An Analysis of the Causes of Discrimination in the Formal Employment Sector

Kushal De

Assistant Professor of Commerce, Dhruba Chand Halder College,

Dakshin Barasat, Nurulpur, West Bengal 743372, India.

*Corresponding Author E-mail: dekushal@yahoo co.in

ABSTRACT:

In the age of soft skills and dominant service sectors in urban areas, equal opportunity has become the buzzword and is practiced across industries. Gender equality is promoted not only by the institutions or society but also ensured through legislations. The study focuses on the causes of gender discrimination at the workplace analysed from a representative sample of 500 employees (250 male and 250 female employees) drawn from 50 corporate houses in and around Kolkata. The data is collected from the responses received through an empirical study with a close ended questionnaire. On performance of Rotated Component Matrix of the variables, 5 factors are found which are coined as Workplace Dynamics, Work-Life Balance, Workplace Flexibility, Job Satisfaction, and Professional Networking. Through Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis H Test, it is found that there are no significant differences among genders with respect to Workplace Dynamics and Job Satisfaction. This shows that variables relating to workplace legislations, working conditions, pay, promotion and appraisal are adequately addressed in the sample organisations. However, significant difference is observed among genders with respect to Work-Life Balance, Workplace Flexibility, and Professional Networking with the male employees displaying more positive results than females. This shows that variables like flexible working hours, favourable transfer, balancing domestic responsibilities, provisions for child care, adequate grievance handling cell, etc. are not adequately addressed. These results also prove that although modern institutions have come a long way to ensure gender equality, bias prevails and a lot needs to be addressed to.

KEYWORDS: Gender, Corporate house, Satisfaction, discrimination, Promotion, Harassment.

INTRODUCTION:

Replacement of muscle power in the formal employment sector has facilitated entry of females in the labour force. In the age of soft skills and dominant service sectors, females with equal levels of education, skill and expertise have joined their male counterparts. This blessing of varied labour force has also sparked debates among the business houses, framers of legislation and academicians with regards to provisions of equal opportunity. Although equal opportunity is guaranteed through the Indian Constitution and ensured through many laws/acts; discrimination especially gender discrimination exists at workplaces. This is evident from reports published in the print and web media.

The institutional policies and legal framework are the main determinants of equal opportunity but it must also be borne in mind that the gender role assumptions of the policy framers are important. Kalev (2009) doubted if formal policies would help in eliminating discretion and bring about visible changes in employment decisions among men and women. Discriminatory application of a neutral policy might also lead to bias. Bobbitt-Zeher (2011) opined that discriminatory application/ enforcement of policies primarily lead to discriminatory outcome. It was further stated that discrimination results from a combination of cultural ideas about gender, structural policies that affect women and men differently, and decisions to apply or enforce those policies.

The change in traditional role stereotype of the working women caused problems for them. Bowman (1954) feels that working women are increasingly burdened with varied responsibilities along with setting goals of fulfilling their own personalities as women. Devi (1988) also discussed the level of difficulties of working women who has to juggle both her home and job. She is neither absolved of her traditional domestic duties, nor does she find adequate support at the workplace. Motherhood is believed to be a professional full time job that requires the mother to be at home with her children, responsible for reproduction of class culture by her domestic pedagogic work and capable of responding to the demands made upon her by the schools (Arnot, 2002). These role expectations work adversely against professional women.

It is often seen that few women climb up the corporate ladder. Coser and Rokoff (1971) opined that women choose to be employed in such jobs which require minimum qualifications and training. This makes replacement of positions easier for the employer. Saunders (1996) include the prescriptive nature of stereotypes; many women’s lack of ambition or fear of assault on their ‘authenticity’; women’s preference for support, rather than line management roles because of the nature of the work; the difficulties of accommodating work and the family; the male managerial culture; woman’s lack of mentors and networks; and their difficulty in adjusting to, and operating within certain organizational cultures.

In this backdrop, the present paper makes an analysis of the state and causes of discrimination in the formal employment sector.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The present study tries to make an empirical analysis of the factors leading to gender discrimination in the formal employment sector. Based on the factors that are extracted through Rotated Component Matrix from the variables of the questionnaire 5 primary hypothesis were taken up for study. They are:

· Hypothesis 1 (H₀1): There is no significant difference in Workplace Dynamics among employees on the basis of their gender.

