gender discrimination and wage differential

.....social injustice and inequality. First, literature related to the fundamentals of discrimination and descriptions of gender discrimination are discussed in the literature. Following a detailed discussion of what the literature says about gender discrimination, the literature review shifts toward the quantifiable effects of gender discrimination in the workplace. Effects are examined both in terms of measurable effects on organizations and individuals. Fundamentals of Discrimination Discrimination is unfortunately pervasive in the workplace.

Described as an "inaccurate perception of differences," discrimination can be based on independent variables like race, gender, language, and other demographics (Cleveland, Vescio & Barnes-Farrell, p. 149). The differences perceived are "inaccurate," and also have a direct impact on status, access to power, and access to avenues of promotion or pay increases. Most literature frames discrimination as being "subtle and covert," well concealed from the realms of legal scrutiny, and often difficult to define precisely (Marchiondo, Ran & Cortina, 2015, p. 47).

Likewise, "subtle and unintended processes" are listed as causal factors of discrimination in the workplace (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013, p. 454). Discrimination can be personal, or one-on-one, or structural in nature, embedded in institutionalized practices, organizational culture, and norms of leadership, communication, and acquisition of power (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013; Bilkis, Habib & Sharmin, 2010). Likewise, Marchiondo, Ran, & Cortina (2015) classify four types of discrimination: "interpersonal discrimination, aversive racism, everyday discrimination, and selective incivility," (p. 47).

The literature also shows that discrimination is about "perceived effectiveness" and is not based on measurable differences in the actual effectiveness of employees (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker & Woehr, 2014). Subordinate employees are therefore rated as being less effective than they are, and discrimination becomes embedded, entrenched, and self-perpetuating. What Does Gender Discrimination Specifically Look Like? The literature reveals that gender may indeed trump race and other demographics, creating unique and pernicious types of discrimination in the workplace.

This is because even when culture, race, age, and other variables are accounted for, men are perceived of as having a higher status in general within their society, and are perceived as more "prototypical leaders" in the workplace (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013, p. 457). As a result, human resources practices may inadvertently reflect sexist norms of organizational behavior.

Stamarski & Hing (2015), for example, point out that human resources practices and policies, including decision-making processes, methods by which human resources policies are enacted and enforced, impact hiring, pay, and promotion of women in the workplace. Gender discrimination has been defined in the literature as the underrepresentation of women in elite leadership positions" simultaneous with the "undervaluation of women's effectiveness as leaders," (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker & Woehr, 2014, p. 1129). However, gender discrimination is also more complex than that.

Therefore, the literature supports a view that gender discrimination has a two-fold manifestation: on individual women, and on the organizational culture. The types of gender discrimination in the workplace are often described via the use of metaphors. In fact, there are a slew of metaphors used to describe gender discrimination in the workplace. For one, the leaky pipeline refers to the increased rate of female dropouts in particular male-dominated fields, notably STEM fields (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013).

The leaky pipeline points to the pernicious nature of gender discrimination, as the more women who leave male-dominated fields because of systematic discrimination, the less likely it will be for those fields to change their organizational cultures. Other metaphors for gender discrimination in the workplace include the "maternal wall," which links with the work/family/life balances or imbalances (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013).

The "sticky floor" metaphor refers to the tendency of women to get trapped in low-mobility, low wage work (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013; Channar, Abbasi & Ujan, 2011).

Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters (2013) also mention the glass cliff metaphor for the ways women's lives are made "riskier" when they assume positions of greater wealth and power in an organization, and also to the "labyrinth" metaphor for the unduly complex, convoluted, and difficult paths women's mobility and status increase can be in the workplace (Brukmuller, Ryan, Haslam & Peters, 2013).

Stamarski & Hing (2015) refer to hostile and benevolent "brands" of sexism in the workplace, the former of which are obviously more overt than the latter, which are simply the stereotypical presumptions of women's kind, nurturing, gentle nature and subsequent implications for women who do not fit those stereotypes. Effects of Discrimination in the Workplace Gender discrimination has "far-reaching societal effects," (Marger, n.d., p. 3).

The main effects of discrimination in the workplace revealed in the literature are in the realms of payscale/remuneration, status, opportunity, authority, and personal health. Health is an often-ignored consequence of gender discrimination in the workplace. A growing body of research is quantifying the effects of discrimination on the female work force. For example, Channar, Abbasi, Ujan (2011) study the stress-related effects of gender discrimination on women. Iyer & Ryan (2009) note women experiencing discrimination report a sense of "illegitimacy" and "feelings of anger," (p. 791).

