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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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