Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
University Students' Perceptions of Gender
Discrimination in the Workplace: Reality Versus
Fiction
Stephanie Sipe , C. Douglas Johnson & Donna K. Fisher
To cite this article: Stephanie Sipe , C. Douglas Johnson & Donna K. Fisher (2009) University Students' Perceptions of Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: Reality Versus Fiction, Journal of Education for Business, 84:6, 339-349, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.6.339-349 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.6.339-349
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 325
View related articles
heexistenceofsuccessfulwomen like Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton,MegWhitman,andOprahWin-frey might cause some individuals to believe that the gender equity gap in business is narrowing quickly. For the past 50 years, laws such as the Civil RightsActof1964,asamendedin1991, andtheEqualPayActof1963havepro-tectedwomenfromovertdiscrimination intheworkplace.However,despitethese examplesofprosperouswomenandlegal mechanisms, gender inequity continues to exist in the workplace (King, 2006; Sarra, 2005; Scott & Nolan, 2007). Of the75,768claimsfiledthroughtheEqual Employment Opportunity Commission infiscalyear2006,30.7%weregender-related(EqualEmploymentOpportunity Commission,2007).
Asaresultofourexperiencesinedu-catinguniversitystudents,weareaware that many students (soon to become youngprofessionals)disregardthepos- sibilityofgenderdiscriminationinorga-nizational settings. In our research, we soughttoestablishandevaluateunder-graduates’ perceptions of anticipated genderdiscriminationintheworkplace. Theultimategoalwascurriculummodi-ficationinthebusinesscollegetobetter equip graduates to handle the realities ofgenderdiscriminationintheirfuture workenvironments.
Thepresentresearchextendedthatof Steele,James,andBarnett(2002),who
assessed undergraduate perceptions of discriminationandstereotypinginmale-dominated academic areas. We drew on the work of Schmitt, Branscombe, Kobrynowicz, and Owen (2002), who measured undergraduate psychology students’ perceptions of the disadvan-tages faced by their gender. Our study addresses some of the limitations that priorresearchersnoted(e.g.,providing definitions of gender discrimination). WealsobuiltonNgo,Foley,Wong,and Loi’s(2003)study,whichfoundgender differencesintheperceptionsofgender inequalityintheworkplace.
In the following sections, we pro-videaliteraturereview,presentresearch questions, and definegender discrimi-nationasweuseditinthepresentstudy. We share research methodology and then conclude with a discussion of the findings,limitationsoftheresearch,and recommendationsforfuturework.
LiteratureReview
Although the equity gap between menandwomeninmanagementcareers appearstobeclosing,theglassceiling stillpersistsintoday’sbusinessenviron-ment(Bible&Hill,2007).Throughout theworld,menout-earnwomen(Ngoet al., 2003). In the U.S. workplace, gen-der discrimination continues to exist, despiteEqualEmploymentOpportunity lawsthathavebeeninplaceforseveral
UniversityStudents’PerceptionsofGender
DiscriminationintheWorkplace:Reality
VersusFiction
STEPHANIESIPE DONNAK.FISHER
GEORGIASOUTHERNUNIVERSITY GEORGIASOUTHERNUNIVERSITY STATESBORO,GEORGIA STATESBORO,GEORGIA
C.DOUGLASJOHNSON
GEORGIAGWINNETTCOLLEGE LAWRENCEVILLE,GEORGIA
T
ABSTRACT.For50years,lawssuchas theCivilRightsActof1964,asamendedin 1991,andtheEqualPayActof1963have protectedwomenfromovertdiscrimination. Althoughgenderinequitypersistsintoday’s workplace,itspresenceandeffectscontinue tobeunderestimatedbytherelevantstake-holders.Informalobservationshaveshown thatcollegestudentsconsiderthemselves immunetogenderdiscrimination.The authorssoughttoascertainstudents’percep-tionsofanticipatedgenderdiscrimination. Findingssuggestthatstudentsperceive genderdiscriminationasbeingoflittlecon-sequence,andthattheyarelikelytoentera gender-neutralworkplace.Theseperceptions couldhavenegativeeffectsonorganizations andemployees,buteducationcanbeusedto minimizetheseconsequences.
Keywords:bias,genderdiscrimination,stu-dentperceptions
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
decades(Bible&Hill).Womenaslead-ersinindustry,business,andthepublic sector continue to be underrepresented (Noble&Moore,2006;Probert,2005; Probert, Ewer, & Whiting, 1998). In Ngoetal.’sextensiveliteraturereview, severalkeyfindingsrelatedtoevidence ofgenderinequityintheworkplaceare citedfromempiricalstudies:(a)women lag behind men in salary and salary progression; (b) women’s rewards and work conditions (i.e., pay, autonomy, authority)areusuallylessfavorablethan men’s;(c)womentendtoworkindead-endjobs,resultinginalesserlikelihood of promotion; and (d) women are less likely than are men to exercise author-ity in the workplace (Blum, Fields, & Goodman, 1994; Lyness &Thompson, 1997;Mueller&Wallace,1996;Reskin &Padavic,1994;Stroh,Brett,&Reil-ly, 1992). Evidence gathered through empirical studies showed that women weredisadvantagedincomparisonwith menonvirtuallyeveryknowneconomic indicator(Schmittetal.,2002).
Using a large sample of medical professionals, Carr, Szalacha, Barnett, Caswell, and Inui (2003) assessed the effectsofgenderbiasonfemalemedical specialists,primarilyphysicians.Carret al.foundthat75%ofthefemalerespon-dents chose (from 11 options) gender discrimination as the first or second most important factor hindering their careers, with 40% of the respondents ranking gender discrimination as the primaryobstacle.Further,theserespon-dents indicated that they were inade- quatelypreparedasaresultoftheirfor-mal and inforquatelypreparedasaresultoftheirfor-mal training to deal with genderdiscriminationintheworkplace. Gender discrimination in the labor marketcanresultinlowerearningsfor women (Besen & Kimmel, 2006; Blau &Kahn,2004).Arecentsurveyofthe Institute of Management Accountants reported that female members earned lessthanmalemembersatalllevelsof education, management, and certifica-tion (Burress & Zucca, 2004). Using regression analysis with 30 years of data,LeutwilerandKleiner(2003)pro-jectedthatthecontinuingimbalancein wagesbetweenmenandwomenwould notberectifieduntiltheyear2193.
