Mod Hawthorne Studies

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal
Gender inequality in the work environment: a study of private research

organizations in India
Namrata Gupta,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Namrata Gupta, (2017) "Gender inequality in the work environment: a study of private research
Downloaded by Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management At 04:25 19 April 2018 (PT)
organizations in India", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 36 Issue: 3,
pp.255-276, https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-04-2016-0029
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-04-2016-0029
Downloaded on: 19 April 2018, At: 04:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 91 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 591 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2010),"Gender inequality in employment: Editors' introduction", Equality, Diversity
and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 3 pp. 221-238 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/02610151011028831">https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151011028831</a>
(2014),"Equality in the workplace: a study of gender issues in Indian organisations", Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 33 Iss 2 pp. 90-106 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JMD-11-2013-0140">https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2013-0140</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:482313 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm
Gender
Gender inequality in the work inequality in
environment: a study of private the work
environment
research organizations in India
Namrata Gupta 255
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India
Received 17 April 2016
Revised 1 October 2016
9 December 2016
Abstract
2 March 2017
Purpose – Since liberalization in the 1990s, India has witnessed a growth in the number of educated middle- Accepted 7 March 2017
class women in professions. However, there are few women in leadership positions and decision-making
bodies. While the earlier notion of the ideal woman as homemaker has been replaced by one which idealizes
women of substance, a woman’s role in the family continues to be pivotal and is even viewed as central in
defining Indian culture. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how and to what extent gender inequalities
are reproduced in the organizations employing educated professionals.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the perspective that gender is socially constructed, this paper
analyzes gender inequality in Indian organizations through semi-structured interviews of men and women
scientists in two private pharmaceutical laboratories.
Findings – The findings show reproduction of a gendered normative order through two types of norms and
practices: one, norms and practices that favor men and second, socio-cultural norms that devalue women in
public spaces which help to maintain masculinity in the workplace. Although these practices might be found
elsewhere in the world, the manner in which they are enacted reflects national cultural norms.
Originality/value – The paper highlights how various norms and practices enacted in the specific Indian
socio-cultural context construct and maintain masculinity at workplace depriving opportunities to
professional women which affect their rise to leadership positions.
Keywords Gender, National cultures, Developing countries, Organizations, Workplace, Masculinity
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Liberalization in India since the 1990s has created jobs, benefitting urban educated women
the most (Rustagi, 2010). Although the female labor force participation rate has been
declining in India, particularly since 2004-2005 (Das et al., 2015), the number of women
workers with an undergraduate degree and beyond increased over the period 2004-2005 to
2011-2012 (Rustagi, 2013). However, a UN report (WISAT, 2012) found that while India has a
high representation of women in administrative and managerial positions, it has a low
representation of women in decision-making positions. For example, they made up
22 percent of senior officials, managers and legislators with almost no change over the last
five years, but their participation on corporate boards was at merely 4 percent and
representation in national science academies was at 5 percent in 2010. Thus, the questions
that arise are why, despite an increase in women’s participation in educated workforce, is
there a lack of women in higher positions? Is the liberal organizational space gendered and
how is gender constructed in such organizations?
Literature shows that gender is deeply embedded in organizational thinking and in
general, the idea of a universal/ideal worker in organizations is a male unencumbered by
familial responsibilities (Acker, 1990; Brumley, 2014; Collinson and Hearn, 1996).
Further, socio-cultural beliefs and stereotypes form the basis of gendered practices
in organizations (Ridgeway, 2009; Acker, 2006) and cultural differences lead to differences in
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
stereotypes across national contexts (Steinmetz et al., 2014). In India, the mid-1990s An International Journal
Vol. 36 No. 3, 2017
pp. 255-276
This paper is based on a Senior Fellowship award of the Indian Council of Social Science Research, vide © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7149
Fellowship No. F.No. 2−11/10/S.Fel. The author was affiliated to IIT Kanpur for this project. DOI 10.1108/EDI-04-2016-0029
EDI liberalization phase has also witnessed the rise of Hindu ideology, and a middle-class
36,3 assertion of family as a value is interwoven with the Indian identity (Donner, 2011).
Educated urban professionals, such as the scientists in this study, constitute the
“Indian middle class.” Discourse on modernity and individualism in this class is
circumscribed by family ties (Belliappa, 2013). While the education of women is receiving
greater attention, reflected in rising enrollments and growth in the number of educated
256 women in the workforce, research shows continuity in the social normative structure that
gives primacy to women’s family roles (Patel and Parmentier, 2005). Gender inequality is
also influenced by the institutional context (Ridgeway, 2009). Gender stereotypes are
stronger in the male-dominated professions, such as science (Valian 1999).
Based on the perspective that gender is constructed in organizations through interactions
(West and Zimmerman, 1987) and through various formal and informal practices
(Acker, 1990), this paper studies two private research labs and shows that the Indian socio-
cultural context is reproduced at the workplace in two ways: through workplace norms and
practices that are masculine and, second, through the perception and assumptions of
colleagues about women’s dual burden that devalue women in public spaces. Both are related
to the Indian middle-class ideology that identifies “Indian culture” with women’s centrality in
the domestic sphere and to the patriarchal norms inhibiting male-female interaction and
valuing female docility and obedience. Further, India is also traditionally a hierarchical society
with organizations and structures exhibiting a hierarchical culture. The impact of this culture
on women professionals is yet to be understood.
Addressing gender inequality is important from the point of view of human equity and also
for an efficient use of human capital and a healthy economy. The World Economic Forum’s
Global Gender Gap Report (2014) finds a positive correlation between gender equality and per
capita GDP in India. Practices that undermine gender equity also lower organizational
effectiveness (Rapoport et al., 2002). Highlighting the barriers to the rise of women professionals
is the first step toward a full utilization of their potential. The sections below first place gender
inequality in the larger theoretical framework of gendered organizations and then discuss the
relevance of the Indian socio-cultural context, followed by methods and findings.
The perspective: construction of gender inequality

