The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

JMD
33,2
Equality in the workplace: a
study of gender issues in
Indian organisations
90 Neeraj Kaushik
National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, India
Anita Sharma
BLS College of Education, Bahadurgarh, India, and
Veerander Kumar Kaushik
Technological Institute of Textile & Sciences, Bhiwani, India

Abstract
Purpose – In developing countries like India, changing economic and social condition necessitated
working of women irrespective of their religion, class or social status. But at the same time, it raised
number of related issues like managing for family adjustment, working environment, etc. The purpose
of this paper is to study gender issues like gender stereotype, gender discrimination and sexual
harassment in the context of Indian environment.
Design/methodology/approach – A structured questionnaire was developed to collect primary
data from 500 firms in India. The data collected through questionnaire was coded and tabulated
keeping in context with the objective of the study and was analysed by calculating frequencies, factor
analysis and one way analysis of variance.
Findings – Results elucidate seven job-related factors (infrastructure, HR functions, organisational
climate, legal pursuit, empowerment, training and development and ethical concerns) and two
individual factors (interpersonal and mindset) that are considered essential for women employees in
Indian organisations. Analysis indicates that though age and level of management has no significant
effect on these factors but male and female respondents differ significantly on their opinion regarding
these issues.
Research limitations/implications – The respondents in present study have been taken mainly
from service sector, manufacturing sector and education sector, thus the study looks at only organised
sector. The research work suffers from the usual limitations of survey research method.
Practical implications – With women becoming an integral part of the workforce, managers must
examine their reliance on stereotypical views concerning women. Gender is a socio-cultural
phenomenon and organisations are a key aspect of a given culture. Organisational analysis needs to
take into account the relationship between gender, gender stereotypes and organisational life.
Originality/value – The paper studies gender issues of gender stereotype, gender discrimination and
sexual harassment on a pan India basis covering various sectors and contribute to the subject from
Indian perspective.
Keywords Sexual harassment, Gender discrimination, Gender stereotype
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Management Development
Vol. 33 No. 2, 2014
pp. 90-106
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/JMD-11-2013-0140
1. Introduction
The World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Report states “no country in the world
has yet managed to eliminate the gender gap” (Hausmann et al., 2006; Kelan, 2008).
Research on gender and organisations has analysed the emergence, persistence and
transformation of gender discrimination in detail. Through supposedly gender neutral
but often very masculine norms and practices, organisations not only become gendered
but are also places in which one gender is consistently seen as second best. Gender
discrimination thus continues to hold sway (Kelan, 2008). Gender awareness is
incorporated, acknowledged and taken into consideration but is simultaneously Gender issues
repudiated and disavowed (Gill, 2002, 2007). Research on sex stereotypes suggests that in Indian
gender bias is an invisible barrier – the so-called glass ceiling – preventing women
from breaking into the highest levels of management in business organisations organisations
(Pichler et al., 2008; Seet et al., 2008). To increase the representation and participation of
women in organisations, workplaces must become more inclusive. For such change to
be successful and sustainable, organisations must systematically break down the 91
barriers constraining women’s participation and effectiveness; improve their prevailing
structures, policies and practices; and engender transformation in their climates
(Bilimoria et al., 2008).
India is one of the fastest emerging economies and women are increasingly playing
an important role. Recent statistics reveals that in India, the proportion of women in
technical education as well as in employment is increasing. From a low enrolment
of 1 per cent in 1970s the enrolment of women engineers in India as a whole increased
to about 16 per cent in 1998. The total number of women employees increased from
3.64 millions in 1990 to 4.94 millions in 2001 (Khandelwal, 2005) and 5 million in 2005
(Economic Survey, 2007). The share of women employees at the beginning of
twenty-first century in public, private and total organised sector was 16.11, 24.78 and
18.95 percentage points, respectively (Economic Survey, 2007). Thus it is important to
study the equality in workplace among Indian organisations.
This paper studies equality in workplace in terms of stereotype mindset towards
gender, gender discrimination towards various HR functions, and sexual harassment in
Indian organisations. The paper consists of five sections including this introductory
part. Section 2, gives the theoretical background for the study whereas part three lays
down the research design. Findings and discussions are covered in Section 4. The last
part consists of managerial implications, concluding remarks and directions for
future research.

2. Theoretical background
The Kelly Services, a global staffing provider, conducted a survey in 2006 and sought
the view of approximately 70,000 jobseekers in 28 countries including almost 2,000 in
India. Survey result shows that discrimination in India was found to be relatively high
by global standards, with India ranking fifth on the list of 28 countries (ENS Economic
Bureau, 2006). Sweden, Thailand and Singapore ranked highest in the worldwide
study, while Hong Kong, followed by Indonesia, were the lowest amongst the eight
countries surveyed in the Asia-Pacific region. In all, 13 per cent people reported gender
to be the major source of prejudice. Approximately 18 per cent of women and
12 per cent of men reported gender discrimination when applying for work. In another
survey conducted for the premier Indian Business School, IIM-Ahmedabad batch of
1989, findings revealed that out of 22 women managers seven had given up their career
to become homemakers. Around 10 per cent have chosen to be single and another 10
per cent have married but had no children to focus on their careers. Another interesting
finding of this survey was that women who married their batchmates from IIM-A are
most likely to give up their careers (Ganguly, 2002).
Women historically have been denied access, opportunity and inclusion, and have
endeavoured low professional visibility and status, and scholarly recognition and
achievement (Hinton, 2001). Traditionally woman was kept away from the pace of
development for one reason or the other. Surprising these reasons are found to be
identical in all civic societies. Unlike “sex” which is biological, “gender” is a socially
JMD constructed category. Depending on the context, it may manifest itself along different
33,2 dimensions in a whole range of different ways. In the language of econometrics, one
could say that “gender” is a “latent” variable, in principle unobserved and
unobservable. Gender issues include gender role stereotype, gender discrimination,
glass ceiling and sexual harassment. Though the first three are social in nature arising
out of male chauvinism, last one is more of individualist in nature. Woman in Indian
92 society is facing all of these issues. These gender issues are pondered as under:

