Report of gender diversity

GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND THE IMPACT OF GENDER DIVERSITY

SUBMITTED:

Alina Sultani (1111254)
7/10/2012

ABSTRACT

Organizations all around the world are struggling for success, and therefore, the recruiting
process of employees has become an important area for successful business strategies and their
implementation. Companies know the power that talented employees can bring in their
organizations. Companies are trying to bring in the best of employees to get benefit from them.
Many leaders know the impact of gender diversity, but due to the stereotype beliefs, they
cannot transmit them in to action. Role-specific beliefs are creating a barrier to implement
gender diversity in organizations. There is a major gender discrimination observed at executive
levels. Women are not perceived to be using their potential, therefore, male dominating culture
still exists. This study highlights the different issues faced by women globally in organizations,
impact of gender diversity and what companies should do to implement gender diversity in the
organizations.

Key Words: gender discrimination, gender diversity, global gender gap, stereotype, business
performance, training, nurture

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1 INTRODUCTION: .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT:................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES:....................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY: .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: ......................................................................................................... 1
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 GLOBAL GENDER GAP: .................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.1 GLOBAL PERFORMANCE: ...................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 REGIONAL PERFORMANCE:................................................................................................... 3
2.2 MINDSETS FOR IDENTIFYING DIFFERENCES: ................................................................................. 3
2.2.1 STEREOTYPE: ......................................................................................................................... 4
Stereotype is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: .................................................................................. 4
“A widely held, but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type ...................................... 4
of person or thing” .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 PREJUDICE: ............................................................................................................................ 4
According to the Oxford Dictionary, prejudice is:..................................................................................... 4
“A preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience” ........................................... 4
Brown (2010) tells that prejudice is an orientation towards the whole group of people rather than
individuals. Prejudice ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.3 DISCRIMINATION: ................................................................................................................. 5
“The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people…”................................................ 5
2.2.4 SELF PERCEPTION: ................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 FINDINGS FROM SECONDARY DATA: ............................................................................................ 6
2.3.1 WOMEN IN WORK FORCE: .................................................................................................... 6
2.3.2 SENIOR EXECUTIVE POSITIONS: ............................................................................................ 7
2.3.3 CAREER GROWTH:................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.4 PERCEPTION OF JOB CHANGE AND THE REALITY: ................................................................ 7
2.3.5 HIGH MENTORING, LESS SPONSORSHIP: .............................................................................. 7
2.4 IMPACT OF GENDER DIVERSITY .................................................................................................... 8

2.4.1 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE: .................................................................................................... 8
2.4.2 MUTUAL MONITORING: ........................................................................................................ 8
2.4.3 ATTENDANCE OF BOARD MEMBERS:.................................................................................... 8
2.4.4 EQUITY BASED PAY:............................................................................................................... 9
2.4.5 MONITORING: ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.6 VALUES: ................................................................................................................................. 9
2.4.7 SHAREHOLDERISM: ............................................................................................................... 9
2.4.8 RISK TAKING: ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.9 COMPETITION: .................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.10 GENDER DIVERSITY IN GROUP AND GROUP PERFORMANCE: ............................................ 10
3 CRITICAL ANALYSIS: ............................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 HIGHER GENDER GAP IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS: ............................................................... 11
3.2 STEREOTYPE AS WELL AS SELF PERCEPTION LEADS TO THE DIFFERENCES: ............................... 11
3.3 MEN ARE GIVEN GROWTH RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THEIR CAREER: .......................... 11
3.4 MORE WOMEN WEIGHS HEAVILY AGAINST NO WOMEN: ......................................................... 11
4 CONCLUSION:...................................................................................................................................... 12
5 RECOMMENDATIONS: ........................................................................................................................ 12
6 REFERENCES: ....................................................................................................................................... 18

1 INTRODUCTION:
Where at one hand, gender diversity is a topic widely discussed worldwide and spoken to
implement in every corner of the world, it is still an issue to be resolved. This is, because,
gender differences are still observed worldwide, even in developed countries. Surprisingly, this
issue of women underrepresentation has been widely observed in top managerial positions in
organizations.

There are many observations discussed in this paper, such as stereotypes, high mentoring and
low sponsorship, that suggest why this issue is still prevalent in societies. Researches show the
prevalence of gender discrimination and its negative impact on employees and firms, as well
the impact of implementing gender diversity in organizations and the fruitful results on firms’
performances.

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT:
This paper has highlighted the discrimination issues faced by women in organizations and has
presented the impact and recommendations for representing women in workforce to obtain
better outcomes:

‘Identifying the issues faced by women in organizations and measuring the degree of
this gender gap common worldwide so that the identified issues can be resolved to create
positive impact on the employees, the firms and the societies.’

