Article Versions
Export Article
Cite this article
  • Normal Style
  • MLA Style
  • APA Style
  • Chicago Style
Research Article
Open Access Peer-reviewed

Workplace Gender Discrimination and Job Performance in Egypt: The Moderating Role of Equity Sensitivity

Mohamad Saad
American Journal of Applied Psychology. 2019, 7(1), 11-19. DOI: 10.12691/ajap-7-1-2
Received December 17, 2018; Revised January 15, 2019; Accepted January 24, 2019

Abstract

Workplace gender discrimination is a significant problem in Egypt. However, there is limited research on Workplace gender discrimination and its consequences. The current research tries to examine the relationships between workplace gender discrimination and task and contextual job performances. Moreover, the moderating effect of equity sensitivity on these relationships is also investigated. A convenience sample on 312 working women was drawn from different work settings in Cairo, Egypt. They responded to a three-part questionnaire that assesses workplace gender discrimination, equity sensitivity, and job performance. The results indicated that workplace gender discrimination was negatively associated with both of task and contextual performances. Moreover, equity sensitivity was found to moderate the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and contextual performance only. These results were discussed in the light of the extant theoretical and empirical literature. In addition, limitation, future research and conclusion are also reported.

1. Introduction

Gender-based violence against women in Egypt, as in any country in the world, is embedded in various and interrelated aspects of discrimination, over and above historical and structural inequities. Such aspects of discrimination influence all facets of their lives, in the family as well as the public circles 1.

Due to the lack of precise, formal and recent statistical data, it is challenging to evaluate the exact magnitude and nature of the various aspects of discrimination against women in Egypt. However, some available information may reveal how gender discrimination aspects are deeply engrained in Egypt. With respect to employment, for example, the census showed that unemployment rate among women is 24.2% compared with 9.8% among men 2.

When occurring in the workplace, gender discrimination has severe pervasive consequences on the organizational level. The financial costs, for example, can be directly linked with defending the firm in a litigation. For example, $54 million were lately paid out to 300 female employees working for Morgan Stanley’s investment as compensation for their claims to have been denied salary and raises equivalent to those received by their male co-workers. Furthermore, 1.6 million women who were working at Wal-Mart join in one major civil rights lawsuit: similar to their peers in Morgan Stanley, they claimed to have been targets of gender-based discrimination 3.

Additionally, financial costs can be indirect, for example, when the company suffer financially due to harmed reputation. Several studies have supported such indirect costs. They indicated that the harmed firm’s reputation is usually associated with low ability to recruit talented employees, decreased employees’ morale and commitment, and increased probability of frequent claims of discrimination 4, 5.

On the individual level, however, the influence of perceived discrimination on its sufferers has received only slight attention. The current study answers the call of Cornejo 6 for industrial-organizational psychologists to shift their thinking from the organizational level and consider the macro picture of workplace discrimination.

The first key contribution of the paper is to build on research that has examined the outcomes of workplace gender discrimination by studying the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and job performance among Egyptian working women. This is particularly important for two main reasons. First, there is relatively few studies of workplace discrimination and job-related consequences 7. Second, such relationship is important given the expected increase in women participation in development and economic reform programs in Egypt.

The second key contribution of this paper is the proposal that equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and job performance. This is particularly important since there is significant body of research that supports the idea that people vary in their responses to unfair behaviours in different situations. Indeed, several studies have confirmed that equity sensitivity can predict the different patterns of people’s behaviours in various discrimination situations 8, 9.

Furthermore, most previous research on workplace gender discrimination has been conducted in western countries where cultures are typically individualist and low in power distance 10. The literature on workplace gender discrimination has paid little attention to the experiences of Egyptian women. The current research fills this gab by studying workplace gender discrimination in a more collectivistic and high-power distance culture (i.e., Egypt).

2. Literature Review

2.1. Workplace Gender Discrimination

Workplace discrimination can occur based on many individual characteristics including, but not limited to, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, weight, cultural background, disability, or illness 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Workplace gender discrimination refers to the differential treatment of male and female employees on the basis of their gender, notwithstanding of their qualifications or the job requirements 20. In spite of the remarkable examples of successful women and legal protection mechanisms, gender discrimination continues to exist in the workplace 21, 22, 23.

At all organizational levels, women still experience gender discrimination as a main barricade to their progress (Metz & Moss, 2008). For example, Carr, Szalacha, Barnett, Caswell, and Inui 24 examined the influence of gender bias on medical professionals and found that three quarters of the female respondents selected (from 11 options) gender discrimination as the first or second most essential reason that hampers their careers.

Based on the model developed by Mohamad 25, workplace gender discrimination behaviours can be classified into two categories. On one hand, there are the formal, direct, outright, explicit, and overt discriminatory practices. These include two main types: denial of opportunities and financial discrimination. On the other hand, there are the informal, indirect, subtle, implicit, and covert discriminatory practices. These include other two types: disregarding and underestimation, and segregation and stereotyping. Workplace gender discrimination in today’s work settings is mostly classified in this category which makes it vague and hard to be proven 26.

Denial of opportunities may include passing over female candidates in recruitment to jobs. For the already employed, working women may be exposed to threat of discrimination with respect to promotion, training and development programs 14, 27, 28, 29, 30.

Research evidence has shown that working women in business, industry, and the public sector remain to be underrepresented in the top managerial positions 1, 18, 32, 33, 34. For example, 98.6 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs are men. In addition, 84 percent of the corporate officers of these companies are men as well 35.

Some scholars attributed this disproportional representation of women in top executive positions to the glass ceiling, i.e. setting barriers for women promotion, or to the sticky floor, i.e. keeping women in dead-end, lower paying jobs, or to the glass cliff, i.e. those women who make it to the top managerial positions ultimately leave 31, 33, 36.

With respect to financial discrimination, several empirical studies indicated that compared with men, women were underprivileged on almost all financial indicators (e.g. salary and salary progression). At higher organizational levels dominated by men, the pay gap is greater 37, 38, 39, 40, 41. In addition, Leutwiler and Kleiner 42, using regression analysis with 30 years of data, proposed that the wages gap between men and women will remain unsolved up until the year 2193.

As for segregation and stereotyping. For example, several studies indicated that dominant stereotypes of the difference between men and women was that women are emotional, irresponsible, and poor problem solvers, less inspiring, less influencing compared with their male colleagues 31, 43.

