Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.84.6.339-349
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
University Students' Perceptions of Gender
Discrimination in the Workplace: Reality Versus
Fiction
Stephanie Sipe , C. Douglas Johnson & Donna K. Fisher
To cite this article: Stephanie Sipe , C. Douglas Johnson & Donna K. Fisher (2009) University
Students' Perceptions of Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: Reality Versus Fiction,
Journal of Education for Business, 84:6, 339-349, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.6.339-349
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.6.339-349
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 325
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:56
UniversityStudents’PerceptionsofGender
DiscriminationintheWorkplace:Reality
VersusFiction
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
STEPHANIESIPE
GEORGIASOUTHERNUNIVERSITY
STATESBORO,GEORGIA
DONNAK.FISHER
GEORGIASOUTHERNUNIVERSITY
STATESBORO,GEORGIA
C.DOUGLASJOHNSON
GEORGIAGWINNETTCOLLEGE
LAWRENCEVILLE,GEORGIA
ABSTRACT.For50years,lawssuchas
theCivilRightsActof1964,asamendedin
1991,andtheEqualPayActof1963have
protectedwomenfromovertdiscrimination.
Althoughgenderinequitypersistsintoday’s
workplace,itspresenceandeffectscontinue
tobeunderestimatedbytherelevantstakeholders.Informalobservationshaveshown
thatcollegestudentsconsiderthemselves
immunetogenderdiscrimination.The
authorssoughttoascertainstudents’perceptionsofanticipatedgenderdiscrimination.
Findingssuggestthatstudentsperceive
genderdiscriminationasbeingoflittleconsequence,andthattheyarelikelytoentera
gender-neutralworkplace.Theseperceptions
couldhavenegativeeffectsonorganizations
andemployees,buteducationcanbeusedto
minimizetheseconsequences.
Keywords:bias,genderdiscrimination,studentperceptions
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
T
heexistenceofsuccessfulwomen
like Condoleezza Rice, Hillary
Clinton,MegWhitman,andOprahWinfrey might cause some individuals to
believe that the gender equity gap in
business is narrowing quickly. For the
past 50 years, laws such as the Civil
RightsActof1964,asamendedin1991,
andtheEqualPayActof1963haveprotectedwomenfromovertdiscrimination
intheworkplace.However,despitethese
examplesofprosperouswomenandlegal
mechanisms, gender inequity continues
to exist in the workplace (King, 2006;
Sarra, 2005; Scott & Nolan, 2007). Of
the75,768claimsfiledthroughtheEqual
Employment Opportunity Commission
infiscalyear2006,30.7%weregenderrelated(EqualEmploymentOpportunity
Commission,2007).
Asaresultofourexperiencesineducatinguniversitystudents,weareaware
that many students (soon to become
youngprofessionals)disregardthepossibilityofgenderdiscriminationinorganizational settings. In our research, we
soughttoestablishandevaluateundergraduates’ perceptions of anticipated
genderdiscriminationintheworkplace.
Theultimategoalwascurriculummodificationinthebusinesscollegetobetter
equip graduates to handle the realities
ofgenderdiscriminationintheirfuture
workenvironments.
Thepresentresearchextendedthatof
Steele,James,andBarnett(2002),who
assessed undergraduate perceptions of
discriminationandstereotypinginmaledominated academic areas. We drew
on the work of Schmitt, Branscombe,
Kobrynowicz, and Owen (2002), who
measured undergraduate psychology
students’ perceptions of the disadvantages faced by their gender. Our study
addresses some of the limitations that
prior researchers noted (e.g., providing
definitions of gender discrimination).
WealsobuiltonNgo,Foley,Wong,and
Loi’s(2003)study,whichfoundgender
differencesintheperceptionsofgender
inequalityintheworkplace.
In the following sections, we providealiteraturereview,presentresearch
questions, and define gender discriminationasweuseditinthepresentstudy.
We share research methodology and
then conclude with a discussion of the
findings,limitationsoftheresearch,and
recommendationsforfuturework.
LiteratureReview
Although the equity gap between
menandwomeninmanagementcareers
appears to be closing, the glass ceiling
stillpersistsintoday’sbusinessenvironment(Bible&Hill,2007).Throughout
theworld,menout-earnwomen(Ngoet
al., 2003). In the U.S. workplace, gender discrimination continues to exist,
despiteEqualEmploymentOpportunity
lawsthathavebeeninplaceforseveral
July/August2009
339
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
decades(Bible&Hill).Womenasleadersinindustry,business,andthepublic
sector continue to be underrepresented
(Noble & Moore, 2006; Probert, 2005;
Probert, Ewer, & Whiting, 1998). In
Ngo et al.’s extensive literature review,
severalkeyfindingsrelatedtoevidence
ofgenderinequityintheworkplaceare
citedfromempiricalstudies:(a)women
lag behind men in salary and salary
progression; (b) women’s rewards and
work conditions (i.e., pay, autonomy,
authority)areusuallylessfavorablethan
men’s;(c)womentendtoworkindeadendjobs,resultinginalesserlikelihood
of promotion; and (d) women are less
likely than are men to exercise authority in the workplace (Blum, Fields, &
Goodman, 1994; Lyness &Thompson,
1997;Mueller&Wallace,1996;Reskin
& Padavic, 1994; Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992). Evidence gathered through
empirical studies showed that women
weredisadvantagedincomparisonwith
menonvirtuallyeveryknowneconomic
indicator(Schmittetal.,2002).