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES:
i. To explore the problems and challenges faced by women in organizations
ii. To gauge the degree of gender gap in economical, educational, health and political
empowerment
iii. To identify the reasons of low women representation that is related to mindsets
iv. To present the impact of gender diversity on employees and organizations
v. To suggest the recommendations for implementing gender diversity in the workforce

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY:
The research incorporates detailed findings of the issues faced by women in workforce related
to gender discrimination and the degree of gender gap worldwide. The study highlights the
major benefits of having women in a firm that leads to constructive strategic results.

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
Qualitative study has been carried out using secondary data for compiling this paper. Secondary
data sources used in this paper include journals, thesis papers, business magazines, books,
electronic databases and websites.

GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND THE IMPACT OF GENDER DIVERSITY Page 1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Before discussing gender diversity, the difference between the terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ is
important to be understood.
Fox and Lituchy (2012), and Tovar (2011) maintain that sex differentiates a person based on
biological and reproductive traits, whereas gender describes the assumed roles each sex is
expected to perform and personality characteristics assumed with each sex. Fox and Lituchy
(2012) further explain that sex is related to nature, whereas gender is related to nurture.
Merriam-Webster dictionary (2012) has explained diversity as a condition of being composed of
different elements, such as different people in a group or organization.
Gender diversity in an organization indicates the level to which it is possible to communicate
with both the genders. Homogenous teams form a boundary which binds internal workforce
together, but also makes them distant from the outside environment. Cooperation is high
within these individual teams, whereas cooperation among different teams within an
organization is very low. As acknowledged by Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop and Nkomo (2010),
diverse workforce will be better able to work and meet the demands of diverse markets and
customers, improve firm’s learning and build flexible and creative work-teams.

2.1 GLOBAL GENDER GAP:
The Global Gender gap report is established by Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi (2011) and is
introduced by the World Economic Forum in the year 2006. It measures the degree of gender
based variations and keeps a track of their improvement. This gap measurement is based on
three important concepts. First, it does not measure levels, but gaps in accessing the available
opportunities in a country. Second, it measures the gender gap with regard to basic rights, such
as health, education, monetary and political empowerment. Third, it measures the differences
in workforce participation rates, differences in salaries of both sexes, and comparison of men
versus women to attain advancement.

This report shows the ranking of 114 countries for the year 2011 based on gender disparities.
Comparing the gaps in the years from 2006 to 2011, 85% of the countries (97 countries) have
shown the gaps that are narrowed in progressive years, while 15% of the countries (17
countries) have widened the gap.

Pakistan had been ranked 112th in the year 2006, but came down to 133rd rank in the year 2011
out of 135 countries worldwide, hence indicating a widened gap.

This report has examined the gap broadly into four categories:

a. Economic participation and opportunity:
It is based on comparison of workforce participation, pay and career progression.
Pakistan is ranked 134th out 135 countries in the year 2011.


b. Educational attainment:
It shows the differences between: females’ and males’ access to schools; and the
literacy rates of men and women.
Pakistan is placed at 127th out of the countries covered in the 2011 report.

c. Health & survival:
It measures the differences in two variables. First, it identifies the degree of preference
for son’s birth as seen in many countries. Second, the health life expectancy of men and
women is measured.
In the year 2011, Pakistan is 123rd in health differences.

d. Political empowerment:
It measures the differences between decision making power of men and women in
politics at the highest executive levels.
Pakistan is at a better rank in political power by holding 54 th position in year 2011.

2.1.1 GLOBAL PERFORMANCE:
Figure 1 shows the gender gap of 135 countries, that is covering 90% of world’s population. It
shows that the gap has closed to 96% and 93% in health and education respectively. But it
shows that a wide gap still remains in economics and politics with a closed gap of 59% and 19%
respectively in year 2011.

Place figure 1 here

2.1.2 REGIONAL PERFORMANCE:
Figure 2 shows the regional performances of gender gap improvements in year 2011. Following
are the regions listed in descending order from highest to lowest closing.

1. North America holds the top position
2. Europe and Central Asia
3. Latin America and the Caribbean
4. Asia and the Pacific
5. Sub-Saharan Africa
6. Middle East and North Africa have closed least amount of gap

Place Figure 2 Here

2.2 MINDSETS FOR IDENTIFYING DIFFERENCES:
Researches show that diversity is not a problem. The problem is in attitude toward diversity.
People who have negative attitude toward others people’s differences often engage in negative
behaviors, some of which are discussed in this section.