However, gender inequity and dis-crimination extend beyond wages
(Besen&Kimmel,2006).Womencom-prise 66% of the U.S. workforce, yet only 21% hold middle management positions, and a mere 15% are at the seniormanagementlevel(Bible&Hill, 2007). According to Besen and Kim- mel,somescholarsarguethat“thedis-proportional representation of women in managerial positions is due to the glass ceiling: blocked opportunities forwomen,whilesomeargueitisdue to the sticky floor: keeping women in lowerpayingjobs,”(p.174).Regardless ofthecause,thefactremainsthatthere aresignificantlymorementhanwomen inmanagementpositions(Bible&Hill; Wentling,2003).
Empirical studies show that some extraordinary women rise to the top; however, these studies also illustrate that,intime,fewremain.Forexample, according to Noble and Moore (2006), many women who aspire to leadership positionsfinditimpossibletogetthere, whereasotherswhomakeiteventually leave.Further,afewofthedocumented causes of successful women’s depar-tures from organizational life include the difficulty of combining work and family life, the unforgiving and relent-less battles against the male strong-hold of traditional organizational cul-tures, and the continued dominance of the male leader stereotype (Haywood, 2005;Noble&Moore;Probert,2005). Other studies have shown that women executives who stay on the corporate payroll are more likely to be concen- tratedinservice-orientedorhealth-care-oriented industries (retail, health care, housing, publishing), whereas male executives are more likely to have top executive positions in capital intensive industrieslikemanufacturing,trucking, electrical,mining,chemicals,aerospace technology,andoilandgas(Burress& Zucca,2004).Fivemajorfactorsaffect women’sabilitytoexcelintheircareers and get past the glass ceiling. These impediments include stereotypes and perceptions, mentoring and network-ing availability, discrimination in the workplace, family issues, and funding availability(Bible&Hill,2007;Cai& Kleiner,1999).
Research has found that traditional organizational cultures often reflect continuing gender stereotypes (Bible
& Hill, 2007; Boselovich, 2006). For example,studiesrevealedthataprevail-ingstereotypeofthedifferencebetween menandwomenwasthat“womentake care and men take charge” and that womenarenotasgoodatproblemsolv-ing as their male counterparts (Bible & Hill, p. 66).Another study reported thatmenfeltthattheyweresuperiorto women in problem solving, inspiring, delegating, and influencing superiors (Hymowitz,2005).Despitethesuccess ofnumerouswomeninthemarketplace, negative attitudes and stereotypes of women as leaders prevail (Jackson, 2001;Klenke,1996).
According to Noble and Moore (2006), the continued underrepresenta-tion of women in leadership positions is of concern for two reasons. First, it violateshumanrights(equalrightsand equalparticipationasfullproductivecit-izens),and,second,itimpedesdiversity (i.e.,excludingwomenfromleadership roles affects productivity and militates against a workforce characterized by a diversityofworkers).NobleandMoore expressedadditionalconcerns:
Theongoingwastageofmanagementand leadership talent which arises from and is perpetuated by the current underrep-resentation of women at senior levels seriously undermines an organization’s abilitytorespondtochangeandthreatens itsfutureviabilityandvitalityintheface of economic challenges of the changing place.(p.599)
The persistence of gender discrimi-nation has been studied in academia as well. Among a sample of under-graduatestudents,Schmittetal.(2002) foundthatfemalestudentsexperienced more discrimination than did male students, resulting in negative psycho-logical consequences associated with the discrimination. Female students reportedgreaterin-groupdisadvantage, greater out-group privilege, and more past experience with gender discrimi-nation than did male students (Schmitt et al.). Steele et al. (2002) found that university women in male-dominated academic fields were more likely to consider changing their major and that theycontinuedtoperceivegender-based obstaclesintheirfield.
Yet members of disadvantaged groups are often reluctant to perceive
the discrimination that confronts them. They tend to avoid attributing failure to discrimination unless provided with strongevidence(Crosby,Pufall,Snyder, O’Connell,&Whalen,1989;Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995, 1997; Schmitt et al., 2002). Further, empirical studies have shown that members of disadvantaged groups perceive a higher level of dis-crimination directed at their group as a whole than at themselves as indi-vidual members of that group (Tay-lor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990). Women, as victims of sex dis-crimination, tend to believe that they arepersonallyexemptfromtheruleof generalsexbiasthattheyknowoperates insociety(Crosbyetal.).Youngwomen may be further disadvantaged. Litera-tureindicatesthatemployeeswhohave beeninanorganizationforalongperi-od of time observe evidence of gender bias, such as promotions and training opportunities,andhavedataonwhichto basetheirobservations.Butemployees withshort-termtenurearelesslikelyto perceiveandhavedataaboutinequityin theirorganization(Ngoetal.,2003).
The recognition of existing gender stereotyping and gender discrimina-tion can lead to positive results. For peoplewhoaretargetsofprejudiceand discrimination, knowing that one pos-siblecauseofnegativeoutcomesisthe prejudice of other people may protect self-esteem (Crocker & Quinn, 1998; Schmittetal.,2002).Moreover,before members of disadvantaged groups can engage in collective action aimed at reducing inequality, they must first acknowledge that discrimination exists (Schmitt et al.).As long as those who are at a disadvantage—women and minorities—believe that they remain unaffected by systemic problems, they may not hasten to address continuing problems(Crosbyetal.,1989).
SignificanceofResearch
Asaresultofourexperienceinedu-cating university students, we believe that many students (soon to become young professionals) disregard the possibility of gender discrimination in organizational settings. We witnessed this disregard through comments made in the classroom when incidents and
cases relating to gender discrimination were discussed. For example, we gave studentstheopportunityinanintroduc- torybusinesslawclasstoviewandpro-videwrittenresponsestothefilmNorth Country(Greenwald & Caro, 2005), which depicts the incidents leading up to the first class action gender dis- criminationandsexualharassmentlaw-suit in the United States. The students expressed overwhelming skepticism as totheexistenceofsuchdiscriminatory behaviors in today’s workplace. These students indicated that if gender dis- criminationweretooccurinthework-place, it would most likely not happen tothem.