Gender is an institutionalized system of social practices for constituting social relations of
inequality between men and women (Risman, 1998). It is a process that is constantly being
enacted in everyday situations (Linstead and Pullen, 2006). According to West and
Zimmerman (1987), “doing gender” involves a complex of socially guided perceptual,
interactional and micropolitical activities casting particular pursuits as expressions of
masculine and feminine natures. Cultural beliefs play a significant role in doing gender.
Shared hegemonic cultural beliefs about gender in various relational and interactional
situations maintain and change the gender system (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004).
Workplace cultures reproduce beliefs about “masculine” and “feminine” and are sites of
construction of gender (Leidner, 1991). Various formal and informal practices at the
workplace might not be recognized as gendered but they create ideas about proper roles for
men and women and produce or reproduce notions about gender in everyday actions or
events (Acker, 1990; Gherardi, 1995). Organizing processes such as gender in recruitment,
differential gender-based evaluations and informal interactions (exclusion from meetings
and informal groups or being ignored at meetings) reproduce inequalities (Acker, 2006).
Cultural beliefs about gender prejudice behaviors, performances and evaluations with
gendered outcomes in organizations (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004).
Among the norms and beliefs that construct gender at workplace, the notion of
“ideal worker” is an important one. It is a masculine concept which assumes long working
hours, continuous availability and complete devotion to work, to the exclusion of any
obligations to care for children or other dependents outside work (Acker, 1990; Lewis, 2001). Gender
It is premised on the ideology of separate spheres with public sphere as the man’s domain inequality in
and the private as the woman’s realm (Rapoport et al., 2002; Bailyn, 2006). The concept of the work
“ideal worker” affects the notion of “commitment” at workplace which is constructed in
terms of behaviors that prioritize work over family (Lewis and Humbert, 2010; Holt and environment
Lewis, 2009). Living up to the ideal worker norm is an important way to enact masculinity
and protect a privileged position at the workplace and at home (Kelly et al., 2010). 257
By implication, those who fail to live up to this ideal, such as women with children, are
pushed to the periphery of organizations. Women as mothers face an extreme version of the
stereotypes of women and special disadvantages in the labor force as they are seen much
more communal than agentic (Budig and England, 2001). Work-life balance policies only
serve to perpetuate the marginalization of women as they are meant for those who do not
fit the ideal male model of a worker (Lewis and Humbert, 2010). Opting for flexibility or
part-time work actually leads to intensification of work and has adverse consequences for
mobility and career progression (Tomlinson and Durbin, 2010; Lewis and Humbert, 2010).
Practices that distance men from day-to-day family care-giving impart masculine character
to professional identity (Connell and Wood, 2005; Pleck et al., 1993).
The “ideal worker” is also a prime candidate for leadership positions. Family issues and
cultural assumptions work against women moving into higher managerial positions
(Alvesson and Billing, 2009). Cultural beliefs and historical traditions give a masculine
image to leadership in most countries (Collinson and Hearn, 1996). Female leaders often face
the paradox of whether to emulate a masculine leadership style or a stereotypically warm
and nurturing feminine style. In the first case, their male subordinates will dislike them and
in the second, they will be liked, but not respected (Kawakami et al., 2000). Impression
management tactics (to achieve goals such as wanting to be liked or appear competent) used
by men and women tend to be consistent with gender-role expectations; for instance, men
engage in self-promotion and self-enhancement more than women and this creates an image
of greater power for men than women at the same level (Guadagno and Cialdini, 2007).
A dearth of women at the top has also been related to a lack of equal access to social networks
(Cabrera and Thomas-Hunt, 2007). Social networks are extremely important for attaining
information, power, influence and support within and across organizations; thus, limiting
women’s access to the many benefits provided by them (Kanter, 1977; Miller, 1986). Women lack
networks not only because of exclusion from informal interaction but also due to the structure of
organizations. For instance, in forming network ties, individuals prefer to interact with those who
have similar attributes such as race, gender, religion or values, also referred to as homophily
(McPherson et al., 2001) and high-status network partners. Since there are few high-status
women professionals, this strategy is denied to women (Ibarra, 1993). Homophily may have been
induced as the low status of women renders them less appealing as network partners
(Mehra et al., 1998). Differences in men’s and women’s social networks create differences in the
opportunity structure and the resources available which affects candidate credibility in hiring
decisions and promotions or further advancement (Cabrera and Thomas-Hunt, 2007).
While the “gendered spheres” ideology, gendered leadership and gender stereotyping
are common to most countries of the world and affect women in organizations, the national
context in which organizations are embedded also play a role in influencing women’s
careers and experiences. Cultural differences lead to differences in stereotypes across
national contexts (Steinmetz et al., 2014). Cross-cultural differences in gender roles are
reflected in beliefs regarding sharing of household tasks and child care responsibilities.
For instance, individuals in all cultural groups with more egalitarian gender-role beliefs
tend to report more sharing behavior (Vijver van de, 2007). Several dimensions of cultural
variability have been employed to distinguish cultures. The four dimensions of Hofstede
(2001) which are individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and
EDI masculinity-femininity have been used by many researchers to explain a wide range of
36,3 cultural differences. In a large-scale cross-cultural study of gender-role beliefs (Best and
Williams, 1994), gender roles were found to be more pronounced in countries that score
higher on the cultural dimension of power distance (the extent to which people in the society
accept unequal distribution of power).
Apart from national and organizational context, women’s position is also influenced by the
258 institutional context. The stereotypical image of a scientist is male (Schiebinger, 1999) and a
“male model” of full-time devotion to science disadvantages women (Etzkowitz et al., 2000).
Women are underrepresented at scientific workplaces and in careers in most countries
(Rathgeber, 2009). However, attaining numbers alone cannot prevent the reproduction of
traditionally masculine cultures (Knights and Murray, 1994).
Researchers have shown that masculine norms are so strongly embedded in the workplace
that they seem to be the way things are done (Salzinger, 2004). Hence, workers deny gender in
the workplace as they often do not see the gendered structure of their work environment
(Eisenhart and Finkel, 1998; Lewis, 2006; Bailyn, 2003). The denial implies that discrimination
cannot be voiced and status quo is strengthened (Meyerson and Fletcher, 2000).
Since cultural beliefs about gender are significant in the organizational construction
of gender, the section below discusses the Indian socio-cultural context before analyzing
the findings.
Indian socio-cultural context: the educated urban professionals

The ideological separation of public and private spheres is common over the world. However,
in the Indian social context, this norm is part of a patriarchal system that combines class, caste
and national identity. The scientists here constitute educated urban middle-class
professionals. Since the 1990s, liberalization and the growing Hindu nationalist forces have
revitalized the ideas of the role of Hindu piety, moralism with the central role of family as
being central to the middle-class definition of Indianness (Nielsen and Waldrop, 2014;
Radhakrishnan, 2011). The postcolonial notion of Indian culture is gendered as it gives
primacy to family and a central role to women in the family (Belliappa, 2013).
The middle class is also high caste which has been most gender conservative (Nielsen
and Waldrop, 2014). Traditionally, Indian society is patriarchal, coupled with a family
orientation, with families taking decisions on children’s education and marriage,
and individuals subordinating their personal concerns to that of the family
(Mukhopadhyay and Seymour, 1994). In this separation of spheres, norms limiting the
interaction of men and women play a significant role and they were responsible for limiting
educational opportunities and work outside until recently (Chanana, 2001). In the last two
decades, educational and professional opportunities for women have increased.
Growing consumerism, improved living standards and high value placed on education have
contributed to the rise in women’s professional education (Nielsen and Waldrop, 2014).
The proportion of women in professional courses has increased dramatically, e.g., from
3.8 percent in 1980-1981 to 26 percent in 2005 in undergraduate engineering courses (Didion
et al., 2012). The economic boom, the IT boom in particular, has provided impetus for increased
employment of women (Gupta, 2015). Women’s higher education and their employment in
professional and technical sectors is an urban middle-class phenomenon (Radhakrishnan, 2011).
In contrast to the view of an ideal Hindu woman as a homemaker, the woman “of substance” is
now valued, which is inclusive of women in workplaces (Thapan, 2007).
The change is accompanied by continuity. The middle-class construction of cultural
domain continues to construct the inner world (the home) as being woman-centered
(Thapan, 2007). This is also indicated in a study of professional women in IT
(Radhakrishnan, 2009) which found that middle-class women uphold family as a “core
value” of the global Indian identity, which helps the enactment of “respectable femininity”
at the workplace and in their personal lives. A separation of spheres continues to exist in the Gender
minds of employers and male colleagues at work (Patel and Parmentier, 2005). inequality in
Organizations typically assume that a working woman is placing family before work and the work
the “dual burden” is a woman’s problem. As a result, even in multilateral organizations
and universities, which are liberal spaces, dual income couples face the daunting task of environment
child care and elderly care (Grover et al., 2015). Men receive greater support from
supervisors and co-workers in managing work and family responsibilities than women do 259
(Ramadoss and Rajadhyaksha, 2012). According to the authors, this is because policies are
slower to change than the social reality which is rejecting the male breadwinner model, and
second, due to the prevalence of traditional gender-role ideologies, people do not think that
women need support in managing the dual responsibilities.
Research on urban professional women’s experiences in India shows that women