Place figure 3 here
Figure 3 shows the perceived gender discrimination followed at workplaces in emerging and
developed countries of the world (Hewlett and Rashid, 2010). Gender Discrimination is lesser in
developed countries as compared to the emerging countries.

2.2.1 STEREOTYPE:
Stereotype is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as:
“A widely held, but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type
of person or thing”
Tovar (2011) acknowledges that gender stereotypes are based on the positive and negative
characteristics that are expected from each gender.
Tovar (2011) further has explained that positive traits associated with women are
kindheartedness, selflessness and nurturing. The negative traits portray women as sentimental,
delicate and being dependent. According to this view, women’s proper role is believed to be in
the private sphere, taking care of the family and doing household tasks.
Positive traits associated with men are believed to be competitiveness, determination and
boldness, while men's negative traits are believed to be the lack of emotion, stubbornness and
aggressiveness. Men's proper roles are believed to be in the public sphere in business, politics,
and military because they are thought to be competitive, independent, and economic
providers.
According to Fox & lituchy (2012), members of the society decide about what is masculinity femininity.
The positive and negative traits just described above are associated with masculinity and femininity in
most of the cultures.

Tovar (2011) acknowledges that although there are cultural shifts in many areas of the world
favoring women’s rights, cultural stereotypes still exist in the world. This belief creates a barrier
to have gender diversity in work.
Carter and Silva (2010, p. 19) mention a question asked by Bloomberg’s Chief Marketing Officer,
Maureen A. McGuire that “Are men more ready and qualified in their career where as women
have to prove themselves?” She further added that companies should place manager on the
basis of qualification and not on the basis of intuitions.

2.2.2 PREJUDICE:
According to the Oxford Dictionary, prejudice is:

“A preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”


Brown (2010) tells that prejudice is an orientation towards the whole group of people rather
than individuals. Prejudice comes from our family, our friends, our environment, media and external
influences. Prejudice against males and females, comes from a belief in the superiority of one’s own
gender.

An interesting point shared by Brown (2010) in his book is that, prejudice not only includes negative
orientation, but also a positive attitude. He further contributes that showing sympathetic attitudes to
women is in itself a prejudice, highlighting a woman’s subordination.

According to UN News (2009), UN-Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon said that in majority of the countries,
women are still not perceived as equal in the eyes of laws and men and boys. He also mentioned that no
country has completely escaped this prejudice, and emphasized that men and boys must play active
roles in making women and girls equal partners.

2.2.3 DISCRIMINATION:
Oxford Dictionary defines it as:

“The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people…”

Channar, Abbasi and Ujan (2011) acknowledge that no law has ever attempted to define
specifically the term ‘discrimination’. They further tell that in the context of workforce,
discrimination can be defined as the giving of an unjust benefit (or disadvantage) to the
members of the particular group, in comparison to the members of the other group.
Gender discrimination is limiting one sex to reach its potential and give benefit to organization.
In their research, Channar, Abbasi and Ujan (2011) found that: females are more discriminated
than males in public and private sectors; gender discrimination decreases the job satisfaction
and motivation of employees; it decreases the commitment and enthusiasm of workers; and
overall, it increases their stress levels. They suggest that by stopping discrimination,
organizations can overcome these problems and work for the betterment of the society.
A test is proposed by Anne Mulcahy, Xerox Chairwoman, to take resumes of the 100 employees
hired, remove their names and assess where the employees should be placed according to their
qualification and skills and make a comparison with their current position placement (Carter &
Silva, 2010).

2.2.4 SELF PERCEPTION:
Niederle and Yestrumkas (2008) suggest that although, most of the literature focuses on lesser
women recognition in high profile jobs being attributable to male preferences and overall
discrimination, there is another reason to it that is related to self-perception of men and
women to respond to various challenging tasks. Males and females sense, imagine, respond,
recognize, adore, need, and are grateful to each other in a different way. In their research,


Niederle and Yestrumkas (2008) found that men and women of equal performance capabilities
act in different ways in choosing difficult tasks. Men usually choose difficult tasks and women
usually go for easier ones.
Niederle and Yestrumkas (2008) showed that the difference in preferences of choosing difficult
tasks is related to the difference in the belief in one’s ability to perform tasks. Females believe
that their good performance in difficult tasks is related to their luck rather than their ability,
and opposite goes for lower performance. Males attribute their success to their abilities and
low performance to their luck.
It is generally thought that issues like women’s inclination towards raising children and devoting
higher time to family, and issues like prejudice play a major role in identifying male domination.
But in their experiment, Niederle and Yestrumkas (2008) created a controlled environment
where women and men were equally performing and issues of time devotion to families or
discrimination were not affecting the participants’ performances or selection of challenging
tasks. Yet, there was a large gender difference in selection of tasks that, along with other
reasons, is also attributable to the certainty in the one’s abilities to perform (Niederle and
Yestrumkas, 2008).