Gender stereotypes
Gender stereotypes is defined as a shared set of beliefs about purported qualities
of females and males. Boys are generally attributed to be strong, aggressive and the
leaders whereas the girls are being attributed as weak, passive and hence followers.
Gender stereotypes have been investigated at two levels: sex-roles stereotypes and
sex-trait stereotypes (William and Bennett, 1975). Sex-role stereotypes are beliefs
about the appropriateness of various roles and discriminating activities for men and
women; whereas sex-trait stereotypes are beliefs that “psychological and behavioural
characteristics” describe majority of men than the majority of women.
A survey conducted among 50 management students in Kerala (Michael, 2007)
regarding the roles of man and woman in any context demonstrate that the stereotype
roles of men are to be bread earner, strong, security provider, entrepreneur and
responsible; while women roles are perceived as of homemaker, family caretaker,
emotional, reproduction and cook. These results validates that while there is no doubt
that sex-roles stereotypes are held and used by people all the times, women are on the
average perceived more negatively than men (Ashmore and Del Boca, 1986). These
types of gender stereotypes about women affect their advancement at workplace also.
Women are hired for “Traditional” women’s positions that are low paying (report on
Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace in Bulgaria, 1999) with
little opportunity for advancement.
Socially and traditionally there is a difference in the perception of seeing a woman
at work compared to their male counterparts (Pichler et al., 2008; Michael, 2007).
A cross-cultural study on 25 countries found that in all the countries women were
described as sentimental, submissive and superstitious (William and Best, 1990).
Some dogmatic beliefs are that women are incompatible with high pressure and high
demanding jobs; being emotionally weak, a woman cannot take high pressure workload,
cannot be tough taskmaster; travelling and overnight for business purpose is a constrain
for woman. Even minor symbols like family photo on the desk of a man is viewed as
gentleman while for woman it is perceived as her life’s focal point is home not career
(Michael, 2007). The review of existing research shows that women’s business leadership
cannot be understood using traditional (male oriented) framework of business analysis
as significant difference have been found (Seet et al., 2008) in skills, business goals,
management styles, business characteristics and growth rates; which suggest that
women perceive and approach business differently than men (Brush, 1991). In the light of
above discussions the authors have formulated the following hypothesis:

H1. People in general have stereotype mindset towards gender.

Gender discrimination
Discrimination in employment means treating people differently because of
characteristics that are not related to their merit or the requirement of the job.
These characteristics include races, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national Gender issues
extraction. According to ILO Director General, “Discrimination at work is a violation in Indian
of human rights that literally waste human talents, with detrimental effects on
productivity and economic growth”. Legally and socially all human beings are organisations
supposed to be treated equally but by looking at the gender distribution in workplace,
it becomes evident that reality is somewhat different (Super, 2008). Economic Survey
2003 represent that in the year 2001, in public sector for every 1,000 men there were 93
only 176 women working in organised sector. The respective figure for private sector
was 319. Given the female-male ratio (FMR) of 0.93 for the population, we can predict
that as per normal population distribution, out of every 1,930 employees in organised
sector there should be 1,000 men and 930 women. But in actual, in the year 2001 in
public sector, out of 1,930 employees, 1,754 were men and 176 women (Khandelwal,
2005). This shows the true picture of gender discrimination prevalent in the society.
Further, discrimination exists in terms of services. Research from the organisational
behaviour literature indicates that women performing a traditionally masculine task
were treated as more deserving of rewards than were their equally performing male
counterparts (Taynor and Deaux, 1973; Bellizzi and Hite, 1989). Studies revealed that
female employees might not actually receive higher rewards when actually
compensated (Terborg and Ilgen, 1975) and even if females and males did not differ
in terms of performance evaluations, it is not likely that they receive equal benefits
(Mobley, 1982). In terms of punishment, research showed that male tend to be criticised
more often than females and were reprimanded more harshly (Rozema and Gray, 1987),
and boys received more criticism than girls (Dweck et al., 1978). Even in giving
incorrect answers, girls were often praised for their efforts.
Glass ceiling, yet another outcome of gender discrimination, is a term coined by
Americans during early 1970s to describe the phenomena of social and organisational
prejudiced attitudes that create artificial barriers preventing women reaching senior
executive positions. With the kind of educational parity women achieved in the late 1960s
and 1970s, it was expected that women would make it quickly to the top. However, such
expectations did not really materialise, particularly at the top level. One of the reasons for
women hindered upward movement is the prevalence of too many male executives at the
top acting as a ceiling for the women reaching the top. In USA women constituted around
46 per cent of the total workforce, but their occupancy at the top level was only 2 per cent
(Michael, 2007). The findings of Grant Thornton International Business Report said 38
per cent of businesses do not have any woman in senior management roles and only in 22
per cent of the businesses worldwide, senior positions are held by women. In India the
same figure is 14 per cent (Grant Thornton International Business Report (IBR), 2007).
The increase in the number of women entrepreneurs is at least in part attributable to the
glass ceiling phenomena which prevents women from rising above a certain
organisational level (Reavley and Lituchy, 2008; Daily et al., 1999; Buttner, 1997).
Glass ceiling reveals three levels of artificial barriers to the development of women.
These are social barriers, which is outside the control of business, internal structure
barriers within the direct control of business and government barriers. Glass ceiling
exist not only because of employers biased attitude or male domination; it also exist
due to women centric time-related problems and their attitudinal disposition, their
family, children and job demand (Michael, 2007). Following this discussion, the
following hypothesis is framed:

H2. Indian organisations exhibit gender discrimination towards various HR functions.