Despite the success of plentiful women in the workplace, negative attitudes and stereotypes of women remain 16, 44, 45. Most of those negative attitudes and stereotypes denote the incongruity between women and necessary work duties 46.

Such types of stereotypes thus prevent the precise assessment of men’s and women’s abilities to perform their jobs 47. This, in turn, sets the stage for bias in recruitment, placement, and performance appraisal. These conceptions provide the fuel for the differential treatment of men and women in the workplace 48.

Finally, working women may be exposed to several aspects of disregarding and underestimation, significant body of research indicated that working women frequently suffer from negative expectations of their skills and capabilities. This, in turn, may give their colleagues the justification to socially banish them. Accordingly, working women are kept away from becoming important players within their corporations. Because their contributions may be considered less valuable, they may be ignored in key discussions, overlooked when making significant decisions, and left out of critical information-sharing. Because they are viewed as lacking necessary competencies, they are less likely to be asked for help. Such aspects of underestimation and disregarding can create an organizational context where women are excluded from possibilities to exert influence 48, 49. Moreover, women’s work characteristics (i.e., responsibility, autonomy, authority) are usually less favourable than men’s 41.

2.2. Workplace Gender Discrimination and Job Performance

Job performance can be defined as “the total expected value to the organization of the discrete behavioural episodes that an individual carries out over a standard period of time” [ 50: 39]. Job performance is often conceptualized as comprising task performance and contextual performance dimensions 51, 52.

Task performance involves activities that (a) directly convert raw materials to the products and services introduced by the organization or (b) assist or sustain the technical core by restocking supplies; distributing goods; and providing planning, synchronization, organizing, and workforce functions that allow for proficient organizational functioning 9, 51.

Contextual performance (also called organizational citizenship behaviour) consists of activities that support the wider environment in which the technical core must operate. Contextual performance includes behaviours such as helping and cooperating with others, volunteering to do extra efforts that are not lawfully part of the job, following organizational guidelines and processes, and supporting the achievement of organizational goals 9, 52, 53.

The occurrence of workplace gender discrimination may create work environments that are exclusive and difficult to navigate for working women 54, and if organizations failed to equalize this discrimination, they may be vulnerable to suffer from decreased satisfaction, commitment, and efficiency of employees 55. Indeed, the negative effects of workplace discrimination on work-related outcomes have been widely examined 56, 57, 58.

For example, workplace discrimination was found to be correlated with decreased performance, productivity, job satisfaction, motivation, enthusiasm level, organizational commitment, job involvement, self-efficacy and well-being 56, 59, 60, 61. Recently, Dalton, Cohen, Harp, and McMillan 62 found that perceived gender discrimination is associated with lower organizational citizenship behaviour and higher turnover intentions.

Several theoretical models tried to explain the association between workplace gender discrimination and job performance. For example, stressor–strain theory suggested that workplace gender discrimination can be considered a stressor 63, 64, such that those exposed to it may experience several negative consequences, including poor job performance. In support to this theory, some empirical research has found that, compared with other common work stressors such as role conflict and ambiguity, perceived discrimination was associated with higher work tension and decreased job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, workplace discrimination was found to elicit a state of energy diminution, psychological distress, health problems, depressive symptoms, burnout and alienation 65, 66.

Furthermore, with regard to the experience of workplace gender discrimination, the attribution theory stated that working women who perceive that discrimination in the workplace is attributed to stable internal characteristics and uncontrollable external reasons will be less likely to set forth effort and will suffer from low self-esteem 67.

In addition, the social exchange theory suggested that social exchanges are ‘‘subjective, relationship-oriented interactions between employers and employees characterized by an exchange of socio-economic benefits, mutual trust and commitment, a long-term focus, and unspecified, open-ended commitments’’ [ 68: 845]. Accordingly, individuals who are equitably treated are more likely to experience a sense of responsibility to return fair organizational treatment by engaging in contextual performance behaviours. In contrast, victims of workplace discrimination may perform poorly to balance the interchange 69. Consistent with this idea, prior research found that female employees may respond to discriminating organizational treatment through avenging measures such as work withdrawal, opposing instructions from managers, and put forth a minimal work effort 70.

Based on the cumulative theoretical and empirical evidence, we would expect workplace gender discrimination to have negative effects on job performance dimensions. Therefore, the first hypothesis will be formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 1: There are negative relationships between gender discrimination aspects and job performance dimensions.

2.3. Equity Sensitivity as a Moderating Variable on the Relationship between Workplace Gender Discrimination and Job Performance

When workers feel that they are being unfairly treated, they may believe that their rights have been desecrated. Therefore, they may pull themselves out from the organization. This may take place in a form of lower performance, increased absenteeism and turnover, deviant behaviours, decreased affective commitment and contextual behaviours 70, 71. There is significant body of research, however, suggested that employees vary in their experiences and responses to discrimination and unfairness 8, 72.

Huseman et al. 8 suggested the construct of equity sensitivity as a unidimensional personality trait that defines individuals’ preferences for various input/outcome ratios. The equity sensitivity can be depicted as a continuum that is divided into three different kinds of equity-sensitive individuals. At one end of the continuum is the benevolents. Benevolent people score high on equity sensitivity since they prefer to give more than to receive in comparison to others. They are comparatively forbearing for unfair situations and are concerned with 73. Equity sensitives are those who score near closer to the mean on the continuum. They prefer to balance their outcomes and contributions. Finally, those who score low on equity sensitivity are the entitleds. They are gain oriented, i.e., they prefer to receive more than they contribute in comparison to others. They have less tolerance for biased treatment and a high tolerance for over reward situations 73, 74.

In an exchange relationship, benevolents are more attentive to inputs (i.e., what they give), while entitleds are more concerned with the outcomes (i.e., what they receive). There is a significant research evidence that benevolent employees showed more contentment and motivation to work hard in situations of discrimination, while entitleds have been found to respond more negatively to inequities 75, 76. Benevolents showed higher levels of affective commitment and performed more contextual performance behaviours and less counterproductive work behaviours, compared to entitleds in inequities 77, 78, 79, 80, 81.

Therefore, it is assumed that benevolent female employees who have the strongest tolerance for workplace gender discrimination are more likely to have a better job performance than entitleds. Benevolents are more tolerant of inequities, therefore it is expected that their performance would generally be high and relatively unaffected by workplace gender discrimination compared with entitleds. In addition, equity sensitives are likely to perform poorly with increased workplace gender discrimination. Their job performance is expected to outperform entitleds' but will be lower than benevolents' performance. Such moderating effect of equity sensitivity on the relationship between workplace gender discrimination is illustrated in Figure 1.