Using a large sample of medical
professionals, Carr, Szalacha, Barnett,
Caswell, and Inui (2003) assessed the
effectsofgenderbiasonfemalemedical
specialists,primarilyphysicians.Carret
al.foundthat75%ofthefemalerespondents chose (from 11 options) gender
discrimination as the first or second
most important factor hindering their
careers, with 40% of the respondents
ranking gender discrimination as the
primaryobstacle.Further,theserespondents indicated that they were inadequatelypreparedasaresultoftheirformal and informal training to deal with
genderdiscriminationintheworkplace.
Gender discrimination in the labor
marketcanresultinlowerearningsfor
women (Besen & Kimmel, 2006; Blau
&Kahn,2004).Arecentsurveyofthe
Institute of Management Accountants
reported that female members earned
lessthanmalemembersatalllevelsof
education, management, and certification (Burress & Zucca, 2004). Using
regression analysis with 30 years of
data,LeutwilerandKleiner(2003)projectedthatthecontinuingimbalancein
wagesbetweenmenandwomenwould
notberectifieduntiltheyear2193.
However, gender inequity and discrimination extend beyond wages
340
JournalofEducationforBusiness
(Besen&Kimmel,2006).Womencomprise 66% of the U.S. workforce, yet
only 21% hold middle management
positions, and a mere 15% are at the
seniormanagementlevel(Bible&Hill,
2007). According to Besen and Kimmel,somescholarsarguethat“thedisproportional representation of women
in managerial positions is due to the
glass ceiling: blocked opportunities
forwomen,whilesomeargueitisdue
to the sticky floor: keeping women in
lowerpayingjobs,”(p.174).Regardless
ofthecause,thefactremainsthatthere
aresignificantlymorementhanwomen
inmanagementpositions(Bible&Hill;
Wentling,2003).
Empirical studies show that some
extraordinary women rise to the top;
however, these studies also illustrate
that,intime,fewremain.Forexample,
according to Noble and Moore (2006),
many women who aspire to leadership
positionsfinditimpossibletogetthere,
whereasotherswhomakeiteventually
leave.Further,afewofthedocumented
causes of successful women’s departures from organizational life include
the difficulty of combining work and
family life, the unforgiving and relentless battles against the male stronghold of traditional organizational cultures, and the continued dominance of
the male leader stereotype (Haywood,
2005; Noble & Moore; Probert, 2005).
Other studies have shown that women
executives who stay on the corporate
payroll are more likely to be concentratedinservice-orientedorhealth-careoriented industries (retail, health care,
housing, publishing), whereas male
executives are more likely to have top
executive positions in capital intensive
industrieslikemanufacturing,trucking,
electrical,mining,chemicals,aerospace
technology,andoilandgas(Burress&
Zucca,2004).Fivemajorfactorsaffect
women’sabilitytoexcelintheircareers
and get past the glass ceiling. These
impediments include stereotypes and
perceptions, mentoring and networking availability, discrimination in the
workplace, family issues, and funding
availability(Bible&Hill,2007;Cai&
Kleiner,1999).
Research has found that traditional
organizational cultures often reflect
continuing gender stereotypes (Bible
& Hill, 2007; Boselovich, 2006). For
example,studiesrevealedthataprevailingstereotypeofthedifferencebetween
menandwomenwasthat“womentake
care and men take charge” and that
womenarenotasgoodatproblemsolving as their male counterparts (Bible
& Hill, p. 66).Another study reported
thatmenfeltthattheyweresuperiorto
women in problem solving, inspiring,
delegating, and influencing superiors
(Hymowitz,2005).Despitethesuccess
ofnumerouswomeninthemarketplace,
negative attitudes and stereotypes of
women as leaders prevail (Jackson,
2001;Klenke,1996).
According to Noble and Moore
(2006), the continued underrepresentation of women in leadership positions
is of concern for two reasons. First, it
violateshumanrights(equalrightsand
equalparticipationasfullproductivecitizens),and,second,itimpedesdiversity
(i.e.,excludingwomenfromleadership
roles affects productivity and militates
against a workforce characterized by a
diversityofworkers).NobleandMoore
expressedadditionalconcerns:
Theongoingwastageofmanagementand
leadership talent which arises from and
is perpetuated by the current underrepresentation of women at senior levels
seriously undermines an organization’s
abilitytorespondtochangeandthreatens
itsfutureviabilityandvitalityintheface
of economic challenges of the changing
place.(p.599)
The persistence of gender discrimination has been studied in academia
as well. Among a sample of undergraduatestudents,Schmittetal.(2002)
foundthatfemalestudentsexperienced
more discrimination than did male
students, resulting in negative psychological consequences associated with
the discrimination. Female students
reportedgreaterin-groupdisadvantage,
greater out-group privilege, and more
past experience with gender discrimination than did male students (Schmitt
et al.). Steele et al. (2002) found that
university women in male-dominated
academic fields were more likely to
consider changing their major and that
theycontinuedtoperceivegender-based
obstaclesintheirfield.
Yet members of disadvantaged
groups are often reluctant to perceive
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
the discrimination that confronts them.
They tend to avoid attributing failure
to discrimination unless provided with
strongevidence(Crosby,Pufall,Snyder,
O’Connell, &Whalen, 1989; Ruggiero
& Taylor, 1995, 1997; Schmitt et al.,
2002). Further, empirical studies have
shown that members of disadvantaged
groups perceive a higher level of discrimination directed at their group as
a whole than at themselves as individual members of that group (Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde,
1990). Women, as victims of sex discrimination, tend to believe that they
are personally exempt from the rule of
generalsexbiasthattheyknowoperates
insociety(Crosbyetal.).Youngwomen
may be further disadvantaged. Literatureindicatesthatemployeeswhohave
beeninanorganizationforalongperiod of time observe evidence of gender
bias, such as promotions and training
opportunities,andhavedataonwhichto
basetheirobservations.Butemployees
withshort-termtenurearelesslikelyto
perceiveandhavedataaboutinequityin
theirorganization(Ngoetal.,2003).
