Karen Tsang (2016) - Perceived Glass Ceilings

Author: Karen Tsang, University of Liverpool
Submission Date: January 2016
Research Title: The intersectionality of sociodemographic factors in the perception of
glass ceilings for LGBTQ employees in Canadian multinational banks.
Abstract: This research addresses questions of how the interplay of various
sociodemographic factors influence individual perceptions of glass ceilings and
organizational justice, which in turn influence employee outcomes such as
advancement expectation, job satisfaction, and intention to leave the organization.
Using original survey data in the case of employees in Canada-based multinational
banks, intersectionality theory is tested via the analysis of variance techniques, and
organizational justice theory is tested via bivariate correlation techniques.
Results indicate racial/ethnic minority status being a statistically significant predictor of
level of perceived glass ceilings, but otherwise mixed evidence in support of the
intersectionality theory. Existing tenets of organizational justice theory are strongly
supported by survey data. This study contributes to existing literature on organizational
development by additionally examining the role of individual sexual orientation and
gender expression against gender and race/ethnicity as sociodemographic variables
within studies on employee perceptions of glass ceilings and organizational justice
theory.

Tsang (2016): Perceived Glass Ceilings 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Research Context ............................................................................................. 5
1.2 Statement of Problem ....................................................................................... 5
1.3 Objective of Research ...................................................................................... 7
1.4 Resarch Questions ........................................................................................... 8
1.5 Structure of this Research ................................................................................ 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Glass Ceiling ......................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Organizational Justice ........................................................................... 13
2.1.3 Social Construction of Identity and Intersectionality Theory .................. 15
2.2 Chapter Summary........................................................................................... 17
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................. 18
3.1 Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology..................................................... 18
3.2 Theoretical Orientation and Framework.......................................................... 19
3.3 Theoretical Model and Hypotheses ................................................................ 19
3.4 Research Methods.......................................................................................... 24
3.4.1 Procedures ............................................................................................ 24
3.4.2 Research Sampling ............................................................................... 24
3.5 Research Design ............................................................................................ 24
3.5.1 Pilot Study ............................................................................................. 24
3.5.2 Survey Design ....................................................................................... 25
3.6 Data Collection and Preparation..................................................................... 25
3.7 Data Analysis.................................................................................................. 26
3.8 Research Reliability and Validity..................................................................... 27
3.9 Ethics and Participant Rights.......................................................................... 28
4. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 32
4.1 Descriptive Statistics on Sociodemographic Items ......................................... 34
4.2 Descriptive Statistics on Non-Sociodemographic Constructs ......................... 35
4.2.1 Perceived Glass Ceilings....................................................................... 36
4.2.2 Perceived Organizational Justice .......................................................... 37
4.2.3 Advancement Expectations ................................................................... 38
4.2.4 Job Satisfaction ..................................................................................... 38

4.2.5 Intentions to Leave ................................................................................ 39
4.3 Two-way ANOVA of Sociodemographic-related Model Constructs ................ 40
4.3.1 Main and Interaction Effects of Gender and Sexual Orientation of
Perceived Glass Ceilings................................................................................ 40
4.3.2 Main and Interaction Effects of Gender Expression and Race/Ethnicity on
Perceived Glass Ceilings................................................................................ 42
4.3.3 Main and Interaction Effects of Gender and Race/Ethnicity on Perceived
Glass Ceilings ................................................................................................ 45
4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Factorial Analysis of non-Sociodemographic-related
Model Constructs.................................................................................................. 47
4.5 Bivariate Correlation of Model Constructs....................................................... 49
5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSION ............................................... 50
5.1 Discussion of Survey Results ......................................................................... 50
5.1.1 Theoretical Model Section 1 .................................................................. 50
5.1.2 Theoretical Model Section 2 .................................................................. 51
5.2 Overall Implications and Recommendations for Organizational Change ........ 51
5.3 Limitations of the Research and Scope for Further Research ........................ 53
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 54
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Proposed model indicating hypotheses and survey questions used to
represent model constructs........................................................................ 22
Figure 3.2 Theoretical Model Constructs and their relationships.................................. 23
Figure 3.3 Survey Instrument Welcome Page and Participant Information Sheet (PIS)29
Figure 3.4 Survey Instrument Sample Question Page.................................................. 29
Figure 4.1 Profile Plot of Main and Interaction Effects of Gender and Sexual Orientation
on levels of Perceived Glass Ceilings ........................................................ 42
Figure 4.2 Profile Plot of Main and Interaction Effects of Gender Expression and
Race/Ethnicity on levels of Perceived Glass Ceilings ................................ 44
Figure 4.3 Profile Plot of Main and Interaction Effects of Gender and Race/Ethnicity on
levels of Perceived Glass Ceilings ............................................................. 46

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Re-coded Sociodemographic Categorical Variables..................................... 26
Table 3.2 Listing of all Original Survey Questions and Answers – Items 1 to 22 .......... 30
Table 3.3 Listing of all Original Survey Questions and Answers – Items 23 to 31 ........ 31
Table 4.1 Overall Summary of Hypotheses, Variables, Testing Methods, Outcomes, and
corresponding Chapter Sections ................................................................ 32
Table 4.2 Descriptive Results of all Valid Sociodemographic Items ............................. 34
Table 4.3 Survey Questions Contributing to Non-Sociodemographic Constructs......... 35
Table 4.4 Breakdown of Responses to Survey Questions Contributing to Construct of
Perceived Glass Ceilings. .......................................................................... 36
Perceived Organizational Justice. .............................................................. 37
Table 4.6 Breakdown of Responses to Survey Question Contributing to Construct of
Advancement Expectations........................................................................ 38
Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 38
Intentions to Leave..................................................................................... 39
Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics – Gender and Sexual Orientation Two-way ANOVA with
Perceived Glass Ceiling Levels.................................................................. 41
Table 4.10 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – Gender and Sexual Orientation ........ 41
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics – Gender Expression and Race/Ethnicity Two-way
ANOVA with Perceived Glass Ceiling Levels............................................. 43
Table 4.12 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – Gender Expression and Race/Ethnicity
................................................................................................................... 44
Table 4.13 Descriptive Statistics – Gender and Race/Ethnicity Two-way ANOVA with
Perceived Glass Ceiling Levels.................................................................. 45
Table 4.14 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – Gender and Race/Ethnicity............... 46
Table 4.15 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Non-Sociodemographic Constructs
Pre-indexing ............................................................................................... 47
Table 4.16 Theoretical Model Section 2 Factor Analysis - Total Variance Explained ... 48
Table 4.17 Theoretical Model Section 2 Factor Analysis - Pattern Matrix..................... 48
Table 4.18 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Theory Constructs after
Indexing...................................................................................................... 49

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Context
As the challenges of the global banking industry become more complex with rising
regulatory, economic, market, financial and technological changes, banks must focus on
human capital in order to remain relevant leaders in the international financial
landscape. To understand customers’ perspectives, banks must be able to turn the
microscope within itself as the starting point – a microcosm of a structured segment of
society – and understand whether employees themselves are fundamentally engaged
by their employers in a manner which maximizes each employee’s performance
potential (Federman, 2009).
In the last two decades, the benefits of organizational diversity and business
performance have been given more attention. At almost every level of organization
across industries, research has shown that diversity of thought and employee
backgrounds (age, expertise, ethnicity, and gender) within organizations is strongly
linked to employee satisfaction, innovation, and business success (Al-Musali & Ku
Ismail, 2015; Barta, Kleine, & Neumann, 2012; Hong & Page, 2004; Lu, et al., 2015).
The ability to attract, incentivize, and retain diverse talent consistently remains one of
the top priorities to globally competitive firms (Jendrissek, 2014; Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2008).
At the same time, researchers have begun examining barriers to advancement for
diverse talent. These barriers, also known as “glass ceilings” have been studied
extensively across geographies, industries, and demographics.
1.2 Statement of Problem
In several key Canadian provinces where Canada’s largest banks are registered,
publicly-listed companies are required by the Canadian Securities Administrators to
disclose gender diversity on boards of directors and in executive officer positions.
However, the relative ratio between men and women on publicly listed companies’
boards is often where the data on organizational starts and ends for Canadian Financial
Institutions.
For a country where 1/5 of the population identifies as visible minority (“non-white)
immigrants, often with foreign post-secondary education, and where same-sex marriage
has been legalized nationally for a decade, glass ceilings for visible minorities or gender
and sexual minorities (herein referred to as “LGBTQ” or “lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer” people) in the workplace. There is no industry-level data
available on the diversity of race, education, or sexual orientation of Canadian publicly-
listed companies. Even at the national level, longitudinal data on these demographic
minorities is dearth.

The examination of glass-ceilings as experienced by these populations is an important
piece in understanding and improving talent management effectiveness in multinational
banks within Canada.
Within existing research outside of Canada, the abstract concept of glass ceilings is
typically concretized through two main means: 1) The examination of structural
outcomes such as pay, promotion, or representational inequity, or 2) Surveying
individuals’ psychological qualities or perceptions of glass ceilings.
Management research conducted using the latter framework has confirmed that women
and visible minorities experience lower rates of self-confidence and higher rates of
perceived glass ceilings in the workplace (Owuamalam & Zagefka, 2013; Foley, 1998;
Gu, 2015; Van Craen, 2012). Employee confidence is relevant in the study of talent
management due to its correlation to greater accomplishment motivation (Sari, et al.,
2015) as well as greater success at achieving one’s potential and obtainment of
external validation (Cuddy, 2012; Sandberg, 2013; Gu, 2015); while higher perceived
glass ceilings within organizations are extremely problematic for talent management
given their direct linkage to employees’ lower advancement expectations, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to leave the firm (Downes,
Hemmasi, & Eshghi, 2014 ; Foley, 1998).
Not surprisingly, to-date there has been very little academic research done on LGBTQ
employees’ perceptions of glass ceilings, and even fewer research findings are
available within a Canadian context. Of research which has examined LGBTQ
employees’ experiences in corporate glass ceilings (Frank, 2006; McDevitt-Pugh, 2011),
neither employee perceptions of glass-ceilings nor the interplay of other socio-
demographic factors aside from gender were examined. The area of overlap between
sexual orientation and other socio-demographic factors’ influence on employee
perceptions of glass ceilings is largely unknown.
Canadian research in mental health and social psychology provide very clear linkages
between LGBTQ populations and poorer mental health as well as lower levels of self-
efficacy (Chen & Vollick, 2013), especially under compounding effects of the various
social determinates of – such as gender and gender identity, education, disability, social
inclusion; freedom from discrimination and violence; and access to economic resources
(Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2008). Therefore, in studying LGBTQ
employees’ perceptions of glass ceilings in the workplace, the framework must take into
account the variety of other socio-demographic factors which mediate individual
experience.

1.3 Objective of Research
The researcher is interested in the intersectional effects of gender, race, sexual
orientation, and other sociodemographic characteristics on employee perceptions of
glass ceilings in order to understand and assess whether bank diversity strategies of
addressing employee diversity as singular and separate issues are effective in
improving (minority-status) employee engagement and job satisfaction.
The results and recommendations from this research are expected to inform the design,
execution, and analyses of organizational efforts which aim to nurture talent, improve
employee performance, and reduce internal biases and inequities.
Hence, the primary objective of this research is to:
 Explain whether and how there are moderating functions between various socio-
demographic factors (such as, but not limited to, gender, sexual orientation,
gender presentation, ethnicity, education level, marital status) for LGBTQ
employees, and to identify any patterns and/or clustering within various socio-
demographic groups in relation to perceived glass ceiling.
Secondary objectives for this research are:
 To validate or controvert and/or expand on existing scholarly works on related
topics; and
 To make recommendations to improve effectiveness of organizational efforts
which aim to nurture talent, improve employee performance, and reduce internal
biases and inequities.

1.4 Resarch Questions
The researcher is interested in answering the research question “How does the
interplay of various socio-demographic factors affect LGBTQ-identified employees'
perception of glass ceilings?” In answering the main research question, the research will
also seek answers to the following Sub-questions:
 What are the main moderating socio-demographic factors and what role do they
play in the moderation of LGBTQ employees’ perceptions of glass-ceilings?
 Do minority statuses have compounding effects on employee perceptions of
glass ceilings? For example, do individuals belonging to multiple minority groups
simultaneously perceive additional glass ceilings?
 How can organizations utilize this information to better-structure their
organizational philosophies and practices and reduce actual and/or perceived of
glass ceilings in the affected groups?
1.5 Structure of this Research
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides a critical literature review on the
subject glass ceilings as well as its related concepts. Chapter 3 discusses research
design and analysis methodology followed. Chapter 4 provides the results of data
analysis and discussion, and answers the research questions outlined in section 1.4 of
this first chapter. Chapter 5 concludes the research through examining the implications
of the research, as well as scope for further work required in examining this topic.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In broadly comparable industries and occupations in Canada, there exist significant
gaps in wages and positions attained by individuals belonging to various socio-
demographic groups such as gender, education, ethnicity, and age (Morissette, Picot &
Lu, 2013). Since the late 1980’s the “glass ceiling” has become both a mainstream
descriptive and explanatory term as to why such a phenomenon persists (U.S. Federal
Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995; Giele & Stebbins, 2003). Used in a descriptive
manner, it is simply a metaphor which conveys a barrier to moving upwards in an
organization, while an example of an explanatory definition is that glass ceilings are
“those artificial barriers based on attitudinal organizational bias that prevent qualified
individuals from advancing upward in their organization into management-level
positions” (Martin, 1991, p. 1).
Such definition conveys the concept that glass ceilings are external and structurally-
rooted in nature, yet research since then has yielded insight into individual factors which
contribute to the glass ceiling effect, such as individual psychology (Bato Çizel & Çizel,
2014), social position and identities (Gu, 2015; Owuamalam & Zagefka, 2013), self-
motivation (Bato Çizel & Çizel, 2014; Bennington, et al., 2005; Cech & Blair-Loy, 2010;
Davies-Netzley,1998; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2011; Smith, 2012), and perceptions of
social support and organizational justice (Foley, Kidder, & Powell, 2002; Hwang, 2015;
McDevitt-Pugh, 2006) .
The historical definition provided by Martin (1991) has since been criticized for being
imprecise, limited, or unclear in delineating between the actual nature and cause of
employment inequity (Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2007). Further, research in glass ceilings
has relied on a wide and inconsistent spectrum of indicators to signal the presence of
glass ceilings – from promotion rates, disparities in job position, earnings gaps, to
attitudes within the different employee ranks themselves.
Hence, this chapter presents a literature review and clarify the following key concepts:
i. Glass Ceiling
ii. Organizational Justice
iii. Intersectionality and Social Identity Theories

2.1.1 Glass Ceiling
How do we know glass ceilings exist?
In general, glass ceilings have been researched through two main dimensions: “actual”
versus “perceived” glass ceilings.
In research focused on understanding how glass ceilings manifest and affect
employees, objective, observable criteria are used, often around pay equity, promotion
rates, and achieved organizational seniority within comparable socio-demographic
groups (Jackson & O'Callaghan, 2011; Smith, 2012). One of the most used models in
defining the existence of glass ceilings comes from Cotter, et al. (2001), where the
following four observable criteria must be met to indicate the existence of glass ceilings:
1. "A gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant
characteristics of the employee."
2. "A gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at
lower levels of an outcome.”
3. "A gender or racial inequality in the chances of advancement into higher levels, not
merely the proportions of each gender or race currently at those higher levels."
4. "A gender or racial inequality that increases over the course of a career."
More recent research on actual glass ceilings have suggested that pay inequity may be
a function of organizational hierarchy and job classification. In examination of over
10,000 employees’ administrative data from a large Canadian firm, Yap (2010) found
that ranking within organizational hierarchy accounted for most of the differences in
earnings between different gender and racial groups, and over 90 percent of the
earnings gap variance was explained by race, gender, job characteristics, job ranking,
and human capital factors. Acker (2012) has suggested that “gendered logic” of job
categories and abstract workers, such as classifying empathy-intensive work as
women’s work because women have been socio-economically bound to such work, and
intellectually-intensive work as men’s work for the same reasons, has in fact masked
structures and systems of inequality which naturalize the pay gay.
At the same time, interpersonal biases within organizations can also create barriers to
advancement for minority groups, and indicate the complex relationship between
individual and structural contributing factors to glass ceilings. In surveying over 300
American female managers and executives in science and technology firms, Cech &
Blair-Loy (2010) found that women’s family arrangements directly affect whether they
recognize gender-based barriers to success. Women who work longer hours, who are
primary income-earners in their families, or have young children are more likely to
perceive more pronounced glass ceilings which are not explained by personal factors
such as motivation or human capital, especially for industries of highly educated and
professionally qualified women. The interpersonal and structural barriers experienced
by these women activate their awareness of structural causes of inequality.

The effect of personal experiences in recognizing inequality is an important relationship,
especially for people in positions of power, as these individuals may choose to institute
organizational changes to remedy or even further entrench structural obstacles for
advancement of minorities (Wynn, 2012).
While the research of Cech & Blair-Loy (2015) show that attitudinal biases can spill over
into and create or reinforce structural biases, there is also rich research on the power of
individual perceptions of glass ceilings (regardless of whether glass ceilings are
objectively observed) having tremendous bearing on the motivation, achievement-
orientation, job satisfaction, and organizational loyalty of employees, discussed in the
proceeding sections.
Perception versus Reality
In a comparative study between French and Turkish corporate middle managers,
Akpinar-Sposito (2013) found that women who consistently believed that glass ceilings
were a disadvantage to them were less likely to apply for open positions than equally
qualified men. The effect of women’s perceived glass ceilings and increased self-
selection out of promotions was also observed in the research of Elacqua, et al. (2009)
in surveying almost 700 managers at a large American insurance company. The effect
of self-selection inadvertently snow balls in that smaller numbers of female applicants
lead to smaller numbers of promotions of women to top management positions,
exacerbating the increasingly narrow opportunities and visibility of women at the top.
To combat the detrimental effects of perceptions of glass ceilings, Akpinar-Sposito
(2013) and Foley, Kidder, & Powell (2012) have asserted the need for organizations to
address both perceptions and realities around pay and promotion inequality. For a
continued discussion on perceptions of glass ceilings, organizational justice and its
effects on employees as well as organizational outcomes, please see section 2.2.2 of
this Chapter.
Who faces glass ceilings?
Since its first appearances in literature in the late 1980’s, the definition of glass ceilings
has seen a variety of interpretations. While the interest in glass ceilings began with
discussions around gender, other social minority statuses have been researched in the
last two decades. In addition to glass ceilings describing the barriers women face in
obtaining senior management positions, researchers have explored the lack of
representation or opportunity of other social groups such as ethnic minorities (Akpinar-
Sposito, 2013; Arraes, Menezes& Simonassi, 2014; Bell & Nkomo, 2001; Bennington,
Wagman, and Stallone 2005; Foley, Kidder and Powell, 2012; Gu, 2015; Hwang, 2015;
Owuamalam & Zagefka, 2013) or LGBTQ persons (Frank, 2006; Hamilton, 2012) to
ascend the organizational ladder.
Generally speaking, within the literature reviewed where gender and racial
demographics were compared, men experienced and perceived the existence of glass

ceilings less frequently or less strongly than woman (Elacqua, et al., 2009; Foley,
Kidder, & Powell, 2002; Myers, 2010; Davies-Netzley, 1998). At the same time, racial
majorities, e.g. White people in America, consistently experienced or perceived the
existence of glass ceilings less frequently or less strongly than racial minorities, e.g.
People of colour in America (Jackson & O'Callaghan, 2011; Owuamalam & Zagefka,
2013; Smith, 2012).
However, exceptions to this were found in the studies of Bennington, Wagman, and
Stallone (2005), as well as Tai & Sims (2015). Research by Bennington, Wagman, and
Stallone (2005) which compared the perceptions of two hundred Mexican versus
American employees showed that Mexican females in fact had lower perceptions of
glass ceilings than Mexican males, whereas the reverse gender perception of glass
ceilings was true for American parties. Using Hofstede’s concept of cultural power
distance index, the researchers were able to show that in cultures such as Mexico
where high power distance is a feature of societal norms (meaning there is less wealth
and power mobility within society, and it is relatively accepted as the norm) people are
less likely to recognize social inequality. The recognition and perception of glass
ceilings are negatively correlated with the degree to which society expects social
inequality.
At the same time, ethno-cultural contexts are dynamic and subject to nuance. In the
case of East Asian immigrant professional women in America, who generally
experience a lower social position than their male counterparts in East Asian societies,
the “discovery” of higher gender equality in America leads them to recognize gender-
based glass ceilings much more than their male counterparts, while East Asian
immigrant professional males generally do not recognize gender-based barriers in
achieving professional success or recognition (Gu, 2015).
The other study with exceptional results was by Tai & Sims (2015), who compared over
300 males and females in the high-tech industry. In their research, females and males
reported no difference in levels of perceived glass ceilings, yet the researchers found
significant disparity of promotion between men and women, as evidenced by the inverse
ratios of male/female employees at the junior/middle levels versus senior/executive
levels. Tai & Sims (2015) suggested that females in these companies did not perceive
greater glass ceilings likely due to their high levels of education and work qualifications
similar to their male counterparts, yet individual pyscho-social factors (such as
motivation, confidence, interpersonal role conflict or family conflict and obligations) were
not studied, hence leaving the research with even more questions than it answered.
Within available research, gender is by far the most commonly studied socio-
demographic variable in assessing the antecedents and effects of glass ceilings,
followed by race, age, education. Various studies also consider the attitudinal or
psychological qualities of employees in relation to glass ceilings. For example, Smith,
Crittenden, & Caputi (2012) surveyed 240 Australian women in corporate management
with little control over other socio-demographic variables, only using four attitudinal

factors (resilience, acceptance, resignation, and denial) towards explaining promotion-
seeking behaviours.
The relationship between job seniority and glass ceilings are not as congruent. Cotter,
et al. (2001) have argued specifically that glass ceilings are defined through an
increasing wage gap between discrete sociodemographic groups at higher levels of an
organization, while Arraes, Menezes, & Simonassi (2014) found that in a large cross
section of Brazilian workers in diverse industries, glass ceiling - observed through
earnings disparity - are larger at entry-level roles, rather than senior roles (termed “the
sticky floor” effect”). The incongruence of these two studies’ findings may be due to
contextual factors such as culture and inclusion/exclusion of other moderating factors.
However, to-date there has been very little academic research done on LGBTQ
employees’ experiences of glass ceilings. Of research which has examined LGBTQ
employees’ experiences in corporate glass ceilings (Frank, 2006; McDevitt-Pugh, 2011),
neither employee perceptions of glass-ceilings nor the interplay of other socio-
demographic factors have been thoroughly explored, although both works thoroughly
investigate LGBTQ employees “out-ness” (being comfortable to be seen publicly and
openly as LGBTQ) and experiences of glass ceilings.
The area of overlap between sexual orientation and other socio-demographic factors’
influence on employee perceptions of glass ceilings is unknown. From this perspective,
the proposed research hopes to fill in the gap on explaining how various socio-
demographic factors influence each other, albeit within a very specific population of
LGBTQ employees in the multi-national banking sector in Canada.
2.1.2 Organizational Justice
In order to understand why perceptions of glass ceilings have very real and detrimental
effects on employee behaviours and organizational outcomes, it is helpful to consider
concepts and the basic theories related to organizational justice, as a way of
understanding how individual motivation and trust factors are shaped by social
experiences and interactions.
Organizational justice refers to the fairness of an individual’s treatment received from an
organization (Greenberg, 1990). Ölçer’s overview (2015) of the historical and theoretical
research in organizational justice concludes that justice is generally sub-categorized
through three dimensions - distributive, procedural, and interactional:
 Distributive justice refers to the fairness of how work and rewards are allocated;
 Procedural justice refers to the fairness of procedures used to make
organizational decisions or distributions; and
 Interactional justice refers to the fairness of interpersonal treatment.
In making the connection between objective glass ceiling measures and subjective
perceptions of the various forms of organizational justice, employees may perceive

distributive justice through compensation, benefits, rewards, or promotions in relation to
peers; procedural justice is perceived through decision criteria and consistency in
application when it comes to determining compensation, benefits, or promotions; and
employees perceive interactional justice through interactions with other
employees/stakeholders in organizations.
At the same time, it is important to consider the concept of fairness within its context. By
comparing the surveyed differences in perceptions of glass ceilings between Mexican
female and male employees and American female and male employees, research of
Bennington, Wagman, and Stallone (2005) demonstrate the fundamental influence of a
society’s cultural values on how organizational fairness is defined and perceived.
Available research which examines the relationship between perceptions of
organizational justice utilize similar theoretical models which take into account
sociodemographic factors such as race and gender, but also perceptions of racial
discrimination and representation of minorities within organizations. While Foley, Kidder,
& Powell (2002) survey 100 Hispanic American lawyers, and Hwang (2015) survey 130
Asian American Social workers, both researchers use a model which proposes the
perception of glass ceilings as an antecedent to perceptions of distributive justice,
tested through survey questionnaires which asked the study population on their beliefs
and intentions. This model may arise out of theoretical convenience, given significant
research to support the linkages between perceptions of organizational justice and
organizational outcomes such as employee motivation, job satisfaction, and turnover
intention (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Al-Zu’bi, 2010; Masterson, et al., 2000; Hassan &
Hashim, 2011). One outcome of this research will be to validate the theoretical
correlation between these constructs.
Perception versus Reality
With importance placed on improving perceptions of organizational justice and glass
ceilings as a means of improving organizational outcomes, there lies an unintended and
ironic effect of complacency once improved perceptions of justice or fairness are
achieved. Brown & Diekman (2013) found that the mere presence of female candidates
in a political system (even if they are not elected) improved the perception of female
access and diversity within political systems, which led individuals’ to believe that the
system is fair and just and that status-quo arrangements for gender-equality are
justified. Likewise, Kaiser et al. (2012) contend that the mere presence of diversity
programs in companies increased perceptions that the business environment was fair,
regardless of whether there was representational promotion of minorities, or how the
promotion of minorities was portrayed as equitable.
This caveat reconciles the tension between the “actual” versus “perceived” glass
ceilings, rendering both interpretations of glass ceilings as relevant and mutually
supporting in order to demonstrate true organizational justice and holistically improve
talent attraction, motivation, and retention.

2.1.3 Social Construction of Identity and Intersectionality Theory
Within the concepts of Glass Ceilings and Organizational Justice, both perception and
reality of employee experiences play important roles in determining of organizational
talent outcomes. Inter-group and intra-group outcomes in fairness perceptions can be
traced by how individuals define themselves in relation to peers or a group. As the
interviews conducted by Cech & Blair-Loy (2010) with executive women show, their
experiences of gender-based discrimination is very much contingent on whether they
recognize the often gender-based burdens of family obligations and conflicts, especially
if it is not personally experienced. Their research further suggests that those who have
achieved the greatest success in the workplace or systems of professional
advancement may be most invested in perceiving those systems as legitimate and fair.
In their two research surveys which measured young British participants meta-
stereotype negativity as the focal predictor, recall of personal discrimination as
mediator, and perceived societal fairness as outcome, Owuamalam & Zagefka (2013)
find that the attitudes and behaviours of minority groups’ towards dominant groups are
guided by the need to improve their social identity, and that focusing on (negative)
stereotypes can exacerbate the low subjective well-being of group members. At the
same time, the authors found that the rejection of self-identification of stereotypes by
minorities (through focus on social and human capital aspects) increases the subjective
well-being of individuals.
Their findings are supported by those of Gu (2015), who in examining differences
between Asian American males and female professionals; utilize the status construction
theory to explain intragroup differences in responding to perceived or actual barriers to
advancement. The social construction mechanism posits that shared cultural beliefs or
experiences of status (e.g., gender, race, occupation, social class, age, sexual
orientation etc.) frame individuals’ perceptions, behaviors, and social interactions. In
surveying a relatively homogenous group of female professors in Netherlands, Sanders,
Willemsen, & Millar (2009) found that visible representation contributes to perceptions of
intra-group friendliness and ease with which they became professors.
Social and self-identity acquires significance when differences between these groups
become salient, as is the case when Asian American women define themselves and
experiences of glass ceilings through both gender and race, where Asian American men
defined their experiences of glass ceilings as Asian American; or in the research of Bell
& Nkomo (2001), Owuamalam & Zagefka (2013) who found that black and white women
experience and overcome different forms of barriers.
Collectively, the research outlined in this section demonstrate that gender and race, or
other socio-demographic characteristics, do not operate in social vacuum. Instead,
social identity is constructed by experiences which are unique to individuals’
intersectional location. In other words, Intersectionality Theory is one which recognizes
that individual identity and experiences are located along multiple dimensions of identity
markers such as race, gender, class, sexual orientation (Clark, 2015), and that the

privileges and/or oppressions of these various markers maintain a dynamic relationship
with each other, contesting or reinforcing each other vis-à-vis contextual factors such as
social culture or organizational policy (Wasserman & Frenkel, 2015).
Intersectionality applied to discourse allows for more accurate representation of intra-
group differences of experiences of organizational processes, rather than assuming
uniformity of experience within groups segmented along gender and racial lines (Davis,
2015). The tendency to assume that socio-demographic groups are homogenous fails
to acknowledge intra-group differences in experiences, often to the detriment of further
marginalized groups within minority groups (Crenshaw, 1991) - such as employees who
are black women, or men who outwardly identify as non-heterosexual - by inadvertently
supporting organizational and social policies which further entrench intragroup
marginalization or structural othering.
Despite current research discussed in this literature review recognizing the varying
factors which contribute to differences in perceptions of glass ceilings, the failure to
explicitly take into account the intersection of social identity in employees is concerning.
In a comprehensive review of organizational journals published between 1990 to 2009,
Allison and Banerjee (2014) found that less than 1% of published journals employed the
intersectionality framework, even though this theory was first published in 1989
(Crenshaw, 1989). While intersectionality’s explicitly political nature may deter
organizational research from openly adopting its approach, its intellectual currency must
be recognized in the spirit of this research’s ontological position (discussed in the
following chapter). Intersectionality necessitates a reflection on the individual self,
located within intersections of social privilege and oppression, without falling prey to
reductionist discourse of uniform racial or gendered identity, and ultimately biased
action in organizational measures to improve employee engagement and performance.

2.2 Chapter Summary
In examining the career choices of 63 gay men against 60 heterosexual/straight men,
Chung & Harmon (1994) found that they were more likely to choose less traditional
career paths based on gender norms, preferring more social and artistic careers. By this
conclusion, there should be relatively few gay men within banking in Canada given its
status as a conservative industry. However, their research relied on the surveyed gay
participants being “out” – that is being comfortable to be seen publicly and openly as
gay men. The career paths of “closeted" gay men and women are not accounted for.
To-date, research on glass ceilings has typically been segregated between measuring
actual barriers or disparities or between understanding how employee perceptions
moderate the glass ceiling effect. In practice, both actual and perceived glass ceilings
are relevant and mutually supporting in order to demonstrate true organizational justice
and holistically improve talent attraction, motivation, and retention. Given existing
research on the presence of glass ceiling for LGBTQ employees, but not the
perceptions of glass ceilings, this research aims to consider primarily employees’
perceived glass ceilings.
In order to incorporate a theoretical framework which considers intersectionality and
social identity, this research expands on typical population classifications beyond
gender, race, education, seniority, and job tenure, to include gender non-conformity,
sexual orientation, and degree of being “out”.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter sets out the ontology and epistemology of the research, the methodology
for determining research theoretical orientation and theoretical framework, as well as
discusses the research methods, research design, data analysis techniques, and
research ethics.
3.1 Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology
Ontology, as explained by Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson (2012), is the core
orientation and set of assumptions behind the nature of reality. As the aim of this
research to gain clearer understanding on the nature of individuals’ perceived glass
ceilings, its inception as a matter of study and interest reveal its fundamental ontology of
relativism, placing individual belief and interpretation of experience as valid sources of
truths. At the same time, this research also takes on an internal realist assumption that
Intersectionality theory (discussed in section 2.2.3 of Chapter 2) serves as a unifying
approach in generating and explaining different narratives of experiences across
research topics and populations.
Epistemology is defined as the approach of obtaining and understanding knowledge
given the assumption on the nature of reality (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson,
2012). As this research believes in the relative nature of truth at an individual
experiential level, while also believing in an internally consistent and real theoretical
model (which explains general and not exact nature of observations), the key
epistemology of this research is that of the social constructionist approach, and the
secondary epistemology is weak positivism. The nature of perceived glass ceiling is a
phenomenon which cannot be known without the proxy of human interpretation, as it is
a phenomenon which does not exist without the centrality of the human experience, yet
the outcomes of this research should also be able to test existing theories on the nature
of glass ceilings.
Further, two key epistemological assumptions of this research are 1) discrete socio-
demographic markers exist and are useful in describing participants; 2) that human
interpretation/validation of participant perception of a glass ceiling is significant,
regardless of whether there is an objectively verifiable existence of a glass ceiling. As
discussed in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of Chapter 2, this assumption is based on an
existing body of research which has verified that perceptions of glass ceilings and
organizational justice have tangible effects on employee behaviour and organizational
outcomes.
The proposed research design and data type is through a large survey with quantifiable
survey responses which require participant self-identification of their socio-demographic
markers and response to questions regarding their belief in the existence and nature of
glass ceilings. This data will allow for triangulation and comparison, which support
constructionist theory generation, but also allow for basic correlation testing, which
support positivist theory testing against existing research.