JMD Sexual harassment
33,2 Research consistently demonstrates that sexual harassment is related to a variety of
negative outcomes (Munson et al., 2000) and has negative psychological, job related,
and health effects (Glomb et al., 1997; Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Coles, 1986; Gruber and
Bjorn, 1986; Gutek, 1985). It is against the fundamental rights embodied in the Indian
constitution and also against basic human rights.
94 In a historical judgement in the case of Vishaka and others vs State of Rajasthan and
others (1997) the Supreme Court not only defined sexual harassment but also laid down
a code of conduct for workplaces to prevent and punish it. In 1999 the Apex Court
further enlarged the definition of sexual harassment in the Apparel Export Promotion
Council case. Sexual harassment is defined as any act of verbal or gestural sexual
advance, sexually explicit and derogatory statement or remark, unwelcome sexually
determined behaviour, comments about physical appearance, compromising invitation,
use of pornographic material, demand for sexual favours, threats, physical assault and
molestation of and towards women workers by their male superior, colleagues or any
one who is in a position to sexually harass them.
Four years after the historical judgement by Apex Court, a study conducted by the
National Commission for Women (NCW) in June 2003 stated, around 50 per cent of
working women faced mental and physical harassment and gender discrimination at
workplace due to unchecked sexual harassment. One out of every three working
women faces sexual harassment at some point of time in their working lives
(Kumari, 2003). An earlier survey conducted for the NCW in July 1998, covering over
1,200 women in both the organised and the unorganised sectors, found that nearly
50 per cent had experienced gender discrimination or physical and mental harassment
at work. Yet, 85 per cent of them had never heard of the SC ruling. Only 11 per cent of
them were aware that they could seek legal redressal in cases of sexual harassment,
and that sexual harassment was an offence punishable by law. The NCW survey found
women in the unorganised sector more vulnerable to sexual harassment than women in
the organised sector. Apart from sexual harassment, 32 per cent of the women covered
in the survey also reported discrimination in salaries, leave, promotions, work
distribution and working hours. A separate study of women in the civil services found
that women civil servants were not protected from harassment by their “officer” status,
any more than their sisters in the unorganised sector:

H3. Adequate measures to combat sexual harassment are not present in Indian
organisations.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Survey instrument
The research used both secondary and primary data. An extensive literature survey
was undertaken which helped in framing the questionnaires for the primary data
collection. The focus of the study was on primary data, hence well-structured
questionnaire was developed for conducting the study. Questionnaire was divided into
two sections. First part was designed to obtain demographic information about
respondent’s age, sex, educational qualification, etc. For the second part, a list of
exhaustive statements was prepared through a series of in-depth interviews with
experts from gender issues as well as from extant literature (Status of Women Canada
(SWC) Survey 2005; Staff Gender Equality Questionnaire used in Gender Equality
Scheme 2007-2010 in University of Southampton, UK). Second part had a list of 40 Gender issues
statements regarding the issues present at work. Out of the 40 statements in Indian
33 statements were regarding the issues present in company namely recruitment,
selection, performance appraisal in companies, etc. Seven other statements were organisations
general in nature meant to measure the general psyche of respondents. Each item of the
scale was selected for its appropriateness, uniqueness and ability to convey to
informants “different shades of meaning”. Scale items were developed that would 95
measure the extent of gender discrimination in organisations as well as the thinking of
individual about gender issues in Indian society.

3.2 Unit of analysis

Based on the literature and recommendations from practitioners and academicians, it
was decided to choose individual person as unit of analysis.

3.3 Sampling process

Since women (and hence gender issues) are present in every industry, hence an attempt
has been made to study the various sectors of Indian economy like service sector
(hotels, airlines, call centres, hospitals and retail outlets), manufacturing (automobiles
and textile), trading, educational institutions (degree colleges) and others. In total, 500
structured questionnaires (electronically by mails) were sent to the 100 organisations
in each sector. A total of 185 responses were obtained; 12 were found having
inadequate information, hence rejected. Thus the total number of valid responses came
out to be only 173 thereby yielding a response rate of 34.6 per cent. This response rate
is higher than the recommended rule-of-thumb baseline minimum of 20 per cent for
empirical studies (Malhotra and Grover, 1998; Miller, 1991) (Table I).

4. Data analysis
Mean scores were calculated by allocating values of 1, 2 and 3, respectively, to the
responses “disagree”, “undecided”, and “agree”. Hence a lower score indicates that
particular variable was rejected by respondents as compared to variable with higher
score. Some statements in the questionnaire were negatively worded, so their scores
were reverted so as to make all statements unidirectional.
Prior to data analysis Cronbach’s a test was carried out to measure the internal
consistency of the scale items and a-value was found to be 0.72. This satisfies the
minimum acceptable criterion of coefficient a is 0.7 as suggested in the literature
(Churchill, 1979). The data collected through questionnaire was coded and tabulated
keeping in context with the objective of the study. It was further suitably analysed by
calculating frequencies, factor analysis and one way ANOVA. The data were analysed
using SPSS version 14.0 for windows throughout the study.