perceive a biased environment at the workplace. Even in the IT sector, which has been at the
forefront in leading initiatives for gender inclusivity, there are few women in leadership
roles and they are often relegated to routinized jobs (Arun et al., 2007). Women are
underrated by their male colleagues (Kundu, 2003) and women managers have to work
harder than men to prove their worth (Nath, 2000). There is a lack of interaction between
men and women workers which accounts for a great deal of gender stereotypes in the Indian
corporate sector (Basu, 2008).
Lack of interaction affects women in scientific research as it results in information deficit,
lack of visibility and contacts, lack of networking and isolation (Gupta and Sharma, 2003).
Studies of women in science in India have focused on academia and government research
labs. They have found a spillover of patriarchal considerations into the workplace
(Subrahmanyan, 1998; Gupta and Sharma, 2003; Gupta, 2007), biases in hierarchical
distribution of women (Kumar, 2001), lack of infrastructural support and a dual burden
(Chakravarthy, 1986; Jaiswal, 1993).
“Hierarchy” has been a dominant feature of the traditional Indian social structure.
Although public spaces are open to all, India exhibits a high “power distance” scoring high
on this dimension, 77 (compared to the world average of 56.5), indicating an appreciation for
hierarchy and a hierarchical structure in society and organizations. Studies of hierarchical
patterns in Indian industrial firms indicate that Indian business culture is hierarchical, with
boss-subordinate relations which are highly valued (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997; Heuer, 2006).
There is a dearth of studies that have analyzed gendered assumptions and practices that
influence women in elite private sector organizations in India and none exist on women in
private research organizations. The private research sector is a relatively new phenomenon
in India which has received considerable impetus with liberalization in the 1990s.
The organizations in this sector are elite in terms of their reputation as the best private
research labs in the country, employment of a highly educated workforce, high salaries,
plush organizational setting and international reach.
Methods
This study draws data from a research project that aimed to study the position of women
scientists and issues affecting them. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews
conducted by the author. The schedule comprised of questions on perceptions about formal
rules, informal relations, gender, work-life balance and autobiographical questions. Most of
the questions were framed in such a manner that they could be answered by both men and
women, such as, “Do you experience conflict between work and family responsibilities?”
or “Is it important to interact informally in the organization?” or “Is there cooperation
or competition in your department?” A few pointed questions about gender issues were
common to both men and women respondents. For example, “Do you think there is gender
equality in your organization?” or “Do you think men and women differ in capabilities?”
EDI Women respondents were probed deeper on the questions relating to gender. For instance,
36,3 they were asked if they believed that their male colleagues were aware of a dual burden on
women, and what the attitude of colleagues is during the pregnancy of a woman scientist.
Two reputed Indian pharmaceutical private sector companies with a global clientage
were chosen for the study and are here referred to as Private1 and Private2 to honor the
confidentiality contract with both the companies. These companies are among the top
260 ten research labs in patenting activity[1] and are located in metropolitan cities.
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the few industries in India that has demonstrated
R&D capabilities in the private sector. It has been a rapidly advancing sector in the country
both in terms of production and technological capabilities (Krishna and Chandra, 2009).
Face-to face interviews were conducted with 17 men and 17 women scientists at the
premises of the organization by the researcher over a period of one year from August 2011
to October 2012. Each interview on average lasted for about an hour. For the purpose of
interviews, the HR managers of the R&D units of the companies acted as the gatekeepers.
Care was taken by the researcher to have representatives of all grades of scientists.
The sample of scientists interviewed is given in Table I.
All the respondents were “scientists.” The term is used for all those who are referred
to as “scientists” by their respective organizations. All scientists in Private2 hold
PhD degrees. However, in Private1, nine respondents were non-PhDs of whom six were
currently in PhD programs.
All the responses were noted down in the interview schedule and were also recorded.
The latter was essential to provide greater reliability of data. The replies were also written
down in case the tape recorder developed a snag or the taped conversation got wiped out
due to some inadvertent error. The recorded information was very useful in noting the data
that were missed while jotting the replies.
Since the project was related to the intricate issue of understanding the position of
women through perceptions, each interview was carefully analyzed through a thematic
analysis. Thematic analysis “provides a flexible and useful research tool, which can
potentially provide a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data” (Braun and
Clarke, 2006, p. 5). Responses to the questions on career, perceptions about formal rules,
informal relations, gender and work-life balance, were coded from the point of view that
gender is constructed. Patterns and meanings noticed in the coded responses led to
various themes that included ideal worker norms and hierarchy, gendered preferences and
practices of the companies, dual burden assumptions of men, and gendered practices
surrounding women’s issues (such as pregnancy). These descriptive themes were then
analyzed to understand their implications. This led to the emergence of two broad
interlinked themes: norms and practices favoring men in the workplace; and norms
and practices devaluing women in the “public” sphere.
Respondents’ profile
Respondents were mostly Hindus (only two being non-Hindus) and belonged to the
“General” caste category (Table II). Only two of them were other backward caste and none
from the Scheduled Castes, indicating an upper caste Hindu background of most of the
respondents[2]. Average age of the respondents was 34.91 years which indicates a younger
Organization Men Women Total
Private1 9 9 18
Table I. Private2 8 8 16
Total sample size Total 17 17 34
Total respondents 34 (17 men, 17 women)
Gender
inequality in
Average age 34.9 years the work
Men 35.8 years
Women 34.0 years environment
Hindus 32 out of 34
Caste 32 “general” caste; 2 OBC
261
Marital status
Ever-married 31 (16 men; 15 women including 1 divorcee and 1 widow)
Single 3 (one man; 2 women)
Respondents with working spouses
Men 6 out of 16
Women All currently married women (13 out of 13)
No. of children
Nil 6 (1 man; 5 women) Table II.
One 16 (10 men; 6 women) Profile of the
Two 9 (5 men; 4 women) respondents
population (slightly younger women than men) and might be due the recency of research in
the sector, mainly at the turn of this millennium.
The marital status of respondents shows universality of marriage in India. Thus, of the 34
respondents, three were single. Of those single, only one, a woman, was in her 30s while the
other two – a man and a woman – were aged 28 years, and hence of marriageable age with
marriages rarely taking place for women in their 30s in India. None of the ever-married
respondents (31) had more than two children and six had none. Of those who had none, five
were women in age group 27-34 years with “one in the family way” or “one to-be-mother soon”
which indicates delayed childbirth for such women. Of the 16 married men, only six men had
spouses who were working while spouses of all married women were working, reflecting male
dominance in the “public” (economic) sphere. All employed spouses (men or women) were
working in the same city as the organization except in the case of one woman scientist.
The proportion of women scientists in the R&D units of the two organizations is very
low (Table III). There are very few at the middle management level and almost none at the
higher management level.
In this study, the position of the respondents in the sample is shown in Table IV.
The way in which the two organizations designate their scientists differs. In Private1,
a group leader could be anyone from senior scientist onwards. Roughly, the designations
Women scientists as Women as group leaders/managers Women at higher

Total percentage of total in scientific teams (no.) out of total management levela
Organization employees scientistsb leaders (no.)
Private1
R&D unit1 747 14 7 out of 75 2
R&D unit2 300 9 3 out of 30 None
Private2 1,200 20
R&D unit1 178 6 1 out of 18 None
R&D unit2 180 14 4 out of 13 1 Table III.
Notes: aProject director in Private1 and associate director and above in Private2; btotal scientists are about Proportion of women
60 percent of the total employees scientists and leaders
Source: Interviews with HRM and respondents in the private labs
EDI correspond as shown in Table IV. Thus, for instance, a junior scientist has a position similar
36,3 to the research scientist in Private2.
The scientists in this study are employed full-time and the nature of their work disallows
certain policies like work-from-home. Nevertheless, these organizations consciously promote
worker-friendly culture through, for instance, family holidays, plush office space, provision
of high quality lunch and freely available tea and coffee throughout the day.
262 The research problems of the scientists are decided by the company. The latter also
maintains control over data, materials, tools and results. They prefer to patent new findings
rather than disseminate them in journals. Research in these labs is governed by commercial
interests. The scientists work on the target-oriented modules set by the management.
Delivery of timelines as per these targets is of prime importance. Thus, the scientists
identify themselves more as employees of the company rather than with the professional
community of scientists.
The project manager along with the company bosses decides the timelines for a research
project and the team has to work accordingly. The actual work is left to the scientists in the
team. The team is composed of scientists in a hierarchical arrangement from junior to senior
scientists. In both types of organizations, there is not only a preponderance of men in
numbers, but men occupy most of the higher positions, reflecting greater formal power.
The interviews indicate that various practices and norms produce a work climate that affects
women’s rise to higher positions in these organizations. These include: one, “norms and
practices that favor men” such as norm of ideal worker and a hierarchical culture, organizational
requirements and preferences; two, “norms and practices that devalue women in public spaces”
which include assumptions regarding the dual burden on women and the practices surrounding
pregnancy and work-life balance policies. These are discussed in the sections below.
Norms and practices favoring men

The findings indicate that an “ideal worker” concept combines with the Indian hierarchical culture
and norms of male-female interaction, which affects the position of women in these organizations.
Further, some organizational policies are gender-insensitive but are never questioned and certain
organizational preferences in recruitment and promotions work in favor of men.
An ideal worker and hierarchy

The masculine norm of long working hours is prevalent in both the organizations reflecting
the notion that an “ideal worker” is visible and available, as elsewhere (Lewis and Humbert,
2010). This is a disadvantage for women particularly when combined with the informal
practice of judging employees’ contribution in terms of hours spent at work irrespective of
the amount or quality of work accomplished. Although the office hours are 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. in
Private1 and 8.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Private2, the scientists usually stay till much later in the
evening. They often work on Saturdays also despite the fact that it is officially a holiday.
As Sonam[3] (female), a Research Scientist in Private2 said, “you need to work hard and stay
Private1 Private2
Designation Men Women Designation Men Women Total
Research associate 1 0 Research associate 0 0 1