The recognition of existing gender
stereotyping and gender discrimination can lead to positive results. For
peoplewhoaretargetsofprejudiceand
discrimination, knowing that one possiblecauseofnegativeoutcomesisthe
prejudice of other people may protect
self-esteem (Crocker & Quinn, 1998;
Schmittetal.,2002).Moreover,before
members of disadvantaged groups can
engage in collective action aimed at
reducing inequality, they must first
acknowledge that discrimination exists
(Schmitt et al.).As long as those who
are at a disadvantage—women and
minorities—believe that they remain
unaffected by systemic problems, they
may not hasten to address continuing
problems(Crosbyetal.,1989).
SignificanceofResearch
Asaresultofourexperienceineducating university students, we believe
that many students (soon to become
young professionals) disregard the
possibility of gender discrimination in
organizational settings. We witnessed
this disregard through comments made
in the classroom when incidents and
cases relating to gender discrimination
were discussed. For example, we gave
studentstheopportunityinanintroductorybusinesslawclasstoviewandprovidewrittenresponsestothefilmNorth
Country (Greenwald & Caro, 2005),
which depicts the incidents leading
up to the first class action gender discriminationandsexualharassmentlawsuit in the United States. The students
expressed overwhelming skepticism as
to the existence of such discriminatory
behaviors in today’s workplace. These
students indicated that if gender discriminationweretooccurintheworkplace, it would most likely not happen
tothem.
Aftermakingtheseobservationsand
conductingareviewoftheliteratureon
genderdiscriminationintheworkplace
and individual perceptions of such, we
undertookastudytoexploretheperceptions of college students about gender
issues in the workplace—specifically
gender discrimination—and to identify
gaps, if they exist, in students’ perceptionsandtherealitiesofgenderdiscrimination in present-day workplaces. Our
long-termgoalwastomodifythecourse
curriculum to better prepare graduates
fortherealitiesofgenderdiscrimination
intheworkplace.Thefirststepwasto
clarify current student perceptions of
gender-relatedissues.
For the present study, we asked studentstoindicatethelikelihoodthatthey
would experience gender discrimination in the workplace, the likelihood
that others (women) would experience
genderdiscriminationintheworkplace,
andtheextenttowhichgenderdiscrimination—if it did occur—would affect
their careers. We also explored sexual
harassment issues in the survey, but
theywillbeanalyzedinaseparatestudy
(Sipe, Johnson, & Fisher, 2009). We
soughttodiscoverifdemographicvariables such as gender and race affected
students’ perceptions of gender issues
intheworkplace.Further,inthepresent
study, we sought to discover whether
students were more or less likely to
foresee the potential effects of gender
discriminationonthemselvescompared
withothersinsimilarsituations.Therefore, our study assessed the personal
andgrouptargetsofgenderdiscrimination on the basis of prior research that
showed a discrepancy between perceptionsofdiscriminationagainstselfand
perceptions of discrimination against
others (Schmitt et al., 2002; Steele et
al.,2002).
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 1,373 undergraduate students (women = 38.7%, men
= 58.6%, not reporting = 2.8%) at a
large public university in the southeastern region of the United States.
At the time of the survey, there were
3,065 undergraduate business or prebusinessmajorsintheCollegeofBusiness Administration at the university.
This resulted in survey responses from
45%oftheeligiblepopulation.Oursurveytargetedacross-sectionofstudents
enrolled in various courses in the College of BusinessAdministration across
all levels (e.g., introductory courses to
seniorlevelcourses)andareasofstudy
(e.g., introduction to business, finance,
marketing, strategic management). We
derived this convenience sample from
classesthatcompriseapartofourprebusiness and business core curriculum.
We selected the specific classes on the
basisoftheavailabilityoftheresearchers to administer the survey in person
andtheflexibilityofthefacultymember
intheclassroom.
We asked the respondents to voluntarily participate in the survey by
answering a questionnaire during class
timeatthebeginningofthefallsemesterof2006.Weassuredthestudentsof
confidentiality and anonymity and told
themthattheyhadthechoicetorefuse
toparticipateinthesurveywithoutpenalty.Becauseweadministeredthesesurveysinpersonandduringclasstime,the
responseratewasvirtually100%,with
no significant percentage of students
refusingorfailingtoparticipate.
Instrument
We collected data using a survey
titled Gender Issues Survey (see the
Appendix).1 The questionnaire was
basedonaninstrumentthatCarretal.
(2000) created during prior research.
Theinstrumentexaminedgender-based
discrimination and sexual harassment
July/August2009
341
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
inthecontextoftotalworkexperience
of full-time academic medical school
faculty and the subjective outcomes
of gender discrimination and sexual
harassment on career satisfaction and
perceptions of career advancement.
Our survey instrument used the “bias,
discrimination, and harassment” section of Carr et al.’s instrument with
minimalmodification.Specifically,we
discarded questions and wording that
focused on present career situations.