Type of industry No. of questionnaires sent No. of correct questionnaires received Response rate

Service 100 72 41.6

Education 100 32 18.5
Manufacturing 100 48 27.7
Trading 100 4 2.3
Others 100 17 9.8 Table I.
Total 500 173 34.6 Respondent’s profile
JMD Limitations of the study
33,2 Total variance explained by extracted four organisational factors was 55.338 per cent
and that of individual factors was 58.54 per cent. There are still other factors that
account for almost 45 per cent of the total variance for organisational variables and
42 per cent for individual variables. Moreover, researchers were able to get the data
only from employees of organised sector alone.
96
5. Results and discussion
The total number of valid responses was 173 thereby yielding a response rate of 34.6
per cent. Information on demographic profile of employees, for example, gender, age,
income, industry, profession, etc. were collected and shown in Table AI.
The table reveals that among the respondents 64.7 per cent were working at middle
level of management, while 22 per cent were from the lower level of management and
rest were from top management level. 69.4 per cent were mid age (25-45) whereas 24.3
per cent were young professionals; profession wise, they 75.7 per cent had service as
their profession while others were from academics, business, government employees
and gender wise 78.6 per cent were males and 21.4 per cent were females. Majority of
respondents (65.9 per cent) were post graduates. In total, 41.6 per cent were from
service sector while from manufacturing and education sector the figures were
27.7 and 18.5 per cent, respectively. Income-wise almost 50 per cent belonged to
monthly income of Rs 20,000 while 36.4 per cent were from the income range of
Rs 20,000-40,000. Respondents were selected from all sizes of company large scale
(47.4 per cent), medium scale (30 per cent) and small scale (22 per cent).

Factor analysis for organisational variables

Factor analysis of all independent variables pertaining to the statements related to
organisation was conducted in order to reduce the number of items into a manageable
number of factors. A varimax rotated principal component analysis was used on 33
items (regarding organisational variables) for a sample of 173 respondents. Initial
unidimensionality and discriminant validity was checked by exploratory factor
analysis (McDonald, 1981; Hattie, 1985) (Table AII).
The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was used to
measure the adequacy of the sample for extraction of factors. The KMO value of 0.723
is indicative of a data set considered to be highly desirable for factor analysis
(Kim and Mueller, 1978). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to test the multivariate
normality of the set of distributions. This procedure also tests whether the correlation
matrix is an identity matrix (factor analysis would be meaningless with an identity
matrix). A significance value of p ¼ 0.00 indicates that the data do not produce
an identity matrix or differ significantly from identity (George and Mallery, 2000).
The analysis focusing on the sphericity of the distribution (Bartlett’s sphericity test)
allowed us to reject the hypothesis according to which the matrix would be unitary
(Approx. w2 ¼ 1645.705, df ¼ 528, p ¼ 0.000). This result implies that the data are thus
approximately multivariate normal and acceptable for factor analysis.
Analysis of communality matrix shows that one statement (No. 13) is low on
communality score; hence it was dropped from further analysis. Extraction of
remaining 32 items yielded eight factors (explaining 55.338 per cent of variance) with
eigen value 41. The factors along with individual statements (contained in those
factors) and factor loading (loading 40.4 are considered significantly contributing to
that factor) are presented in Table AIII.
 The first factor (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.7364) contained seven items ranging from Gender issues
transportation, restroom, crèche facilities, flexibility regarding time and place or in Indian
working, etc. It was labelled as infrastructure and it explained total variance of 8.935
per cent. The second factor named HR functions (a ¼ 0.6756) explained 8.612 per cent organisations
of total variance and it includes routine HR function namely recruitment and selection,
promotion, performance appraisal, punishments and gender equality at workplace.
This factor contained six statements. The third factor labelled as organisational 97
climate (a ¼ 0.6945) included five statements including enjoyment in parties by female
staff, layout and design of workplace, health/safety and overall climate of organisation.
It explained total variance of 8.184 per cent. The fourth factor (a ¼ 0.6374) included all
statements regarding legal mechanism like policies against sexual harassment,
grievance handling committee and legal advice from consultant; hence it is termed
as legal pursuit. It explained total variance of 7.174 per cent. The fifth factor
(a ¼ 0.6746) contained three statements regarding empowerment of women like
leadership roles, decision making and reward system, hence termed as empowerment
and explained 6.752 per cent of total variance. Sixth factor, training and
development (a ¼ 0.5706), included items common training and development,
equal vacations, reward system, etc. It explained total variance of 5.742 per cent.
The seventh factor ethical issues (a ¼ 0.5555) contained two statements regarding
previous case of sexual harassment in company and unethical relations with
superior. It explained total variance of 5.577 per cent. The last factor was found very
low on reliability index, hence dropped from further analysis. All factors were found
to be good on reliability (reliability more than 0.5 is considered good for the
social studies).