Accordingly, the second hypothesis can be formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Equity sensitivity moderates the relationships between workplace gender discrimination aspects and job performance dimensions.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The target population in this study was the working women in industrial and service organizations in Cairo, Egypt. Seven private organizations and three public organizations working in Greater Cairo were chosen. The total number of permanent staff in these organizations was 5248 employees, and the total number of working women was 2137.

A convenience sample procedure was used to recruit four hundreds working women. Only three hundreds and twelve of them responded positively with a response rate of (78%). Their main characteristics are shown in Table 1.

These characteristics indicate a reasonable mix of demographic groups represented in the collected data.

3.2. Instruments

A three-part questionnaire was used to assess the study variables. Workplace gender discrimination was measured using a 25-item scale developed by the author 25 to measure four aspects of workplace gender discrimination, namely, denial of opportunities (8 items), financial discrimination (4 items), disregarding and underestimation (7 items), and segregation and stereotyping (6 items). The frequency of exposure to discriminatory behaviours was measured on a five-point Likert scale. Answers ranged from 1 (I never exposed to) to 5 (I always expose to). Equity sensitivity was measured using the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) developed by Huseman et al. 8 in which participants divide 10 points between two response choices for each of five pairs of statements. One statement in each pair was the benevolent response and the other statement was the entitled response. The total score is obtained by summing the points for the benevolent responses. In the present study, scores ranged from 0 to 46 (M = 29.65, S.D. = 8.35). The sample was divided into the three equity sensitivity groups. Those with a score of less than 26 being classified as entitleds (n = 72, M = 19.46, S.D. = 7.71), those with a score of from 26 to 34 being classified as equity sensitives (n = 133, M = 28.54, S.D. = 2.81), and those with a score of 34 or greater being classified as benevolents (n = 107, M = 39.13, S.D. = 4.16). Job performance was measured using a 16-item scale developed by Goodman and Svyantek 82 to measure two dimensions of job performance, namely, task performance (9 items) and contextual performance (7 items). Each item was assessed on a five point Likert scale. Answers ranged from 1 (I never do) to 5 (I always do). Moreover, demographic variables, including age, sector, education and organizational position, were also included. Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of these measures are shown in Table 2.

It can be noticed that all reliability coefficients were reasonably high. Furthermore, to test the validity of the used measures, two procedures were used. First, the three part questionnaire was reviewed by a panel of ten experts who assessed the content of each part and evaluated the appropriateness of this content to the Egyptian culture.

The comments of all experts indicated that the used questionnaires are valid and culturally appropriate. Second, a confirmatory factor analysis, using AMOS 22, was conducted to confirm the factor structure of the used scales in the target population as shown in Table 3. Moreover, it can be noticed that all fit indices were above the recommended level of acceptance. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the factor structures of the used instruments are confirmed in the target population.

3.3. Data Collection Procedures

Participants were approached in their workplace and were asked to complete the questionnaire. Before completing the questionnaire, all participants were assured that their participation was voluntary, and anonymity was guaranteed. Latin square procedure was used to control the order of presenting the three-part questionnaire and to minimize the common method bias.

4. Results

To test the first hypothesis, assuming that there are significant negative relationships between workplace gender discrimination and job performance, Pearson correlation coefficient were calculated as shown in Table 4.

It can be shown that all correlation coefficients between workplace gender discrimination aspects and job performance were significant with 99 percent confidence. Accordingly, the first hypothesis is sustained. It can be noticed, however, that the correlation coefficients for contextual performance were higher than those for task performance.

To test the second hypothesis, assuming that equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and job performance, two-way analysis of variance procedure was used. Using the visual binning procedures with two cut-off points, the total score of workplace gender discrimination was categorized into three classes (low, moderate, and high). The results of the two-way analysis of variance to detect the moderating effect of equity sensitivity on the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and both of task performance and contextual performance are shown in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.

It can be shown from these results that equity sensitivity moderates the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and contextual performance but not with task performance. This moderation effect is graphically demonstrated in Figure 2.

Accordingly, the second hypothesis is partially sustained since the moderation effects occurred only for contextual performance but not for task performance.

5. Discussion

Workplace gender discrimination is a distinctive from other types of workplace violence, as the victims are beleaguered specifically because they are members of a specific group, a factor generally beyond the victim’s control 83.

Contemporary stigma theory shed some light on the problem of workplace gender discrimination 12. Link and Phelan 60 suggested that the stigmatizing influences of categorizing and labelling happening in a power situation decrease opportunities for the targeted individual.

From a societal standpoint, based on the remnants of Arab and Islamic values and other societal norms, Egyptian women are typically confined in the role of housewives and mothers. However, there is little research that tackles how they experience workplace gender discrimination and its potential work-related outcomes 29, especially in Egypt.

The current research tried to add to our understanding of the relationships between workplace gender discrimination and job performance dimensions by examining the moderating role of equity sensitivity to such relationships. The results of the current study indicated that there are significant negative relationships between workplace gender discrimination aspects and job performance dimensions. They also indicated that such relationships were stronger for contextual performance than for task performance. Moreover, the moderating role of equity sensitivity was sustained for contextual performance but not for task performance.

According to equity theory, employees experience justice by comparing their inputs (e.g., effort, quantity and quality of performance) versus their outcomes (e.g., equal opportunities, equal pay) relative to the same ratio of their colleagues. When there is a balance between their input and outcome, the employees would be more likely to perform positively in ways that benefit the organization. However, when discrimination is perceived, the individual may use one or more mechanism to restore balance 84. If possible, the individual may seek higher outcomes relative to his or her inputs, or may try to lower his inputs relative to the same outcomes. This explain why workplace gender discrimination aspects were found to be negatively correlated with both of task and contextual performance.

The results of the current study support a significant body of research that indicated that workplace discrimination is associated with lower self-efficacy, decreased performance, productivity, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement and well-being 56, 59, 61, 85.

Using a sample of professional psychologists and a sample of senior managers, Gutek, Cohen, and Tsui 86 examined different responses to perceived gender discrimination. The results indicated that workplace gender discrimination was associated with more work conflict, less perceived power and prestige, and less probability of selecting the same career again.

Another study by Schaffer and colleagues 87 indicated that perceived gender discrimination in organizational decision making has negative consequences (e.g. less job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and higher intentions to quit) in different eastern and western cultures (e.g., United States, China). Ensher et al. 56 also found a negative correlation between perceived discrimination and job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviours.

