Gender and Workplace Equity

1. INTRODUCTION

This article focuses on Employment equity, in particular on the lack of women in management positions. There is a long-standing myth or wrong perception about differences in working style, management style and attitudes of men and women, which is somewhere be found true because of gender related inherent traits, Moreover, in most cases, women are considered poorly available for higher management positions in the organisation. Contemporary literature is full of self-help techniques to make women to overcome the inherent flaws of being women (Dawley, Hoffman, & Smith, 2004; De Mascia, 2015; Ndemo & Wanjiku Maina, 2007). There are also some tips provided by the researchers to help women succeeding in company's gamesmanship with a strategy to "join the top men's club" in terms of improving communication styles, directing skills and long-term career prospects(Porterfield & Kleiner, 2005). Most of these authors stated that bringing women to the workplace is a weakness that prevents progress and weakness that women must overcome to succeed. The fact that women hold a separate style of management working brand from men cannot explain that top management position does not have for women. Thus, the argument that women cannot play the challenging role of senior management as they are less sound in skills or temperament makes the current under-representation of women at a high level is fair and equitable, indeed very suspicious.

Workplace equity does not consist of transferring privileges to women and to depriving men of traditionally free groups, of exclusive rights but taking all forms of discrimination rather than moving dominance from men to women. It is considered to be dominance eliminating process. Equity at work considers women as eligible as men. Equality does not mean that women are trying to level their promotions, but not forcing them to make inappropriate promotions. Workplace equity for the organization should expect to have a workforce more representative of balanced mix of both the gender and fair image of community they serve because it makes good business sense(Hammer-higgins & Atwood, 1986). It also means that anyone who fails to get the job gets the same punishment as others. In any form, the organization cannot accept incentives system which based on the sex of employees.

A stereotype is a bunch of attributes belonging to a group, which is believed to characterize its members merely because they belong to the group. In the case of sexual stereotypes, attributes are attached to men and women based on their sex or gender. Traits and characteristics associated with men and women are different, but they also have different values. Although it is believed that everyone has desirable traits and it is mostly stated preferential treatment to dominant group, and also suffers from the ideology that women are not hired on the base of their qualifications but estimated to be employed for their gender or race(Baker, 2014).Although successful, these women are not treated as reliable exemplar and mentor for other women because they seems to acquired success by adopting the working style and reflecting the traits of dominant group, i.e., men. Women can have their own work experience based on their identity and work characteristics. It also recognizes how her experience is shaped by an interactive perceptual and interpretive process that links her to her environment.

Women's friendly behaviour is sometimes even falsely considered as a sexual concern. Even though men assessed the severity of these behaviors as more than women do, women tended to believe that men underestimate the severity of the typical type of harassment. It has been pointed out by the researchers that women are becoming more advantageous(Adams & Ferreira, 2009; Dimovski & Brooks, 2006; Vähämaa, 2017). Now a day this is presented in different ways. When the organization posted the vacant positions, specifically ask and give preference to women candidates (and other non-traditional groups) and may argue in a way that the company has promised employment equity. Men now are sensing the changing in workforce demographic pattern, although not yet outright rejected but may come into a minority status soon. Furthermore, if they look carefully at the statistics, women are slowly but surely passing, and even they can even get grounds. We find that on the most survey and consulting sites, men getting promotion now more than women, but the percentage of women who have received promotions in the past years has increased faster than the rate of men(Smith, Smith, & Verner, 2006; Stephenson, 2004). Some men are now aware that the surrounding world is becoming more competitive. Men have previously only competed with other men; now men also face the competition from women also.

The male rule also affects organizations in various silly methods. Much energy can be dissipated in tension, anger, resentment, and frustration. Men may be defeated by systematic efforts to support women's careers. Researchers have found that dominance is listed as the main concern facing by the organizations in supporting and promoting women employees and other minorities groups.

Is the position of the board of directors only meant for male candidates? Moreover, what factors determine that women's views will be wholly rejected for an appointment at senior management position? "Glass Ceiling" means that how much women can move to the corporate status hierarchy(De Mascia, 2015). Women's selection should be based on merit, and this principle of value seems to be more effective in recruiting women and making them progress, but if this principle favors men, then the organization would be to discriminate against women, and it's not difficult to assume the low representation of women in male dominate organization and industry(Andrew, Coderre, & Denis, 1990). Due to the lack of deserving and skilled women, women have the option to work from many companies. As further research also suggests that the stock price of the company and the election date of the female director are positively reflected(Terjesen, Sealy, & Singh, 2009). So why this glass ceiling concept still exists?