Our instrument included questions in
the following areas: gender discrimination of self, gender discrimination
of others, potential career impact of
gender discrimination on self, and
demographic information. The definitionofgenderdiscriminationweused,
makingupforashortfallofCarretal.’s
instrument,wasderivedfromareview
of the literature. The definition is as
follows:“Gender-basedbehaviors,policies,andactionsthatadverselyaffect
aperson’sworkbyleadingtounequal
treatment or the creation of an intimidating environment because of one’s
gender.”Genderdiscriminationoccurs
when employers make decisions such
as selection, evaluation, promotion, or
reward allocation on the basis of an
individual’sgender.
Wepretestedthesurveywithapproximately100studentsduringthesummerof
2006toensurethattherespondentscould
understand the meaning of the questions
andcouldanswerthemappropriately.The
concerns raised during the pretest were
minimal; however, we made modificationstotheinstrumentonthebasisofthe
feedback (e.g., clarified how items were
worded,shortenedthesurvey).
Measures
2003). We then asked the respondents
to indicate the extent to which gender
might affect the careers of others, specifically women, in these same areas.
The eight items comprising the gender
discriminationofselfscalehadaCronbach’s coefficient alpha of .72, whereas the gender discrimination of others
(women) scale had a coefficient alpha
of .87. According to Nunally (1978)
andNunallyandBernstein(1994),these
values met the minimally acceptable
reliabilitycoefficientcriterionof.70.In
additiontoassessingreliability,weperformed a factor analysis to ensure the
scaleswerevalid.Theanalysissuggestedthetheorizedfactorstructureexisted
withthepresentdata.2
PotentialCareerImpactonSelf
We also asked respondents to indicatetowhatextenttheyanticipatedthat
an experience of gender discrimination
might affect their professional career
intermsofpersonalconfidence,career
advancement,jobsatisfaction,organizationalcommitment,andcareercommitment.Weadaptedthesemeasuresfrom
previousresearchonthistopic(Carret
al.,2000;Gutek,Cohen,&Tsui,1996).
The coefficient alpha for the 5-point
Likert-typescalewas.88.
Demographics
The survey concluded with eight
demographicquestionsbasedonthefollowing:gender,race,collegeclassification,workexperience,GPA,major,age,
andpoliticalviewpoint.Genderandrace
weretheonlyvariableswithanylevelof
statistical significance across different
responses.Therefore,wedidnotreport
theothervariablesintheanalysis.
GenderDiscrimination
Weaskedrespondentstoindicatethe
extent to which they anticipated that
gendermighteffecttheircareersuccess,
advancement, networking, mentoring,
time for career, and pay by using a 5point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (never) to 5 (likely). We adapted the
measures from previous research that
suggested these factors are common
outcomes of gender discrimination in
theworkplace(Bible&Hill,2007;Carr
etal.,2000;Carretal.,2003;Ngoetal.,
342
JournalofEducationforBusiness
StatisticalAnalyses
We calculated descriptive statistics
(frequencies,means,standarddeviations,
correlations) for all of the survey questionsusingSPSS(Version12).Toassess
whethergenderorraceaffectedrespondents’perceptionsofgenderdiscrimination, we also performed independent t
tests. We computed the scores by calculating the average of all responses in
eachscaleratherthanrelyingonthetotal
scores,whichcanbemisleadingbecause
of missing data. We ran cross-tabulationsonthegenderdiscriminationsurvey
itemsasdependentvariablesagainstthe
independent demographic variables of
genderandrace.Wealsorancross-tabulationsontheresponseofselftogender
discrimination survey questions against
thesamedemographicvariables.
RESULTS
Participants had a mean age of 20
years(SD=2.74years;range=17–71
years).Therespondentswereprimarily
sophomores (25.6%), juniors (31.2%),
and seniors (31%), but there were also
some freshmen (11.6%) and graduate
students (0.4%) who participated in
thesurvey.Morethanthreequartersof
the participants were business majors
(81.8%),17%reportedmajorsotherthan
business,and1.2%reportedundecided.
The majority of the respondents were
White (72%), whereas the remaining
were Black (22.3%), Hispanic (2.3%),
Asian or Pacific Islander (1.5%), and
Native American or Alaskan Native
(0.3%). Nearly half of the respondents
identified their political viewpoint as
conservative (46.6%), slightly more
thanonethirdofrespondentsidentified
asmoderate(37.4%),and15.9%identifiedtheirpoliticalviewpointasliberal.
In terms of work experience, 2.1% of
the participants reported that they had
neverhadajob,42%reportedthatthey
had worked in casual employment—
definedas“babysitting,part-time,summerlawncare,afterschool,workstudy,
and internship”—22% reported that
they had worked full time (at least 35
hrperweek)forlessthan1year,13%
reportedthattheyhadworkedfulltime
for1to2years,and19%reportedthat
theyhadworkedfulltimefor2ormore
years.TheaverageGPAoftherespondentswas3.01(SD=.72)of4.00.