Factor analysis for individual variables

Varimax rotated principal component analysis was used on seven items (regarding
individual variable) for a sample of 173 respondents. Again initial unidimensionality
and discriminant validity was checked by exploratory factor analysis (McDonald,
1981; Hattie, 1985).
The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was used to measure the adequacy of the
sample for extraction of factors. The KMO value of 0.522 is indicative of a data
set considered to be highly desirable for factor analysis (Kim and Mueller, 1978).
A significance value of p ¼ 0.00 indicates that the data do not produce an identity
matrix or differ significantly from identity (George and Mallery, 2000). The analysis
focusing on the sphericity of the distribution (Bartlett’s sphericity test) allowed to reject
the hypothesis according to which the matrix would be unitary (Approx. w2 ¼ 74.515,
df ¼ 21, p ¼ 0.000). This result implies that the data are thus approximately
multivariate normal and acceptable for factor analysis.
Analysis yielded three factors (explaining 58.54 per cent of variance) with eigen
value 41. The rotated matrix and factor loading (loading 40.4 are considered
significantly contributing to that factor) are presented in Table AV (appendix).
The first factor (a ¼ 0.5699) contained two items regarding women’s ability to
establish harmony and females as better senior, hence it was labelled as interpersonal
skills and it explained total variance of 21.566 per cent. The second factor named
mindset (a ¼ 0.437) explained 20.465 per cent of total variance and it includes items
namely stereotype mindset by people, productivity of women and employers
discrimination. The third factor was found very low on reliability index, hence dropped
from further analysis.
JMD Hypotheses testing
33,2 Results of ANOVA indicate whether significant difference exist in organisational and
individual variables on the basis of independent variable. Wherever the significant
effect was observed in ANOVA calculations, post hoc analysis was applied for further
in-depth analysis. The detailed analysis and hypothesis testing is shown as under.

98 Stereotype mindset towards gender

H1. People in general have stereotype mindset towards gender.

The analysis of variance between the dependent factor Mindset and various
demographic variables indicate that H1 is partially rejected (Table AVI). Except sex,
respondents from all age groups, levels of management, income group, qualifications,
types of company and company size, etc. are of the opinion that no fixed mindset prevails
in Indian organisations. Since post hoc analysis cannot be applied in this case, so mean
score of factor mindset on the basis on sex is compared (Table AVI) and it was found that
females affirm that people have stereotype mindset (mean score ¼ 0.15) while males
deny it (mean score ¼ 0.04).

Gender discrimination towards various HR functions

H2. Indian organisations exhibit gender discrimination towards various HR

functions.

Table AVII reveals that the responses of people across the board (from all age groups,
levels of management, income group, sex, qualifications, types of company and
company size, etc.) perceive absolutely no discrimination in any of the HR function
(namely recruitment, selection, performance appraisal, promotion). Hence second
hypothesis H2 is rejected here.

Measures to combat sexual harassment

H3. Adequate measures to combat sexual harassment are not present in Indian
organisations.

The analysis of variance between the dependent factor legal pursuit and various
demographic variables indicate that H3 is partially rejected (Table AVII). Except
income and size of company; respondents from all age groups, levels of management,
qualifications, types of company and company size perceive legal pursuit as no issue in
Indian organisations.
Post hoc analysis (Table AIX) shows that respondents from income group of
Rs 60,000 and above perceive this factor as more important than other income group
people. Table AIX shows that large-sized companies are more sensitive in dealing with
issue of legal pursuit and sexual harassment as compared to medium scale companies.

6. Managerial implications, conclusion and directions for future research

implications of the study
The purpose of this study was to update the understanding of the gender equality at
workplace by examining whether gender affects the manner in which employees are
managed in the Indian organisations. The factor analysis showed that there are seven Gender issues
organisational factors (infrastructure, HR functions, organisational climate, legal in Indian
pursuit, empowerment, training and development and ethical concerns) and two
individual factors (interpersonal and mindset) that are prevailing in organisations. organisations
Results of hypotheses testing revealed that one hypothesis is completely rejected
and other two were partially rejected. No evidences were found regarding the
discrimination in Indian organisations. Respondents from all age groups, levels of 99
management, income group, sex, professions, qualifications, types of company and
company size, etc. perceive absolutely no discrimination in any of the HR function
(namely recruitment, selection, performance appraisal, promotion). Indian business
organisation is very competitive today and HR practices are at par with the rest
of the world.
On the issue of gender stereotypes, females express their views explicitly. They are
of the opinion that people do have stereotypes mindset (mean score ¼ 0.15) while males
on the other hand deny it (mean score ¼ 0.04). This finding validates the results of
Kelly Global Workforce survey which stated that more women (18 per cent) complain
of gender discrimination than men (12 per cent). Though no discrimination was
observed in organisational policies/functions but still position of women in Indian
society is on cross-road. The results of study by Ganguly (2002); that out of 22 women
managers (alumnus of IIMA) seven had given up their career to become homemakers,
etc. are real eye opener. Females shoulder dual responsibility of home and career.
As regards the glass ceiling, the results of the present study indicate no evidences of it
but in society we find many examples of it. “Well known super cop Kiran Bedi, being
cast aside in the selection of the job of Delhi’s police commissioner”, is case of recent
gender bias.
The third hypothesis was again partially rejected. For the people of income group
Rs 60,000 and above, legal pursuit (sexual harassment and grievance handling) is an
important issue. For other income categories, perhaps it is a part of their job. The legal
procedures in India are cumbersome, time-consuming and costly. One must be
financially or politically sound to get justice in India. These results are in tune with the
statement of Ranjana Kumari (2003), Convenor, Mahila Dakshita Samiti, a women’s
empowerment forum “Nearly six years have passed since the landmark Supreme Court
judgement enforcing gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment at
workplace, but still one out of every three working women face sexual harassment
at some point of time in their working lives. This menace is still rampant and
happening across the board in educational institutions, factories, multinational
companies and Government offices”.
The big question here is “Are Indian corporate houses doing enough to combat
sexual harassment?” The results of present study indicate that though for large
corporate houses sexual harassment and grievance mechanism are sensitive issues;
still there is no serious impetus on the part of small and medium corporates while the
ratio of women is barely 4 per cent of total workforce in large companies whereas in
medium-scale companies, it stands at 18 per cent. Many Indian corporates have
policies to deal with sexual harassment namely every employee at Tata Consultancy
Services (TCS) has to sign the Tata Code of Conduct that has clauses on sexual
harassment, cola giant Coca-Cola has The Coca-Cola India Prevention of Sexual
Harassment Policy; Infosys Technologies, Walchand Capital, LG Electronics has an
anti-sexual harassment policy. But at the same time results of a survey, “Making
Companies Women Friendly”, conducted by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)
JMD revealed that majority of the companies believe that everything is right in their
33,2 companies and there is no need for a policy on sexual harassment at workplace (Alexis
et al., 2003). Further, as far as sexual harassment against women at workplace goes,
the worst hit is the unorganised sector. Though 23 per cent of the total workforce in
India is employed in the unorganised sector, judgements delivered refer only to the
formal economy. No guidelines or provisions are available for the sexual harassment
100 faced by the workers in the informal sector or self-employed workers.