"Women can only hope to be as good as men, and it makes no sense to try" as much as women. Moreover, current socio structure in many organizations is characterized by emphasizing objectivity. In the competition, there is only one rule "work on the job." It is natural that open and

Should women "behave like men" (why)(Marshall, 2001)? The undeclared purpose is probably organizational progress. Moreover, in this respect, for both men and women to be generally accepted, it is necessary to take the masculinity of the company to be recognized as a business executive, i.e., to succeed, i.e., to advance. The evidence is quite obvious Encouraging women at the top of the management organization is to provide an organization's feel that women are necessarily part of the organization(Adams & Ferreira, 2009; Burke & McKeen, 1990; Dawley et al., 2004). , these points may be. a) Democratic authority b) Equality and work sharing c) Leader as coordinator and facilitator d) Sharing knowledge and skills e) The relationship between mental and manual work f) Integrated and connected roles and events. Ruled by relationships and communication The numerical goals are the standard laid by the organization and form a basis for assessing whether women and other minorities groups are judged equally in selecting best candidates and in promotion decisions. Quotas are numerical ratios that are established and applied by governments and are fundamental to the recognition that it is more important to make assumptions based on the status of minorities rather than the relevant standards of practice (Terjesen et al., 2009). On the contrary, selection and promotion decisions are still gender-based, belong to the "Old Boy Network," and have substantial evidence that they are not based on merit. because all forms of discrimination destroy themselves within the market system, but gender discrimination does not respond to market forces. The market may have strong powers that work to eliminate gender discrimination, but other more powerful capabilities make it worse. As a result, it is hard to measure the effectiveness of a right employment program if the power to act to support discrimination is not understood by the organization(Appelbaum, Audet, & Miller, 2003). One of the main obstacles to curb discrimination is the lack of precise and relevant, valid information on the working and potential of members of the organization. The market is efficient only when there is a uninterrupted flow of information, so if an organization cannot produce accurate and accurate information about an individual or a group of workers, the power of the market can not eliminate discrimination. Employment decisions are rarely based of "objective data-objective decisions," but rather depend heavily on the cultural, political and social behaviour of organizational life(Stephenson, 2004). In the absence of objective and valid information on a person's performance and potential, decision makers are relying immediate references and recommendation from a credible platform. Therefore, a significant number of employee recruitment decisions are taken based on the information communicated through the informal network. Because most decision makers are men and are active in their own men‘s networks, the information conveyed through natural systems is usually constructed in such a manner as to make women disadvantageous. The current situation means that for women, relevant and valid information on their performance and capabilities is transmitted through informal networks, and social, political and social systems do not restrict the transmission of precise information on their abilities and skills to develop a new strategy(Ndemo & Wanjiku Maina, 2007). In the field of culture, the critical obstacle to accurate information that is taken into account in employment decisions is the imprecise sex stereotype. The following five myths are widely found in independent women. a) Women are too young or too old for promotion. b) Women will have babies and quit. c) Women need more education.

At the moment, the authors advocate a modified self-regulatory approach that continues the government's role as a legislator. However, central part of the government will be the dissemination of information and the provision of education. The shift in the part of learning and consultants allows the government to focus on changing attitudes towards occupational programs and enhance the role of women in the workforce. Furthermore, the reduced function of 'brothers' allows the government to influence social policy more effectively, while at the same time enabling organizations to decide how to achieve broader social goals. For self-regulation to be effective, governments need to intensify their efforts to mould their attitudes towards occupational fairness and form clear definitions of standards and standards for measuring fairness. Organizations, on the other hand, need to enhance employee role in planning and implementation and develop a 'forced self-regulatory' system. Government rules and regulations should pay attention to employment capital (numbers), presence of initiatives, support for women's careers, motivation to start such programs, credibility of senior management on equity issues, education, employee skills and, number and location of women in the organization, presence of women in the organization (Dutta & Aggarwal, 2017). Predictive sociological factors for men‘s dominance include visibility of issues of equity among the general public, visibility of men‘s dominant symptoms in the public, and the number and relevance of events that celebrate the outcome Women's Fighting Including the Macroeconomics Aspects also. 3.4 Need to change perspective on employment equity Contrary and negative perceptions of open employment programs are widespread among the organization, and these perceptions form nearly impossible scenarios for most organizations interested in a clean and fair work environment. The employment equality program is often blamed for "window dressing" because of the recognition that it has brought about aesthetic change without fair wholesale reform. This problem often arises from a "top-down" approach that cannot connect the decision-making process with implementation and assessment(Ndemo & Maina, 2007). In many cases, once the employment equality policy is formulated, top management shifts to more urgent issues and takes a non-binding approach. Low-level employees who do not participate in the planning process and thus do not understand the correct meaning and orientation intended by management and faces It is then evident and natural that those responsible for implementing fair employment policies felt threatened by the plan and ignored or sabotaged them. Thus, the first step in the revised self-regulatory system of organization is to understand the current perceptions and attitudes about equality in a specific environment. After establishing a baseline of general attitudes, identify the actions necessary to shift those attitudes from those that produce negative definitions of stereotypes to those that built and form structure of fairness and equity(Morley, 1993). It is the responsibility of each organization. The basic measures is need to be collected, all further steps in the self-regulatory system will be better served by the participation and possible involvement of members of the organization. Employee‘s equity programs should not be considered or accepted as an exclusive liability. By nature of employment, it is an adventure inequality, and it has the most excellent chance of success when dealing with all the people who are affected by it equally.

For occupational equity or workplace equity to be genuinely useful, we need to focus on changing imprecise gender stereotypes and changing the current attitude towards women in the workplace. It is necessary to develop an important communication program to counter the trend of unfairness only in employee stock plans. We need to regularly strengthen the message that professional equity is firmly based on the application of the principle of merit. To educate members of the organization about their existence and ensure that such practices are not included in the new policies and procedures, it is necessary to prove proof of systematic discrimination inherent in the current system. If employees are involved in the development and implementation of stock plans, they are likely to support and consider employment program as fair and unlikely to lead to counter-discrimination.

Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), pp. 291–309. Andrew, C., Coderre, C., & Denis, A. (1990). Stop or go: Reflections of women managers on factors influencing their career

Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1), pp. 43–51. Baker, C. (2014). Stereotyping and women‘s roles in leadership positions. Industrial and Commercial Training, 46(6), pp. 332–337. Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1990). Mentoring in organizations: Implications for women. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4–5), pp. 317–332. Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D. R. (1999). A decade of corporate women: some progress in the boardroom,none in the executive suite. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), pp. 93–100. Dawley, D., Hoffman, J. J., & Smith, A. R. (2004). Leader succession: Does gender matter? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(8), pp. 678–690. De Mascia, S. (2015). Are women better leaders than men? Human Resource Management International Digest, 23(7), pp. 1–4. Dimovski, W., & Brooks, R. (2006). The gender composition of boards after an IPO. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6(1), pp. 11–17. Dutta, S., & aggarwal, upasna A. (2017). Factors effecting career advancement of Indian women managers Factors effecting career advancement of Indian women managers. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 6(3), pp. 24. Hammer-higgins, P., & Atwood, V. A. (1986). The Management Game : An Educational Intervention for Counseling Women With Nontraditional Career Goals. The Career Development, 38(September 1989), pp. 6–24. Manning, T. T. (2002). Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 17(5), pp. 207–216. Marshall, S. (2001). Her way: Women presidents leading companies. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 5(3), pp. 223–233. Ndemo, B., & Maina, F. W. (2007). Women entrepreneurs and strategic decision making. Management Decision, 45(1), pp. 118–130. Ndemo, B., & Wanjiku Maina, F. (2007). Women entrepreneurs and strategic decision making. Management Decision, 45(1), pp. 118–130. Porterfield, J., & Kleiner, h brian. (2005). A New Era : Women and Leadership. Equal Opportunities International, 24(5/6), pp., 49–56. Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm performance?A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management (Vol. 55), pp. 569-593. Stephenson, C. (2004). Leveraging diversity to maximum advantage: The business case for appointing more women to boards. Ivey Business Journal, September/(519), pp. 1–5. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), pp. 320–337. Tibus, C. (2010). Leadership beyond the glass ceiling: Does ownership matter? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(8), pp. 743–757. Vähämaa, E. (2017). Female executives and corporate governance. Managerial Finance, 43(10), pp. 1056–1072.

Research Scholar, Institute of Management Studies and Research, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana - 124001 shiv.jaggarwal@gmail.com