IndependenttTestResults
We calculated the mean response to
allquestionsineachofthefactoranalysisgroupingsforgenderdiscrimination
of self, gender discrimination of others (women), and the potential affect
on career from gender discrimination
on self. We then tested these variables
to evaluate the significance of gender
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
and race on students’ perceptions of
gender discrimination. We conducted
independentsampletteststodetermine
whetherasignificantdifferenceexisted
in terms of how men and women and
non-Whites and Whites responded for
eachfactoranalysisgrouping.Asillustrated in Table 1, the groupings had
statisticallysignificantmeanratingson
the basis of gender and race. Women,
asopposedtomen,weremorelikelyto
perceivegenderdiscriminationhappeningtothemselves,t(948.03)=–20.30,p
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
University Students' Perceptions of Gender
Discrimination in the Workplace: Reality Versus
Fiction
Stephanie Sipe , C. Douglas Johnson & Donna K. Fisher
To cite this article: Stephanie Sipe , C. Douglas Johnson & Donna K. Fisher (2009) University
Students' Perceptions of Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: Reality Versus Fiction,
Journal of Education for Business, 84:6, 339-349, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.6.339-349
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.6.339-349
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 325
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:56
UniversityStudents’PerceptionsofGender
DiscriminationintheWorkplace:Reality
VersusFiction
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
STEPHANIESIPE
GEORGIASOUTHERNUNIVERSITY
STATESBORO,GEORGIA
DONNAK.FISHER
GEORGIASOUTHERNUNIVERSITY
STATESBORO,GEORGIA
C.DOUGLASJOHNSON
GEORGIAGWINNETTCOLLEGE
LAWRENCEVILLE,GEORGIA
ABSTRACT.For50years,lawssuchas
theCivilRightsActof1964,asamendedin
1991,andtheEqualPayActof1963have
protectedwomenfromovertdiscrimination.
Althoughgenderinequitypersistsintoday’s
workplace,itspresenceandeffectscontinue
tobeunderestimatedbytherelevantstakeholders.Informalobservationshaveshown
thatcollegestudentsconsiderthemselves
immunetogenderdiscrimination.The
authorssoughttoascertainstudents’perceptionsofanticipatedgenderdiscrimination.
Findingssuggestthatstudentsperceive
genderdiscriminationasbeingoflittleconsequence,andthattheyarelikelytoentera
gender-neutralworkplace.Theseperceptions
couldhavenegativeeffectsonorganizations
andemployees,buteducationcanbeusedto
minimizetheseconsequences.
Keywords:bias,genderdiscrimination,studentperceptions
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
T
heexistenceofsuccessfulwomen
like Condoleezza Rice, Hillary
Clinton,MegWhitman,andOprahWinfrey might cause some individuals to
believe that the gender equity gap in
business is narrowing quickly. For the
past 50 years, laws such as the Civil
RightsActof1964,asamendedin1991,
andtheEqualPayActof1963haveprotectedwomenfromovertdiscrimination
intheworkplace.However,despitethese
examplesofprosperouswomenandlegal
mechanisms, gender inequity continues
to exist in the workplace (King, 2006;
Sarra, 2005; Scott & Nolan, 2007). Of
the75,768claimsfiledthroughtheEqual
Employment Opportunity Commission
infiscalyear2006,30.7%weregenderrelated(EqualEmploymentOpportunity
Commission,2007).
Asaresultofourexperiencesineducatinguniversitystudents,weareaware
that many students (soon to become
youngprofessionals)disregardthepossibilityofgenderdiscriminationinorganizational settings. In our research, we
soughttoestablishandevaluateundergraduates’ perceptions of anticipated
genderdiscriminationintheworkplace.
Theultimategoalwascurriculummodificationinthebusinesscollegetobetter
equip graduates to handle the realities
ofgenderdiscriminationintheirfuture
workenvironments.
Thepresentresearchextendedthatof
Steele,James,andBarnett(2002),who
assessed undergraduate perceptions of
discriminationandstereotypinginmaledominated academic areas. We drew
on the work of Schmitt, Branscombe,
Kobrynowicz, and Owen (2002), who
measured undergraduate psychology
students’ perceptions of the disadvantages faced by their gender. Our study
addresses some of the limitations that
prior researchers noted (e.g., providing
definitions of gender discrimination).
WealsobuiltonNgo,Foley,Wong,and
Loi’s(2003)study,whichfoundgender
differencesintheperceptionsofgender
inequalityintheworkplace.
In the following sections, we providealiteraturereview,presentresearch
questions, and define gender discriminationasweuseditinthepresentstudy.
We share research methodology and
then conclude with a discussion of the
findings,limitationsoftheresearch,and
recommendationsforfuturework.
LiteratureReview
Although the equity gap between
menandwomeninmanagementcareers
appears to be closing, the glass ceiling
stillpersistsintoday’sbusinessenvironment(Bible&Hill,2007).Throughout
theworld,menout-earnwomen(Ngoet
al., 2003). In the U.S. workplace, gender discrimination continues to exist,
despiteEqualEmploymentOpportunity
lawsthathavebeeninplaceforseveral
July/August2009
339
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
decades(Bible&Hill).Womenasleadersinindustry,business,andthepublic
sector continue to be underrepresented
(Noble & Moore, 2006; Probert, 2005;
Probert, Ewer, & Whiting, 1998). In
Ngo et al.’s extensive literature review,
severalkeyfindingsrelatedtoevidence
ofgenderinequityintheworkplaceare
citedfromempiricalstudies:(a)women
lag behind men in salary and salary
progression; (b) women’s rewards and
work conditions (i.e., pay, autonomy,
authority)areusuallylessfavorablethan
men’s;(c)womentendtoworkindeadendjobs,resultinginalesserlikelihood
of promotion; and (d) women are less
likely than are men to exercise authority in the workplace (Blum, Fields, &
Goodman, 1994; Lyness &Thompson,
1997;Mueller&Wallace,1996;Reskin
& Padavic, 1994; Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992). Evidence gathered through
empirical studies showed that women
weredisadvantagedincomparisonwith
menonvirtuallyeveryknowneconomic
indicator(Schmittetal.,2002).