7. Conclusion
To conclude, women constitute 18.95 per cent of the workforce in the organised
sector in India. With women becoming such an integral part of the workforce,
managers must examine their reliance on stereotypical views concerning women.
Females are successfully performing in traditional male-dominated professions.
She has travelled a lot from the four walls to a successful career, but examples
and exceptions cannot make the history. Gender is a socio-cultural phenomenon
and organisations are a key aspect of a given culture. Organisational analysis
needs to take into account the relationship between gender, gender stereotypes
and organisational life. At the moment, sexual harassment is still left unbridled
and gender equality in Indian organisations still seems like a dream to
be realised.

Directions for future research

This study looks at only three aspects of gender equality in the workplace and other
related variables also need to be studied. This study can be extended to non-organised
sector in India and further cross-country comparisons particularly among emerging
markets can be carried out.

References
Alexis, K., Nair, S., Ramalingam, A., Gupta, M. and Neogi, S. (2003), “Arresting sexual harassment
at the workplace”, The Financial Express, 12 October, available at: www.financialexpress.
com/news/arresting-sexual-harassment-at-the-workplace/96155/ (accessed 29 March 2012).
Ashmore, R.D. and Del Boca, F.K. (1986), The Social Psychology of Female-Male Relationships:
A Critical Analysis of Central Concepts, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Bellizzi, J.A. and Hite, R.E. (1989), “Supervising unethical salesforce behavior”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 53, April, pp. 36-47.
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S. and Liang, X. (2008), “Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: lessons
of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and
engineering”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 423-441.
Brush, C.G. (1991), “Antecedent influences on women owned businesses”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 9-17.
Buttner, E.H. (1997), “Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: self reported
motivations and correlates with success”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 340-347.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 64-73.
Coles, F.S. (1986), “Forced to quit: sexual harassment complaints and agency response”, Sex
Roles, Vol. 14, pp. 81-95.
Daily, C.M., Certo, S.T. and Dalton, D.R. (1999), “A decade of corporate women: some progress in Gender issues
the boardroom, none in the executive suite”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 93-99. in Indian
Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S. and Enna, B. (1978), “The contingencies of evaluative organisations
feedback in the classroom: an experimental analysis”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 268-276.
Economic Survey (2007-2008), available at: http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2007-08/chapt2008/ 101
tab31.pdf (accessed 29 March 2012).
ENS Economic Bureau (2006), “Most Indians experience bias while applying for jobs: survey”,
Indian Express, October 19, available at: www.indianexpress.com/story_print.php?
storyid ¼ 14982 (accessed 29 March 2012).
Fitzgerald, L.F., Hulin, C.L. and Drasgow, F. (1995), “The antecedents and consequences of sexual
harassment in organizations: an integrated model”, in Keita, G.P. and Hurrell, J.J. (Eds), Job
Stress in a Changing Workforce: Investigating Gender, Diversity, and Family Issues,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Ganguly, D. (2002), “Where have all the women gone?”, The Economic Times, New Delhi, 23 December.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (2000), SPSS for Windows: A Simple Guide and Reference, 2nd ed.,
Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Gill, R. (2002), “Cool, creative and egalitarian? Exploring gender in project-based new media
work in Europe”, Information, Communication and Society, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 70-89.
Gill, R. (2007), “Postfeminist media culture: elements of a sensibility”, European Journal of
Cultural Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 147-166.
Glomb, T.M., Richman, W., Hulin, C.L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K.T. and Fitzgerald, L.F. (1997),
“Ambient sexual harassment: an integrated model of antecedents and consequences”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Grant Thornton International Business Report (IBR) (2007), available at: www.gti.org,
www.internationalbusinessreport.com
Gruber, J. and Bjorn, L. (1986), “Women’s responses to sexual harassment: an analysis of
sociocultural, organizational, and personal resource models”, Social Science Quarterly,
Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 814-826.
Gutek, B.A. (1985), Sex and the Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D. and Zahidi, S. (2006), The Global Gender Gap Report 2006, World
Economic Forum, Cologny/Geneva.
Hattie, J. (1985), “Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality of tests and items”, Applied
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 139-164.
Hinton, K.G. (2001), “The experiences of African American women administrators at
predominantly white institutions of higher education”, unpublished PhD dissertation,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Kelan, E.K. (2008), “Gender fatigue – camouflaging gender discrimination in organizations”,
Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, Anaheim, CA, pp. 1-6.
Khandelwal, P. (2005), “Gender equality in top management: issues and agenda”, Indian Journal
of Training and Development, Vol. XXXV No. 1, pp. 91-97.
Kim, J. and Mueller, C. (1978), Introduction to Factor Analysis, Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, CA.
Kumari, R. (2003), “Sexual harassment at workplace remains all pervasive”, Economic Times,
10 June.
McDonald, R.P. (1981), “The dimensionality of tests and item”, British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 100-117.
JMD Malhotra, M.K. and Grover, V. (1998), “An assessment of survey research in POM: from
constructs to theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 17, pp. 407-425.
33,2
Michael, A. (2007), “Women at workplace”, HRD Newsletter, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 27-28.
Miller, D. (1991), Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, Sage Publications,
London.
Mobley, W.H. (1982), “Supervisor and employee race and sex effects on performance appraisals:
102 a field study of adverse impact and generalizability”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 25, pp. 598-606.
Munson, L.J., Hulin, C. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “Longitudinal analysis of dispositional influences
and sexual harassment: effects on job and psychological outcomes”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 21-47.
Pichler, S., Simpson, P.A. and Stroh, L.K. (2008), “The glass ceiling in human resources: exploring
the link between women’s representation in management and the practices of strategic
human resource management and employee involvement”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 463-479.
Reavley, M.A. and Lituchy, T.R. (2008), “Successful women entrepreneurs: a six-country analysis
of self-reported determinants of success-more than just dollars and cents”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 272-295.
Rozema, H.J. and Gray, J.W. (1987), “How wide is your communication gender gap?”, Personnel
Journal, Vol. 66, July, pp. 98-105.
Seet, P.S., Ahmad, N.H. and Seet, L.C. (2008), “Singapore’s female entrepreneurs-are they
different?”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4,
pp. 257-271.
Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace in Bulgaria Report (1999),
“rMinnesota Advocates for Human Rights”, available at: www.mnadvocates.org/sites/
608a3887-dd53-4796-8904-997a0131ca54/uploads/sexharas.PDF (accessed 29 March 2012).
Super, A. (2008), “SEAT OF POWER: gender equality: myth or reality”, available at: www.
nasarawastate.org/articles/68/1/SEAT-OF-POWER-Gender-equality-Myth-or-reality/
Page1.html (accessed 29 March 2012).
Taynor, J. and Deaux, K. (1973), “When women are more deserving than men: equity, attribution
and perceived sex difference”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 360-367.
Terborg, J.R. and Ilgen, D.R. (1975), “A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally
masculine occupations”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 353-376.
Vishaka and others vs State of Rajasthan and others (1997), Air 1997 Supreme Court 3011.
William, J.E. and Bennett, S.M. (1975), “The definition of sex stereotypes via the objective
checklist”, Sex Roles, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 327-337.
William, S.D. and Best, D.L. (1990), Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Multinational Study, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.