Junior scientist 0 5 Research scientist 0 3 8
Table IV. Scientist 3 2 Senior research scientist 3 2 10
Position of the Senior scientist 2 1 Group leader 5 2 10
respondents in the Principal scientist 3 1 Associate director 0 1 5
two private labs Total 9 9 8 8 34
back after work hours to impress bosses; those who do so get rewarded also.” Similarly, Gender
Jhanvi (female, a Junior Scientist in Private1) remarked, “when a man and a woman are at inequality in
the same level but only one has to be marked for promotion, the superiors see who has the work
worked hard and this is judged by the number of hours given to work … I may finish my
day’s task and still go back on time. But this is not recognized by the superiors.” environment
Thus, one who devotes several work hours to work is an “ideal worker.” This worker is
both visible and available and is also highly valued. Being rewarded for the “face time” 263
(Bailyn, 2006) reflects the assumption that those who are visible are more competent as well,
which has also been found elsewhere (Lewis and Humbert, 2010). Further, the long working-
hours culture is stressful for men with working wives. For instance, Girish (male, Senior
Research Scientist, Private2), whose wife is at a managerial position in the same city,
remarked, “time for family is not sufficient; Twice or thrice in a month I come on Saturdays
also, every day I spend about 10 hours here…”. This affirms that “masculine” norms might
be constraining for some men also (Collinson and Collinson, 2004).
The fusion of the idea of the ideal worker with visibility and availability is strengthened
through certain practices. For example, a meeting might be kept at the office closing time in
the evening without prior notice. Gita (female, Research Scientist, Private2) indicates her
distress at this:
Gita: A meeting might come up at 5.30 p.m. (office closing time).
Myself: Do you face stress due to staying back late?
Gita: Yes, especially because sometimes there might not be any specific reason for the meeting but
only discussion.
Gita’s statement (in italics) indicates how gendered practices can be inefficient
organizational practices (as also the long-hours culture) (Rapoport et al., 2002).
Meetings provide opportunities for interaction and self-promotion. Women are often
unable to attend such meetings and are therefore bypassed during discussions, losing out on
the opportunities to make their voice heard and their work visible. It helps to be “vocal about
your work” as it creates a positive perception about competence which in turn affects rise to
higher positions. For instance, according to Rajni (female, Group Leader, Private1):
Structure of the organization is such that there are say twenty people at the same level waiting for
promotion, then work is not important, people’s perceptions are important.
The late held meetings preclude the opportunity for women to be visible, to highlight their
work (self-promotion) and be counted as competent. Traits traditionally associated with
masculine style of working such as self-promotion support the idea of competence
constructing gender at workplace (Bailyn, 2006).
The long-hours culture is aggravated in the hierarchical cultural context of India. If the
boss stays late, the juniors are unable to leave early reflecting a high power distance.
According to Bhaskar, a Senior Research Scientist (male, Private2), “in this company, a lot
depends on the boss. He decides the life of the team. If boss stays late, he tunes others to stay
late.” Hence, long hours of work might be dependent on the boss’s personal schedule of work.
This relationship between a hierarchical culture and long hours affects junior women more
than men. While women are unable to prolong office hours, the schedule of the bosses (a man
usually) is often stretched long. Gita (female, a Research Scientist in Private2) found it difficult
to move up the hierarchy because her seniors stayed late while she could not. In response to
the question, “How tough is it for a woman scientist to move up in ladder?” she replied:
It is tough (to move up in hierarchy). If some work requires long hours of stay at office, then it
becomes difficult. My male seniors leave at 9 p.m.; staying back beyond official hours is considered
good. It shows that you are doing more work.
EDI A hierarchical culture in India heightens the need for visibility for the benefit of bosses.
36,3 Visibility is required not only in terms of long hours but also in the form of interpersonal
interaction and rapport with the seniors. This is recognized by men as well women scientists
and imposes pressure on them. According to Ajay (male, Principal Scientist in Private1),
“for growth in private R&D you require visibility with those who are influential, who are
decision makers. You have to have merit but some amount of self-advertising is required.”
264 The need for the masculine trait of networking and strategic self-promotion is further seen
in the following statement of Vani (female, Research Scientist, Private2):
Good PR (public relations) and contacts are very important (for growth) and one needs to be smart,
that is doing less but successful experiments and then visibility, which means, being present when
your work is being discussed.
Such strategic visibility and contacts require informal interaction and networking. Gender
homophily which has been found to account for low networks of women in organizations
(Brass, 1985) is compounded by interaction norms and gendered opportunities for
interaction in India. Women and men are usually in same-sex groups even during the lunch
hour, reproducing male-female interaction norms in society. Snigdha (female, Scientist and
Assistant Manager, Private1), suffered in terms of slow promotions because her immediate
boss did not recognize her contributions. However, she thinks she is to blame for the lack of
recognition because, “I am lacking in coming forward and speaking up about my work,
I am shy. It is important to be visible.” Snigdha’s example indicates how professional
women, socialized in the Indian patriarchal norms that discourage male-female interaction
and value shyness, docility, and obedience, lose out in public spaces by not making an effort
to be visible or aggressively vocal.
Further, gendered organizational practices deny opportunities for interaction and
networking. Men interact in the late evening meetings while women are unable to,
as noted above. Plant visits[4] are an important forum for close interaction. As Madhav,
a Group Leader, (Male, Private2) said: “I am in a cross-functional team. We interact when
we go to plant. For four months we stay in a room … We maintain contact with our
team mates even when a project (requiring plant visit) is over.” The inability of women to
do plant visits (due to several gendered constraints as discussed in the section below)
hinders them from interacting informally and making contacts. This lack of networking
among women adversely affects women’s visibility and career advancement as mentioned
earlier. Less networking by women implies that most networks are male thereby
reproducing male hegemony.
The perception that an ideal worker is male is further strengthened through formal and
informal policies of the companies as discussed below.
Gendered organizational requirements and preferences

Certain formal requirements of jobs and some unstated preferences of the organizations
create advantages for men, constructing gender in the workplace. They also indicate
gender insensitivity of the company and a lack of thinking regarding inclusivity. Plant visits
are one such example. Plant visits constitute a formal requirement of the scientists’ job.
Hence, they also contribute to a rise in the hierarchy. However, conditions hinder women’s
ability to visit and affect their position in the organization.
Plants are usually in remote areas, require staying there for several days or months,
and the staying facilities are minimal, with usually a small room accommodating three to
four scientists; added to this is the task of dealing with workers at the plant who lack
education – managing them is difficult; “you don’t feel safe” (Sonam, female, Research
Scientist, Private2). As a result few women agree to such visits or are sent for them.
For example, according to Keshav (male, Private2), “They (women) can’t go for one month
to the plant as it is difficult for them, but some do go. Normally boss will send a male Gender
because it is difficult for a woman.” inequality in
The disadvantage of plant visits affects women moving upwards in the organizational the work
hierarchy as in Madhav, Group Leader (Male, Private 2): “not going to the plant affects
promotions … ”. Some women scientists want to move out of their present job profile due to environment
(their) inability to do plant visits. For instance, Sonam (female, Research Scientist, Private2) who
is married, has no children, and has a supportive husband, remarked, “I want balance. Because 265
of the plant problem I want to move out of my current role and shift to a non-scientific one”.
Dominated by men, organizations fail to even think about making plant visits women-
friendly, exhibiting a lack of gender sensitivity. Also, women themselves were unable to
appreciate the gendered nature of plant visits and some even felt that since it is part of
the job, women should go, thus accepting the organization’s version of an ideal worker.
This acceptance of the masculine version leaves them with a feeling of guilt as in Snigdha
(female), Scientist in Private1:
Generally, team members perceive that it is a disadvantage to have a woman on the team.
Sometimes there are night shifts or (women) may have to go to plants and monitor the product and
have to work day and night over there. So we usually don’t prefer […]. We have a feeling that we
are not able to contribute fully. Bosses are also unhappy.
Thus, due to their lack of plant visits, women lose out in terms of rapport with the bosses
which only adds to an overall low visibility, availability, networking, interaction and a lack
of self-promotion creating a cumulative disadvantage.
These disadvantages accumulate further due to some informal policies of the companies.
For instance, companies have certain preferences in recruitment as well as during
promotions that act as an advantage for men, exemplifying a lack of access to certain forms
of “career capital,” which impedes the career progression of women (Duberley and Cohen,
2010). Acquisition of such career capital is gendered and enmeshed with the normative
context of women’s centrality in the domestic sphere. For example, according to Srishti
(female, Junior Scientist, Private1):
Although there are no salary differentials for persons in the same position but the person with the
same qualification and experience might not be in the same position. Men take more jumps from
company to company. Those from outside the company gain. Some men reached higher levels than
me though they have the same experience.
More value/preference is attached to the worker who has gained experience in similar
companies. Constrained by family, women most often do not change companies as it usually
requires relocation to a different city. The preference for outside experience is not a part of
formally written rules but practiced informally. Such informal practices disadvantaging
women might be known to women and exemplify “gliding segregation” (Holt and Lewis,
2009), the process of women and men starting at the same place with the same level of
education ending up with different opportunities for development due to gendered
assumptions about the ideal worker.
Another example of an informal practice constructing gender is that of courses
conducted by the company for scientists at the junior level which are considered a plus
for promotions. However, such courses require additional time beyond the official hours
and women find it difficult as the junior level also coincides with starting a family.
Thus, women’s acquisition of career capital is highly constrained by informal practices that
regard workers as primarily male.
The masculine nature of workplace is further magnified by socio-cultural norms that
assume women’s centrality in domestic sphere and devalue women in “public” sphere as
discussed below.
EDI Norms and practices devaluing women in “public sphere”
36,3 Beliefs reflecting the dual burden assumptions of male colleagues, the manner in which men
distance themselves from work-life balance policies and biased treatment of pregnant
employees devalue women in the public sphere.
Assumptions of men about dual burden

266 An ideological belief in women at the center of the domestic sphere is coupled in recent
decades with the growth of Hindu nationalism and a consequent reassertion of the notion of
family and family values as the fulcrum of Hindu identity (Radhakrishnan, 2011). This is
primarily manifested through the assumptions of men that women are constrained at work
due to their devotion to their family. Holt and Lewis (2009) point out how women are not
looked upon as flexible workers, or flexible to the needs of the workplace, which is construed
as a lack of commitment to work. The examples here indicate how assumptions of women’s
family roles result in loss of opportunities and compromise women’s position in the company
hierarchy. Although many examples resonate with studies in other parts of the world, they
also go beyond those studies to indicate a more entrenched belief in separation of spheres.
For instance, women are not preferred for promotions and transfers due to dual burden
perceptions of those at the helm of affairs. A Principal Scientist (female) who has been part
of promotion committees (Rajni, Private 1) said:
Gender equality means that if a female is capable, then she should not be stopped from handling
important positions […]. No, gender equality does not exist here […]. There are constraints in
giving higher positions to women; it is in the minds of people that if she is a mother, she can’t
handle. This is a myth. She should be given an opportunity. For example, while giving promotion
and transfer, they think that let us not given her an offer because she will not move to that place.
People say that she might not be able to do this or that (important tasks; leadership positions)
without even asking her. But females tend to do better if given a chance. Also, to retain males, raise
would be given to the male.
Rajni’s statement implies that any such raise is not required for a married woman since she
is not likely to leave the company which is the most reputed in the city. Thus, women’s lack
of mobility acts as a double-edged sword. They are unable to change to companies offering a
better experience and higher position, and within the company they lose promotions as the
company does not feel the pressure to retain them. It also exemplifies how hegemonic
cultural beliefs about gender impact “social-relational contexts” (Ridgeway and Correll,
2004). As these authors put it, when gender is salient (with these organizations being
male-dominated), such beliefs “function as part of the rules of the game” ( p. 510) and they
bias evaluations of men and women who are similar in all other respects.
Due to assumptions of time constraints on women, they are often given tasks lacking in
significance. As Holt and Lewis (2009) remark, women are affected by the image of what a
woman can do. A common theme among junior women scientists was that they are often
given less important tasks than their male colleagues. For instance, Srishti, a Junior Scientist
in Private1 remarked:
Male-female equality means work distribution should be equal; here, although work is given
equally, the kind of work given differs. There is a hesitation in giving those tasks to women that are
bigger, more important and requiring long hours […] even younger ones (male colleagues)
comment (or lament) “again ladies have come.” This affects career.
This is yet another wasteful practice as company fails to utilize the full potential of their
women professionals.
A woman’s potential is further circumscribed by limitations on her “choice” that
emerge from dual burden assumptions and organizational structure. A woman has to make
a “choice” which is constrained by gendered perceptions, work/family responsibilities
(Baker, 2010) and the capability to make alternate choices (Lewis and Humbert, 2010). Gender
Such constraints on choices are revealed in the statement of Madhav, Group Leader inequality in
(male, Private 2): “not going to the plant affects promotions; women understand it and the work
accept it; they have to choose between family and career.” Thus, although structurally
gendered (as seen earlier), women’s inability to make plant visits is viewed as their personal environment
problem due to dual burden assumptions (therefore, women should “understand and
accept”). Thus, such assumptions obscure structural inefficiencies. Second, even more 267
problematic is the male view of women’s choices that women will not choose promotion over
family. It underscores the Hindu masculine ideal of women’s centrality at home.
It strengthens the idea of separation of spheres with women’s status in the public sphere
being secondary. This is further reflected in the work-life balance policies and practices.
Work-life balance policies and practices

Typically, organizations in India lack childcare and daycare infrastructure compared to
the West and it is coming up mostly in response to globalization and the need to attract
workers (Rajadhyaksha, 2012). Private1 is more advanced than Private2 in terms of
policies for employees. According to the HRM of Private1, these policies were introduced
to attract and retain the best talent to the organization (and not because of an intrinsic
belief in them). Thus, for instance, in Private1, women employees are given four months of
pregnancy leave compared to three months in Private2; in 2009-2010, Private1 introduced
flexible work timings, sabbatical leave, part-time work and paternity leave (of five days
after childbirth or adoption). While Private 2 has no crèche or day care, Private1 has a
crèche for non-school-going kids. Snigdha (Private1), with school-going children has to
send them to a day care in the city after school though she would have been much relieved
if there was a day care within her work premises. She feels stressed out at times due to
dual burden and remarks “I am not able to use my potential fully. I need to read (technical
material for research) which I am not able to. There is no time.” Thus, women do face a
dual burden but a lack of policies for balance seems to push women into the domestic
sphere and away from “public” sphere.
Work-life balance policies in practice seem to contribute to hegemonic masculinity at the
workplace. These policies are treated as privileges for women by the male employees. Men
rarely avail of flexible timings similar to studies elsewhere (e.g. Danish context in Holt and
Lewis, 2009). Further, the male employees in this study considered these policies as facilities
for women. For instance, according to Rajan (male), Principal Scientist at Private1,
“organization has flexi-time policy in which one can come late (at 11 a.m.) and go back early.
I have availed it only once or twice (due to family requirement). It is basically for women.
Women avail of it more.”
Those who use such flexi-timings are viewed unfavorably by colleagues and
bosses. For example, according to Jhanvi (female, Junior Scientist, Private1), “if you take
flexible time, people think that the person is irregular.” Thus, by implication, men
taking less leave are viewed as more regular and therefore more committed to work.
Although work-life balance policies have their strengths, they have little impact as they do
not tackle the male model of working (Lewis et al., 2007) or the structures of patriarchy
that necessitate such interventions (Rajadhyaksha, 2012). The perception that
flexi-timings are for women, reflects both the masculine notion of worker as a full-time
committed worker and women’s centrality in domestic sphere. Such perceptions along
with a dearth of favorable policies strengthen the idea of separation of spheres and
reproduce male culture at the workplace.
Formal and informal practices surrounding women’s issues such as pregnancy further
strengthen this idea.
EDI Pregnancy: biased policy and practice
36,3 A pregnant woman is the very antithesis of an ideal worker. Martin (1990) suggests that in male-
dominated organizations, a pregnant employee is an alien. In the organizations in this study,
at the time of promotions, the period of pregnancy leave is not counted as part of “experience”
and is compared to a man who has worked for 12 months. The pregnancy leave period is viewed
as wasteful and deprives women of career growth in an important phase of their life when they
268 are still at the junior level and want to do well professionally. As narrated by a senior scientist
(Renuka, Female), who is also an Associate Director in Private2, below:
When a person comes for review, you are compared with a man who has worked for 12 months
against a woman who has worked for 9 months. This is only a mental block. Boys with pregnant
wives actually take more breaks while a pregnant woman may not take any break in the 1st
trimester and handle all the work and even go to the plant. I have seen young men leaving early or
taking leave when their wives are in the 1st trimester. But their leave doesn’t get noticed because it
is not at a stretch unlike the 3 month period for a woman. When a woman faces work inequality in
the first few years of married life (having babies), it impacts attitude toward work; she become
deflated; she feels that “I worked so hard during my pregnancy and worked with mask on with
chemicals but what was the point.” But actually the boss might have not known that she was
pregnant and therefore did not give some other work. First few years of married life is very
important […]. I did a good thing. I left this organization, did my PhD, had my daughter during
PhD; I did not work till my daughter was two years old and when I joined again I did not face any
discrimination. Those who face discrimination, their attitude toward work changes. They feel
yehaan to itna karo, kuch nahin hota (you do so much but no credit is given). We are all qualified
and capable but attitude makes all the difference […]. That early point in life, impacts their career;
if they can keep up their tempo they can do much better; but at that point in life their attitude
becomes negative. They don’t realize that if you lose one year in appraisal it doesn’t matter, you can
cover up, but their vision is limited at that point of time, they are new to the profession and now
looking back you feel it doesn’t matter, you can cover up somewhere else.
The above narrative reveals some important points. One, pregnancy impacts promotions
because the period of pregnancy is cut off when a woman is considered for promotions; on the
other hand, men with pregnant wives also take leave, especially in the first trimester, but since
it is not contiguous unlike the pregnancy leave, there is no impact. Second, since pregnancies
occur in the early stage of a career, career momentum is affected. Further, the hard work put in
during that difficult period is not given any credit, leading to a lowering of morale. More
importantly, Renuka, being the second senior-most in the research unit, is caught between
justifying the senior management point of view and empathizing with the young women’s
situation. This she does by brushing aside that lost period by saying that it does not matter in
the long run. However, in the same sentence she also says that one can cover up for it
somewhere else, which implies working harder or showing up merit in some special way
which would require extra effort just because the woman scientist lost a time period of work
during her pregnancy. Thus, private organizations in India, in an attempt to maximize work,
equate pregnancy leave with a worker on a long leave and a loss to the company.
This policy regarding pregnancy is seen as discriminatory by women. Expressing her
resentment, Jhanvi (female, Junior Scientist, Private1) said, “since for a woman on pregnancy
leave for 4 months, only 8 months of working period (in an year) is considered for
promotions, she gets the lowest grade. Because of this, promotions are affected. It should not
be.” Similarly, Srishti (female, Junior Scientist, Private1): “Pregnancy leave has effect on
promotions. It is a major thing impacting me. Two times I had to take leave for this. When
we go, 1-2 years will be slow growth.”
Apart from the policy on pregnancy, the attitudes of male colleagues and bosses
also create barriers for women’s career progression. The bosses might be considerate
during the pregnancy of a woman scientist, but this has its own price. According to Vani
(female, Research Scientist, Private2), “if a woman is pregnant, bosses usually don’t allow Gender
her to do heavy work and give her a reduced work load.” According to Jhanvi (female, Junior inequality in
Scientist, Private1), “During pregnancy, group leader gives work which diminishes her the work
career and even after 4 months (of pregnancy leave) she is not given important work.”
The male colleagues in the team might be hostile. According to Srishti (female, Junior environment
Scientist, Private1), “attitude of the colleagues in pregnancy is not very much positive.
Some kind of resentment is there. It is like this: if you are coming (to the lab) you have to 269
work. If you are not able to work, take leave.” Pregnancy leave is seen as time off as for
instance in the statement “women can take off for more than 4 months” (Ganesh, male,
Scientist, Private1). The statement indicates a lack of respect for women and reflects how
women’s innate inability to be an “ideal worker” – a full-time, available and visible worker,
devalues them in the public sphere.
Women’s leadership: summation of stereotypes