2.3 FINDINGS FROM SECONDARY DATA:
After reviewing the secondary data of women’s underrepresentation, following findings were
observed to be prevalent in organizations:

2.3.1 WOMEN IN WORK FORCE:
Carter and Silva (2010, p. 20) acknowledge the fact that there are many programs which are
creating opportunities for women. However, inequity is there in workforce.
Carter and Silva (2010 p. 19) also maintain that very less percentage of women are found in
workforce. According to their research, women are currently involved in workforce globally
with a percentage of 40%. Only 3% of women are the Fortune 500’s CEOs and only 15% are at
the position of corporate executives worldwide.
Hewlett and Rashid (2010, p.102) acknowledge that in emerging countries, women are given
less challenging roles or low performance ratings.
This finding concludes that women are discouraged to work in an organization, which in turn
discourages diversity in that organization. They acknowledge that family pull and work push
force women to leave workforce. This issue should be resolved to have diversity in working
environment.
Nancy and Carter (2010) show that women are left behind where as men climb up their career
ladder. However, there were women who moved up their career at an equal pace as men, but
these were the women who began their post-MBA career at middle management level or
higher than that. There is a lag again as only 10% of women started at those levels compared
with 19% of men in their research sample.


2.3.2 SENIOR EXECUTIVE POSITIONS:
Carter and Silva (2010, p. 20) acknowledge that Catalyst, a non-profit membership organization,
found that from the start of careers, men are selected for higher positions than women. This
discrimination is not on the basis of parenthood, as according to the findings, priority was given
to men for senior executive positions even when both the genders did not have children at
home.

2.3.3 CAREER GROWTH:
N.M.C. and C.S (2010) has done a research according to which, 10% of MBA graduates left
business and worked in variety of jobs. After returning to their traditional career, both the
genders had different experiences. Men moved up in their career and they attained the same
satisfaction as other men who never left, whereas women were assigned off-track jobs;
moreover they were not paid well as were men and advanced less than the women who
remained in business.
In 2008 Catalyst survey mentioned in the article by Ibarra, Carter & Silva (2010, p. 82), it was
found that women are paid $4600 less in their first post-MBA jobs, occupy lower level
management positions more, and are lesser satisfied in their career than males with equivalent
education.

2.3.4 PERCEPTION OF JOB CHANGE AND THE REALITY:
According to a survey conducted by N.M.C. and C.S (2010), employees perceive that: 99%
Women will quit due to family reasons where as only 1% of males will quit due to the same
reason; and women do not hope for the top management
However, Carter and Silva (2010, p. 21) have found that in contrast to the perception of higher
women’s turnover, women are the ones to continue their jobs in most of the cases as
compared to men. In other words, men usually leave their jobs for career growth, higher pay
and career change. Women leave their jobs mostly when they encounter difficult managers-the
ones who perceive that women are not growth oriented.
Place Figure 4 Here

2.3.5 HIGH MENTORING, LESS SPONSORSHIP:
High potential women are mentored excessively, but sponsored too seldom as compared to
men, leading to lesser advancement of women in their careers (Ibarra, Carter & Silva, 2010).

Ibarra, Carter & Silva (2010, p. 82) identify the reason of why mentoring fails women to
succeed: In a 2010 Catalyst survey, it was identified that although men and women were given
equivalent assignments, men received promotions at the completion of these assignments,


while women received more assignment in return instead of promotions. Hence, women are
not as enthusiastically sponsored as men are.

2.4 IMPACT OF GENDER DIVERSITY

2.4.1 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE:
Herring (2009), through his research, suggests that diversity is important for better business
outcomes. According to him, gender diversity leads to higher returns, high customer base and
overall increased profits. This is attributable to the fact that diverse groups are more prone to
conflicts of ideas, which takes them ahead of the simple solutions that homogenous groups
usually think of, leading to higher creativity and firm’s performance.

This has received support by Hoogendoorn, Oosterbeek and Praag (2011). According to them,
teams composed of equivalent combinations of men and women give better performance in
terms of revenues, earnings per share and profits.

Place table 1 here
The values in table 1 are calculated by Herring (2009) by the help of a survey, which he
conducted in U.S among the for profit organizations’ employees. The values suggest that higher
gender diversity leads to higher revenue, more customers base and higher than average
profitability.