Further reading
Khandelwal, P. (2002), “Gender stereotypes at work: implications for organizations”, Indian
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. XXXII No. 2, pp. 72-83.
Appendix Gender issues
in Indian
Demographic Demographic
organisations
characteristics Category/class % characteristics Category/class %

Level of management Lower level 22.0 Highest qualification Under graduate 1.7 103
Middle level 64.7 Graduate 32.4
Upper level 13.3 Post graduate 65.9
Age Below 25 24.3 Type of industry Service 41.6
25-45 69.4 Education 18.5
Above 45 6.4 Manufacturing 27.7
Profession Business 2.9 Trading 2.3
Service 75.7 Others 9.8
Self employed 2.3 Monthly income Below 20,000 49.7
Academics 13.3 20,000-40,000 36.4
Government 4.0 40,000-60,000 9.2
Others 1.7 Above 60,000 4.6
Sex Male 78.6 Company size Small scale 22.5 Table AI.
Female 21.4 Medium scale 30.1 Respondent’s
Large scale 47.4 demographic profile

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.723

Table AII.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. w2 1,645.705 KMO and Bartlett’s
Degree of freedom 528 test for organisational
Significance 0.000 variables

Factor Cronbach
Factors Individual statements loading a

Infrastructure 19. Policy of working from home by women 0.737 0.7364

18. Proper transport facilities to women 0.650
16. There is special rest room facility for women 0.626
20. There is flexible work timings policy 0.621
39. Separate and effective mechanisms for grievance 0.580
32. Working mothers are provided with crèche
facility 0.495
21. Training programs for women in abroad 0.470
HR functions 3. Equal opportunities for promotion for all. 0.756 0.6756
2. Common recruitment & selection policy for all 0.729
4. Performance appraisal is independent of gender 0.722
1. This organisation has Gender Equality at
workplace 0.512
25. This organisation is a women friendly workplace 0.464 Table AIII.
Factor analysis for
(continued) organisational variables
JMD Factor Cronbach
33,2 Factors Individual statements loading a