Aftermakingtheseobservationsand conductingareviewoftheliteratureon genderdiscriminationintheworkplace and individual perceptions of such, we undertookastudytoexplorethepercep-tions of college students about gender issues in the workplace—specifically gender discrimination—and to identify gaps,iftheyexist,instudents’percep- tionsandtherealitiesofgenderdiscrim-inationinpresent-dayworkplaces.Our long-termgoalwastomodifythecourse curriculum to better prepare graduates fortherealitiesofgenderdiscrimination intheworkplace.Thefirststepwasto clarify current student perceptions of gender-relatedissues.
For the present study, we asked stu-dentstoindicatethelikelihoodthatthey would experience gender discrimina-tion in the workplace, the likelihood that others (women) would experience genderdiscriminationintheworkplace, andtheextenttowhichgenderdiscrimi-nation—if it did occur—would affect their careers. We also explored sexual harassment issues in the survey, but theywillbeanalyzedinaseparatestudy (Sipe, Johnson, & Fisher, 2009). We soughttodiscoverifdemographicvari-ables such as gender and race affected students’ perceptions of gender issues intheworkplace.Further,inthepresent study, we sought to discover whether students were more or less likely to foresee the potential effects of gender discriminationonthemselvescompared withothersinsimilarsituations.There-fore, our study assessed the personal andgrouptargetsofgenderdiscrimina-tion on the basis of prior research that
showedadiscrepancybetweenpercep-tionsofdiscriminationagainstselfand perceptions of discrimination against others (Schmitt et al., 2002; Steele et al.,2002).
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 1,373 undergrad-uate students (women = 38.7%, men = 58.6%, not reporting = 2.8%) at a large public university in the south-eastern region of the United States. At the time of the survey, there were 3,065 undergraduate business or pre- businessmajorsintheCollegeofBusi-ness Administration at the university. This resulted in survey responses from 45%oftheeligiblepopulation.Oursur-veytargetedacross-sectionofstudents enrolled in various courses in the Col-lege of BusinessAdministration across all levels (e.g., introductory courses to seniorlevelcourses)andareasofstudy (e.g., introduction to business, finance, marketing, strategic management). We derived this convenience sample from classesthatcompriseapartofourpre-business and classesthatcompriseapartofourpre-business core curriculum. Weselectedthespecificclassesonthe basisoftheavailabilityoftheresearch-ers to administer the survey in person andtheflexibilityofthefacultymember intheclassroom.
We asked the respondents to vol-untarily participate in the survey by answering a questionnaire during class timeatthebeginningofthefallsemes-terof2006.Weassuredthestudentsof confidentiality and anonymity and told themthattheyhadthechoicetorefuse toparticipateinthesurveywithoutpen- alty.Becauseweadministeredthesesur-veysinpersonandduringclasstime,the responseratewasvirtually100%,with no significant percentage of students refusingorfailingtoparticipate.
Instrument
We collected data using a survey titled Gender Issues Survey (see the Appendix).1 The questionnaire was
basedonaninstrumentthatCarretal. (2000) created during prior research. Theinstrumentexaminedgender-based discrimination and sexual harassment
inthecontextoftotalworkexperience of full-time academic medical school faculty and the subjective outcomes of gender discrimination and sexual harassment on career satisfaction and perceptions of career advancement. Our survey instrument used the “bias, discrimination, and harassment” sec-tion of Carr et al.’s instrument with minimalmodification.Specifically,we discarded questions and wording that focused on present career situations. Our instrument included questions in the following areas: gender discrimi-nation of self, gender discrimidiscrimi-nation of others, potential career impact of gender discrimination on self, and demographic information. The defini-tionofgenderdiscriminationweused, makingupforashortfallofCarretal.’s instrument,wasderivedfromareview of the literature. The definition is as follows:“Gender-basedbehaviors,pol-icies,andactionsthatadverselyaffect aperson’sworkbyleadingtounequal treatmentorthecreationofanintimi-dating environment because of one’s gender.”Genderdiscriminationoccurs when employers make decisions such asselection,evaluation,promotion,or reward allocation on the basis of an individual’sgender. concerns raised during the pretest were minimal; however, we made modifica-tionstotheinstrumentonthebasisofthe feedback (e.g., clarified how items were worded,shortenedthesurvey).
Measures
GenderDiscrimination
Weaskedrespondentstoindicatethe extent to which they anticipated that gendermighteffecttheircareersuccess, advancement, networking, mentoring, time for career, and pay by using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (likely).We adapted the measures from previous research that suggested these factors are common outcomes of gender discrimination in theworkplace(Bible&Hill,2007;Carr etal.,2000;Carretal.,2003;Ngoetal.,
2003). We then asked the respondents to indicate the extent to which gender mightaffectthecareersofothers,spe-cifically women, in these same areas. The eight items comprising the gender discriminationofselfscalehadaCron-bach’s coefficient alpha of .72, where-as the gender discrimination of others (women) scale had a coefficient alpha of .87. According to Nunally (1978) andNunallyandBernstein(1994),these values met the minimally acceptable reliabilitycoefficientcriterionof.70.In additiontoassessingreliability,weper-formed a factor analysis to ensure the scaleswerevalid.Theanalysissuggest-edthetheorizedfactorstructureexisted withthepresentdata.2
PotentialCareerImpactonSelf We also asked respondents to indi-catetowhatextenttheyanticipatedthat anexperienceofgenderdiscrimination might affect their professional career intermsofpersonalconfidence,career The coefficient alpha for the 5-point Likert-typescalewas.88.
Demographics
The survey concluded with eight demographicquestionsbasedonthefol- lowing:gender,race,collegeclassifica-tion,workexperience,GPA,major,age, andpoliticalviewpoint.Genderandrace weretheonlyvariableswithanylevelof statistical significance across different responses.Therefore,wedidnotreport theothervariablesintheanalysis.
StatisticalAnalyses
We calculated descriptive statistics (frequencies,means,standarddeviations, correlations) for all of the survey ques-tionsusingSPSS(Version12).Toassess whethergenderorraceaffectedrespon- dents’perceptionsofgenderdiscrimina-tion, we also performed independentt tests. We computed the scores by cal-culating the average of all responses in eachscaleratherthanrelyingonthetotal scores,whichcanbemisleadingbecause
of missing data. We ran cross-tabula-tionsonthegenderdiscriminationsurvey itemsasdependentvariablesagainstthe independent demographic variables of genderandrace.Wealsorancross-tabu-lationsontheresponseofselftogender discrimination survey questions against thesamedemographicvariables.