2.4.2 MUTUAL MONITORING:
A key to successful performance is the mutual monitoring, that is, team members monitoring
each other’s work. Heavy monitoring will lead to more winning results. Gender diverse teams
perform better because they monitor each other more intensively than teams composed of
only males or only females (Hoogendoorn et al. 2011). This has also received support by Herring
(2009) that gender diversity affects group processes positively.

2.4.3 ATTENDANCE OF BOARD MEMBERS:
Adams and Ferreira (2008) demonstrate that attendance of male directors gets better the more
gender diverse the board is. This can be attributable to some facts: directors improve their
attendance when their peers or newly appointed male directors are more compliant and
regular (peer effect); attendance improves with more women (gender effect). These
hypotheses were tested and the gender effect proved to be statistically significant.

Another reason for better attendance is director turnover. The fact that the women and newly
appointed men, due to their high attendance, replace irregular directors, leads to attendance
improvement of male incumbents.


2.4.4 EQUITY BASED PAY:
Presence of women results in higher compensation pay for directors. This has been supported
by Adams and Ferreira (2008). According to them, women are more likely to be a part of
nominating and corporate governance committee, which set the compensation pay for
directors. However, they are less likely to be a part of the compensation committee that
decides the CEO’s pay, showing that women do not significantly affect CEO’s rewards.

2.4.5 MONITORING:
Adams and Ferreira (2008) document that board with higher gender diversity results in tougher
monitoring. Evidence shows that women are more likely to be assigned to monitoring
committee because of their regular attendance in board meetings. Presence of women
intensifies the monitoring process. Tough boards, however, do not improve overall
performance, but they do add value to the firm, depending on other governance mechanisms
of the firm. Presence of tough boards in the firms already having otherwise strong governance
will lead to over-monitoring. Hence, gender diverse boards are beneficial for firms that have
otherwise weak governance.

2.4.6 VALUES:
Male and female directors differ considerably in their values. Adams and Funk (2011) document
female directors to be extra oriented towards benevolence and stimulation, and more
universally concerned than male directors. However, they are less bothered than men about
other values, such as, security, tradition, conformity and power. These values were measured
through Schwartz’s 40-question Portrait Value Questionnaire by Adam and Funk (2011).

Matsa and Miller (2011) have also supported this. According to their research, female leaders
show more self-transcendent values than male leaders. These values are related to
benevolence and universalism. The authors further relate it to a survey according to which,
women are found to consider working relationships, customer quality and communication
significant. Men, on the other hand, are found to consider rewards, such as compensation and
career development more appreciably than women.

2.4.7 SHAREHOLDERISM:
Adams and Funk (2011) demonstrate that the fact that women pay more heed to universalism
suggests that they are more stakeholders oriented than men. Male directors, on the other
hand, care more about shareholders, due to valuing power and achievement more than
females.

An interesting point shared by Matsa and Miller (2011) is that, although women are more
stakeholders oriented than men, their strategies favor long-term shareholders’ interests. This
is, because female leaders reduce the employees’ turnover. They think of their employees to be


assets for the firm rather than the cost. Although fewer layoffs result in higher short-term costs,
it leads to long-term profits due to retention of experienced employees, who prove to be firm’s
assets in raising revenues, and overall, increase shareholders’ value in long term. Also, low
turnover reduces the hiring and training costs of the firms.

Herring (2009) has also suggested that diversity promises higher overall corporate earnings and
income.

Hence, gender diverse organizations lead to higher labor productivity because of fewer lay-offs.
This incurs short-term labor costs, but leads to higher shareholder profits in long run.

2.4.8 RISK TAKING:
The fact that gender diversity affects firms’ outcomes depends on general characteristics, such
as age and tenure, observed in male and female directors. Adams and Funk (2011) identify that
male directors usually are older in age, mostly married and have more children. Whereas,
female directors are younger, usually single and have fewer children as compared to male
directors.

Female leaders are less tradition and security oriented than men. They welcome openness to
change, suggesting that they are slightly more risk loving than male directors. Adams and Funk
(2011) and Matsa and Miller (2011) suggest that women in the boardroom are at higher
readiness to take risks.

Croson & Gneezy (2009) also acknowledge that men and women who readily take risks usually
opt for managerial positions. Such women are few in number than men. But these female
leaders show similar risk taking attitudes as men.

2.4.9 COMPETITION:
Women and men react in different ways to competition. Croson and Gneezy (2009), and
Niederle and Versterlund (2009) suggest that differences in attitudes towards competition
affects both, the performance and the participation in competitive environments. Their
research papers tell that in situations that offer higher competition, men are more willing to
participate than women. However, those women that willingly participate in such competitive
environments perform as well as men do.