Using a large sample of medical
professionals, Carr, Szalacha, Barnett,
Caswell, and Inui (2003) assessed the
effectsofgenderbiasonfemalemedical
specialists,primarilyphysicians.Carret
al.foundthat75%ofthefemalerespondents chose (from 11 options) gender
discrimination as the first or second
most important factor hindering their
careers, with 40% of the respondents
ranking gender discrimination as the
primaryobstacle.Further,theserespondents indicated that they were inadequatelypreparedasaresultoftheirformal and informal training to deal with
genderdiscriminationintheworkplace.
Gender discrimination in the labor
marketcanresultinlowerearningsfor
women (Besen & Kimmel, 2006; Blau
&Kahn,2004).Arecentsurveyofthe
Institute of Management Accountants
reported that female members earned
lessthanmalemembersatalllevelsof
education, management, and certification (Burress & Zucca, 2004). Using
regression analysis with 30 years of
data,LeutwilerandKleiner(2003)projectedthatthecontinuingimbalancein
wagesbetweenmenandwomenwould
notberectifieduntiltheyear2193.
However, gender inequity and discrimination extend beyond wages
340
JournalofEducationforBusiness
(Besen&Kimmel,2006).Womencomprise 66% of the U.S. workforce, yet
only 21% hold middle management
positions, and a mere 15% are at the
seniormanagementlevel(Bible&Hill,
2007). According to Besen and Kimmel,somescholarsarguethat“thedisproportional representation of women
in managerial positions is due to the
glass ceiling: blocked opportunities
forwomen,whilesomeargueitisdue
to the sticky floor: keeping women in
lowerpayingjobs,”(p.174).Regardless
ofthecause,thefactremainsthatthere
aresignificantlymorementhanwomen
inmanagementpositions(Bible&Hill;
Wentling,2003).
Empirical studies show that some
extraordinary women rise to the top;
however, these studies also illustrate
that,intime,fewremain.Forexample,
according to Noble and Moore (2006),
many women who aspire to leadership
positionsfinditimpossibletogetthere,
whereasotherswhomakeiteventually
leave.Further,afewofthedocumented
causes of successful women’s departures from organizational life include
the difficulty of combining work and
family life, the unforgiving and relentless battles against the male stronghold of traditional organizational cultures, and the continued dominance of
the male leader stereotype (Haywood,
2005; Noble & Moore; Probert, 2005).
Other studies have shown that women
executives who stay on the corporate
payroll are more likely to be concentratedinservice-orientedorhealth-careoriented industries (retail, health care,
housing, publishing), whereas male
executives are more likely to have top
executive positions in capital intensive
industrieslikemanufacturing,trucking,
electrical,mining,chemicals,aerospace
technology,andoilandgas(Burress&
Zucca,2004).Fivemajorfactorsaffect
women’sabilitytoexcelintheircareers
and get past the glass ceiling. These
impediments include stereotypes and
perceptions, mentoring and networking availability, discrimination in the
workplace, family issues, and funding
availability(Bible&Hill,2007;Cai&
Kleiner,1999).
Research has found that traditional
organizational cultures often reflect
continuing gender stereotypes (Bible
& Hill, 2007; Boselovich, 2006). For
example,studiesrevealedthataprevailingstereotypeofthedifferencebetween
menandwomenwasthat“womentake
care and men take charge” and that
womenarenotasgoodatproblemsolving as their male counterparts (Bible
& Hill, p. 66).Another study reported
thatmenfeltthattheyweresuperiorto
women in problem solving, inspiring,
delegating, and influencing superiors
(Hymowitz,2005).Despitethesuccess
ofnumerouswomeninthemarketplace,
negative attitudes and stereotypes of
women as leaders prevail (Jackson,
2001;Klenke,1996).
According to Noble and Moore
(2006), the continued underrepresentation of women in leadership positions
is of concern for two reasons. First, it
violateshumanrights(equalrightsand
equalparticipationasfullproductivecitizens),and,second,itimpedesdiversity
(i.e.,excludingwomenfromleadership
roles affects productivity and militates
against a workforce characterized by a
diversityofworkers).NobleandMoore
expressedadditionalconcerns:
Theongoingwastageofmanagementand
leadership talent which arises from and
is perpetuated by the current underrepresentation of women at senior levels
seriously undermines an organization’s
abilitytorespondtochangeandthreatens
itsfutureviabilityandvitalityintheface
of economic challenges of the changing
place.(p.599)
The persistence of gender discrimination has been studied in academia
as well. Among a sample of undergraduatestudents,Schmittetal.(2002)
foundthatfemalestudentsexperienced
more discrimination than did male
students, resulting in negative psychological consequences associated with
the discrimination. Female students
reportedgreaterin-groupdisadvantage,
greater out-group privilege, and more
past experience with gender discrimination than did male students (Schmitt
et al.). Steele et al. (2002) found that
university women in male-dominated
academic fields were more likely to
consider changing their major and that
theycontinuedtoperceivegender-based
obstaclesintheirfield.
Yet members of disadvantaged
groups are often reluctant to perceive
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
the discrimination that confronts them.
They tend to avoid attributing failure
to discrimination unless provided with
strongevidence(Crosby,Pufall,Snyder,
O’Connell, &Whalen, 1989; Ruggiero
& Taylor, 1995, 1997; Schmitt et al.,
2002). Further, empirical studies have
shown that members of disadvantaged
groups perceive a higher level of discrimination directed at their group as
a whole than at themselves as individual members of that group (Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde,
1990). Women, as victims of sex discrimination, tend to believe that they
are personally exempt from the rule of
generalsexbiasthattheyknowoperates
insociety(Crosbyetal.).Youngwomen
may be further disadvantaged. Literatureindicatesthatemployeeswhohave
beeninanorganizationforalongperiod of time observe evidence of gender
bias, such as promotions and training
opportunities,andhavedataonwhichto
basetheirobservations.Butemployees
withshort-termtenurearelesslikelyto
perceiveandhavedataaboutinequityin
theirorganization(Ngoetal.,2003).