RESULTS
Participants had a mean age of 20 years(SD=2.74years;range=17–71 years).Therespondentswereprimarily sophomores (25.6%), juniors (31.2%), andseniors(31%),buttherewerealso some freshmen (11.6%) and graduate students (0.4%) who participated in thesurvey.Morethanthreequartersof the participants were business majors (81.8%),17%reportedmajorsotherthan business,and1.2%reportedundecided. The majority of the respondents were White (72%), whereas the remaining were Black (22.3%), Hispanic (2.3%), Asian or Pacific Islander (1.5%), and Native American or Alaskan Native (0.3%). Nearly half of the respondents identified their political viewpoint as conservative (46.6%), slightly more thanonethirdofrespondentsidentified asmoderate(37.4%),and15.9%identi-fiedtheirpoliticalviewpointasliberal. In terms of work experience, 2.1% of the participants reported that they had neverhadajob,42%reportedthatthey had worked incasual employment— definedas“babysitting,part-time,sum-merlawncare,afterschool,workstudy, and internship”—22% reported that they had worked full time (at least 35 hrperweek)forlessthan1year,13% reportedthattheyhadworkedfulltime for1to2years,and19%reportedthat theyhadworkedfulltimefor2ormore years.TheaverageGPAoftherespon-dentswas3.01(SD=.72)of4.00.
IndependenttTestResults
We calculated the mean response to allquestionsineachofthefactoranaly-sisgroupingsforgenderdiscrimination of self, gender discrimination of oth-ers (women), and the potential affect on career from gender discrimination on self.We then tested these variables to evaluate the significance of gender
and race on students’ perceptions of gender discrimination. We conducted independentsampletteststodetermine whetherasignificantdifferenceexisted in terms of how men and women and non-Whites and Whites responded for eachfactoranalysisgrouping.Asillus-trated in Table 1, the groupings had statisticallysignificantmeanratingson the basis of gender and race. Women, asopposedtomen,weremorelikelyto perceivegenderdiscriminationhappen-ingtothemselves,t(948.03)=–20.30,p <.00;genderdiscriminationhappening to other women,t(1,332) = –5.60,p < .00;andgenderdiscriminationadverse-ly impacting their careers,t(1,333) = –8.08,p < .00. Non-Whites were also morelikelytoperceivegenderdiscrimi-nation occurring in the workplace on self,t(1,335)=2.80,p<.01,andother women,t(1337) = 4.42,p < .00. Non-Whites were less likely to believe that gender discrimination would adversely affecttheircareerswhencomparedwith Whites,t(1,338)=–2.64,p<.01.
Cross-TabulationResults
Cross-tabulationshelpinunderstand-ing the relation between independent demographic variables and students’ perceptions of gender discrimination in the workplace. In this analysis, we aggregated student responses ofnever, rarely, andpossibly into one negative response.Next,weevaluatedthenega-tive versus nonnegaresponse.Next,weevaluatedthenega-tive responses to various questions in terms of differ-encesingenderandrace.
The data indicated that students did notperceivegenderdiscriminationasa threatofanysignificancetothemselves orothersintheworkplace.Forexample, 68.9% of students answered that they did not anticipate that they would face gender-specific biases or obstacles in the workplace. More than 90% of stu-dents reported that they did not expect that their opportunities for advance-ment,networking,andmentoringwould be affected by their gender. Further, 88.4%ofstudentsdidnotanticipatethat theirgenderwouldaffecttheirpay.
Whenaskedspecificallyaboutwomen in the workplace and how a woman’s gender would affect her career, most students further indicated that gender
wasnotlikelytoleadtonegativeresults. Nearly 60% of students reported that women were not likely to face gen-der-specific biases or obstacles in the workplace.Approximately90%ofstu-dents indicated that women would not have fewer opportunities for network-ing or mentornetwork-ing because of their gen-der, and 85% of respondents indicated thataparentalleavewouldnotinterfere
When we looked at how certain groupsofstudentsreportedthesespecif- icoutcomes—namely,byraceandgen-der—webegantoseesomedifferences inperceptionsofgenderdiscrimination. Table 2 shows the responses students gave to the survey questions related to gender discrimination and self on the basisoftheirgenderandrace.
Although female and male students tendedtoseeopportunitiesfornetwork-ingandmentoringasareasthatgender wouldnotaffect,femalestudentswere much more likely to anticipate gender bias in the workplace, some negative correlation between their gender and opportunities for advancement, and a negativecorrelationbetweentheirgen-der and their pay. When we looked at student responses to these same out-comes specifically affecting women in the workplace, we found that female students were more likely to
antici-pate a negative correlation between a woman’s gender and career oppor-tunities than were male students. For example, approximately half of the femalestudentsanticipatedthatwomen would face gender bias in the work-place, whereas only one third of the male students anticipated this outcome for women.Although female and male students reported similar responses to questions regarding women’s opportu-nitiesfornetworkingandmentoringin the workplace, 42% of women versus 31%ofmenreportedthatwomenwould likelyhaveaparentalleaveaffecttheir careers, and 33% of female students expectedawoman’sgendertoaffecther pay;butlessthan20%ofmalestudents sawthisasalikelyoutcomeforwomen intheworkplace.
Race
Non-White students, compared with White students, were more likely to perceive that their gender would affect theiropportunitytonetwork(6%vs.4%, respectively),theiropportunityformen-toring (5% vs. 3%, respectively), and theirpay(15%vs.10%,respectively).In addition, cross-tabulations showed that non-Whitestudentsweremorelikelythan Whitestudentstoanticipatethatgender discrimination would affect women in the workplace. More than half of non-White students anticipated that women wouldfacebiasintheworkplace,com-paredwithslightlylessthanonethirdof White students. One fifth of non-White studentsanticipatedthatawoman’sgen-der would impact her opportunity for
TABLE1.IndependenttTestResultsforGenderandRaceDifferencesin theFactorAnalysisGroupings
Factorgrouping df t p
Genderdiscrimination:Self
Gender 948 –20.30 .00
Race 1,335 2.80 .01
Genderdiscrimination:Otherwomen
Gender 1,332 –5.60 .00
Race 1,337 4.42 .00
Genderdiscrimination:Impactoncareer
Gender 1,333 –8.08 .00
Race 1,338 –2.64 .01
Note. Inthefactorgroupinggenderdiscriminationregardingself,forgender,equalvari-anceswerenotassumedbecauseLevene’stestofequalityofvariancewassignificant.
networking and mentoring compared with less than 10% of White students. Non-White students were also more likelythanWhitestudentstobelievethat aparentalleavewouldaffectawoman’s career.Last,33%ofnon-Whitestudents, compared with 21% of White students, believed that their gender would factor intotheirpay.