2.4.10 GENDER DIVERSITY IN GROUP AND GROUP PERFORMANCE:
A gender diverse group is not always a better performing group. Many of the researches show
that these groups have innovation and creativity, but communication breakdowns, low
cohesion and turnover can affect the performance. However, these issues can be easily
resolved by training, mentoring and feedback. As Herring, 2009 has suggested in his research
paper that diversity at one hand, increase group conflict and reduces communication, but on
the other hand, increases the links, information sources and creativity.


3 CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

3.1 HIGHER GENDER GAP IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS:
Research shows that there is narrowing gender gap in health and education at one hand; it is
widened in economics and political empowerment at the other hand.
North America has the highest narrowing of this gap, while Middle East and North Africa have
highest widening of this gap.
Pakistan is not performing well due to its gender gap being widened in the subsequent years
from 2006 onwards. Steps need to be taken to encourage women to participate more in the
workforce and eliminate prejudice against women.

3.2 STEREOTYPE AS WELL AS SELF PERCEPTION LEADS TO THE DIFFERENCES:
Where stereotypical beliefs hold the major responsibility towards creating differences, the
concept of self-selection also plays a major role. This is, because of some values preferred by
men and women differently. Men are more oriented towards power, whereas women are more
universally concerned.
Even if factors such as women devoting more time to family and kids, and discrimination issues
are kept aside, it is found that men prefer challenging tasks more than women. However, if
women take up the challenging tasks, they perform equally well as men.

3.3 MEN ARE GIVEN GROWTH RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THEIR CAREER:
Many researchers have shown that when men and women start their careers after their MBA,
men progress faster than women. Women are given more mentoring and less sponsorship,
which is the other way round for men. Women are also paid less than are men in organizations
and they occupy lower level positions more and climb up the ladder at a slower pace.

3.4 MORE WOMEN WEIGHS HEAVILY AGAINST NO WOMEN:
Various studies have been conducted showing favorable results by implementing gender
diversity at workplaces, hence favoring gender diversity. Studies indicate that gender diverse
teams result in higher profits, higher customer base, creative teams and improved business
performance.
Boardrooms that consist of more women lead to improved attendance of male incumbents,
tougher monitoring of the teams and higher mutual monitoring within the teams composed of
both males and females.


The values preferred by women, such as benevolence and universalism, lead to a more
stakeholder oriented environment that favors long term shareholders’ benefits. Also, female
leaders equally and at some instances, are slightly more risk oriented than male leaders. This is
prevalent in women who aim to achieve top managerial positions and struggle hard for it as
compared to normal women population.

4 CONCLUSION:
Gender discrimination is prevalent in organizations, especially in top management. The major
reason is the stereotypical belief about women. There are various organizational challenges
faced by women such as low career growth, low pay, high mentoring and low sponsorship.
These issues not only lead to the dissatisfaction and higher stress on employees’ level, but also
become the barrier for such organizations to compete with the institutes implementing gender
diversity.

Hiring gender diverse teams positively affects the firm’s growth. At one hand, it makes the male
board members regular, while at the other hand, it increases the equity based pay. Similarly,
presence of women at one hand increases the monitoring of employees, at the other hand,
shows more care for these stakeholders due to being more benevolent. This results in overall
employees’ satisfaction, fewer turnovers, higher productivity and economies of scale in long
run of the firm.

Hence, gender diversity can be taken as a strategy to gain competitive advantage in a business
environment. But this strategic competitive advantage has not been implemented in
organizations fully. To implement gender diversity in organizations, companies should train
their employees and make them aware about its benefits. Tasks should be divided in such a way
that talents of men and women can be utilized at maximum.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS:
Every human being on the earth needs to realize and accept that no two people are alike. Right
from the cognition to the processing to the motor action, every human being differs in some
way or the other. The first person being right does not necessarily mean that the second person
is wrong. By accepting people for who they are rather than what one wants them to be,
organizations can prosper and lead to the betterment of their societies.

According to Ibarra, Carter & Silva (2010, p. 83), many organizations such as Unilever and IBM
have established sponsorship programs to promote high potential women. If organizations
worldwide communicate the clear goals of mentoring programs, identify mentors and sponsors
on the basis of these goals, train and hold sponsors accountable, they can bring a constructive
revolution in an organization.


To avoid miscommunication, both the sexes should use smart communication styles and avoid
those communication habits that are not appropriate to use with the opposite gender. This can
be done by acknowledging and respecting the differences that exist in men and women.
To accept and work in a diversity environment, employees need to identify with their
organizations and need to develop a sense of belongingness. To achieve this, leaders should
arrange the training and motivation initiatives for their employees to increase their
participation, and ask for their inputs in organization’s decisions.