Despite several barriers, the few women that do reach leadership positions face additional
gendered challenges. The leadership concept adds further masculine stereotypes to the notion of
“ideal worker,” creating obstacles for women in their roles as leaders. Leadership is traditionally
associated with the masculine traits of being aggressive and ability to take tough decisions
(Alvesson and Billing, 2009). Some Indian studies, for example, Gupta et al. (1998) found that
women managers were considered less assertive, less competitive and less aggressive.
Socialized to believe that women are obedient and docile, some men and women
scientists, in this study, felt that women were less capable in managing or were softer in
making decisions compared to men. For example, according to Bhaskar (male, Senior
Research Scientist, Private2): “Women are very good in normal management (managing
day-to-day affairs), presentation, and writing skills. But in stress or panic situation,
sometimes they are not aggressive.” A Senior Scientist and Group Leader, Vishnu
(male, Private1): “men are more daring; women are not good in leading teams. Even if they
are given opportunity, taking up challenges or making decisions is difficult (for them).”
The stereotypes are pervasive and may be held by some women also as in the statement
“men have greater managing skills and women are more hard working” (Snigdha, Private1).
The stereotypes coupled with dual burden assumptions make acceptance of women
bosses difficult. The assumption at times is that a woman boss would be an
“unprofessional” leader. For example, in Private2, a Woman Scientist at the second-most
senior level in her R&D division (Renuka, Associate Director, Private2) recounted how a new
male employee, a junior scientist, in her group was apprehensive that a woman boss would
devote less office hours and so would give away all the work to others so that they would be
overburdened. She remarked “I never heard of such a thing when earlier I was heading a
group (which consisted) mainly of women.” A study by Budhwar et al. (2005) noted that
dislike for women as bosses and managing dissatisfaction of subordinates is a source of
stress for women managers.
Some women scientists that move up in the leadership positions might adopt “masculine”
behaviors such as being aggressive. This is a reflection of the contradictions that women
face between being “feminine” and “managerial” (Cockburn, 1991), between being liked and
respected (Kawakami et al., 2000). Renuka (female, Private2, Associate Director), who herself
is at the senior level, said:
I have noticed that when women come to power, some of them adopt very aggressive behaviours,
probably because they had struggled so much in the process of rising, which is tough in corporate,
they have built up their defenses; becoming offensive is a part of that defense.
The above statement offers example of women in leadership positions who no longer do
femininity in their leadership roles and thus fulfill a masculine script in managerial work and is
EDI “one way in which gender is done” (Kelan, 2010, p. 183). Women’s compliance with dominant
36,3 masculine practices raises the question of whether more women in senior management
positions will bring a more inclusive organizational environment (Hearn and Collinson, 1998).
Non-discussion of women’s issues and gender denial

An “ideal worker” is also a “professional” who does not discuss gender issues but focuses
270 only on work. This view is held by men and women. For instance, according to Vibha
(female, Senior Research Scientist, Private2), “on professional level we do not discuss gender
or women's problems here.” Similarly, on being asked if talk of gender is irritating, Rajan
(male, Principal Scientist, Private 1) said, “Yes I think so. We should not discuss that much
in depth, because we are here to do some kind of job which is pre-defined. I mean we are not
restricted to performing job according to gender base. It’s an open environment and we are
all qualified people here. We have to accomplish the job in time. Discussing gender will not
help you to accomplish the work.”
Most men and women scientists believed that there is no gender inequality. Raghav,
a Group Leader (Male, Private 2), remarked:
Gender equality means working in the same department you get a similar growth, similar
opportunities if you are performing similarly. Yes, it exists here.
Thus, there is a denial of gender inequality in organizations and a refusal to discuss gender
issues as they are perceived to be irrelevant and even an insult to the qualified professionals.
Ganesh (male, Scientist, Private1) said “gender equality means that you should give respect
to both (men and women); should work toward goals, talking of gender is not required.
There is no differentiation here.”
This denial of gender inequality is typical and affirms evidence from other countries
(Kelan, 2010). However, one wonders if in the Indian case there is also a “gender fatigue”
(Kelan, 2009) as researched in the West. In the West, denial is a product of a weariness of
having dealt with gender, summed up as “gender fatigue” by Kelan (2010) and that there is a
lack of energy to tackle afresh something no longer perceived as a problem. The assumption is
that since policies are in place, there is no need to discuss the problem. However, organizations
in India are yet to pay serious attention to work-life balance policies (Rajadhyaksha, 2012).
In India, denial seems to be the product of an underdeveloped discourse on gender in
organizations. Nevertheless, as in the West, denial of inequality precludes discussion on
women’s issues and on gender discrimination. It maintains the status quo (Meyerson and
Fletcher, 2000) and retains the masculine character of the organizations.
Conclusions
This study attempts to answer why educated urban women in India find it difficult to rise to
higher positions even in reputed organizations. It affirms the earlier research that cultural
beliefs about gender are reproduced in the workplace (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004) and adds
to the understanding of the various processes that lead to the reproduction of gendered
organizational culture. It highlights gender inequalities in this specific socio-cultural context
and demonstrates how various beliefs and practices in the organizations create barriers to
the rise of women to higher positions. Norms creating gender inequalities in the workplace
such as separation of spheres, ideal-worker notion and dual-burden assumptions are similar
in India to assumptions in other countries. However, they are enacted in the national cultural
context in which the organization is embedded. Thus, the “ideal worker” concept has to be
viewed in a hierarchical Indian context. Self-promotion and self-enhancement in the
presence of seniors acquire significant importance in a high power distance culture. Junior
women are affected more than the seniors by masculine and hierarchical norms. While
visibility and availability is difficult to achieve for young women with families, they also
lack networking and interaction that help to create contacts with seniors. Socialized in Gender
patriarchal norms, women are less aggressively self-promoting and have less interaction inequality in
and networking. As a result, women find it difficult to acquire strategic visibility vis-à-vis the the work
bosses. Thus, the “ideal worker” notion assumes greater masculinity in the Indian context.
Assumptions of a dual burden in India are accompanied by the Hindu middle-class ideology environment
that identifies family values as part of “Indianness.” Women are supposed to “accept” an
inability to fulfill gendered requirements of their job such as plant visits and “choose” family 271
over career. Women’s problems are disjoined from organizational issues as manifested in a
complete lack of thinking about making plant visits women-friendly and in the biased
treatment of pregnant employees. The gendered organizational preferences for those taking
professional courses coincide with pregnancy and family issues for the women scientists in the
junior stages, pushing them behind their male colleagues during performance appraisals.
The norms that favor men or those devaluing women in public spaces are a product of a
prolonged masculine character of the educated professional workplace with women entering
these spaces in large numbers only in recent years in India. As a result, the organizational
recognition of women’s issues is lagging behind the social reality, creating a “structural lag”
(Ramadoss and Rajadhyaksha, 2012). This lag is responsible for a lack of work-life balance
policies and infrastructure due to which there is an accretion to the dual burden of women,
thereby lending additional credence to the concept of the ideal worker as a male. Further, a
lack of recognition of women’s problems in organizations indicates a paucity of discourse on
gender. While in the West, the lack of discourse on gender in organizations is a product of
the belief that gender no longer matters because it has already been dealt with (Kelan, 2009),
in India thinking about gender issues in organizations is still at an initial stage.
This study has implications for research in production and maintenance of masculine
culture at workplace. It shows how through practices and norms that favor men and those
that devalue women, the power and status of men and masculinity are reproduced in
organizations. Women might not encounter discrimination at the workplace directly but the
norms and practices are masculine. Thus, as Hearn (2004) argues, the concept of masculine
hegemony needs to examine the hegemony of both men as social category as well as men’s
practices. This study also shows that men’s culture in organizations is to a large extent a
function of belief in the separation of spheres and this culture is intensified in a greater
patriarchal social structure as in India. More studies are needed so as to highlight men’s role in
construction of gender inequalities in organizations in countries with such social structures.
Gendered practices are wasteful and inefficient organizational practices. In this study,
the culture of working long hours or making plant visits and working night shifts were
reported as constraining for some men also. Interventions to improve work environment for
women will also benefit men. “Dual agenda” approach (Rapoport et al., 2002) has
demonstrated that gender equity measures will improve conditions for men through greater
organizational effectiveness. In this study, for instance, the pressures of being visible, vocal
and aggressive could be countered by a transparent system of measuring contribution
(instead of hours of work). Reduction of bossism and creating options instead of preferences
for growth of career capital also need to be thought of. For instance, online courses or
increase in the frequency with which they are offered could be helpful for women unable to
attend initially. Structural roadblocks such as plant visits and night shifts could be
smoothened out through gender-sensitive planning.
Although historically there have been changes in the position of women in India, the nexus
between family, women, class and national identity will continue to disadvantage women in
public spaces at least in the near future. Hence, organizations need to develop specific
measures for women to create a level playing field for them, such as career progression along
with pregnancy and child care, and measures enabling a work-family balance for men and
women. This requires cooperation of men and a belief in women’s equal right to participate in
EDI the public sphere. As Kabeer (2011) says, women’s empowerment varies by country context
36,3 and men can play a critical role in shaping trajectories of women’s empowerment.
This study is based on two private research organizations and more evidence is needed
on the patterns of discrimination in other types of organizations. However, the norms that
disadvantage women are likely to be common to all organizations in India, though the
examples will differ on the basis of the practiced profession. The entrenched patriarchy and
272 forces of socio-economic development that impact women professionals in India are also
likely to affect women in most South Asian countries. A country’s growth requires full
utilization of human resources and women professionals constitute a significant and
growing proportion of intellectual capital in India. Hence, there is an urgent need to discuss
and lay down organizational policies to enable greater gender equality.
Notes
1. Please see “Indian Patenting Activity in International and Domestic Patent System: Contemporary
Scenario”, report for Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India, PSA/2006/01,
New Delhi, by Sujit Bhattacharya.
2. Caste: “General” caste refers to forward castes who do not qualify for any reservations in
government institutions. Other backward castes or OBCs are officially described as “socially and
educationally backward classes”; Scheduled Castes are at the bottom of the caste hierarchy in the
traditional Indian social system.
3. Names have been changed to protect the identity of the respondents. However, they correctly
portray the sex of the respondent.
4. “Plants” are manufacturing units required for carrying out scale-up operations of chemical
processes developed in the laboratories to pilot plant scales and subsequently to bulk
manufacturing levels. The plant has to be supervised by the scientists. They are situated in
different towns and require a stay of 15 days to six months away from home.
References
Acker, J. (1990), “Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations”, Gender & Society, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 139-158.
Acker, J. (2006), “Inequality regimes: gender, class and race in organizations”, Gender & Society, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 441-464.
Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y. (2009), Understanding Gender and Organizations, Sage, New Delhi.
Arun, S., Heeks, R. and Morgan, S. (2007), “ICT initiatives, women and work: reproducing or changing
gender inequalities?”, in Ghadially, R. (Ed.), Urban Women in Contemporary India: A Reader,
Sage, New Delhi, pp. 297-308.
Bailyn, L. (2003), “Academic careers and gender equity: lessons learned from MIT”, Gender, Work and
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 137-152.
Bailyn, L. (2006), Breaking the Mold: Redesigning Work for Productive and Satisfying Lives,
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Baker, M. (2010), “Choices or constraints? Family responsibilities, gender and academic career”,
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Basu, S. (2008), Gender Stereotypes in Corporate India: A Glimpse, Response Books, New Delhi.
Belliappa, J. (2013), Gender, Class and Reflexive Modernity in India, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Best, D.L. and Williams, J.E. (1994), “Masculinity/femininity in the self and ideal self descriptions of
university students in fourteen countries”, in Bouvy, A.M., Van de Vijver, F.J.R., Boski, P. and
Schmitz, P. (Eds), Journeys into Cross-Cultural Psychology, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp. 297-306.
Brass, D.J. (1985), “Men’s and women’s networks – a study of interaction patterns and influence in an
organization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 327-343.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in Gender
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101. inequality in
Brumley, K.M. (2014), “ ‘Now, we have the same rights as men to keep our jobs’: gendered perceptions the work
of opportunity and obstacles in a Mexican workplace”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 217-230. environment
Budhwar, P.S., Saini, D.S. and Bhatnagar, J. (2005), “Women in management in the new economic
environment: the case of India”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 179-193. 273
Budig, M. and England, P. (2001), “The wage penalty for motherhood”, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 204-225, available at: http://courses.washington.edu/pbafadv/examples/
TheWagePenaltyforMotherhood.pdf
Cabrera, S.F. and Thomas-Hunt, M.C. (2007), “ ‘Street cred’ and the executive women: the effects of
gender differences in social networks on career advancement”, electronic version, School of