The recognition of existing gender
stereotyping and gender discrimination can lead to positive results. For
peoplewhoaretargetsofprejudiceand
discrimination, knowing that one possiblecauseofnegativeoutcomesisthe
prejudice of other people may protect
self-esteem (Crocker & Quinn, 1998;
Schmittetal.,2002).Moreover,before
members of disadvantaged groups can
engage in collective action aimed at
reducing inequality, they must first
acknowledge that discrimination exists
(Schmitt et al.).As long as those who
are at a disadvantage—women and
minorities—believe that they remain
unaffected by systemic problems, they
may not hasten to address continuing
problems(Crosbyetal.,1989).
SignificanceofResearch
Asaresultofourexperienceineducating university students, we believe
that many students (soon to become
young professionals) disregard the
possibility of gender discrimination in
organizational settings. We witnessed
this disregard through comments made
in the classroom when incidents and
cases relating to gender discrimination
were discussed. For example, we gave
studentstheopportunityinanintroductorybusinesslawclasstoviewandprovidewrittenresponsestothefilmNorth
Country (Greenwald & Caro, 2005),
which depicts the incidents leading
up to the first class action gender discriminationandsexualharassmentlawsuit in the United States. The students
expressed overwhelming skepticism as
to the existence of such discriminatory
behaviors in today’s workplace. These
students indicated that if gender discriminationweretooccurintheworkplace, it would most likely not happen
tothem.
Aftermakingtheseobservationsand
conductingareviewoftheliteratureon
genderdiscriminationintheworkplace
and individual perceptions of such, we
undertookastudytoexploretheperceptions of college students about gender
issues in the workplace—specifically
gender discrimination—and to identify
gaps, if they exist, in students’ perceptionsandtherealitiesofgenderdiscrimination in present-day workplaces. Our
long-termgoalwastomodifythecourse
curriculum to better prepare graduates
fortherealitiesofgenderdiscrimination
intheworkplace.Thefirststepwasto
clarify current student perceptions of
gender-relatedissues.
For the present study, we asked studentstoindicatethelikelihoodthatthey
would experience gender discrimination in the workplace, the likelihood
that others (women) would experience
genderdiscriminationintheworkplace,
andtheextenttowhichgenderdiscrimination—if it did occur—would affect
their careers. We also explored sexual
harassment issues in the survey, but
theywillbeanalyzedinaseparatestudy
(Sipe, Johnson, & Fisher, 2009). We
soughttodiscoverifdemographicvariables such as gender and race affected
students’ perceptions of gender issues
intheworkplace.Further,inthepresent
study, we sought to discover whether
students were more or less likely to
foresee the potential effects of gender
discriminationonthemselvescompared
withothersinsimilarsituations.Therefore, our study assessed the personal
andgrouptargetsofgenderdiscrimination on the basis of prior research that
showed a discrepancy between perceptionsofdiscriminationagainstselfand
perceptions of discrimination against
others (Schmitt et al., 2002; Steele et
al.,2002).
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 1,373 undergraduate students (women = 38.7%, men
= 58.6%, not reporting = 2.8%) at a
large public university in the southeastern region of the United States.
At the time of the survey, there were
3,065 undergraduate business or prebusinessmajorsintheCollegeofBusiness Administration at the university.
This resulted in survey responses from
45%oftheeligiblepopulation.Oursurveytargetedacross-sectionofstudents
enrolled in various courses in the College of BusinessAdministration across
all levels (e.g., introductory courses to
seniorlevelcourses)andareasofstudy
(e.g., introduction to business, finance,
marketing, strategic management). We
derived this convenience sample from
classesthatcompriseapartofourprebusiness and business core curriculum.
We selected the specific classes on the
basisoftheavailabilityoftheresearchers to administer the survey in person
andtheflexibilityofthefacultymember
intheclassroom.
We asked the respondents to voluntarily participate in the survey by
answering a questionnaire during class
timeatthebeginningofthefallsemesterof2006.Weassuredthestudentsof
confidentiality and anonymity and told
themthattheyhadthechoicetorefuse
toparticipateinthesurveywithoutpenalty.Becauseweadministeredthesesurveysinpersonandduringclasstime,the
responseratewasvirtually100%,with
no significant percentage of students
refusingorfailingtoparticipate.
Instrument
We collected data using a survey
titled Gender Issues Survey (see the
Appendix).1 The questionnaire was
basedonaninstrumentthatCarretal.
(2000) created during prior research.
Theinstrumentexaminedgender-based
discrimination and sexual harassment
July/August2009
341
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
inthecontextoftotalworkexperience
of full-time academic medical school
faculty and the subjective outcomes
of gender discrimination and sexual
harassment on career satisfaction and
perceptions of career advancement.
Our survey instrument used the “bias,
discrimination, and harassment” section of Carr et al.’s instrument with
minimalmodification.Specifically,we
discarded questions and wording that
focused on present career situations.