The resulting effects on health can be linked to quantifiable measures like enthusiasm, job satisfaction, commitment, motivation, and attitude, with consequences for employee turnover, retention, and performance indicators (Channar, Abbasi & Ujan, 2011). The effects of gender discrimination are felt at the company's bottom line because "female capital per worker has been shown to have a higher return than male capital per worker," therefore inequality hinders growth and profitability (Edwards, 2010).

Gender discrimination in the workplace has also been shown to be a vicious cycle, with discrimination building on itself and compounding the problem as fewer female leaders mean fewer changes to the organizational structure that enables male leaders to climb the ladder faster (Stamarski & Hing, 2015). In other words, the organizational culture, pay equity, and other factors will not change if patriarchy remains entrenched. Channar, Abbassi, Ujan (2011) found that employees claim deference to their authorities, or what they perceive authorities will like, when making decisions that clearly reflect gender bias.

Differential leadership and delegation of authority are noted when gender discrimination is pervasive (Bilkis, Habib & Sharmin, 2010). However, the most measurable and notable effect of gender discrimination in the workplace is pay inequity (Bilkis, Habib & Sharmin, 2010; Edwards, 2010; Stamarski & Hing, 2015).

Bilkis, Habib & Sharmin (2010) found that 70% of surveyed women know they do not receive equitable pay, and the rest are government workers receiving mandated pay Moreover, the problem is systemic and institutional, as 80% of women don't believe enough government or public policy counteracts gender discrimination (Bilkis, Habib & Sharmin, 2010). Pay inequity is even evident in progressive fields like IT (Nezlek & Dehondt, 2011).

Gender inequity leads men to retain more decision-making power and authority bias, not to mention sexual harassment and the "personal bias" repercussions of discrimination (Bilkis, Habib & Sharmin, 2010). Gender Discrimination and the Wage Gap Income disparity between males and females is well documented in the literature. Wage discrimination remains the most overt and pervasive form of gender discrimination in the workplace, with repercussions well beyond the workplace. Moreover, the gender wage gap is complicated and may vary depending on the specific labor sector.

Inadequate public policy addressing the gender wage gap may be in part attributable to the complex factors creating wage differentials. Overall income disparity has been increasing in the United States, steadily since the 1970s (Daczo, 2012). Over the same period, the wage gap between men and women has steadily shrunk, but has not been entirely eliminated yet (Daczo, 2012).

The primary reason for the narrowing of the gender wage gap has not bee policy, but rather women's increased efforts at professional development including entering professions previously dominated by males such as STEM professions and earning higher degrees (Daczo, 2012). Research reveals an alarming trend: given the penetration of women into multiple job sectors and their increasingly credentialed backgrounds, their wages should already be on par if not surpassing those of their male counterparts but this is far from the case.

Daczo (2012) and others have described the gender wage discrimination in terms of women having to "swim upstream," (p. 2). Differential wages could be caused by organizational culture and entrenched bias at the transactional level. In a study examining data over several decades (1988 to 2003), Ortiz & Roscigno (2009) found discriminatory firing and inequitable promotions for women, even when race was controlled for. African-American women do, however, experience double discrimination based on race and gender with higher instances of race-based promotional biases for black women (Ortiz & Roscigno, 2009).

As a result, women and especially women of color remain in gender-segregated workplace sectors, typically stymied in low-wage and low prestige positions with little potential for growth. Additional variables, such as workplace harassment compound the problem, as women who voluntarily terminate their positions due to harassment may have a hard time re-entering the workplace at a comparable level of status, position, power, and earnings. Causes for gender discrimination and the wage gap are due to micro-level, meso-level, and macro-level factors.

The macro-level factors include the structural features of the labor market itself, and even existential and philosophical issues addressed by Shamon & Dulmer, 2014). When the question of wage differential in general is framed as a matter of human rights and social justice, most people agree that wages should be distributed fairly according to factors like merit (Shamon & Dulmer, 2014).

Individuals do report bias in terms of whether a worker has a family or is perceived as "trying," even when those factors appear unrelated to the situation (Shamon & Dulmer, 2014). Finally, the labor market itself may be.