38. Women are given same punishments 0.412

Organisational climate 22. The office layout and design is comfortable 0.704 0.6945
30. Women feel comfortable in parties 0.642
104 15. Organisational work culture is good 0.560
23. Proper care of health and safety of women 0.527
24. Allowances and bonus irrespective of their
gender 0.482
10. Grievance handling committee respond
Legal pursuit adequately 0.794 0.6374
6. Policies against sexual harassment 0.710
11. Such grievance handling committees are effective 0.619
9. Organisation takes advice of legal consultants 0.413
Empowerment 26. Women included in decision-making process 0.831 0.6746
27. Women are given leadership roles 0.816
28. Fair reward and recognition policy 0.450
Training and
development 12. Equal vacations all employees 0.758 0.5706
5. Common training and development policy for all. 0.457
28. Fair reward and recognition policy for all 0.429
31. Women get proper maternity leaves as per the
law 0.419
Ethical issues 36. Unethical relations with superior is common 0.751 0.5555
8. There was a case of sexual harassment in my
Table AIII. company 0.661

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.522

Table AIV. Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. w2 74.515

KMO and Bartlett’s test Degree of freedom 21
for individual variables Significance 0.000

Factor Cronbach
Factors Individual statements loading a

35. Women are effective than men in establishing harmony

Interpersonal between work and family life 0.807 0.5699
14. Females as a senior are better than the male in the senior
roles 0.801
40. People in general have stereotyped mindset towards women
Mindset employees 0.748 0.437
Table AV. 34. Employers often discriminate against working mothers in
Factor analysis for terms of compensation 0.709
individual variables 37. Productivity of married women is generally less 0.549
(a) Dependent variable: mindset
Gender issues
Independent variables Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance in Indian
organisations
Sex 26.920 146 0.184 2.213 0.010
Level of management 0.528 2 0.264 0.262 0.770
Age 1.616 2 0.808 0.806 0.448
Highest qualification 1.486 2 0.743 0.741 0.478 105
Profession 3.511 5 0.702 0.696 0.627
Type of industry 3.151 4 0.788 0.784 0.537
Monthly income 4.101 3 1.367 1.376 0.252
Sex 1.067 1 1.067 1.067 0.303
Company size 0.089 2 0.045 0.044 0.957
(b) Mean score of mindset on the basis of gender

Sex Mean n SD

Male 0.0409638 136 0.99805015 Table AVI.

Female 0.1505696 37 1.00635343 ANOVA

Dependent variable: HR functions

Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance

Level of management 0.257 2 0.129 0.127 0.880

Age 2.612 2 1.306 1.311 0.272
Highest qualification 0.382 2 0.191 0.189 0.828
Profession 9.748 5 1.950 2.007 0.080
Type of industry 4.385 4 1.096 1.099 0.359
Monthly income 1.554 3 0.518 0.514 0.674
Sex 0.009 1 0.009 0.009 0.924 Table AVII.
Company size 0.118 2 0.059 0.058 0.943 ANOVA

Dependent variable: legal pursuit

Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance

Level of management 4.812 2 2.406 2.446 0.090

Age 2.672 2 1.336 1.341 0.264
Highest qualification 4.354 2 2.177 2.208 0.113
Profession 7.074 5 1.415 1.433 0.215
Type of industry 5.902 4 1.476 1.492 0.207
Monthly income 8.774 3 2.925 3.028 0.031
Sex 0.015 1 0.015 0.015 0.904 Table AVIII.
Company Size 7.160 2 3.580 3.692 0.027 ANOVA Table
JMD 95% Confidence interval
33,2 Monthly Monthly Mean Lower Upper
income income difference SE Significance bound bound

(a) Dependent variable: legal pursuit; independent variable: income

Above 60,000 Below 20,000 0.5053611 0.36326285 0.166 1.2224785 0.2117562
106 20,000-40,000 0.8752544 0.36886307 0.019* 1.6034272 0.1470816
40,000-60,000 0.8087168 0.42555129 0.059 1.6487978 0.0313642
(b) Dependent variable: legal pursuit; independent variable: company size – large scale
Table AIX. Large scale Small scale 0.3001943 0.19154019 0.119 0.0779092 0.6782978
Post hoc tests Medium scale 0.4592301 0.17456222 0.009 0.1146414 0.8038188
multiple comparisons
using LSD method Note: *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

About the authors

Dr Neeraj Kaushik is currently working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Business
Administration, at the NIT Kurukshetra, Haryana, India. His interest areas are services
marketing and research methodology and he has conducted around 40 workshops on research
methodology with SPSS applications. He has attended number of international/national
conferences and presented the paper therein and is also associated with different universities/
academic institutions/professional bodies in various capacities. He has to his credit 43 articles
published in Indian journals and 12 international conferences. Currently he is a Visiting Faculty
to Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak and a Guest Faculty in Indian Institute of
Management, Lucknow (Noida Campus). He has done his bachelor degree in Textile technology,
masters in management sciences, computers applications as well as intellectual property law. His
doctoral work is on customer satisfaction in Indian aviation sector. Dr Neeraj Kaushik is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: kaushikneeraj@gmail.com
Dr Anita Sharma is currently working as Principal at the BLS College of Education,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana, India. Her interest areas are gender issues. She has done her bachelor
degree in education, masters in education, arts. Her doctoral work is on gender issues in the
colleges of education.
Dr Veerander Kumar Kaushik is currently working as a Professor at the Technological
Institute of Textile & Sciences, Bhiwani, Haryana, India. He has done his masters in sciences
(chemistry), business administration (MBA) as well as computer applications (MCA). His
doctoral work is on marketing. Currently he is involved in the research work on international
HRM. He has attended number of international/national conferences and presented the paper
therein. Dr Kaushik is associated with different universities/academic institutions/professional
bodies in various capacities. He has to his credit around 30 articles published in India.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints