Article

The Impact of HR Practices Jindal Journal of Business Research

10(1) 90–106, 2021
on Perceived Gender Sensitivity © 2021 O.P. Jindal Global University
Reprints and permissions:
and Gender Bias: A Multilevel in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/22786821211001769
Analysis of Hotel Industry journals.sagepub.com/home/brj

Farha Naz Khan1, Neeraj Sehrawat2 and Sumanjeet Singh3

Abstract
Gender sensitivity aids as a probable solution for facilitating female talent in an organization. This
study measures gender sensitivity by applying multilevel modeling in hotel industry with a twofold
objective: to identify explanatory predictors at the organizational level as well as to check whether
insensitivity is the result of inherent bias in the industry at the individual level. Primary data were
obtained from 355 employees and 10 HR (human resource) managers of both five and four-star hotels
of Udaipur, India. Since 19.132% of the variation in gender sensitivity lies among the hotels and variation
at the individual level is 8.731%, the data is analyzed through hierarchical linear modeling. Perceived
gender bias (PGB) and human resource policies and practices (HRP) were found to be both significant
and enough to explain variation in gender sensitivity among hotels. Also, an inverse and significant
relationship between perceived gender bias (PGB) and perceived gender sensitivity (PGS) and a positive
and significant relationship between PGS and HRP were identified.

Keywords
Gender sensitivity, gender bias, sustainability, human resource policies, hotel industry

Introduction
Since time immemorial women have been considered subservient to men, but at the same time, they are
known for playing diversified roles in society. Despite this diverse role that women play, they have long
been discriminated against and considered as the “second sex”. This discrimination against women also
exists in the modern corporate world, creating a glass ceiling that limits women from enjoying equal
opportunities (Fatile, 2020). The business world has lately realized the importance of this source of

1
Global Business School & Research Centre, Dr DY Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
2
Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi, India.
3
Ramjas College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India.

Corresponding author:
Farha Naz Khan, Global Business School & Research Centre, Dr DY Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra 411018, India.
E-mail: f16farha@iima.ac.in
Khan et al. 91

diversity. In today’s era, survival in the cut-throat competition cannot be imagined without utilizing this
source of talent. Nevertheless, the late introduction of women in the corporates has made them the “sec-
ond citizens” (Singla & Rani, 2014). Literature has enough examination to prove that women are occu-
pying a significant level of participation in the workforce but a handful of managerial positions. The
extensive discrimination prevalent at domestic, social, and cultural level further deepen the problem
being faced by women at the professional front, such as lack of mentoring, lack of equity in promotion
decisions, inadequate knowledge, old male network, and lack of equity in pay.
From ancient times, with a belief of better suitability of non-leadership roles for women, the unrecog-
nized and lower positions with lower wages are delegated to women by the society (Bosak & Sczensny,
2008, p. 685) and because of such perceptions; Sayers (2012, p. 519) calls it as a gender discrimination,
which describes misconceptions about leadership role abilities of women. A CII (2006) survey of 149
Indian companies found women holding 16% of junior level and 4% of senior managerial posts. Only
1% of the organizations had women CEOs. Accordingly, insurance, telecommunication, banking, tour-
ism, and hotel industry are considered as women’s jobs (Chaudhary & Gupta, 2010), which are more
inclined toward male authorization, have indicated that there is a segregation of gender on higher mana-
gerial positions. Unlike, the gender discrimination in hospitality and tourism industry is increased by the
organizations itself as their selection process is based on old belief of unsuitability of women’s for lead-
ership roles (Jordan, 1997, p. 525). The current study is an attempt to shed some light on the issues of
gender inequality, human resource management practices, perceived gender sensitivity in hotel industry
in a third world nation—India.
There is a need of gender sensitivity in all the organizations, as it will help in reducing gender dis-
crimination practices in the workplace. Extent of the concern given to gender issues in human resource
planning is an important matter to be worked upon. According to the theory of gendered organization,
gender inequality is initiated by the organization itself through an active promotion of men and creating
pitfalls for women (Acker, 1990). This widespread problem of gender inequality could probably be
solved with gender sensitivity.
Although numerous studies can be found on “gender in the workplace,” the available literature is
burdened with certain limitations. First, while employees often report that they faced gender discrimina-
tion in the workplace (Ensher et al., 2001; Gutek et al., 1996; Ngo et al., 2002; Walker & Smith, 2002),
it is often debated that this discrimination is the outcome of inherent gender bias in the organization.
However, researchers are yet to focus on the relationship between gender bias and sensitivity through the
empirical model. The current study aims to establish a relation between individual perception of gender
bias and perceived gender sensitivity through empirical analysis. Second, the absence of equal opportu-
nities for women, owing to bias and differences in the biological makeup of the sexes, needs attention.
In the current study, authors have tried to learn HR policies of various hotels in Udaipur, India, and
assessed them with special reference to sensitivity toward female employees. This leads to identify
potential HR practices and policies that could promote gender sensitivity. Third, sensitivity varies from
employee to employee. Therefore, the present study has collected data from many employees to know
their perception about gender sensitivity. Not only among the employees but sensitivity also varies
among organizations in the same industry. Hence, a multilevel framework is designed to learn about
sensitivity in selected units.
Since the studies conducted on gender discrimination have not incorporated a multilevel framework
of data, the current study addresses this gap by formulation of a multilevel model that empirically seeks
the solution to the much-debated question on the relationship between bias and sensitivity in the light of
human resource policies and practices.
92 Jindal Journal of Business Research 10(1)

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Global tourism industry is characterized with a “talent mismatch” leading to various profitability and
business issues. Gender dynamics in the industry is one of the causes responsible for such results (Baum,
2013). Prevalent forms of gender discrimination are gender stereotype, gender pay gap, glass ceiling, and
sexual harassment. Since women remain in outer edge in workplace, they have fewer chances for career
advancement and higher position roles (Baum, 2013, p. 59). Stereotyping results in preventing gender
equality in the workplace (Grant Thornton, 2018). Role stereotyping has defined roles for women in the
industry. Chefs, accounts managers, and general managers are male territory, whereas waitress, recep-
tionist, front office, and human resource management is a female’s area (Baum, 2015). It has resulted in
typecasting women into roles in specific departments such as human resource management, housekeep-
ing, marketing, and front office.
Also, married women are believed to be less mobile in comparison to men, which further restrict their
promotion opportunities (Masadeh, 2013). It can also be evidenced from the fact that worldwide, the
proportion of women in senior roles has risen just 3% in the past 5 years. At this rate, it will be 2060
before we achieve gender parity (Grant Thornton, 2016). As per the reports of UNDP, India ranks as low
as 122 out of 162 countries on the Global Gender Gap Report (2017). India also fares poorly on business
leadership roles held by women. It ranks third lowest in the proportion of business leadership roles held
by women, at 15%, falling much below the global average (Grant Thornton Survey Report, 2015).
On the gender gap index, India ranked 108th out of 149 countries by the World Economic Forum’s
Global Gender Gap Report 2018. Women are paid differently than men for an equal proportion of work.
In a study on wage gap across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
countries, it has been found that the median earnings of male full-time workers were 17% higher than the
earnings of their female counterparts and that 30% of the variation in gender wage gaps can be explained
by discriminatory practices in the labor market (OECD, 2008). According to the World Economic Forum
Reports on India (2016), women earn 57% of the earnings of their male colleagues for performing the
same work. The statistical information provided above evidences a sense of wage gaps and unequal
opportunities to women. Owing to such discrimination, the International Labour Organization (2016),
emphasized the need for a targeted action without which, the pay equity between women and men will
not achieved before 2086. Sexual harassment in the workplace also forms part of the challenges being
faced by women. As per the Sexual Harassment Act (2013), there were 444 sexual harassment com-
plaints in India’s 79 biggest companies. Women are sexually harassed on account of power differences
or to overpower them where such power differences do not exist (McLaughlin et al., 2012). The impact
of sexual harassment includes increased turnover and absenteeism, reduced job performance, and poor
customer service (Gilbert et al., 1998). This further causes increased organizational costs in recruitment
and training as well as investigating and prosecuting complaints, with less tangible consequences such
as damage to the reputation of the organization (Davidson et al., 2006). Though the Supreme Court of
India mandated the implementation of VISHAKA guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment in
the workplace, a study by Chaudhuri (2008) revealed an absence of complaint committee or their setting
up only upon the request of the complainant.
Gender equality in any enterprise is the result of gender-sensitive organizational practices, which
comes through gender mainstreaming and competence (Rittenhofer & Gartrell, 2012). Thus, sensitivity
is required to attract as well as sustain the female talent in the organization. HR is an interface between
employee and management of the organization as it plays different roles varying from the “custodian of
the organization” to “the mother of the organization.”
Khan et al. 93

Embedding the philosophy of top management in the DNA of the organization is a responsibility of
HR department. The role of HR in recruitment and selection is “gatekeeper of the organization” as well
as it becomes “whistleblower” while addressing or identifying grievances in the organization. HR poli-
cies and practices are the best sources to learn about gender-sensitive practices in any company. Aladwan
et al. (2013) validates variables such as recruitment and selection, training and development, perfor-
mance appraisal, and reward and benefits as prominent as other variables in explaining employees’ atti-
tudes toward HRM (human resource management) practices. Mohinder and Ashish (2008) explained
that HRM practices make effective use of human resources.

Gender sensitivity at multiple levels: We concur with the view that gender sensitivity is a multilevel
phenomenon. It occurs not only at the individual level but also at the organizational level. HR policies
and practices in an organization affect the culture and environment of the workplace and hence
individual perception of gender sensitivity as well as perception of gender bias. Theoretically defining,
appropriate level of analysis is a complex issue since theoretical construct and their relation can vary
according to (a) differences in individual perceptions and (b) differences in HR practices. Thus, the
impact of HR practices on perceived gender sensitivity can therefore comprise several possible levels.
As depicted in Figure 1, if employee-friendly (women) HRM practices/policies are in place in an
organization and more gender awareness in HRM practice, then employees find an organization more
gender sensitive and less gender biased. Accordingly, we hypothesize.

Individual—Level Relationship
H1A: Individual perceptions of gender bias are negatively related to perceived gender sensitivity.

Figure 1.  Gender Sensitivity at Multiple Levels

Source: Portraying hypothesized relationship among PGS, PGB and HRP (created by authors).
94 Jindal Journal of Business Research 10(1)

HR—Level Relationships
Katou and Budhwar (2007) found positive relationship between organizational performance and friendly
HRM policies of training, recruitment, promotion, benefits, incentives, involvement, health, and safety
and its linkage with lesser discrimination in the organizations leading to more gender sensitive environ-
ment. Many authors have suggested profound impact of HRM practices on the quality service delivery,
performance, and client satisfaction in service organizations (such as Chung & Kalnins, 2001; Ingram,
1996; Ingram & Baum, 1997; Woods, 1992), Australia (Cheng & Brown, 1998; Davidson et al., 2006;
Jago & Deery, 2004; Timo & Davidson, 2002), New Zealand (Haynes & Fryer, 2000), and India (Chand
& Katou, 2007; Singh 2003; Som, 2008). These studies were mainly carried out with reference to HRM
practices and not taking into consideration other important variables such as perceived gender sensitiv-
ity. Therefore, the present study also considers the impact of HRM practices on perceived gender sensi-
tivity. Accordingly, we hypothesize.

H1B: The HR practices at organizational level are positively related to perceived gender sensitivity.

Methodology

Sampling and Data Collection

Data were collected from HR managers and male and female employees of the hotels of Udaipur district.
Before the data collection pilot study was conducted with a sample of 3 HR managers, 30 male emp-
loyees, and 30 female employees. Based on the pilot study two items have been dropped from a
29-statement scale used to measure gender sensitivity in the study. Sample firms were identified with
Trip Advisor site served as the sampling frame to select hotels to be studied as (accessed on April 15,
2017). The selection of the hotel has been done through a convenient sampling method. Out of 10 five-
star hotels, 5 have been included in the sample and out of 9 four-star hotels 5 were selected as sample.
Hotels belonging to three stars and equivalent have not been considered because of the absence of female
employees; a few which were present were also confined to unorganized housekeeping department
where they were reduced to the status of maids. The large sample size, that is, 355 employees, justifies
the use of convenient sampling as results are not biased by the size of the sample.
The primary data collected by reaching the respondents directly and, if required, help of HR managers
was taken. However, constraints imposed by the participating hotels refrained the researchers to mention
their name in the study. A convenient sampling method was used for the selection of women employees
as discussed with the HR personnel in selected hotels. HR managers were requested to incorporate
respondents from managerial level, supervisory level, and operational level of hierarchy. After scrutiniz-
ing the questionnaire for non-response bias, overall questionnaires about 355 employees and 10 HR
managers were considered.

Measures
Measures for operationalizing the constructs were developed based on an extensive review of the litera-
ture. Three sets of questionnaires were prepared: first, for the HR manager of the hotel, to learn about the
policies and practices of the hotel; second, for the hotel employee, to be filled by both male and female
Khan et al. 95

employees, to learn about their perception of gender sensitivity and gender bias; and third, exclusively
for the female employees to seek their opinion on the troubled areas.

HRM: This is a dummy variable that is coded 0 if the respondent says “No” on given practice/policy and
coded 1 if the respondent says “Yes.” The following 10 items were drawn from a scale developed by
Chaudhary and Gupta (2013):

  1. Does your organization provide training on “gender sensitization” to employees?

  2. If yes; is the training given to both male and female employees?
  3. Is there any policy/guideline regarding female-male employee ratio?
  4. Does your organization provide flexible working hours to women employees?
  5. Does your organization have a crèche facility?
  6. Does your organization have a policy for maternity leaves?
  7. Does your organization provide maternity leave to all women employees without considering
their working experience?
  8. Does your organization provide transportation facilities for women employees working in night
shifts?
  9. Does your organization provide come back provision policy for women after their career break
as a part of the career development program?
10. Does your organization have a separate women grievance cell/sexual harassment guideline?

Gender
Gender is a dummy variable that is coded 0 if the respondent is male and coded 1 if the respondent is
female.

Perceived Gender Sensitivity: (a = 0.717)

This variable was measured by a six-item scale that comprises about their perceptions of gender sensitiv-
ity in the workplace. The following six items were taken from a scale developed by Chaudhary and
Gupta (2013):

1. Women are treated at par with man.

2. Women have been educated on women-friendly policies, such as sexual harassment policy,
maternity leaves, etc., at the time of induction or any other training programs.
3. Male and female are given equal pay for same work.
4. Employees are appraised equally without any bias on account of their being man or woman.
5. Does Government of India guidelines on handling sexual harassment strictly followed in your
hotel?
6. Applicants for an interview are given equal chance irrespective of their gender.

Perceived Gender Bias: (a = 0.78)

This variable was measured by a five-item scale that comprises questions about employees’ perceptions
of bias against women in the workplace. The following two items were drawn from a scale developed by
96 Jindal Journal of Business Research 10(1)

Gutek et al. (1996): “Men are promoted faster than women in the organization,” and “My organization
prefers to hire men.” The following three items were taken from a scale developed by Chaudhary and
Gupta (2013): “Women have to make extra efforts to prove their credibility than men,” “Men are pre-
ferred for a challenging, responsible and higher position,” and “The organization policy does not dis-
criminate between gender, but it exists in practice.”

Analytical Strategy
Null model examines variation in gender sensitivity between hotels.
Null Model (No Predictors Model)
The authors first examined the extent of variation in level 1 (employee level) outcome within level 2
units (hotels) as compared to its variation between level 2 units (hotels). The present research investi-
gates whether significant variance exist across hotels which could not be established in a single level
model.
Equations:

Level 1: PGS ij = b oj + € ij (1)

Level 2: ≤ oj = c 00 + n oj(2)

Mixed mod el: PGS ij = c 00 + n oj + € ij (3)

where PGSij = perceived gender sensitivity of individual i of j hotel

c00 = grand mean of PGS of all hotels
µoj = between hotel variation in intercepts
€ij = variation in individual scores within hotels
Relationship between perceived gender bias and perceived gender sensitivity at level 1.

H1A: 
Individual perceptions of gender bias are negatively related to perceived gender
sensitivity.

This hypothesis has been tested by applying multilevel modeling. The researcher has developed this
model to examine the variability in intercepts across hotels for every individual in hotel j, a proposed
model (Equation [4]) summarizes the impact of employee’s PGB on their PGS.
Equations:

Level 1: PGS ij = b oj + b 1j PGB ij + € ij(4)

Equation (5) implies that the variation in intercepts can be explained by a grand mean (c00) or hotel-
level intercept, and a random parameter capturing fluctuations in individual hotel mean (µoj) from the
grand mean:

b oj = c 00 + n oj(5)
Khan et al. 97

Equation (6) indicates that the slope within a unit (e.g., perceived gender bias) can also be considered as
randomly varying across units in the sample.

Level 2: b 1j = c 10 + n 1j(6)

Keeping the within group slopes as fixed the above equation can be rewritten as under:

Level 2: b 1j = c 10(7)

Through substitution of Equations (5) and (7), we arrive at the combined equation describing model I:

Mixed mod el: PGS ij = c 00 + c 10 PGB ij + n oj + € ij(8)

H1B: The HR practices at organizational level are positively related to perceived gender sensitivity.

This hypothesis has been tested by applying multilevel modeling. The researcher has developed this
model to examine relationship between perceived gender sensitivity and perceived gender bias at level 1
and HRP at level 2.
The equations for the present model:

Level 1: PGS ij = b oj + b 1j PGB ij + € ij(9)

b oj = c 00 + c 01 HRP j(10)

Level 2: b 1j = c 10 + n 1j(11)

Keeping the within group slopes as fixed the above equation can be rewritten as under:

Level 2: b 1j = c 10(12)

Mixed mod el: PGS ij = c 00 + c 01 HRP j + c 10 PGB ij + n oj + € ij(13)

Analysis of Results

Testing of H1A
Researchers started with a single-level analysis (i.e., considering only the employees and not their mem-
bership of hotels).
It addresses the question: Is there a relationship between employees’ perceived gender sensitivity and
their perceived gender bias. Researchers are hypothesizing a negative relationship between both the vari-
ables. The single level multiple regressions to describe an individual’s perceived gender sensitivity out-
come would be:

PGS = β0 − β1 PGB + €i
98 Jindal Journal of Business Research 10(1)

where β0 is the intercept, β1 is a slope parameter, and €I represent errors in predicting individual outcomes
from the equation. The intercepts represent the expected perceived gender sensitivity score for an
employee who perceives zero gender bias. Results of single level regressions are displayed in Table 1.
To examine the research question does PGS varies across hotels, researchers have developed a scatter
plot of the relationship between employee PGB and PGS. Figure 2 suggests that as employee’s percep-
tion on PGB increases, it leads to decrease in the perceived gender sensitivity. The objective of this
analysis is to get the best-fitting line that explains the relationship between employee PGB and PGS
score in the sample. The intercept coefficient depicts the average level of employee PGS when PGB is 0
and the slope depicts the average effect of PGB on the PGS across the sample of employees. These val-
ues become “fixed” for the whole sample; that is, as individuals are randomly sampled, it is assumed that
the value represents population averages. In the linear regression model, the error term is a random
source of variation, which we assume is 0 on average and normally distributed, varies independently of
X and has constant variance across all level of X.
The adjusted R-square value is deemed to be statistically significant. This means increases in gender
bias decreases gender sensitivity. But the assumptions required to be met in a multiple regression models
to yield the most realistic, unbiased, and best results holds true only when random sampling has been
employed. In case of random sampling subjects are independent of each other. As groups are added in
the present study, this assumption does not hold true.
In the current study, selection of hotels has been made based on judgmental sampling and selection of
participants were being made based on the HR department as well as researchers’ success in reaching
participants outside the hotels. Hierarchical data, therefore, resulted from the techniques used in sam-
pling as well as natural grouping of the employees in hotels. Therefore, researchers again developed a
scatter plot describing the relationship between employees’ PGB and PGS achievement from Figure 2,
this time taking into consideration their hotels. Researchers, therefore, estimated a separate regression
line for each hotel. Each hotel has its own intercept (explaining the level of its employees’ PGS outcome
adjusted for PGB) and a slope (explaining the relationship between employees’ PGB and PGS within
that hotel).
Figure 3 presents the relationship between PGB and the PGS of 355 employees nested in the 10
hotels. The figure suggests that the slope relationship accounts for differing amounts of variance within

Table 1.  Single Level Regression Results (Dependent Variable: Perceived Gender Sensitivity [PGS])

Variables Coefficients (Beta) t-statistic Sig.

Constant 21.607 15.661 (.000)
Perceived gender bias (PGB) −.323*** −4.219 (.000)
Observations 355
R-square .048
Adjusted R-square .045
F-statistic 17.600
Prob. (F-statistic) (.000)
Source: Generated during the process of data analysis (by authors).
Notes: This table reports the coefficients of the single-level regression analysis.
The p-values based on robust standard error are reported in parentheses.
The variables are defined in Table 1.
***Significant at the 1% Level.
Khan et al. 99

Figure 2.  Fixed Intercept and Slope for Employees’ PGB and Employees’ PGS
Source: Generated during the process of data analysis (by authors).

Figure 3.  Randomly Varying PGB-PGS Slopes in 10 Hotels

Source: Generated during the process of data analysis (by authors).
100 Jindal Journal of Business Research 10(1)

each unit (i.e., with R-square coefficients ranging from .002 to .332). This suggests there exists consider-
able difference in perceived gender sensitivity between these ten hotels. Thus, gender sensitivity varies
from hotel to hotel. Each regression line representing relationship between perceived gender bias and
perceived gender sensitivity in a particular hotel and shows whether gender sensitive environment in a
particular hotel increases or decreases with increase or decrease in gender bias so as to assess the impact
of gender bias on gender sensitivity. In other words, it examines whether gender insensitivity is the result
of bias.

Does PGS Varies Across Hotels?

Table 2 sums up the total number of estimated parameter (three). The total parameter estimated com-
prises the fixed effect value for the intercept, random variance at level 2, and the variance at level 1,
named as residuals. Table 2 describes the estimates of fixed effects in the model. The intercept or grand
mean for (hotel employees) is estimated as 15.528. This represents the average level of PGS across
10 hotels. Both within the hotels as well as among hotels variations were found to be significant. σ2µoj
= 19.132085 σ2€oj = 8.731956. Since 19.132% of the variation in gender sensitivity lies among the hotel
and variation at individual level is 8.731%, the data is analyzed through hierarchical linear modeling.
The results of the no predictor model suggest that the development of a multilevel model is required.
Because intercepts vary significantly across hotels (WALD Z = 13.134, p < .001). Variations between
hotels are more and account for greater fluctuations in gender sensitivity; therefore, gender sensitivity in
various hotels has been studied through considering the multilevel modeling. Thus, individual’s mem-
bership of hotel is considered to treat the multilevel data structure and hierarchical linear modeling has
been applied.
Table 3 sums up the total number of estimated parameter (four). This fits with Equation (8). The
two fixed effects parameters estimated were: The intercept and within the hotel predictor PGB. Two
variance parameters were: the random variance at level 2 and the residual variance at level 1. The
intercept (adjusted for employee level PGS) is 19.736259. This represents the average hotel means
adjusted for perceived gender bias. The standard error is 8.959.
Table 2.  Null Model to Test Significant Variance in PGS Across Hotels (Dependent Variable: Perceived Gender
Sensitivity [PGS])

Estimate of Fixed Effects

Variables Estimate Std. Error t-statistics Sig.
Intercept 15.528 1.392 11.149 (.000)
Estimate of Covariance Parameters Estimate Std. Error Wald Z Sig.
Residual 8.731 .664 13.134 (.000)
Intercept 19.132 9.135 2.094 (.036)
Model Parameters
No. of fixed effects intercept 1
No. of random effects intercept 1
Residual 1
Total 3
Source: Generated during the process of data analysis (by authors).
Khan et al. 101

Table 3.  Level 1 Random Intercept Model to Examine the Variability in Intercepts Across Hotels (Dependent
variable: Perceived gender sensitivity [PGS])

Estimate of Fixed Effects

Variables Estimate Std. Error t- Statistics Sig.
Intercept 19.73625 1.586 12.440 (.000)
Perceived gender bias (PGB) −.240458 .0448 −5.366 (.000)
Estimate of Covariance Parameters Estimate Std. Error Wald Z Sig.
Residual 8.084893 .6164 13.115 (.000)
Intercept 18.77269 8.959 2.095 (.036)
Model Parameters
No. of fixed effects intercept 1
PGB 1
No. of random effects intercept 1
Residual 1
Total 4
Source: Generated during the process of data analysis (by authors).