· Hypothesis 2 (H₀2): There is no significant difference in Work-Life Balance among employees on the basis of their gender.

· Hypothesis 3 (H₀3): There is no significant difference in Workplace Flexibility among employees on the basis of their gender.

· Hypothesis 4 (H₀4): There is no significant difference in Job Satisfaction among employees on the basis of their gender.

· Hypothesis 5 (H₀5): There is no significant difference in Professional Networking among employees on the basis of their gender.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY:

To fulfill the research objectives, an analysis of primary data was deemed fit. A representative sample of 500 respondent employees was interviewed from 50 corporate houses located in and around Kolkata. The sample includes 250 males and 250 females employed in different levels of the organizational hierarchy. The research instrument (questionnaire) contained 19 close ended questions which were to be answered on a 5 point Likert scale. Each respondent was personally interviewed by the researcher. The data so obtained was tabulated on Excel and processed through SPSS27 to draw logical inferences.

RESULTS:

To ascertain the adequacy of the sample, KMO and Bartlett’s Test was performed:

Table 1: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.		0.773
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	2799.394
	df.	153
	Sig.	0.000
Researcher’s own computation

KMO test value is 0.773 which means there is sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test is significant at 1% level of significance. So, Factor Analysis can be conducted with the data. From the total variances explained table, 5 factors have been found having Eigen value above 1 and the total variances that the original data explains is cumulatively 61.893%.

To ascertain the principal factors, Rotated Component Matrix was performed:

Table 2: Rotated Component Matrix^a

	Component
	1	2	3	4	5
VAR17	0.839
VAR18	0.772
VAR1	0.766	-0.350
VAR19	0.701			0.307
VAR3	-0.661		0.302
VAR2	-0.468	-0.369
VAR11		0.698
VAR5		0.672			0.363
VAR6	-0.315	0.657	0.308
VAR12		-0.587	0.440
VAR9			-0.795
VAR4			0.741
VAR14		-0.341	-0.687
VAR10				0.695
VAR7	0.477			0.594
VAR15				0.571
VAR8	-0.361			0.528
VAR16					0.881

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

Researcher’s own computation

Table 3: Tests of Normality


	Kolmogorov-Smirnov^a			Shapiro-Wilk
	Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Workplace Dynamics	0.195	453	0.000	0.814	453	0.000
Work-Life Balance	0.184	453	0.000	0.855	453	0.000
Workplace Flexibility	0.112	453	0.000	0.944	453	0.000
Job Satisfaction	0.207	453	0.000	0.821	453	0.000
Professional Networking	0.208	453	0.000	0.828	453	0.000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Researcher’s own computation

Table 9 Hypothesis Test Summary

	Null Hypothesis	Test	Sig	Decision
H₀1	There is no significant difference in Workplace Dynamics among employees on the basis of their gender	Independent- Samples Kruskal Wallis Test	0.870	Retain the null hypothesis
H₀2	There is no significant difference in Work- Life Balance among employees on the basis of their gender	Independent-Samples Kruskal Wallis Test	0.000	Reject the null hypothesis
H₀3	There is no significant difference in Workplace	Independent-Samples Kruskal Wallis Test	0.031	Reject the null hypothesis
H₀4	There is no significant difference in Job Satisfaction among employees on the basis of their gender	Independent Samples Kruskal Wallis Test	0.885	Retain the null hypothesis
H₀5	There is no significant difference in Professional Networking among employees on the basis of their gender	Independent-Samples Kruskal Wallis Test	0.005	Reject the null hypothesis

Asymptotic significances are displayed The significance level is 05

Researcher’s own computation

DISCUSSION:

There is little difference in opinion among the sample over the factors Workplace Dynamics and Job Satisfaction. This indicates that the policies framed by the institutions related to the employees in these regard are adequately taken care of. These include provisions for promotion, performance appraisal, pay fixation, payment of bonus, climbing up the corporate hierarchy as well as satisfaction from the present job, and positive social relevance of the present job. The study shows that there is disparity in the factors Work-Life Balance, Workplace Flexibility, and Professional Networking. A review of the variables shows the following:

· The Work-Life Balances of the female employees are more adversely affected than the males. Most female employees believe that their spouse would not relocate if they are transferred to another town. This usually forces them to reject better career opportunity. Most females are also reluctant to accept an overseas assignment for even 1 year as it would hamper their domestic life. It is also observed that both genders prefer a boss as well as a coworker of the same gender for better efficiency at the workplace. Since there are more males at every level of the hierarchy, especially at the managerial level, it works adversely against the females. Motherhood and the issues relating to children also affect the career of female employees to a considerable extent.