In addition, some researchers found that perceived discrimination is also related to more extreme work withdrawal behaviours, such as employee grievances. When they are treated unfairly with respect to compensation, job assignment, promotion, overtime assignments, disciplinary actions, or layoffs Employees, employees are more willing to file grievances than those who are treated fairly 88.

With respect to the moderation effect of equity sensitivity, it is suggested, on one hand, that benevolents obtain satisfaction from what they give to the organization. They are concerned with establishing a long-term employment relationship with their organizations. Equity sensitives, on the other hand, prefer to balance their outcomes and their contributions, while entitleds prefer their outcomes to surpass their inputs 8, 78. Accordingly, it was assumed that equity sensitivity would moderate the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and job performance dimensions. The current research revealed, however, that such moderation effect occurred only for contextual performance but not for task performance.

Organ 89 argued that, in responding to inequities, employees are frequently incapable to directly reduce these inputs that are specified by the employment contract (i.e., task performance). Instead, they may respond by reducing contextual performance behaviours. Significant research body has confirmed the robust relationship between perceptions of fairness and contextual performance 90, 91.

Based on the empirical results of 92, 93, 94, it can be concluded that feelings of justice or equity may result in higher motivation to engage in contextual performance behaviours. Researchers suggested that perceptions of injustice were a significant predictor of contextual performance (i.e., citizenship behaviour) 56, 95, 96.

6. Limitations and Future Research

Although the current study has some important contributions to the extant literature of workplace gender discrimination and job performance in Egypt, it has, like any other study, some limitations that are worth noting. First, the sample size is a typical concern of many research. Different results may be obtained from a larger or a more diverse sample.

Second, cross-sectional data was used in the current research, accordingly, detecting causal relationships is not possible. Moreover, it is argued that workplace gender discrimination may result in poor job performance, however, it is also possible that women's poor job performance may shape the work environment that trigger gender discrimination. Therefore, using longitudinal panel data may be important to help untangle the chronological sequence of workplace gender discrimination and job performance.

Third, we agree with those who question the value of perception-based measures of discrimination 97, 98, but want to suggest, nevertheless, that examining individuals’ perceptions allowed us to explore the subjective side of discrimination. Whether perceptions accurately reflect actual discriminatory treatment is difficult to determine. However, perceptions do characterize reality for those who report it and therefore have real consequences for workers and employers 7, 59.

Fourth, although the sample used in the current research was fairly large and reasonably heterogeneous, one limitation of the generalizability of the results to the whole population of Egyptian working women concerns the place in which data were collected. All data collection had taken place in Greater Cairo (The capital). Therefore, collecting data from different governorates from Upper and Lower Egypt is necessary for assuring the generalizability of results.

Finally, the current study did not take into account the various organizational factors that may exist in the culture of the organizations that may allow or prevent workplace gender discrimination.

7. Conclusion

Given the importance of studying workplace gender discrimination in Egypt, the current research tried to tackle the relationships between workplace gender discrimination aspects and job performance dimensions. Our findings highlighted the significant negative relationships between workplace gender discrimination and both of task and contextual performances. Moreover, the findings indicated that indicated that the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and task performance is significant regardless the type of equity sensitivity. All sufferers of workplace gender discrimination perform their tasks poorly. It is suggested, therefore, that more institutionalized combating efforts are needed to prevent workplace gender discrimination and its negative work-related outcomes. On the other hand, the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and contextual performance was moderated by equity sensitivity. Therefore, some important individual differences should be taken into account while examine such relationship. These results have important implications for organizational psychologists and human resources specialists with respect to recruitment, selection, and justice issues.

References

[1]  Amnesty International (2015). Circles of hell: Domestic, public and state violence against women in Egypt. London: Amnesty International.
In article      
 
[2]  CAPMAS (2014). Labor force: Statistical Yearbook. Cairo: Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics.
In article      
 
[3]  Greenhouse, S. (2004). August 18. Woman sues Costco, claiming sex bias in promotions. New York Times, C3.
In article      
 
[4]  James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2006). Diversity crises: How firms manage discrimination lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1103-1118.
In article      View Article
 
[5]  Wooten, L. P., & James, E. H. (2004). When firms fail to learn: The perpetuation of discrimination in the workplace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(1), 23-33.
In article      View Article
 
[6]  Cornejo, J. M. (2007). An examination of the relationships among perceived gender discrimination, work motivation, and performance.
In article      
 
[7]  De Castro, A. B., Gee, G. C., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2008). Workplace discrimination and health among Filipinos in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 520-526.
In article      View Article  PubMed  PubMed
 
[8]  Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3_suppl), 1055-1064.
In article      View Article
 
[9]  Schneid, M., Isidor, R., Li, C., & Kabst, R. (2015). The influence of cultural context on the relationship between gender diversity and team performance: A meta-analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 733-756.
In article      View Article
 
[10]  Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
In article      
 
[11]  Billett, S., Dymock, D., Johnson, G., & Martin, G. (2011). Last resort employees: older workers' perceptions of workplace discrimination. Human Resource Development International, 14(4), 375-389.
In article      View Article
 
[12]  Draper, W., Hawley, C., McMahon, B. T., & Reid, C. A. (2012). Workplace discrimination and the record of disability. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 36(3), 199-206.
In article      
 
[13]  Drumea, c. (2018). Discrimination and gender balance in public organizations. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Series V: Economic Sciences, 11(2).
In article      
 
[14]  Furunes, T., & Mykletun, R. J. (2010). Age discrimination in the workplace: Validation of the Nordic Age Discrimination Scale (NADS). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 23-30.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[15]  Hoke, T. (2013). A Question of Ethics: The Importance of Eradicating Workplace Discrimination. Civil Engineering Magazine Archive, 83(11), 42-43.
In article      View Article
 
[16]  Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J. (2010). Engendering change: Organizational dynamics and workplace gender desegregation, 1975-2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 255-277.
In article      View Article
 
[17]  Malos, S. (2010). Post-9/11 backlash in the workplace: Employer liability for discrimination against Arab-and Muslim-Americans based on religion or national origin. Employee responsibilities and rights journal, 22(4), 297-310.
In article      View Article
 
[18]  Russinova, Z., Griffin, S., Bloch, P., Wewiorski, N. J., & Rosoklija, I. (2011). Workplace prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with mental illnesses. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(3), 227-241.
In article      
 
[19]  Schallenkamp, K., DeBeaumont, R., & Houy, J. (2012). Weight-Based Discrimination in the Workplace: Is Legal Protection Necessary?. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(4), 251-259.
In article      View Article
 
[20]  International Labour Organization (2003). Time for equality at work. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.
In article      
 
[21]  King, N. J., Pillay, S., & Lasprogata, G. A. (2006). Workplace privacy and discrimination issues related to genetic data: a comparative law study of the European Union and the United States. Am. Bus. LJ, 43, 79.
In article      View Article
 
[22]  Sarra, J. (2005). Class act: Considering race and gender in the corporate boardroom. St. John’s Law Review, 79, 1121-1160.
In article      
 
[23]  Scott, J., & Nolan, J. (2007). New technology and gendered divisions of labour: Problems and prospects for equality in the public and private spheres. Equal Opportunities International, 26, 89-95.
In article      View Article
 
[24]  Carr, P. L., Szalacha, L., Barnett, R., Caswell, C., & Inui, T. (2003). A" ton of feathers": gender discrimination in academic medical careers and how to manage it. Journal of Women's Health, 12(10), 1009-1018.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[25]  Mohamad, M. S. (2016). Discrimination, harassment, and workplace violence against working women in Egypt. Cairo University, Faculty of Arts, Project of Supporting Scientific Research in Social Sciences.
In article      
 
[26]  Bartlett, K. T. (2009). Making good on good intentions: The critical role of motivation in reducing implicit workplace discrimination. Virginia Law Review, 1893-1972.
In article      
 
[27]  Elliott, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 365-386.
In article      View Article
 
[28]  Gorman, E. H., & Kmec, J. A. (2009). Hierarchical rank and women’s organizational mobility: Glass ceilings in corporate law firms. American Journal of Sociology, 114(5), 1428-1474.
In article      View Article
 
[29]  Stainback, K., Ratliff, T. N., & Roscigno, V. J. (2011). The context of workplace sex discrimination: Sex composition, workplace culture and relative power. Social Forces, 89(4), 1165-1188.
In article      View Article
 
[30]  Wood, S., Braeken, J., & Niven, K. (2013). Discrimination and well-being in organizations: Testing the differential power and organizational justice theories of workplace aggression. Journal of business ethics, 115(3), 617-634.
In article      View Article
 
[31]  Bible, D., & Hill, K. L. (2007). Discrimination: Women in business. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11(1), 65-76.
In article      
 
[32]  Catalyst. (2007). 2006 Catalyst census of women in Fortune 500 corporate officer and board positions. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2006-catalyst-census-womencorporate-officers-and-top-earners-fortune-500.
In article      
 
[33]  Noble, C., & Moore, S. (2006). Advancing women and leadership in this post-feminist, post EEO era. Women in Management Review, 21, 598-603.
In article      View Article
 
[34]  Probert, B. (2005). I just couldn’t fit it in: Gender and unequal outcomes in academic careers. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(1), 50-72.
In article      View Article
 
[35]  Catalyst (2002). Census of women corporate officers and top earners of the Fortune 500. New York: Catalyst.
In article      
 
[36]  Wentling, R. M. (2003). The career development and aspirations of women in middle management-revisited. Women in Management Review, 18(6), 331-324.
In article      View Article
 
[37]  Burress, J., & Zucca, L. J. (2004). The gender equity gap in top corporate executive positions. American Journal of Business, 19(1), 55-62.
In article      View Article
 
[38]  Oehmichen, J., Sarry, M. A., & Wolff, M. (2014). Beyond human capital explanations for the gender pay gap among executives: Investigating board embeddedness effects on discrimination. Business Research, 7(2), 351-380.
In article      View Article
 
[39]  Ostroff, C., & Atwater, L. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group gender and age composition on managers' compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 725.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[40]  Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Postmes, T. (2003). Women's emotional responses to the pervasiveness of gender discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3), 297-312.
In article      View Article
 
[41]  Sipe, S., Johnson, C. D., & Fisher, D. K. (2009). University students' perceptions of gender discrimination in the workplace: Reality versus fiction. Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 339-349.
In article      View Article
 
[42]  Leutwiler, J., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Statistical analysis for determining pay discrimination. Equal Opportunities International, 22(6/7), 1-8.
In article      View Article
 
[43]  Hymowitz, C. (2005). Women fall for old stereotypes of themselves, study says. The Wall Street Journal, November 6.
In article      
 
[44]  Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1), 48-61.
In article      View Article
 
[45]  Kmec, J. A. (2005). Setting occupational sex segregation in motion: Demand side explanations of sex traditional employment. Work and Occupations, 32: 322-354.
In article      View Article
 
[46]  Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 393-398.
In article      View Article
 
[47]  Martell, R. F., Parker, C., Emrich, C. G., & Crawford, M. S. (1998). Sex Stereotyping in the Executive Suite:" Much Ado About Something". Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(1), 127-138.
In article      
 
[48]  Welle, B., & Heilman, M. E. (2007). Formal and informal discrimination against women at work. Research in social issues in management: Managing social and ethical issues in organizations, 229-252.
In article      
 
[49]  Catalyst (2004). The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity. Catalyst: New York.
In article      
 
[50]  Motowidlo, S.J. (2003). Job performance. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.). Handbook of psychology, 12: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 39-53. John Wiley & Sons: New York
In article      View Article
 
[51]  Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and individual job performance. Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations, 83, 120.
In article      
 
[52]  Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[53]  Takeuchi, R., Li, Y., & Wang, M. (2019). Expatriates’ Performance Profiles: Examining the Effects of Work Experiences on the Longitudinal Change Patterns. Journal of Management, 45(2), 451-475.
In article      View Article
 
[54]  Catalyst (2001). Women in financial services: The word on the street. New York: Catalyst.
In article      
 
[55]  Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[56]  Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 53-72.
In article      View Article
 
[57]  Feagin, J. R., & McKinney, K. D. (2003). The many costs of racism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
In article      
 
[58]  Roscigno, V. J., Mong, S., Byron, R., & Tester, G. (2007). Age discrimination, social closure and employment. Social Forces, 86(1), 313-334.
In article      View Article
 
[59]  Banerjee, R. (2008). An examination of factors affecting perception of workplace discrimination. Journal of Labor Research, 29(4), 380.
In article      View Article
 
[60]  Channar, Z. A., Abbassi, Z., & Ujan, I. A. (2011). Gender discrimination in workforce and its impact on the employees. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 5(1), 177-191.
In article      
 
[61]  Deitch, E., Barsky, A., Butz, R., Chan, S., Brief, A. & Bradley, J. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56:1299-1324.
In article      View Article
 
[62]  Dalton, D. W., Cohen, J. R., Harp, N. L., & McMillan, J. J. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of perceived gender discrimination in the audit profession. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(3), 1-32.
In article      View Article
 
[63]  Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998-1012.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[64]  Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 874.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[65]  De Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A longitudinal test of the triple-match principle. Journal of applied psychology, 91(6), 1359.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[66]  Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(1), 150.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[67]  Randolph, D. S. (2005). The meaning of workplace discrimination for women with disabilities. Work, 24(4), 369-380.
In article      
 
[68]  Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of management, 33(6), 841-866.
In article      View Article
 
[69]  Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?. Academy of Management journal, 41(3), 351-357.
In article      View Article
 
[70]  Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of management journal, 42(1), 100-108.
In article      
 
[71]  Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 656-669.
In article      PubMed
 
[72]  Vecchio, R. P. (1981). An individual-differences interpretation of the conflicting predictions generated by equity and expectancy theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 470.
In article      View Article
 
[73]  Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26(5), 885-910.
In article      View Article
 
[74]  Woodley, H. J., & Allen, N. J. (2014). The dark side of equity sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 103-108.
In article      View Article
 
[75]  Allen, R. S., & White, C. S. (2002). Equity sensitivity theory: A test of responses to two types of under-reward situations. Journal of managerial issues, 435-451.
In article      
 
[76]  Suazo, M. M., & Turnley, W. H. (2010). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relations between individual differences and psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(6), 620-648.
In article      View Article
 
[77]  Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259-273.
In article      View Article
 
[78]  Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J., Patti, A. L., & Razek, J. R. (2000). The relationships between equity sensitivity, growth need strength, organizational citizenship behavior, and perceived outcomes in the quality environment: A study of accounting professionals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 99.
In article      
 
[79]  Oren, L., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2013). Does equity sensitivity moderate the relationship between effort–reward imbalance and burnout? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(6), 643-658.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[80]  Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Bordia, S. (2009). The interactive effects of procedural justice and equity sensitivity in predicting responses to psychological contract breach: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 165-178.
In article      View Article
 
[81]  Yiu, T. W., & Law, Y. M. (2011). Moderating effect of equity sensitivity on behavior-outcome relationships in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(5), 322-332.
In article      View Article
 
[82]  Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person–organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter. Journal of vocational behavior, 55(2), 254-275.
In article      View Article
 
[83]  Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499-519.
In article      View Article
 
[84]  Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
In article      View Article
 
[85]  Pavalko, E. K., Mossakowski, K. N., & Hamilton, V. J. (2003). Does perceived discrimination affect health? Longitudinal relationships between work discrimination and women's physical and emotional health. Journal of Health and social Behavior, 18-33.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[86]  Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Tsui, A. (1996). Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Human relations, 49(6), 791-813.
In article      View Article
 
[87]  Shaffer, M. A., Joplin, J. R., Bell, M. P., Lau, T., & Oguz, C. (2000). Gender discrimination and job-related outcomes: A cross-cultural comparison of working women in the United States and China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 395-427.
In article      View Article
 
[88]  Allen, R. E., & Keaveny, T. J. (1985). Factors differentiating grievants and nongrievants. Human Relations, 38(6), 519-534.
In article      View Article
 
[89]  Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
In article      
 
[90]  Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 278-321.
In article      View Article
 
[91]  Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3), 513-563.
In article      View Article
 
[92]  Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management journal, 32(1), 115-130.
In article      
 
[93]  Hartman, S. J., Fok, A. Y., & Villere, M. F. (1997). The impact of culture on the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and equity sensitivity. Journal of Transnational Management Development, 2, 33-50.
In article      
 
[94]  Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 74(1), 157.
In article      View Article
 
[95]  Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of management, 16(4), 705-721.
In article      View Article
 
[96]  Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What are the connections?. Social Justice Research, 6(1), 5-18.
In article      View Article
 
[97]  Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S., Beishon, S., & Virdee, S. (1997). Fourth national survey of ethnic minorities in Britain: Diversity and disadvantage. London: Policy Studies Institute.
In article      
 
[98]  Russell, H., McGinnity, F., Quinn, E., & King O'Riain, R. (2010). The experience of discrimination in Ireland: evidence from self-report data.
In article      
 

Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2019 Mohamad Saad

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Cite this article:

Normal Style
Mohamad Saad. Workplace Gender Discrimination and Job Performance in Egypt: The Moderating Role of Equity Sensitivity. American Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 7, No. 1, 2019, pp 11-19. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajap/7/1/2
MLA Style
Saad, Mohamad. "Workplace Gender Discrimination and Job Performance in Egypt: The Moderating Role of Equity Sensitivity." American Journal of Applied Psychology 7.1 (2019): 11-19.
APA Style
Saad, M. (2019). Workplace Gender Discrimination and Job Performance in Egypt: The Moderating Role of Equity Sensitivity. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 7(1), 11-19.
Chicago Style
Saad, Mohamad. "Workplace Gender Discrimination and Job Performance in Egypt: The Moderating Role of Equity Sensitivity." American Journal of Applied Psychology 7, no. 1 (2019): 11-19.
Share
  • Figure 1. The hypothesized moderating effect of equity sensitivity on the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and job performance
  • Figure 2. Graphical demonstration of the moderating effect of equity sensitivity on the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and contextual performance
  • Table 5. Two-way ANOVA analysis to test the moderation effect of equity sensitivity on the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and task performance
  • Table 6. Two-way ANOVA analysis to test the moderation effect of equity sensitivity on the relationship between workplace gender discrimination and contextual performance
[1]  Amnesty International (2015). Circles of hell: Domestic, public and state violence against women in Egypt. London: Amnesty International.
In article      
 
[2]  CAPMAS (2014). Labor force: Statistical Yearbook. Cairo: Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics.
In article      
 
[3]  Greenhouse, S. (2004). August 18. Woman sues Costco, claiming sex bias in promotions. New York Times, C3.
In article      
 
[4]  James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2006). Diversity crises: How firms manage discrimination lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1103-1118.
In article      View Article
 
[5]  Wooten, L. P., & James, E. H. (2004). When firms fail to learn: The perpetuation of discrimination in the workplace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(1), 23-33.
In article      View Article
 
[6]  Cornejo, J. M. (2007). An examination of the relationships among perceived gender discrimination, work motivation, and performance.
In article      
 
[7]  De Castro, A. B., Gee, G. C., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2008). Workplace discrimination and health among Filipinos in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 520-526.
In article      View Article  PubMed  PubMed
 
[8]  Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3_suppl), 1055-1064.
In article      View Article
 
[9]  Schneid, M., Isidor, R., Li, C., & Kabst, R. (2015). The influence of cultural context on the relationship between gender diversity and team performance: A meta-analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 733-756.
In article      View Article
 
[10]  Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
In article      
 
[11]  Billett, S., Dymock, D., Johnson, G., & Martin, G. (2011). Last resort employees: older workers' perceptions of workplace discrimination. Human Resource Development International, 14(4), 375-389.
In article      View Article
 
[12]  Draper, W., Hawley, C., McMahon, B. T., & Reid, C. A. (2012). Workplace discrimination and the record of disability. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 36(3), 199-206.
In article      
 
[13]  Drumea, c. (2018). Discrimination and gender balance in public organizations. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Series V: Economic Sciences, 11(2).
In article      
 
[14]  Furunes, T., & Mykletun, R. J. (2010). Age discrimination in the workplace: Validation of the Nordic Age Discrimination Scale (NADS). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 23-30.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[15]  Hoke, T. (2013). A Question of Ethics: The Importance of Eradicating Workplace Discrimination. Civil Engineering Magazine Archive, 83(11), 42-43.
In article      View Article
 
[16]  Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J. (2010). Engendering change: Organizational dynamics and workplace gender desegregation, 1975-2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 255-277.
In article      View Article
 
[17]  Malos, S. (2010). Post-9/11 backlash in the workplace: Employer liability for discrimination against Arab-and Muslim-Americans based on religion or national origin. Employee responsibilities and rights journal, 22(4), 297-310.
In article      View Article
 
[18]  Russinova, Z., Griffin, S., Bloch, P., Wewiorski, N. J., & Rosoklija, I. (2011). Workplace prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with mental illnesses. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(3), 227-241.
In article      
 
[19]  Schallenkamp, K., DeBeaumont, R., & Houy, J. (2012). Weight-Based Discrimination in the Workplace: Is Legal Protection Necessary?. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(4), 251-259.
In article      View Article
 
[20]  International Labour Organization (2003). Time for equality at work. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.
In article      
 
[21]  King, N. J., Pillay, S., & Lasprogata, G. A. (2006). Workplace privacy and discrimination issues related to genetic data: a comparative law study of the European Union and the United States. Am. Bus. LJ, 43, 79.
In article      View Article
 
[22]  Sarra, J. (2005). Class act: Considering race and gender in the corporate boardroom. St. John’s Law Review, 79, 1121-1160.
In article      
 
[23]  Scott, J., & Nolan, J. (2007). New technology and gendered divisions of labour: Problems and prospects for equality in the public and private spheres. Equal Opportunities International, 26, 89-95.
In article      View Article
 
[24]  Carr, P. L., Szalacha, L., Barnett, R., Caswell, C., & Inui, T. (2003). A" ton of feathers": gender discrimination in academic medical careers and how to manage it. Journal of Women's Health, 12(10), 1009-1018.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[25]  Mohamad, M. S. (2016). Discrimination, harassment, and workplace violence against working women in Egypt. Cairo University, Faculty of Arts, Project of Supporting Scientific Research in Social Sciences.
In article      
 
[26]  Bartlett, K. T. (2009). Making good on good intentions: The critical role of motivation in reducing implicit workplace discrimination. Virginia Law Review, 1893-1972.
In article      
 
[27]  Elliott, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 365-386.
In article      View Article
 
[28]  Gorman, E. H., & Kmec, J. A. (2009). Hierarchical rank and women’s organizational mobility: Glass ceilings in corporate law firms. American Journal of Sociology, 114(5), 1428-1474.
In article      View Article
 
[29]  Stainback, K., Ratliff, T. N., & Roscigno, V. J. (2011). The context of workplace sex discrimination: Sex composition, workplace culture and relative power. Social Forces, 89(4), 1165-1188.
In article      View Article
 
[30]  Wood, S., Braeken, J., & Niven, K. (2013). Discrimination and well-being in organizations: Testing the differential power and organizational justice theories of workplace aggression. Journal of business ethics, 115(3), 617-634.
In article      View Article
 
[31]  Bible, D., & Hill, K. L. (2007). Discrimination: Women in business. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11(1), 65-76.
In article      
 
[32]  Catalyst. (2007). 2006 Catalyst census of women in Fortune 500 corporate officer and board positions. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2006-catalyst-census-womencorporate-officers-and-top-earners-fortune-500.
In article      
 
[33]  Noble, C., & Moore, S. (2006). Advancing women and leadership in this post-feminist, post EEO era. Women in Management Review, 21, 598-603.
In article      View Article
 
[34]  Probert, B. (2005). I just couldn’t fit it in: Gender and unequal outcomes in academic careers. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(1), 50-72.
In article      View Article
 
[35]  Catalyst (2002). Census of women corporate officers and top earners of the Fortune 500. New York: Catalyst.
In article      
 
[36]  Wentling, R. M. (2003). The career development and aspirations of women in middle management-revisited. Women in Management Review, 18(6), 331-324.
In article      View Article
 
[37]  Burress, J., & Zucca, L. J. (2004). The gender equity gap in top corporate executive positions. American Journal of Business, 19(1), 55-62.
In article      View Article
 
[38]  Oehmichen, J., Sarry, M. A., & Wolff, M. (2014). Beyond human capital explanations for the gender pay gap among executives: Investigating board embeddedness effects on discrimination. Business Research, 7(2), 351-380.
In article      View Article
 
[39]  Ostroff, C., & Atwater, L. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group gender and age composition on managers' compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 725.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[40]  Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Postmes, T. (2003). Women's emotional responses to the pervasiveness of gender discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3), 297-312.
In article      View Article
 
[41]  Sipe, S., Johnson, C. D., & Fisher, D. K. (2009). University students' perceptions of gender discrimination in the workplace: Reality versus fiction. Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 339-349.
In article      View Article
 
[42]  Leutwiler, J., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Statistical analysis for determining pay discrimination. Equal Opportunities International, 22(6/7), 1-8.
In article      View Article
 
[43]  Hymowitz, C. (2005). Women fall for old stereotypes of themselves, study says. The Wall Street Journal, November 6.
In article      
 
[44]  Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1), 48-61.
In article      View Article
 
[45]  Kmec, J. A. (2005). Setting occupational sex segregation in motion: Demand side explanations of sex traditional employment. Work and Occupations, 32: 322-354.
In article      View Article
 
[46]  Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 393-398.
In article      View Article
 
[47]  Martell, R. F., Parker, C., Emrich, C. G., & Crawford, M. S. (1998). Sex Stereotyping in the Executive Suite:" Much Ado About Something". Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(1), 127-138.
In article      
 
[48]  Welle, B., & Heilman, M. E. (2007). Formal and informal discrimination against women at work. Research in social issues in management: Managing social and ethical issues in organizations, 229-252.
In article      
 
[49]  Catalyst (2004). The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity. Catalyst: New York.
In article      
 
[50]  Motowidlo, S.J. (2003). Job performance. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.). Handbook of psychology, 12: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 39-53. John Wiley & Sons: New York
In article      View Article
 
[51]  Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and individual job performance. Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations, 83, 120.
In article      
 
[52]  Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[53]  Takeuchi, R., Li, Y., & Wang, M. (2019). Expatriates’ Performance Profiles: Examining the Effects of Work Experiences on the Longitudinal Change Patterns. Journal of Management, 45(2), 451-475.
In article      View Article
 
[54]  Catalyst (2001). Women in financial services: The word on the street. New York: Catalyst.
In article      
 
[55]  Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[56]  Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 53-72.
In article      View Article
 
[57]  Feagin, J. R., & McKinney, K. D. (2003). The many costs of racism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
In article      
 
[58]  Roscigno, V. J., Mong, S., Byron, R., & Tester, G. (2007). Age discrimination, social closure and employment. Social Forces, 86(1), 313-334.
In article      View Article
 
[59]  Banerjee, R. (2008). An examination of factors affecting perception of workplace discrimination. Journal of Labor Research, 29(4), 380.
In article      View Article
 
[60]  Channar, Z. A., Abbassi, Z., & Ujan, I. A. (2011). Gender discrimination in workforce and its impact on the employees. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 5(1), 177-191.
In article      
 
[61]  Deitch, E., Barsky, A., Butz, R., Chan, S., Brief, A. & Bradley, J. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56:1299-1324.
In article      View Article
 
[62]  Dalton, D. W., Cohen, J. R., Harp, N. L., & McMillan, J. J. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of perceived gender discrimination in the audit profession. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(3), 1-32.
In article      View Article
 
[63]  Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998-1012.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[64]  Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 874.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[65]  De Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A longitudinal test of the triple-match principle. Journal of applied psychology, 91(6), 1359.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[66]  Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(1), 150.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[67]  Randolph, D. S. (2005). The meaning of workplace discrimination for women with disabilities. Work, 24(4), 369-380.
In article      
 
[68]  Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of management, 33(6), 841-866.
In article      View Article
 
[69]  Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?. Academy of Management journal, 41(3), 351-357.
In article      View Article
 
[70]  Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of management journal, 42(1), 100-108.
In article      
 
[71]  Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 656-669.
In article      PubMed
 
[72]  Vecchio, R. P. (1981). An individual-differences interpretation of the conflicting predictions generated by equity and expectancy theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 470.
In article      View Article
 
[73]  Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26(5), 885-910.
In article      View Article
 
[74]  Woodley, H. J., & Allen, N. J. (2014). The dark side of equity sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 103-108.
In article      View Article
 
[75]  Allen, R. S., & White, C. S. (2002). Equity sensitivity theory: A test of responses to two types of under-reward situations. Journal of managerial issues, 435-451.
In article      
 
[76]  Suazo, M. M., & Turnley, W. H. (2010). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relations between individual differences and psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(6), 620-648.
In article      View Article
 
[77]  Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259-273.
In article      View Article
 
[78]  Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J., Patti, A. L., & Razek, J. R. (2000). The relationships between equity sensitivity, growth need strength, organizational citizenship behavior, and perceived outcomes in the quality environment: A study of accounting professionals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 99.
In article      
 
[79]  Oren, L., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2013). Does equity sensitivity moderate the relationship between effort–reward imbalance and burnout? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(6), 643-658.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[80]  Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Bordia, S. (2009). The interactive effects of procedural justice and equity sensitivity in predicting responses to psychological contract breach: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 165-178.
In article      View Article
 
[81]  Yiu, T. W., & Law, Y. M. (2011). Moderating effect of equity sensitivity on behavior-outcome relationships in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(5), 322-332.
In article      View Article
 
[82]  Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person–organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter. Journal of vocational behavior, 55(2), 254-275.
In article      View Article
 
[83]  Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499-519.
In article      View Article
 
[84]  Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
In article      View Article
 
[85]  Pavalko, E. K., Mossakowski, K. N., & Hamilton, V. J. (2003). Does perceived discrimination affect health? Longitudinal relationships between work discrimination and women's physical and emotional health. Journal of Health and social Behavior, 18-33.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[86]  Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Tsui, A. (1996). Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Human relations, 49(6), 791-813.
In article      View Article
 
[87]  Shaffer, M. A., Joplin, J. R., Bell, M. P., Lau, T., & Oguz, C. (2000). Gender discrimination and job-related outcomes: A cross-cultural comparison of working women in the United States and China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 395-427.
In article      View Article
 
[88]  Allen, R. E., & Keaveny, T. J. (1985). Factors differentiating grievants and nongrievants. Human Relations, 38(6), 519-534.
In article      View Article
 
[89]  Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
In article      
 
[90]  Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 278-321.
In article      View Article
 
[91]  Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3), 513-563.
In article      View Article
 
[92]  Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management journal, 32(1), 115-130.
In article      
 
[93]  Hartman, S. J., Fok, A. Y., & Villere, M. F. (1997). The impact of culture on the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and equity sensitivity. Journal of Transnational Management Development, 2, 33-50.
In article      
 
[94]  Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 74(1), 157.
In article      View Article
 
[95]  Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of management, 16(4), 705-721.
In article      View Article
 
[96]  Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What are the connections?. Social Justice Research, 6(1), 5-18.
In article      View Article
 
[97]  Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S., Beishon, S., & Virdee, S. (1997). Fourth national survey of ethnic minorities in Britain: Diversity and disadvantage. London: Policy Studies Institute.
In article      
 
[98]  Russell, H., McGinnity, F., Quinn, E., & King O'Riain, R. (2010). The experience of discrimination in Ireland: evidence from self-report data.
In article