H1A: Individual perceptions of gender bias are negatively related to perceived gender sensitivity.

We conclude that individual’s perceptions of gender bias are negatively related to perceived gender
sensitivity and this negative relationship between individual perceived gender bias and their perceived
gender sensitivity is statistically significant. It means that with increase in gender bias, gender sensitiv-
ity decreases and decrease in gender bias leads to more gender sensitive work environment. Thus, the
results are consistent with H1A: Individual perceptions of gender bias are negatively related to perceived
gender sensitivity. The covariance parameters’ table suggests that after the inclusion of PGB into the
model, there is still significant variation needed to be explained both within (WALD Z = 13.115,
p < .001) and between (WALD Z = 2.095, p < .001). The Wald Z suggests that even after controlling for
PGB within hotels, a statistically significant amount of variation in outcomes still remains both within
and between hotels.

Testing of H1B
In this model, the researchers hypothesize that the HRP at organizational level is positively related to
PGS of an employee.
Researchers are interested in knowing the impact of gender awareness in human resource policies and
practices on gender sensitivity. That is whether gender sensitivity can be promoted through adoption of
gender friendly human resource policies and practices.
Table 4 confirms that we are estimating five parameters. The intercept (adjusted for employee
level PGB and hotel level HRP) is 7.6171.

H1B: 
The HR practices at organizational level are positively related to perceived gender
sensitivity.
102 Jindal Journal of Business Research 10(1)

Table 4.  Level 2 Random Intercept Model to Explain the Variability in Intercepts Across Hotels (Dependent
variable: Perceived Gender Sensitivity [PGS])

Estimate of Fixed Effects

Variables Estimate Std. Error t-statistics Sig.
Intercept 7.617 2.993 2.545 (.029)
Perceived gender bias (PGB) −.2422 .0448 −5.404 (.000)
Human recourse practices (HRP) 2.0222 .4625 4.373 (.002)
Estimate of Covariance Parameters Estimate Std. Error Wald Z Sig.
Residual 8.108 .6182 13.116 (.000)
Intercept 5.841 3.024 1.932 (.0530
Model Parameters
No. of fixed effects    Intercept 1
           PGB 1
           HRP 1
No. of random effects intercept 1
Residual 1
Total 5
Source: Generated during the process of data analysis (by authors).

Thus, positive and significant relationship between perceived gender sensitivity at individual level and
HRP at hotel level as well as negative and significant relationship between perceived gender sensitivity
at individual level and perceived gender bias at individual level could be interpreted from Table 4.
Table 4 confirms that we can promote gender sensitive work environment by creating bias-free
work environment and gender aware or gender friendly HRPs. These results are consistent with our
hypothesis.
The between-group variation is not significant at 5% or 10% level of significance, indicating that
HRP at the level of hotels is sufficient to explain the variation in PGS at the individual level. Whereas
significant residuals at level 1 are indicative of identifying more level 1 residuals to be incorporated in
the model. Since all the variables in the objectives of the research paper were given due consideration;
therefore, identifying other variables is outside the purview of the present study.

Discussions
Regarding the gender bias and discrimination prevalent in the organizations, results of this study are
largely in accordance with extant literature (Ensher et al., 2001; Gutek et al., 1996; Ngo et al., 2002;
Walker & Smith, 2002). Discrimination based on gender is often reported by Individuals in the
workplace. A study by Kattara (2005) and Nathaniel (2015) also reports presence of gender discrimina-
tion. The world of work is offered to and experienced by men and women quiet differently (Bobbitt-
Zeher, 2011). In hospitality industry, there is an apparent domination of men in certain departments, and
other departments are expected to be filled by women, suggesting gender discrimination in the
industry.
Khan et al. 103

Findings of the current study evidence presence of lack of diversity in leadership roles and gender
bias in the workplace, which is consistent with Rustogi (2005), gender disparity is visible in the work-
place. Current study finds the presence of sexual harassment in the work place, which is in tune with
findings from other studies. McLaughlin et al. (2012) concluded that women are harassed, it does not
matter with powerful positions. Gilbert et al. (1998) finds the presence of sexual harassment and its
negative relation with productivity. A significant proportion of respondents admitted that sexual harass-
ment happens in the industry and there is an absence of a sexual harassment policy in the organization
(Wendy Coats MS, 2004). Chaudhuri (2008) reports absence of complaint committee for sexual harass-
ment cases.
The results of the current study evidences importance of HR policies toward creating gender sensitive
work environment. Previous work also states importance of friendly HR policies in reducing discrimina-
tion practices and promoting overall well-being of the organization. Kazlauskaite et al. (2011) report
positive effect of employee’s perceived HRM practices on employee attitudes. Gender stereotyping
combines with sex composition of the workplace and organizational policies, resulting in discretionary
policy usage which further results in discrimination (Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011). Literature provides sufficient
evidences of positive effect of friendly HR policies on reducing gender bias and promoting diversity, but
the review of literature witnesses a lack of empirical evidences on how HR policies impact gender sen-
sitivity in the organization. Hospitality diversity research needs more expansion in the contexts, in terms
of geographical regions too (Manoharan, 2017). Likewise, current study has attempted to explore
whether gender insensitivity is the result of inherent bias in the organization developed due to various
HR policies and practices through empirical analysis. A negative relation is found between gender bias
and gender sensitivity and a positive relation between HR policies and gender sensitivity.