Hospitality Administration, Cornell University, New York, NY, available at: http://scholarship.
sha.cornell.edu/articles/371 (accessed November 8, 2016).
Chakravarthy, R. (1986), “Productivity of Indian women scientists”, Productivity, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 259-269.
Chanana, K. (2001), “Hinduism and female sexuality: social control and education of girls in India”,
Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 37-63.
Cockburn, C. (1991), In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organizations,
Macmillan, London.
Collinson, D. and Collinson, M. (2004), “The power of time: leadership, management and gender I”,
in Epstein, C.F. and Kalleberg, A.L. (Eds), Fighting for Time: Shifting the Boundaries of Work
and Social Life, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 219-246.
Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (1996), “Breaking the silence: on men, masculinities and managements”,
in Collinson, D.L. and Hearn, J. (Eds), Men as Managers, Managers as Men, Sage, London, pp. 1-24.
Connell, R.W. and Wood, J. (2005), “Globalization and business masculinities”, Men and Masculinities,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 347-364.
Das, S., Chandra, S., Kochar, K. and Kumar, N. (2015), “Women workers in India”, IMF working paper,
Washington, DC, available at: www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp1555.pdf (accessed
April 26, 2017).
Didion, C., Frehill, Lisa, M. and Pearson, W. (2012), Blueprint for the Future: Framing the Issues of
Women in Science in a Global Context: Summary of a Workshop, NAP, Washington, DC,
available at www.aura-astronomy.org/diversity/documents/Blueprint%20for%20the%20
Future.pdf#page=103 (accessed August 14, 2016).
Donner, H. (2011), “Gendered bodies, domestic work and perfect families”, in Donner (Ed.), Being Middle
Class in India: A Way of Life, Routledge Contemporary South Asia Series, Taylor & Francis
Group, Routledge, London, pp. 47-72.
Duberley, J. and Cohen, L. (2010), “Gendering career capital: an investigation of scientific careers”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 187-197.
Eisenhart, M. and Finkel, E. (1998), Women’s Science: Learning and Succeeding from the Margins,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C. and Uzzi, B. (2000), Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in
Science and Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gherardi, S. (1995), Gender, Symbolism and Organizational Culture, Sage, London.
Global Gender Gap Report (2014), “Economies”, available at: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-
gap-report-2014/economies/#economy=IND (accessed April 26, 2017).
Grover, S., Samantroy, E. and Paiva, N.D. (2015), “New India’s inflexible workforce – caring is but
women’s work’ ”, guest post, available at: https://kafila.online/2015/05/31/new-indias-inflexible-
workforce-caring-is-but-womens-work-shalini-grover-ellina-samantroy-nupur-dhingra-paiva/
(accessed April 26, 2017).
EDI Guadagno, R.E. and Cialdini, R.B. (2007), “Gender differences in impression management in organizations:
36,3 a qualitative review”, Sex Roles, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 483-494, doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9187-3.
Gupta, A., Koshal, M. and Koshal, R.J. (1998), “Women managers in India challenges and
opportunities”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 14-18.
Gupta, N. (2007), “Indian women in doctoral education in science and engineering: a study of informal
Milieu at the reputed Indian institutes of technology”, Science Technology and Human Values,
274 Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 507-533.
Gupta, N. (2015), “Rethinking the relationship between gender and technology: a study of the Indian
example”, Work Employment & Society, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 661-672.
Gupta, N. and Sharma, A.K. (2003), “Gender inequality in the work environment at institutes of higher
learning in science and technology in India”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 597-616.
Hearn, J. (2004), “From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men”, Feminist Theory, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 49-72.
Hearn, J. and Collinson, D.L. (1998), “Men, masculinities, managements and organizational culture”,
German Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 210-222.
Heuer, M. (2006), “The influence of Indian national culture on organizations”, in Davis, H.J.,
Chatterjee, S.R. and Heuer, M. (Eds), Management in India. Trends and Transition , Chapter 2,
Response Books, New Delhi, pp. 28-48.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holt, H. and Lewis, S. (2009), “You can stand on your head and still end up with lower pay: gliding
segregation and gendered work practices in Danish ‘family-friendly’ workplaces”, Gender, Work
and Organization, Vol. 18 No. S1, pp. e202-e211.
Ibarra, H. (1993), “Personal networks of women and minorities in management – a conceptual
framework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 56-87.
Jaiswal, R.P. (1993), Professional Status of Women: A Comparative Study of Women in Science and
Technology, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
Kabeer, N. (2011), “Contextualising the economic pathways of women’s empowerment: findings from a
multicountry research programme”, available at: www.lse.ac.uk/genderInstitute/
about/resourcesNailaKabeer/kabeerContextualisingPathwaysToWomensEmpowerment.pdf
(accessed April 26, 2017).
Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Kawakami, C., White, J.B. and Langer, E.J. (2000), “Mindful and masculine: freeing women leaders from
the constraints of gender roles”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 49-63, doi: 10.1111/
0022-4537.00151.
Kelan, E.K. (2009), “Gender fatigue – the ideological dilemma of gender neutrality and discrimination in
organizations”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 197-210.
Kelan, E.K. (2010), “Gender logic and (Un)doing gender at work”, Gender, Work and Organization,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 174-194.
Kelly, E.L., Ammons, S.K., Chermack, K. and Moen, P. (2010), “Gendered challenge, gendered response:
confronting the ideal worker norm within a white-collar organization”, Gender & Society, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 281-303.
Knights, D. and Murray, F. (1994), Managers Divided: Organizational Politics and it Management,
Wiley, London.
Krishna, V.V. and Chandra, N. (2009), “Knowledge production and knowledge transfer: a study of two
Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT, Madras and IIT, Bombay)”, ARI working paper series, Asia
Research Institute, National University of Singapore WPS No. 121, available at: www.ari.nus.
edu.sg/wps/wps09_121.pdf (accessed April 26, 2017).
Kumar, N. (2001), “ ‘Gender stratification in science: an empirical study in the Indian setting’ ”, Indian Gender
Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 51-67. inequality in
Kundu, S.C. (2003), “Workforce diversity status: a study of employees’ reactions”, Industrial the work
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 4, pp. 215-226.
environment
Leidner, R. (1991), “Selling hamburgers and selling insurance”, Gender and Society, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 154-77.
Lewis, P. (2006), “The quest for invisibility: female entrepreneurs and the masculine norm of 275
entrepreneurship”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 453-469.
Lewis, S. (2001), “Restructuring workplace cultures: the ultimate work-family challenge?”, Women in
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 21-29.
Lewis, S. and Humbert, A. (2010), “Discourse or reality? ‘Work-life balance’, flexible working policies
and gendered organizations”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 239-254.
Lewis, S., Gambles, R. and Rapoport, R. (2007), “The constraints of a ‘work-life balance’ approach: an
international perspective”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 360-373.
Linstead, S. and Pullen, A. (2006), “Gender as multiplicity: desire, difference and dispersion”, Human
Relations, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 1287-1310.
McPherson, J.M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J.M. (2001), “Birds of a feather: homophily in social
networks”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, pp. 415-444.
Martin, J. (1990), “Deconstructing organizational taboos: the suppression of gender conflict in
organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 339-359.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. and Brass, D.J. (1998), “At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the social
identity and social networks of underrepresented groups”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 441-452.
Meyerson, D.E. and Fletcher, J.K. (2000), “A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 126-136.
Miller, J. (1986), Pathways in the Workplace: The Effects of Gender and Race on Access to Organizational
Resources, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Cambridgeshire), NY.
Mukhopadhyay, C.C. and Seymour, S. (Eds), (1994), Women, Education and Family Structure in India,
Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Nath, G. (2000), “Gently shattering the glass ceiling: experiences of Indian women managers”,
Women in Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 44-52.
Nielsen, K.B. and Waldrop, A. (2014), Women, Gender and Everyday Social Transformation in India,
Anthem Press, London.
Patel, R. and Parmentier, M.J.C. (2005), “The persistence of traditional gender roles in the information
technology sector: a study of female engineers in India”, Information Technologies and
International Development, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 29-46.
Pleck, J.H., Sonenstein, F.L. and Ku, L.C. (1993), “Masculinity ideology and its correlates”, in Oskamp, S. and
Costanzo, M. (Eds), Gender and Social Psychology, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 85-110.
Radhakrishnan, S. (2009), “Professional women, good families: respectable femininity and the cultural politics
of a ‘New’ India”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 195-212, doi: 10.1007/s11133-009-9125-5.
Radhakrishnan, S. (2011), Appropriately Indian: Gender and Culture in a New Transnational Class,
Orient Blackswan, New Delhi.
Rajadhyaksha, U. (2012), “Work-life balance in South East Asia: the Indian experience”, South Asian
Journal of Global Business Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 108-127, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/20454451211207615
Ramadoss, K. and Rajadhyaksha, U. (2012), “Gender differences in commitment to roles, work-family
conflict and spousal support”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 227-233.
EDI Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. and Pruitt, B. (2002), Beyond Work-Family Balance: Advancing
36,3 Gender Equity and Workplace Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rathgeber, E.M. (2009), “Women and girls in science and technology: increasing opportunities in
education, research and employment”, UN, New York, NY, available at: www.un.org/womenwatch/
daw/egm/impact_bdpfa/EP4%20-%20Rathgeber_final.pdf (accessed April 26, 2017).
Ridgeway, C.L. (2009), “Framed before we know it: how gender shapes social relations”, Gender &
Society, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 145-160.
276
Ridgeway, C.L. and Correll, S.J. (2004), “Unpacking the gender system: a theoretical perspective on
gender beliefs and social relations”, Gender & Society, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 510-531.
Risman, B. (1998), Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Rustagi, P. (2010), “Employment trends for women in India”, ILO Asia Pacific working paper series, ILO
subregional office for South Asia, New Delhi, available at: https://webcache.googleusercontent.
com/search?q=cache:5kSBXnCfX1AJ; www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html%3Fid%
3D57299d3893553bf3710b5b01%26assetKey%3DAS%253A357915094470656%254014623450
16158+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in (accessed April 26, 2017).
Rustagi, P. (2013), “Changing patterns of labour force participation and employment of women in
India”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 215-241.
Salzinger, L. (2004), “Revealing the unmarked: finding masculinity in a global factory”, Ethnography,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Schiebinger, L. (1999), Has Feminism Changed Science?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
and London.
Sinha, J.B.P. and Kanungo, R.N. (1997), “Context sensitivity and balancing in Indian organizational
behaviour”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 93-105.
Steinmetz, J., Bosak, J., Sczesny, S. and Eagly, A.H. (2014), “Social role effects on gender stereotyping in
Germany and Japan”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 52-60.
Subrahmanyan, L. (1998), Women Scientists in the Third World: The Indian Experience, Sage,
New Delhi.
Thapan, M. (2007), “Adolescence, embodiment and gender identity: elite women in a changing society”,
in Ghadially, R. (Ed.), Urban Women in Contemporary India: A Reader, Sage Publications India
Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, pp. 31-45.
Tomlinson, J. and Durbin, S. (2010), “Female part-time managers”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 255-270, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610
151011028859
Valian, V. (1999), Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London.
Vijver van de, F.J.R. (2007), “Cultural and gender differences in gender-role beliefs, sharing household
task and child-care responsibilities, and well-being among immigrants and majority members in
The Netherlands”, Sex Roles, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 813-824, doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9316-z.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. (1987), “Doing gender”, Gender and Society, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 125-151.
WISAT (2012), “National assessments on gender equality in the knowledge society. Country results:
India”, WISAT, Ontario, available at: http://wisat.org/wp-content/uploads/National_Scorecard_
India.pdf (accessed April 26, 2017).
Corresponding author
Namrata Gupta can be contacted at: 432namrata@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This article has been cited by:
1. JiziMohammad Issam, Mohammad Issam Jizi, NehmeRabih, Rabih Nehme. 2017. Board gender
diversity and firms’ equity risk. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 36:7,
590-606. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Mod Hawthorne Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mod Hawthorne Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal

Gender inequality in the work environment: a study of private research

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The perspective: construction of gender inequality

Indian socio-cultural context: the educated urban professionals

Research on urban professional women’s experiences in India shows that women

Organization Men Women Total

Women scientists as Women as group leaders/managers Women at higher

Norms and practices favoring men

An ideal worker and hierarchy

Research associate 1 0 Research associate 0 0 1

Gendered organizational requirements and preferences

Assumptions of men about dual burden

Work-life balance policies and practices

devalues them in the public sphere.

Women’s leadership: summation of stereotypes

Non-discussion of women’s issues and gender denial

gender differences in social networks on career advancement”, electronic version, School of

You might also like