Nurture plays a significant role in reducing gender gap. Providing equivalent education, treating
women with equality at family level and avoiding to stereotype girls to opt for certain
professions may help promoting gender diversity, as Hoffman, Gneezy and List (2011) have
shown that cultural differences and nurture significantly affect one’s cognitive abilities.

Companies should help their employees in expanding their social networks inside and outside
the organization, as it will help in relationship building and strengthen the engagement,
commitment, ties among the employees and visibility. Networking is very important in an
organization so that male and female employees can voice their opinions without any
hesitation and make their skills utilized for the success of organization. This will take the
employees out of isolation and comfort zone, which creates a bubble around them.
Companies dealing with international assignments can provide flexibility and support to their
employees, which will lessen the burden on spouses and families. Facilities as such as child care,
elder care and visits for spouses can encourage women to work in such organizations.
Goals of the gender diversity training and programs should be defined first and these goals
should be carried to employees. They should be based on the careful assessment of current
culture of organization and translated into targets against which performance can be
measured. Feedback should also be provided for achieving goals. In this way, both the sexes will
realize that they are important and will be motivated to work.
In some training programs, female employees who are on middle and top managerial positions
in the organization should be asked to share their views and problems that they have faced
during their career growth.
Companies should look for young talent in universities. This will lead to meritocratic gender
diversity.
Recognition and rewarding policies should be used equally for both men and women, as it will
encourage them and give them the required spark to mentor others.
Diversity should be incorporated in multi-cultural and growth-oriented organizations, but not in
the organizations which are involved in downsizing, as this will lead to perception of
discrimination by employees.
The extent of gender diversity should be on the basis of needs of people, their skills and the job
ability requirements. This need assessment should be done on the basis of challenges faced by
organization, demographic make-up and attitude of employees.


Areas requiring creativity, flexibility, problem solving and innovation should have a diverse
workforce.
Shareholders and the corporate owners need to demand fully diversified boardrooms and
executive teams for their firms. This will lead to their firm’s strategic growth and advancement.
Employees should be encouraged to disclose to their superiors, any discrimination practices
that employees have noticed in their firms.

From the SWOT analysis perspective, diversity initiatives should be considered as a challenge
rather than as threats to overcome. This will lead to a positive mindset of achieving the goals
through diversity, rather than as a pessimistic approach towards accepting diversity in
organization.


FIGURES & TABLES:
FIGURE 1
GLOBAL PATTERN, 2011
SOURCE: GLOBAL GENDER GAP REPORT, BY HAUSMANN, TYSON AND ZAHIDI (2011)

FIGURE 2
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE (THE GLOBAL GENDER GAP INDEX, 2011)

SOURCE: GLOBAL GENDER GAP REPORT, BY HAUSMANN, TYSON AND ZAHIDI (2011)


FIGURE 3
THE BATTLE FOR FEMALE TALENT IN EMERGING MARKETS: HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW,
(HEWLETT AND RASHID, 2010)

Perceived Gender Discrimination
45%

36%
32%
25%
19% 18%

Brazil China India Russia UAE United States

FIGURE 4
WHY MEN & WOMEN CHANGE JOBS (CARTER & SILVA, 2010)

60

50

40

30 Men
Women
20

10

0
Career Growth More Money Career Change Difficult Manager


TABLE 1
MEAN AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR BUSINESS OUTCOMES OF ESTABLISHMENTS BY
LEVELS OF GENDER DIVERSITY (HOOGENDOORN, OOSTERBEEK AND PRAAG, 2011):

GENDER DIVERSITY LEVEL

Low Medium High

CHARACTERISTICS (<20%) (20-44%) (45%+)

Percent in gender diversity category 28 28 44

Mean sales revenue (in millions) 45.2 299.4 644.3

Mean number of customers (in 20.5 27.1 36.1
thousands)

Percent with higher than average 45 58 62
market share

Percent with higher than average 45 58 62
profitability


6 REFERENCES:
Adams, RB & Ferriera, D 2008, ‘Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and
performance’, working paper series, viewed 30 June 2012,
< http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1107721>
Adams, R & Funk, P 2011, ‘Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter?’, Department of
Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Economics Working Paper Series, 1172,
viewed 30 June 2012, <http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/1172.pdf>
Hoogendoorn, S, Oosterbeek, H & Praag, MV 2011, ‘The impact of gender diversity on
performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment’, Tinbergen Institute
Discussion Paper, viewed 30 June 2012,
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1826024>
Herring, C 2009, ‘Does diversity pay? Race, Gender and the business case for diversity’,
American Sociological Review, vol 74, viewed 30 June 2012,
<http://happy.cs.vt.edu/~manuel/courses/diversity-F10/readings/Business/2009-Herring-
Does%20Diversity%20Pay%20Herring.pdf >
Niederle, M & Yestrumkas, AH 2008, ‘Gender difference in seeking challenges: The role of
institutions’, National Breau of Economics Research, working paper 13922, viewed 3 July 2012,
< http://www.nber.org/papers/w13922.pdf>
Matsa, DA & Miller, AR 2011, A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from Quotas,
viewed 7 July 2012, < http://economics.mit.edu/files/6500>
Croson, R & Gneezy, U 2009, ‘Gender Differences in Preferences’, Journal of Economic
Literature, viewed 5 July 2012, <http://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/>

