questionnaire has been personally administered through the concerned people. Out of a total of 360 distributed questionnaires, 300 questionnaires have been received back, resulting into a response rate of 83%. The prime reason for engaging both men and women as respondents is to ensure elimination of biased responses. The varied responses received from the population sample are summarized below:-

Characteristics of sample

S No

Items

Items

Frequency

1

Gender

Female

163

Male

137

45.6

2

Age

21-30

31-40

260

86.7

41-50

28

9.3

51-60

1

0.3

3

Income

25001-50,000

50,001-75000

80

above 75000

212

4

Qualification

Graduate

Postgraduate

152

Measures: In this study, standardized instruments have been instituted to measure different variables. Multiple scales have been used to gauge the variables i.e. five likert scale, nominal scale, and ratio. All the items have been measured on a 5-point Likert scale as mentioned below:

(a) Strongly Disagree

(b) Disagree

(c) Neutral

(d) Agree

(e) Strongly Agree

Data Analysis: Quantitative method of data collection has been used for subsequent analysis of the research findings. SPSS Version 20 has been used for analysis of the data.

Correlation: Kendall’s tau correlation has been applied on the data. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient, commonly termed as Kendall’s tau (Ï„) coefficient, is a statistic for gauging the relationship between two measured quantities. It is a measure of rank correlation, i.e. the commonality of the data orderings when ranked.

tau = frac{(text{number of concordant pairs}) – (text{number of discordant pairs})}{frac{1}{2} n (n-1) } .

The denominator is the total number pair combinations, so the coefficient must be in the range −1 â‰¤ Ï„ â‰¤ 1. If the relationship between two gradings is perfect (i.e. the two rankings are similar) the coefficient has value 1. However, if the disagreement amongst two rankings is perfect (i.e. one ranking is reversed to the other one) the coefficient possesses value −1. If X and Y are independent, then the coefficient should be approximately zero.

Regression: Least squares method is most commonly used for fitting of a regression line. This method measures the best-fitting line for the acquired data by reducing the total of the squares of vertical deviations from individual data point to the line (if a point falls exactly on the fitted line, then its vertical deviation is zero). Since the deviations are initially squared and then summed, there are no chances of cancellations between positive and negative figures.

Therefore, the proposed research model with control / dummy variables is depicted as following:-

Y = β0+ β 1X1+ β 2X2+µ

Y= Dependent Variable = Employee performance and productivity

X1 = Independent Variable = Gender discrimination in hiring

X2 = Independent Variable = Gender bias in rewards and promotion

B0, B1, B2 = Parameters

µ = Error Term

Results of the Study

The quantitative tools instituted for data evaluation are correlation and regression analysis through SPSS. Descriptive analysis has been performed to present various impression of the respondents i.e., how they respond to the questions. Correlation co-efficient illustrates the firmness of relationship between the variables. The results of this study establish a linear relationship between efficiency / productivity and gender partiality. Regression analysis has been used to ascertain the cause & affect relationship between the employee’s efficiency / productivity and gender discrimination.

Correlation: Correlation statistics depicts the association between the variables. It ascertains whether the variables move in similar or opposing directions. It is observed that the employee’s performance and productivity (dependent variable) is highly significant but negatively associated with gender partiality in hiring and gender bias in rewards and promotion. Collinearity statistics portrays possibility c of multicollinearity of the data; however, variance inflation factor (VIF) which testifies the multicollinearity, establishes the absence of multicollinearity for the reason that all the values of VIF are less than 10 and tolerance values are below one.

Bivariate Kendall’s tau Correlations coefficient matrix

Gen_discr_hiring

Gen_bias_rew_pro

Gen_discr_hiring

1.000

Gen_bias_rew_pro

.383**

1.000

Emp_perf_prod

-.667**

-.613**

* p<0.005, ** p<0.001

Gen_discr_hiring = Gender discrimination in hiring

Gen_bias_rew_pro = Gender bias in reward and promotion

Emp_perf_prod = Employee performance and promotion

Regression: The relationship between dependent and independent variables is established through the Regression test. Regression results illustrate the significance of regression model and its informative power. Three step mediation and moderation techniques have been used for data analysis.

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

B

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

.163

.099

1.645

Gen_discr_hiring

-.525

.029

-.608

17.895

Gen_bias_rew_pro

-.504

.046

-.375

11.014

Dependent Variable: Emp_perf_prod

Y = 0.163-0.362X1-0.341X2+µ

Results suggest that one unit change in gender partiality in hiring is changing (0.163-0.525=0.362) units of employee’s performance and productivity on average. One unit increase in gender bias in rewards and promotion is decreasing the employee’s performance and productivity (0.163-0.504=0.341) units on average.

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

F

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.932a

.869

.868

984.338

.18682

The regression analysis depicts that the value of R Square is 0.869. Thus, 86.1 % variation in employee’s performance and productivity is explained by the variables in this research; whereas, 14.9 % variation is ascribed to the factors not incorporated in this model. The value of F is 984.338 and is considerably significant, establishing the fitness of the model. The results of the study present significant impact of the variables on employee’s performance and productivity.

Findings of the study

The results of the study justify the tested hypothesis. They establish that gender partiality is directly associated with employee’s efficiency / productivity (H1). Besides, gender biasness during induction and promotion adversely affects the employee’s efficiency and productivity (H2 and H3). The research also identifies personality and age of the employee as vital indicators of sexism (H4). However, qualification, professional ability, and motivation are suggested as the significant indicators of employee’s efficiency, subjected to the organizational justice (H5).

Limitations of the study

The quantitative method of data acquisition is considered as one of the limitations of this research since it eliminates the element of subjectivity, which is essential to cover diversified aspects and varied off-shoots through detailed responses. Therefore, future researches are encouraged to simultaneously employ both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection for ensuring improved results with reference to this vast domain of gender discrimination vis-à-vis employee’s productivity. Secondly, the study targeted employees of Mobilink GSM deployed at Islamabad and Peshawar regions as the unit of analysis. Thus, restricting the responses to comparatively

non-diversified target population. This was because of the inaccessibility to locations like Karachi and Islamabad. For improved results, future work may incorporate responses from such demographically diversified locations.

Conclusions

The term “Employee” does not contain illustration of the gender (male / female). Therefore, partiality on the basis of gender must be considered as an illicit practice at all levels. Besides other factors, organizational output is primarily ascribed to the efficiency and productivity of the workforce. The study in hand clearly portrays the decline in altruistic trends and reclines in selfless behavior of the employees, if dealt with sexism / gender partiality. Therefore, it is of paramount importance for all tears of management to ensure gender equality in recruitment, rewards and promotions, and facilitations. This will surely help them acquiring and retaining the best available human resource to ensure enhanced organizational productivity. It will however, be subjected to the presence of organizational justice and equality. The study, culminating on establishing the dire need for implementation and execution of organizational justice, hence promotes further exploration pertaining to the concept of organizational justice.