GenderandRace
A final series of cross-tabulations showedtherelationbetweengenderand the potential career impact of gender discriminationonselfandraceandthe potential career impact of gender dis-crimination on self.We asked students to anticipate how a hypothetical expe-rience of gender discrimination might affect them in the workplace. Table
3 shows differences in how male and femalestudentsperceivedthattheexpe-rience of gender discrimination would impact their careers (e.g., impact on self-confidence, career advancement, jobsatisfaction,organizationalcommit-ment,careercommitment).
Female students anticipated more negative outcomes resulting from the hypothetical experience of gender discrimination in the workplace than did male students. However, when we lookedathowstudentsrespondedtothe samequestionsregardingtheirrace,we foundthatnon-Whitestudents,despite beingmoreawareofgenderbias,were slightly less likely to anticipate nega-tiveoutcomesofgenderdiscrimination for themselves than were White stu-dents(seeTable3).
DISCUSSION
General
Theresultsofthepresentstudywere somewhat surprising, despite their congruency with other similar studies. We found that students’ perceptions of genderdiscriminationintheworkplace were not in alignment with current empirical research on workplace gen-derdiscrimination.Investigationproves thatgenderdiscriminationcontinuesto exist in today’s workplace in terms of disparity between men and women in pay,advancement,andotheropportuni-tiessuchasmentoringandnetworking; yet, according to our findings, college students fail to perceive that gender discrimination might affect their own careersorthecareersofwomeninbusi-ness. Although we expected to find that students would underestimate the potential impact of gender discrimina-tion in the workplace, the responses we received to this survey were more skewed than what we had anticipat-ed.Almost 90% of all student respon-dents reported that their opportunities for advancement, networking, mentor-ing, and pay would not be affected by theirgender.Similarly,90%ofstudents perceived that women would not have fewer opportunities for networking andmentoringbecauseoftheirgender. Moreover, 75% believed that women would not face pay disparity, and 60% believed that gender would present no obstacletowomenintheworkplace.
Onthebasisofpreviousresearch,we thoughtfemalestudentswouldbemore likelytoanticipatethepotentialimpact ofgenderdiscriminationonthemselves thanwouldmalestudents,andalsothat female students would be more like-ly to perceive possible discrimination against women in the workplace than wouldmalestudents.Studentresponses supported these hypotheses and prior research findings as well. Further, the literatureledustoexpectthatalthough female students were more likely than male students to anticipate potential genderdiscriminationagainstwomenin theworkplace,femalestudentswouldbe lesslikelytoanticipategenderdiscrimi-nationagainstthemselvesthanwereto anticipategenderdiscriminationagainst otherwomen.Although45%offemale TABLE3.Cross-TabulationsofRespondents’PerceivedLackofCareer
ImpactofGenderDiscrimination
Gender Race
Variable Male(%) Female(%) White(%) Non-White(%)
Self-confidence 89 66 73 78
Careeradvancement 81 62 72 76
Jobsatisfaction 59 37 49 54
Organizationalcommitment 69 59 63 69
Careercommitment 74 62 66 75
TABLE2.Cross-TabulationsofRespondents’NegativePerceptionsof GenderDiscrimination:ImpactonSelfandOthers
Gender Race
Response Male(%) Female(%) White(%) Non-White(%)
Noimpactonself
Genderbiasorobstacles 80 55 76 66 Advancementopportunities 98 80 93 85
Parentalleave 94 71 86 83
Networking 98 93 96 94
Mentoring 98 96 98 95
Lesstimeforcareer 99 83 95 92
Lesspay 98 73 90 85
Lowerexpectations 98 88 96 91 Noimpactonother(women)
Genderbiasorobstacles 65 52 65 46
Parentalleave 69 58 67 61
Networking 90 87 91 84
Mentoring 92 93 93 91
Advancementopportunities 85 77 85 75 Lesstimeforcareer 78 73 85 75
Lesspay 81 67 79 67
Note.Negativeperceptionsrepresentratingsofnever,rarely,andpossibly.
students reported that women would likelyfacesomeformofgenderbiasin theworkplace,only13%ofthesesame female students believed that gender biaswouldaffectthempersonally,thus supporting our hypothesis. Moreover, 13% of female students indicated that women would likely find it more dif-ficulttonetwork,butonly7%ofthese same students believed that their own ability to network would be affected by their gender. Similarly, whereas 48%offemalesreportedthataparental leave would likely affect a woman’s career, only 29% of females perceived that their career would be affected by a parental leave. Furthermore, 27% of females students believed that women wouldhavelesstimetodevotetowork because of their gender, but only 17% ofthesesamerespondentsreportedthat theirowntimeforworkwouldbelimit-edbytheirgender.Last,33%offemale students stated that a woman’s gender wouldaffectherpay,andonly27%of femalestudentsbelievedthattheirgen-derwouldaffecttheirownpay.
The present results were consistent withSchmittetal.’s(2002)andothers’ findings that members of a disadvan-taged group may be reluctant to per-ceivediscriminationagainstthemselves (seealsoCrosbyetal.,1989).Although socialpsychologytheoriesmayofferan explanationforthisphenomenon,these results show that present-day female college students may be more likely than male students to believe in the infallibility of a system of meritocracy inwhichknowledge,skills,andabilities outweigh the consequences of possible negativegenderstereotypes.Thistopic meritsfurtherstudy.
Wefoundtherelationsbetweenrace and perceived gender discrimination to be interesting as well. Non-White respondentsweremorelikelytoantici- patethatwomenwouldfacegenderdis-criminationintheworkplaceintermsof bias, opportunities for networking and mentoring, and pay than were White respondents. However, if faced with genderdiscriminationintheworkplace, non-White students indicated that they personallywouldbelessaffectedbythe consequencesintermsoftheimpactof discriminationontheirself-confidence, career advancement, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and career commitment than did White students. One explanation may be that a larger proportion of non-White students have alreadybeenexposedtootherformsof tion than are the White students. This isonlyahypothesisandpresentsmore opportunitiesoffuturestudy.
Conclusion
The findings of the present research establishedthatcollegestudents,overall, underestimatethepotentialexistenceand affect that gender discrimination has in theworkplace,especiallyagainstwomen. ThisisconsistentwithCarretal.’s(2000) andCarretal.’s(2003)research,which reported that women professionals con-sider themselves to have been unpre-paredthroughtheirearlyexperiencesand educationalopportunitiesforthetypesof gender discrimination they experienced in their professional lives. The conse-quencesofthislackofpreparednessare potentially significant. Employers and employees must recognize and prepare for the continuing existence of gender discriminationinthepresentworkforce, or they may risk real opportunities to correct gender discrimination through training, enforcement, and deliberate human-resourceplanning.
Implications
Our findings reveal a need for an examination of existing programming or coverage in relevant courses by university personnel, such as student affairs, resident hall directors, student organizations such as the Society for HumanResourceManagement,andfac-ulty members (especially those teach-ing business law and human resource management courses). The purpose of thesuggestedexaminationwouldbeto ensurethatcollegestudentsareproperly educated and prepared for the work-placerealitiesofgenderdiscrimination and other discriminatory employment practices. Further, employers should continue to make conscious efforts to educate employees—especially recent
college graduates—about the realities of workplace discrimination and to address gender discrimination through policies,training,andenforcement.
It is our contention that if students arebetterpreparedforthepossibilityof genderdiscriminationintheworkplace, theymaybeabletominimizetheeffect oftheextrinsicconsequencesofgender discrimination,suchasmissedopportu-nities for advancement, or the intrinsic consequencesofgenderdiscrimination, suchasthenegativeimpactofdiscrimi-nation on self-confidence, job satisfac-tion,andcareercommitment.Further,if studentsareabletominimizetheeffect of gender discrimination, there may be organizational benefits in terms of improved morale, organizational com-mitment,andretention.
RecommendationsforFutureResearch The results of the present study suggest many opportunities for future research. Subsequent inquiries should consider expanding or replicating the present study outside the southern region of the United States to include students in other areas of the country, studentsinotherpartsoftheworld,and adults in the workforce to determine if their perceptions are consistent with thepresentstudy.Inaddition,measures shouldbeincludedtoassesswhetherthe respondenthasanyexperience(director indirect) of gender discrimination or otherformsofdiscriminationthatcould affecttheirperceptionsandratings(e.g., King&Johnson,2003).
Many empirical studies of the exis-tence and effects of gender discrimi-nation in the workplace cited in the present article are now a decade old. Therefore, researchers should consider replicatingandupdatingthesestudiesto createandreportevenmorecontempo-raryempiricaldatatosupportormodify the existence of gender discrimination intheworkforcetoday.
NOTES
1.The format of the original survey has been modifiedforpublicationpurposes.
2.Detailsareavailablefromtheauthorsupon request.
Stephanie Sipe is an assistant professor of legalstudiesatGeorgiaSouthernUniversity.Her research interests include employment law and humanresourcedevelopment.
C.DouglasJohnsonisanassociateprofessor at Georgia Gwinnett College, where he teaches organizational behavior, leadership, and other management-related courses. His research inter-estsincludecareersanddiversity,withaparticular interestintheworkplaceexperiencesoforganiza-tionaloutsiderswithin.
Donna K. Fisher is an associate professor of economics at Georgia Southern University. Herresearchinterestsincluderegionaleconomic developmentandgenderrolesintheworkplace.
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressedtoDonnaK.Fisher,P.O.Box8152, Statesboro,GA30460,USA.
E-mail:dkfisher@georgiasouthern.edu
REFERENCES
Besen,Y., & Kimmel, M. K. (2006). At Sam’s Club,nogirlsallowed:Thelivedexperienceof sex discrimination.Equal Opportunities Inter-national,25,172–187.
Bible,D.,&Hill,K.(2007).Discrimination:Women in business.Journal of Organizational Culture, CommunicationandConflict,11(1),65–76. Blau,F.D.,&Kahn,L.M.(2004).
TheU.S.gen-derpaygapinthe1990s:Slowingconvergence (Working paper No. 10853). Cambridge, MA: NationalBureauofEconomicResearch. Blum, T. C., Fields, D. L., & Goodman, J. S.
(1994). Organization-level determinants of women in management.Academy of Manage-mentJournal,37,241–268.
Boselovich,L.(2006,March21).Genderstereo-typesholdbackinvestors:Studyfindsthatmale investorsjustcan’tseemtocometogripswith women executives.Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http:// www.post-gazette.com/pg/06080/673595-334. stm
Burress,J.H.,&Zucca,L.J.(2004).Thegender equitygapintopcorporateexecutivepositions.
Mid-American Journal of Business, 19(1), 54–62.
Cai,Y.,&Kleiner,B.H.(1999).Sexdiscrimina-tioninhiring:Theglassceiling. EqualOppor-tunitiesInternational,18,51–55.
Carr,P.L.,Ash,A.S.,Friedman,R.H.,Szalacha, L., Barnett, R. C., Palepu, A., et al. (2000). Faculty perceptions of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in academic medicine.
AnnalsofInternalMedicine,132,889–896. Carr,P.L.,Szalacha,L.,Barnett,R.,Caswell,C.,
&Inui,T.(2003).A“tonoffeathers”:Gender discriminationinacademicmedicalcareersand howtomanageit.JournalofWomen’sHealth, 12,1009–1018.
Crocker, J., & Quinn, D. (1998). Racism and self-esteem. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske
(Eds.),Confronting racism: The problem and the response(pp. 169–187). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Crosby,F.J.,Pufall,A.,Snyder,R.C.,O’Connell, M., & Whalen, P. (1989). The denial of per-sonaldisadvantageamongyou,me,andallthe other ostriches. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.),Gender and thought (pp. 79–99). New York:Springer-Verlag.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2007).Charge statistics FY 1997 through FY 2006.RetrievedFebruary15,2008,fromhttp:// www.eeoc.gov/stats/charges.html
Greenwald,N.(Producer)&Caro,N.(Director). (2005).NorthCountry[Motionpicture].United States:WarnerBrothers.
Gutek, B.A., Cohen,A. G., & Tsui,A. (1996). Reactions to perceived sex discrimination.
HumanRelations,49,791–814.
Haywood, S. (2005).Women leading. Basing-stoke,England:Palgrave.
Hymowitz, C. (2005, October 24). Too many women fall for stereotypes of selves, study says.TheWallStreetJournal,p.B1.
Jackson, J. (2001). Women middle managers’ perceptionoftheglassceiling. WomeninMan-agementReview,16,30–42.
King, E. B. (2006). Report from SIOP: Current industrial/organizational psychology perspec-tivesofwomeninorganizations. EqualOppor-tunitiesInternational,25,215–218.
King,J.E.,&Johnson,C.D.(2003).Notsonew employment relationships: African American andfemaledownsizingandjobinsecurityexpe-riences.Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship,8(2),3–28.
Klenke,K.(1996). Womenandleadership:Acon-textualperspective.NewYork:Springer. Leutwiler,J.,&Kleiner,B.H.(2003).Statistical
analysis for determining pay discrimination.
EqualOpportunitiesInternational,22,1–9. Lyness,K.S.,&Thompson,D.E.(1997).Above
the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samplesoffemaleandmaleexecutives.Journal ofAppliedPsychology,82,359–375.
Mueller, C.W., &Wallace, J. E. (1996). Justice andtheparadoxofthecontentedfemalework-er.SocialPsychologyQuarterly,59,338–349. Ngo, H., Foley, S.,Wong,A., & Loi, R. (2003).
Who gets more of the pie? Predictors of per-ceived gender inequity at work.Journal of BusinessEthics,45,227–241.
Noble, C., & Moore, S. (2006). Advancing women and leadership in this post feminist, postEEOera.WomeninManagementReview, 21,598–603.
Nunally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Nunally,J.C.,&Bernstein,I.H.(1994).
Psychomet-rictheory(3rded.).NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Probert,B.(2005).“Ijustcouldn’tfititin”:Gen-derandunequaloutcomesinacademiccareers.
Gender,WorkandOrganization,12(1),50–72. Probert,B.,Ewer,P.,&Whiting,K.(1998).
Gen-derpayequityinAustralianhighereducation. SouthMelbourne,Australia:TheNationalTer-tiaryEducationUnion.
Reskin,B.,&Padavic,I.(1994).Womenandmen atwork.ThousandOaks,CA:PineForgePress. Ruggiero,K.M.,&Taylor,D.M.(1995).Coping
withdiscrimination:Howdisadvantagedgroup membersperceivethediscriminationthatcon-frontsthem.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,68,826–838.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not perceivethediscriminationthatconfrontsthem: Theroleofself-esteemandperceivedcontrol.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,373–389.
Sarra,J.(2005).Classact:Consideringraceand gender in the corporate boardroom.St. John’s LawReview,79,1121–1160.
Schmitt,M.T.,Branscombe,N.R.,Kobrynowicz, D.,&Owen,S.(2002).Perceivingdiscrimina-tion against one’s gender group has different implicationsforwell-beinginwomenandmen.
PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,28,
197–210.
Scott,J.,&Nolan,J.(2007).Newtechnologyand gendered divisions of labour: Problems and prospectsforequalityinthepublicandprivate spheres.EqualOpportunitiesInternational,26,
89–95.
Sipe, S. R., Johnson, C. D., & Fisher, D. K. (2009). University students’ perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace: A view throughrose-coloredlenses. EqualOpportuni-tiesInternational,28,336–350.
Steele,J.,James,J.B.,&Barnett,R.C.(2002). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas.Psychology of WomenQuarterly,26,46–50.
Stroh,L.K.,Brett,J.M.,&Reilly,A.H.(1992). Alltherightstuff:Careerprogressionoffemale and male managers.Journal of Applied Psy-chology,77,251–260.
Taylor, T. M., Wright, S. C., Moghaddam, F. M., & Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal/ group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving mygroup,butnotmyself,tobeatargetofdis-crimination.PersonalityandSocialPsychology Bulletin,16,254–262.
Wentling,R.M.(2003).Thecareerdevelopment and aspirations of women in middle manage-ment–revisited.WomeninManagementReview, 18,324–331.
APPENDIXA GenderIssuesSurvey
Directions:Answerthefollowingquestionsbycheckingtheboxesbelowonthebasisofwhatyouexpecttohappenafteryouleavecollege andentertheworkforce.Completionandreturnofthesurveyimpliesthatyouagreetoparticipateandthatyourdatamaybeusedinthis research.Pleasebeadvisedthatthesurveyresponsesareanonymous.Youhavetherighttoleaveanyquestionunansweredwithoutpenalty. Thissurveyshouldtakeapproximately15min.Therearesomedefinitionsyouneedtoknowtoanswerthesequestions:
Gender discriminationreferstogender-basedbehaviors,policies,andactionsthatadverselyaffectaperson’sworkbyleadingtounequal treatmentorthecreationofanintimidatingenvironmentbecauseofanindividual’sgender.Genderdiscriminationoccurswhenemployers makedecisionssuchasselection,evaluation,promotion,orrewardallocationonthebasisofanindividual’sgender.
Sexual harassment coversaspectrumofactionsbyemployers,managers,supervisors,coworkers,suppliers,orcustomersfromgeneral-izedsexistremarksandbehaviorstocoercive(i.e.,throughtheuseofforce)sexualadvances.Sexualharassmentcanincludeunconscious patronizationandsubtleinnuendostoblatantsexualthreats.
I.GenderDiscriminationofSelf
II.GenderDiscriminationofOthers
(appendixcontinues)
Usingthescalebelow,indicatetowhatextentyoubelievethefollowingwill
occurinyourprofessionalcareer. Never Rarely Possibly Probably Likely 1.Therewillbegender-specificbiasesorobstaclestoyourcareersuccess.