Niederle, M & Vesterlund, L 2009, does performance mirror ability? Gender differences in
attitudes towards competition, viewed 3 July 2009, < http://www.genderinscience.org/>

Hoffman, M, Gneezy, U & List, JA 2011, ‘Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities’,
PNAS early edition, viewed 5 July, 2012,
<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/19/1015182108.full.pdf+html>

Carter, N.M & Silva, C. 2010, ‘Women in management: Delusions of Progress’, Harvard Business
Review, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 19-21
Wooley AW & Malone,TW 2011 ‘What makes a team smarter? More Women’, Harvard
Business Review, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 32-33
Hewlett, SA & Rashid, R 2010, ‘The Battle for Female Talent in Emerging Markets’, Harvard
Business Review, vol. 88, no. 5, pp 101-106
Tovar, VF 2011, ‘Managerial gender stereotypes among culturally diverse college students’,
Master of Arts Thesis, Faculty of California State University, Dominguez Hills, viewed 4 July
2012, < http://gradworks.umi.com/1498934.pdf>


Channar, ZA, Zareen, A & Ujan, IA 2011, Gender discrimination in work force and its impact on
employees, vol 5, viewed 4 July 2012,
<https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:svjdlSoxz8UJ:www.jespk.net/publications/53.p
df+&hl=en&gl=pk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgQvOW01dnj4vVqHlIQs34nPb4z4B8eM1OvwdrNKu3L
ZiiJIQY-
Aq91v8OSFEFVpg1dG7fxeCo1dVMDr5IfEnU_1Me0QEbcsR9Et5PKhR4H9LLWPhFDvNtMVahimw
zli7VF0kmu&sig=AHIEtbR16sq3P67sE2E5eNS297XucmhXUw&pli=1>
Zanoni, P, Janssens, M, Benschop, Y & Nkomo, S 2010, ‘Unpacking Diversity, grasping inequality:
rethinking difference through critical perspectives’, viewed 30 June 2012,
<http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=unpacking%20diversity%2C%20grasping%20ine
quality%3A%20rethinking%20difference%20through%20critical%20perspectives&source=web&
cd=6&ved=0CFcQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2F137.215.9.22%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2263%2F
16948%2FZanoni_Unpacking(2010).pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ei=fCf7T5jQENGqrAeFy4TGBg&usg
=AFQjCNF8Y-t6N9ur6Bkzi866MBw6irw3sw

Oxford university Press, 2012, viewed 7 July 2012, <http://oxforddictionaries.com>
Merriam-Webster, 2012, viewed 9 July 2012, <http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/diversity>
Fox, S & Lituchy, TR 2012, Gender and the Dysfunctional workplace, viewed 6 July 2012,
<http://books.google.com.pk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=49gbBL-
KL1YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA14&dq=gender+and+sex&ots=1Wjf-VDIU-&sig=l2D-
rZlNpO5Hvyq3B6rBhzNcjIU#v=onepage&q=nurture&f=false>
Brown, R 2010, Prejudice: Its Social Psychology, 2nd edn, viewed 6 July 2012,
<http://books.google.com.pk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0DWtZ2efDYoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=preju
dice+agaist+women&ots=LJCMv7mxvB&sig=1uLwEVCc4KJe0KPBJpC3LKdscYw#v=onepage&q=
women&f=false>
Ban,K (UN Secretary General) 2009, Global symposium on Engaging men & boys in Gender
Equality, viewed 7 July 2012,
<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=30335&Cr=violence+against+women&Cr1=
#>
Hossman, R, Tyson LD & Zahidi S 2011, The Global Gender Gap Report, Worl Economic Forum,
viewed 30 June 2012, <http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-gender-gap/>
Ibarra, H, Carter NM & Silva, C 2010, ‘Why men still get more promotons than women’, Harvard
Business Review, vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 80-85.


Report of gender diversity

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Report of gender diversity

Ähnlich wie Report of gender diversity (20)

Mehr von Alyna Sultani

Mehr von Alyna Sultani (13)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Report of gender diversity