Concluding Remarks
The present study is a modest endeavor by the researchers, it tests impact of friendly HR policies on PGS
and PGB through an empirical model. The study found results in consistency with hypothesis. Results of
the model elucidate the negative and significant relationship between gender bias and gender sensitivity
and a significant positive relationship between HR policies and practices and gender sensitivity. In the
current study, authors tried to accomplish few objectives: (a) It can be concluded based on the study, that
an employee considers organization’s environment less sensitive in the presence of bias in the organiza-
tion. (b) Gender aware and gender sensitive HR policies providing equal access to various opportunities
to women, can help in creating a perceived gender sensitive environment with less gender bias, which
further results in well-being of the organization.

Practical Implications
Present research suggests that gender bias in the workplaces is attributable to many factors, but a gender
sensitive HR policy can help in reducing gender bias. This could be done through provision of flexible
working hours especially for married women, an HR policy for male-female ratio, creche facility for
woman with child, maternity leaves, transportation facilities in night shift, career development programs
for women, and separate women grievance cell. Mohinder and Ashish (2008) also emphasized the
importance of HR strategies to the Indian hospitality enterprises, which promote gender diversity and
104 Jindal Journal of Business Research 10(1)

overall wellbeing of the organization. Gender sensitivity can further be improved with equal treatment
of women and men, providing education on women friendly policies, equal pay, no bias in promotion
opportunities. The implications of the research are creating bias-free workplace and adoption of a gen-
der-friendly environment for creating gender-sensitive workplaces.

Scope for Further Research

The study contributes to the little empirical work on the impact of gender bias and HR policies and prac-
tices on gender sensitivity. The strength of the present study is the perception of both HR and employees
has been taken into consideration, and predictors are identified at both the level of analysis.
Nevertheless, some limitations must be stressed. While variable at the hotel level, that is, HR policies
and practices are enough to explain variation at the organizational level; more variables at employee
level are yet to be identified. Also, data has been collected from the hotels of Udaipur. Since, HR poli-
cies, are similar across hotel chains, it justifies the sample. Still, the fact that data from the entire country
could have yielded better results cannot be denied.
In future research, a spectrum of other genders and sexualities could also be considered. Sensitivity
in hotels is a broad term; it does not end with the female employees. Therefore, sensitivity toward female
guests should also be studied. Separate study with different variables is required to assess the sensitivity
toward female guests.
Again, the best way to capture the state of sensitivity is qualitative analysis. Though interviews with
HR were conducted, but the difficulty in gaining access to employees and permission from various
authorities confined the researchers to quantitative analysis.
While HR policies and practices are sufficient to predict gender sensitivity at the hotel level, more
predictors are needed at the employee level. The researchers hope that this research will encourage oth-
ers to investigate this issue

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 139–158.
Aladwan, K., Bhanugopan, R., & Fish, A. (2013). To what extent the Arab workers committed to their organisations?
Analysing the multidimensional perspective of organisational commitment in Jordan. International Journal of
Commerce and Management, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCoMA-03-2012-0020
Baum, T. (2013). International perspective on women and work in hotels catering and tourism. International Labour
Office.
Baum, T. (2015). Women in tourism and hospitality: Unlocking the potential in the talent pool. Women in Tourism
and Hospitality Forum Hong Kong, March 5, 15.
Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2011, December). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender stereotypes, institutional
policies, and gender composition of workplace. Sociologists for Women in Society, 25(6), 764–786.
Khan et al. 105

Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2008). Am I the right candidate? Self-ascribed fit of women and men to a leadership
position. Sex Roles, 58, 682–688.
Chand, M., & Katou, A. (2007). The impact of HRM practices of organizational performance in Indian hotel
industry. Employee Relation: An International Journal, 29, 576–594.
Chaudhary, M., & Gupta, M. (2010). Gender equality in Indian hotel industry: A perception of male and female
employees. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Systems, 3(1), 31–41. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.
ac.in/
Chaudhary, M., & Gupta, M. (2013). Gender equality in Indian hotel industry—A study of perception of male and
female employees. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Systems, 3(1). http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/
Chaudhuri, P. (2008). Sexual harassment at the workplace: Experiences with complaints committees. Economic and
Political Weekly, 43(17). https://www.epw.in/journal/2008/17/special-articles/sexual-harassment-workplace-
experiences-complaints-committees.html
Cheng, A., & Brown, A. (1998). HRM strategies and labour turnover in the hotel industry: A comparative study of
Australia and Singapore. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, 136–154.
Chung, W., & Kalnins, A. (2001). Agglomeration effects and performance: A test of the Texas lodging industry.
Strategic Management Journal, 22, 969–988.
Davidson, M., Guilding, C., & Timo, N. (2006). Employment, flexibility and labour market practices of domestic and
MNC chain luxury hotels in Australia: Where has accountability gone? Hospitality Management, 25, 193–210.
Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on organizational
citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
12(1), 53–72.
Fatile, J. O. (2020, February). Gender issues in human resource management in Nigerian public service. Global
Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Development, 9(2), 001–008.
Gilbert, D., Guerrier, Y., & Guy, J. (1998). Sexual harassment issues in the hospitality industry. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(2), 48–53.
Grant Thornton. (2018). Women in business: Beyond policy to progress. https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/
news-centre/women-in-business-report-2018/
Grant Thornton Survey Report. (2015). Women in business: The path to leadership. Grant Thornton International
Business Report.
Grant Thornton International Business Report. (2016). Women in business turning promise into practice.
Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Tsui, A. (1996). Reactions to perceived discrimination. Human Relations, 49, 791–814.
Haynes, P., & Fryer, G. (2000). Human resources, service quality and performance: A case study. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12, 240–248.
Ingram, P. (1996). Organizational form as a solution to the problem of credible commitment: The evolution of
naming strategies among US hotel chains, 1896–1980. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 85–96.
Ingram, P., & Baum, J. A. C. (1997). Chain affiliation and the failure of Manhattan hotels, 1898–1980. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42, 68–102.
International Labour Organization. (2016). World employment and social outlook: Trends 2016. International
Labour Office Geneva (ILO).
Jago, L. K., & Deery, M. (2004). An investigation of the impact of internal labour markets in the hotel industry. The
Service Industries Journal, 24, 118–129.
Jordan, F. (1997). An occupational hazard? Sex segregation in tourism employment. Tourism Management, 18(8),
525–534.
Kazlauskaite, R., Buciuniene, I., & Turauskas, L. (2011). Organizational and psychological empowerment in the
HRM-performance linkage. Employee Relations, 34(2), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451211191869
Katou, A. A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2007). The effect of human resource management policies on organizational
performance in Greek manufacturing firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 49(1), 1–35. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tie.20129
Kattara, H. (2005). Career challenges for female managers in Egyptian hotels. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 17(3), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110510591927
106 Jindal Journal of Business Research 10(1)

Manoharan, A. K. (2017, September). A systematic literature review of research on diversity and diversity
management in the hospitality literature. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 66, 77–91.
Masadeh, D. M. (2013, January). Women in the hotel industry: What’s missing from this picture. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 573–580.
McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of
power. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412451728
Mohinder, C., & Ashish, D. (2008). HR strategies and global business environment—a case study of Indian tourism
enterprises. Journal of Tourism Development, 5–6, 42–49.
Nathaniel, A. I. (2015). Gender inequality in the hospitality industry: Issues and challenges. A case study of selected
hotels in Ondo State in Nigeria. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Sports, 9, 2312–5187.
Ngo, H. Y., Tang, C. S., & Au, W. W. (2002). Behavioral responses to employment discrimination: A study of Hong
Kong workers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 1206–1223.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008). Education at a glance—OECD
indicators. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from http://www.inovacao.unicamp.br/report/inte-educational_
indicators-2009 ocde090914.pdf
Rittenhofer, I., & Gatrell, C. (2012). Gender mainstreaming and employment in the European Union: A review and
analysis of theoretical and policy literatures. International Journal of Management Review, 14(2), 201–216.
Rustogi, P. (2005). Understanding gender inequalities in wages and incomes in india. Indian Journal of Labour
Economics, 48(2), 319–334.
Sayers, R. C. (2012). The cost of being female: Critical comment on block. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(4),
519–524.
Singh, K. (2003). Strategic HR orientation and firm performance. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14, 530–543.
Singla, J., & Rani, N. (2014). Factors affecting recruitment and career advancement of women in hospitality industry
[Dissertation]. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak.
Som, A. (2008). Innovative human resource management and corporate performance in the context of economic
liberalization in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1278–1297.
The Global Gender Gap Report. (2017). Human development report. World Economic Forum. http://hdr.undp.org/
en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii
Timo, N., & Davidson, M. (2002). The structure of employee relations in multinational hotels in Australia. In D.
Annunzio-Green, G. Maxwell, & S. Watson (Eds.), Human resource management: International perspectives in
hospitality and tourism (pp. 190–203). Continuum.
Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Relative deprivation: Specification, development. University of Cambridge.
Wendy Coats, M. S., & Agrusa, J. (2004). Sexual harassment in Hongkong. Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality and Tourism, 3, 71–87.
Woods, R. H. (1992). Managing hospitality human resources. Michigan, Educational Institute of the American
Hotel and Motel Association.