2.Youwillhavelessopportunityforadvancementbecauseofyourgender. 3.Aparentalleavewillinterferewithafuturepromotionorprofessionalopportunity. 4.Youwillhavelessopportunityfornetworkingbecauseofyourgender. 5.Youwillhavelessopportunityformentoringbecauseofyourgender. 6.Youwillhavelesstimetodevotetoyourcareerbecauseofyourgender. 7.Youwillbepaidlessbecauseofyourgender.
8.Yourcolleagueswillhavelowerexpectationsofyoubecauseofyourgender.
Usethescalebelowandindicatetowhatextentyoubelievethefollowingwill occurintheworkplace.
9.Womenwillfacegender-specificbiasesorobstaclestotheirsuccess. 10.Aparentalleavewillinterferewithawoman’spromotionorprofessional
opportunity.
11.Womenwillhavelessopportunityfornetworkingbecauseoftheirgender. 12.Womenwillhavelessopportunityformentoringbecauseoftheirgender. 13.Womenwillhavelessopportunityforadvancementbecauseoftheirgender. 14.Womenwillhavelesstimetodevotetotheircareersbecauseoftheirgender. 15.Womenwillbepaidlessbecauseoftheirgender.
16.Women’scolleagueswillhavelowerexpectationsofthembecauseoftheir gender.
17.Menwillfacegender-specificbiasesorobstaclestotheircareersuccess. 18.Aparentalleavewillinterferewithaman’spromotionorprofessional
opportunity.
19.Menwillhavelessopportunityfornetworkingbecauseoftheirgender. 20.Menwillhavelessopportunityformentoringbecauseoftheirgender. 21.Menwillhavelessopportunityforadvancementbecauseoftheirgender. 22.Menwillhavelesstimetodevotetotheircareersbecauseoftheirgender. 23.Menwillbepaidlessbecauseoftheirgender.
24.Men’scolleagueswillhavelowerexpectationsofthembecauseoftheirgender.
APPENDIXA(cont.)
III.SexualHarassmentofSelf
IV.SexualHarassmentofOthers
V. ResponseofSelf A.GenderDiscrimination
(appendixcontinues)
Usingthescalebelow,indicatetowhatextentyoubelievethefollowingwill occurinyourprofessionalcareer.
25.Youwillencountersexistremarksorbehavior. 26.Youwillencounterunwantedsexualadvances.
27.Youwillencountersubtlebriberytoengageinsexualbehavior. 28.Youwillencounterthreatstoengageinsexualbehavior. 29.Youwillencountersexualbehaviorofacoercivenature. 30.Youwillhaveajobopportunity,suchasapromotionorpayraise,
linkedtoyoursubmissiontosomesortofsexualbehavior.
Usingthescalebelow,indicatetowhatextentyoubelievethefollowingwill occurintheworkplace.
31.Womenwillencountersexistremarksorbehavior. 32.Womenwillencounterunwantedsexualadvances.
33.Womenwillencountersubtlebriberytoengageinsexualbehavior. 34.Womenwillencounterthreatstoengageinsexualbehavior. 35.Womenwillencountersexualbehaviorofacoercivenature. 36.Womenwillhaveajobopportunity,suchasapromotionorpay
raise,linkedtosubmissiontosomesortofsexualbehavior. 37.Menwillencountersexistremarksorbehavior.
38.Menwillencounterunwantedsexualadvances.
39.Menwillencountersubtlebriberytoengageinsexualbehavior. 40.Menwillencounterthreatstoengageinsexualbehavior. 41.Menwillencountersexualbehaviorofacoercivenature.
42.Menwillhaveajobopportunity,suchasapromotionorpayraise, linkedtosubmissiontosomesortofsexualbehavior.
Usingthescalebelow,indicatetheextenttowhichyouthinkthefollowing willimpactyourprofessionalcareer.
43.Ifyouexperiencegenderdiscriminationintheworkplace,itwillhavea negativeeffectonyourconfidenceinyourselfasaprofessional. 44.Ifyouexperiencegenderdiscriminationintheworkplace,itwillhavea
negativeeffectonyourcareeradvancement.
45.Ifyouexperiencegenderdiscriminationintheworkplace,itwillhaveanegative effectonyourjobsatisfaction.
46.Ifyouexperiencegenderdiscriminationintheworkplace,itwillhavea negativeeffectonyourorganizationalcommitment.
47.Ifyouexperiencegenderdiscriminationintheworkplace,itwillhavea negativeeffectonyourcareercommitment.
APPENDIXA(cont.)
B.SexualHarassment
VI.Demographics
53.Whatisyourcurrentcollegeclassification? 54.Whatisyourmajororanticipatedmajor?
Freshman Senior Business
Sophomore Graduatestudent Other
Junior Other Undecided
55.WhatisyourcurrentcumulativeGPA?
56.Describeyourmostformalworkexperience(fillinonlyone). Neverhadajob.
Casualemployment(e.g.,babysitting,parttime,summerlawncare,afterschool,workstudy,internship) Full-timework(atleast35hrperweek),lessthan1year.
Full-timework(atleast35hrperweek),1–2years. Full-timework(atleast35hrperweek),1ormoreyears.
57.Whatisyourgender?FemaleMale 58.Whatyearwereyourborn?
59.Whatisyourrace? 60.Howwouldyoudescribeyourpoliticalviewpoint? White,notofHispanicorigin Conservative
Black,notofHispanicorigin Moderate AsianorPacificIslander Liberal NativeAmericanorAlaskanNative
Hispanic/Latino/Latina Other
Usingthescalebelow,indicatetheextenttowhichyouthinkthefollowing willimpactyourprofessionalcareer.
48.Ifyouexperiencesexualharassmentintheworkplace,itwillhavea negativeeffectonyourconfidenceinyourselfasaprofessional. 49.Ifyouexperiencesexualharassmentintheworkplace,itwillhavea
negativeeffectonyourcareeradvancement.
50.Ifyouexperiencesexualharassmentintheworkplace,itwillhaveanegative effectonyourjobsatisfaction.
51.Ifyouexperiencesexualharassmentintheworkplace,itwillhavea negativeeffectonyourorganizationalcommitment.
52.Ifyouexperiencesexualharassmentintheworkplace,itwillhavea negativeeffectonyourcareercommitment.