Our instrument included questions in
the following areas: gender discrimination of self, gender discrimination
of others, potential career impact of
gender discrimination on self, and
demographic information. The definitionofgenderdiscriminationweused,
makingupforashortfallofCarretal.’s
instrument,wasderivedfromareview
of the literature. The definition is as
follows:“Gender-basedbehaviors,policies,andactionsthatadverselyaffect
aperson’sworkbyleadingtounequal
treatment or the creation of an intimidating environment because of one’s
gender.”Genderdiscriminationoccurs
when employers make decisions such
as selection, evaluation, promotion, or
reward allocation on the basis of an
individual’sgender.
Wepretestedthesurveywithapproximately100studentsduringthesummerof
2006toensurethattherespondentscould
understand the meaning of the questions
andcouldanswerthemappropriately.The
concerns raised during the pretest were
minimal; however, we made modificationstotheinstrumentonthebasisofthe
feedback (e.g., clarified how items were
worded,shortenedthesurvey).
Measures
2003). We then asked the respondents
to indicate the extent to which gender
might affect the careers of others, specifically women, in these same areas.
The eight items comprising the gender
discriminationofselfscalehadaCronbach’s coefficient alpha of .72, whereas the gender discrimination of others
(women) scale had a coefficient alpha
of .87. According to Nunally (1978)
andNunallyandBernstein(1994),these
values met the minimally acceptable
reliabilitycoefficientcriterionof.70.In
additiontoassessingreliability,weperformed a factor analysis to ensure the
scaleswerevalid.Theanalysissuggestedthetheorizedfactorstructureexisted
withthepresentdata.2
PotentialCareerImpactonSelf
We also asked respondents to indicatetowhatextenttheyanticipatedthat
an experience of gender discrimination
might affect their professional career
intermsofpersonalconfidence,career
advancement,jobsatisfaction,organizationalcommitment,andcareercommitment.Weadaptedthesemeasuresfrom
previousresearchonthistopic(Carret
al.,2000;Gutek,Cohen,&Tsui,1996).
The coefficient alpha for the 5-point
Likert-typescalewas.88.
Demographics
The survey concluded with eight
demographicquestionsbasedonthefollowing:gender,race,collegeclassification,workexperience,GPA,major,age,
andpoliticalviewpoint.Genderandrace
weretheonlyvariableswithanylevelof
statistical significance across different
responses.Therefore,wedidnotreport
theothervariablesintheanalysis.
GenderDiscrimination
Weaskedrespondentstoindicatethe
extent to which they anticipated that
gendermighteffecttheircareersuccess,
advancement, networking, mentoring,
time for career, and pay by using a 5point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (never) to 5 (likely). We adapted the
measures from previous research that
suggested these factors are common
outcomes of gender discrimination in
theworkplace(Bible&Hill,2007;Carr
etal.,2000;Carretal.,2003;Ngoetal.,
342
JournalofEducationforBusiness
StatisticalAnalyses
We calculated descriptive statistics
(frequencies,means,standarddeviations,
correlations) for all of the survey questionsusingSPSS(Version12).Toassess
whethergenderorraceaffectedrespondents’perceptionsofgenderdiscrimination, we also performed independent t
tests. We computed the scores by calculating the average of all responses in
eachscaleratherthanrelyingonthetotal
scores,whichcanbemisleadingbecause
of missing data. We ran cross-tabulationsonthegenderdiscriminationsurvey
itemsasdependentvariablesagainstthe
independent demographic variables of
genderandrace.Wealsorancross-tabulationsontheresponseofselftogender
discrimination survey questions against
thesamedemographicvariables.
RESULTS
Participants had a mean age of 20
years(SD=2.74years;range=17–71
years).Therespondentswereprimarily
sophomores (25.6%), juniors (31.2%),
and seniors (31%), but there were also
some freshmen (11.6%) and graduate
students (0.4%) who participated in
thesurvey.Morethanthreequartersof
the participants were business majors
(81.8%),17%reportedmajorsotherthan
business,and1.2%reportedundecided.
The majority of the respondents were
White (72%), whereas the remaining
were Black (22.3%), Hispanic (2.3%),
Asian or Pacific Islander (1.5%), and
Native American or Alaskan Native
(0.3%). Nearly half of the respondents
identified their political viewpoint as
conservative (46.6%), slightly more
thanonethirdofrespondentsidentified
asmoderate(37.4%),and15.9%identifiedtheirpoliticalviewpointasliberal.
In terms of work experience, 2.1% of
the participants reported that they had
neverhadajob,42%reportedthatthey
had worked in casual employment—
definedas“babysitting,part-time,summerlawncare,afterschool,workstudy,
and internship”—22% reported that
they had worked full time (at least 35
hrperweek)forlessthan1year,13%
reportedthattheyhadworkedfulltime
for1to2years,and19%reportedthat
theyhadworkedfulltimefor2ormore
years.TheaverageGPAoftherespondentswas3.01(SD=.72)of4.00.
IndependenttTestResults
We calculated the mean response to
allquestionsineachofthefactoranalysisgroupingsforgenderdiscrimination
of self, gender discrimination of others (women), and the potential affect
on career from gender discrimination
on self. We then tested these variables
to evaluate the significance of gender
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:56 11 January 2016
and race on students’ perceptions of
gender discrimination. We conducted
independentsampletteststodetermine
whetherasignificantdifferenceexisted
in terms of how men and women and
non-Whites and Whites responded for
eachfactoranalysisgrouping.Asillustrated in Table 1, the groupings had
statisticallysignificantmeanratingson
the basis of gender and race. Women,
asopposedtomen,weremorelikelyto
perceivegenderdiscriminationhappeningtothemselves,t(948.03)=–20.30,p