· The Workplace Flexibility is also biased against the females. Most institutions surveyed do not have provisions of flexible working hours. The institutional rules are also seen quite rigid in case of night shifts. So, an unwilling employee has little choice if he/she has to work in night shifts. It is also seen that provisions of transportation are not provided by most organizations surveyed. This works adversely against the females.

· It is seen that men have an edge in case of Professional Networking. Establishing good interpersonal relations with superiors and coworkers is easier for men as they are often not judged in such cases. Networking beyond office hours is also easier for men as found through the survey.

Concluding Remarks:

Ideal institutional policies must reflect equality of opportunity. The Government, the framers of legislations and the formal institutions surveyed have all done a considerable job in this regard. This was reflected in the study where both genders have little complaints regarding issues relating to promotion, performance appraisal, pay fixation or payment of bonus. It is found from the study that discrimination is more subtle in nature which is induced due to gender roles in the society and social expectations from the incumbent. Even today, as found from the study, the income of women is deemed as secondary support for the families. Most sacrifices for family commitments are done by females which include responsibilities of children, tackling household chores including the maid, foregoing career prospects, opting for favourable postings and job timings etc. Few institutional policies like absence of official transportation, childcare facilities in offices, flexible working hours, etc. compound the problem. The result is thus a paradox: Equal Opportunity is theoretically present and addressed, but in reality, the women have to face subtle discriminations at the workplace.

REFERENCES:

1. Arnot, Madeline (2002). Reproducing Gender – Essays on Educational Theories and Feminist Politics. Routledge Falmer (Taylor and Francis), London and N.Y., 28-33.

2. Bobbitt-Zeher, D. Gender Discrimination at Work: Connecting Gender Stereotypes, Institutional Policies, and Gender Composition at Workplace. Gender and Society. 2011; 25(6): 764-86.

3. Bowman, H. A. Marriage for Moderns. McGraw Hill, New York. 1954

4. Coser, R. L. and Rokoff, G (). Women in the Occupational World: Social Disruption and Conflict. Social Problems. 1971; 19: 535 – 554.

5. Devi, Bharati (1988). Middle Class Working Women of Calcutta: A Study in Continuity and Change. Anthropological Survey of India, Calcutta.

6. Kalev, A. Cracking the Glass Cages? Restructuring and Prescriptive Inequality at Work. American Journal of Sociology 2009; 114 (6): 1591-1643.

7. Saunders, H. (1996). Acts of Carriage? Public Sector CEOs on Men, Women and Work. Issues paper No 4, Public Sector Standards Commission: Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment.

Received on 01.08.2025 Revised on 28.09.2025

Accepted on 15.10.2025 Published on 07.11.2025

Available online from November 20, 2025

Res. J. of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025;16(4):303-308.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2025.00049

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.

Total N	453
Test Statistic	0.27^ab
Degree of Freedom	1
Asymptotic Sig (2-Sided test)	0.870
a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties
b. Multiple Comparisons are not performed because the overall test does not show significant differences across samples
Researcher’s own computation

Total N	453
Test Statistic	12.863 ^a,b
Degree of Freedom	1
Asymptotic sig (2- Sided test)	0.000
a. The test Statistic is adjusted for ties
b. Multiple Comparisons are not performed because there are less than three test fields
Researcher’s own computation

Total N	453
Test Statistic	4.660 ^a,b
Degree of Freedom	1
Asymptotic Sig. (2- Sided test)	0.031
a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties
b. Multiple comparisons are not performed because there are less than three test fields
Researcher’s own computation

Total N	453
Test Statistic	0.21 ^a,b
Degree of Freedom	1
Asymptotic Sig (2-sided test)	0.885
a. The test Statistic is adjusted for ties
b. Multiple comparisons are not performed because the overall test does not show significant differences across samples
Researcher’s own computation

Total N	453
Test Statistic	7.972 a,b
Degree of Freedom	1
Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided test)	0.005
The test statistic is adjusted for ties
Multiple Comparisons are not performed because there are less than three test fields
Researcher’s own computation