3.2 Theoretical Orientation and Framework
As discussed in literature review sections 2.2.3 and 2.3, Intersectionality theory as
applied to available research on Organizational studies and organizational justice has
not been widely examined. Therefore, the research aims to describe how and whether
survey results support the hypotheses that certain intersectional socio-demographic
factors of individuals correlate to different levels of perceived glass ceilings,
organizational justice, and ultimately advancement orientation, job satisfaction, and
intentions to leave their organization. Studies on organizational justice have
documented very strong linkages between perceptions of organizational justice and
organizational outcomes such as employee motivation, job satisfaction, and turnover
intention (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Al-Zu’bi, 2010; Masterson, et al., 2000; Hassan &
Hashim, 2011).
The theoretical framework of this research is based on adaptation of several existing
studies. The relationships between constructs of perceived discrimination (PD),
Perceived Glass Ceilings (GC), and Organizational Justice (OJ) are adapted from the
theoretical models of Foley (1998); Foley, Kidder & Powell (2002); and Hwang (2015).
The inclusion of gender expression as correlating independent variable, alongside other
socio-demographic variables, is the major contributory development of this study to the
existing body of research on perceived glass ceilings and organizational justice.
3.3 Theoretical Model and Hypotheses
This section discusses the various constructs used in the research theoretical model:
Sociodemographic Variables, Perceived Glass Ceiling, Perceived Organizational
Justice, Advancement Aspirations & Expectations, Job Satisfaction, and Intentions to
Leave.
Socio-demographic Variables
As discussed in Chapter 2, existing research has indicated that socio-demographical
categories such as gender and race do not operate in social vacuums and instead
interact with other socio-demographical factors (Clark, 2015; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis,
2015; Gu, 2015; Bell & Nkomo, 2001; Owuamalam & Zagefka, 2013; Wasserman &
Frenkel, 2015). Recognizing potential intra-group differences occur within different
socio-demographic categories, two additional sociodemographic categories - sexual
orientation and gender expression - are introduced to further explore the effects of
intersectionality in perceptions of discrimination and perceptions of glass ceilings.
The key hypothesis (H0) regarding intersectionality is that within respondent categories
of gender and race, significant differences in perceived discrimination and perceived
glass ceiling can be found within further intra-group classification. For example, women
who identify as LGBTQ will have different levels of perceived discrimination and
perceived glass ceilings from women who identify as heterosexual / straight.

Perceived Glass Ceiling
Also discussed in Chapter 2 is the use of a model in glass ceiling and organizational
justice research which proposes the perception of glass ceilings as an antecedent to
perceptions of organizational justice (Foley, Kidder & Powell, 2002; Hwang, 2015;
Ȍlçer, 2015). Respondents answered four items, adapted from similar scale items used
in these studies, which referred to perceived differences in promotion opportunities,
speed of promotion, likelihood of promotion and compensation at the highest levels of
their organization for minorities based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. The
internal reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the overall 3-item perceived glass
ceiling scale in this study was 0.916.
Items used were: “Members from particular gender / race / sexual orientation groups are
promoted relatively faster than others to the top of the organization”; “Members from
particular gender / race / sexual orientation groups are relatively more likely to be
promoted to the top or the organization”; and “Members from particular gender / race /
sexual orientation groups are relatively more likely to be better compensated/rewarded
at the top of the organization.”
Therefore, these specific null hypotheses were tested:
H01 - Main effect of Gender on Perceived Glass Ceilings:
There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between males and
females.
H02 - Main effect of Sexual Orientation on Perceived Glass Ceilings:
There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between
straight/heterosexual populations and LGBTQ populations.
H03 - Interaction between Gender and Sexual Orientation on Perceived Glass
Ceilings:
Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between genders is
not significantly different for LGBTQ-identified populations than heterosexual-
identified populations.
H04: Main effect of Gender Expression on Perceived Glass Ceilings:
There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between the
population who behave “in-line” with workplace gender norms and the population
who behave “outside” of workplace gender norms.
H05: Main effect of Race on Perceived Glass Ceilings:
White/Caucasian-identified populations and racial/ethnic minority-identified
populations.
H06 - Interaction between Gender Expression and Race/Ethnicity on Perceived
Glass Ceilings:

Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between gender
expression groups is not significantly different for White/Caucasian-identified
populations than Racial/ethnic minorities.
H07 - Interaction between Race and Gender on Perceived Glass Ceilings:
Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between races is not
significantly different for males than females.
The theoretical model also sought to validate existing research findings which state the
positive correlation between perceived organizational justice, employees’ advancement
aspirations and expectations, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention
to leave the firm (Downes, Hemmasi, & Eshghi, 2014; Foley, 1998; Foley, Kidder &
Powell, 2002; Hwang, 2015; Ȍlçer, 2015).
Organizational Justice
Perceived Organizational Justice was assessed with Foley, Kidder & Powell’s (2002) 2-
item organizational justice scale (α = 0.918), which was adapted for bank employees
based on phrasing from items in a similar survey scale used by Ȍlçer (2015).The items
used in this analysis were “Distribution of promotions and rewards is fairly allocated at
work” and “The procedures in determining distributions of promotions, and rewards are
fair at work.”
Advancement Expectations
This construct was assessed with a single item which referred to employee career
expectations. Originally, the scale referred to both employee aspirations and
expectations on career promotion, based on the items used by Hwang (2015) and
Foley, Kidder & Powell (2002). However, coefficient alpha for the original 2-item scale
was 0.536, hence only the item measuring advancement expectations (“I am confident
that if I am willing to put in the work required, I will be promoted in this organization”)
was retained due to its higher correlation among other scale items. The item measuring
Advancement Aspirations (“I aspire to be promoted in this organization”) was removed
to improve the coefficient alpha for the construct of Advancement Expectations.
Job Satisfaction
This construct was measured using a scale adapted from Ȍlçer (2015) in measuring
employee job satisfaction and turnover intention within a Turkish manufacturing
company. The internal reliability coefficient of the overall job satisfaction scale in this
study was 0.799. The items used in this analysis were “In general, I enjoy working for
this organization” and “In general, I feel comfortable being myself at work.”
Intentions to leave
This item was assessed with a scale adapted from the one used by Foley, Kidder &
Powell’s (2002) and Ȍlçer (2015). Coefficient alpha for this 2-item scale was 0.805. The
items used in this analysis were: “I have thoughts about leaving this organization” and “I
am actively seeking to leave this organization.”

Therefore, these additional hypotheses were tested for correlation:
H1: Higher levels of perceived glass ceilings are antecedents to lower levels of
perceived organizational justice (negative correlation).
H2: Perceived organizational justice (OJ) is positively correlated with higher
employee advancement expectations (AE).
H3: Perceived organizational justice (OJ) is positively correlated with higher
employee job satisfaction (JS).
H4: Perceived organizational justice (OJ) is negatively correlated with employee
intentions to leave the organization (IL).
Figure 3.1 presents the proposed model of the antecedents and consequences of
perceived organizational justice for employees at Canadian multinational banks. The
model is further divided into Sections 1 and 2 to delineate the key relationships
examined within the theoretical model.
Figure 3.1 Proposed model indicating hypotheses and survey questions used to
represent model constructs
* denotes survey questions (coded by item) related to construct. See Table 3.2 and
Table 3.3 for details of each item.
Perceived
Organizational
Justice (OJ)
H1 (-)
H4 (-)
H3 (+)
H2 (+)
Theoretical Model Section 1
Advancement
Expectations (AE)
Job Satisfaction (JS)
Intentions to Leave (IL)
*AAE2
*JS1
*JS2
*IL1
*IL2
Perceived
Glass Ceiling (GC)
*GC2 *GC3 *GC4 *OJ-D *OJ-P
Gender
Sexual
Orientation
Gender
Expression
Race /
Ethnicity
Socio-Demographic Variables
*DEM01 *DEM02 *DEM03 *DEM06
H01, b, c, d, e, f, g

Section 1 of the theoretical model explores the relationships between the constructs of
Socio-demographic variables are hypothesized as independent variables and perceived
glass ceilings as the dependent variable.
Section 2 of the theoretical model explores the relationships between the constructs of
Organizational Justice as the independent variable and constructs of Advancement
Aspirations and Expectations, Job Satisfaction, and Intentions to Leave as dependent
variables. Figure 3.2 lists the construct relationships within the model.
Figure 3.2 Theoretical Model Constructs and their relationships
Construct Name Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Socio Demographic Factors 
Perceived Glass Ceiling 
Organizational Justice 
Advancement Aspirations &
Expectations

Job Satisfaction 
Intentions to Leave 

3.4 Research Methods
3.4.1 Procedures
Quantitative research was conducted using an online survey questionnaire. The
researcher obtained permission and assistance from three of the five largest (by assets)
Canadian multinational banks’ LGBTQ Employee Resource Groups (“Pride ERGs”) in
distributing the online survey invitation. One Pride ERG distributed the survey invitation
to their membership via email, while the other two posted the survey URL on their
internal social media / chat groups.
3.4.2 Research Sampling
The study population for this research included all members of the three participating
bank’s employee resource groups consisting of approximately 1000 individuals.
However, due to varying levels of members’ engagement and accessibility (for example,
some Pride ERG members opt out of receiving emails, or they never visit their bank’s
internal Pride ERG social media page), the accessible sampling frame is typically lower
(Trochim, 2006). For this study, the sampling frame was approximately 320 individuals,
based on the number of email recipients of one bank, as well as “view counts” of the
social media posts of the other two banks, as provided by the banks’ Pride ERG social
media sites’ visitor tracking tools.
A total of 116 responses remained after discarding responses with a significant
proportion of missing items (n=12), determined to be where responses had >20% of
questions were unanswered.
3.5 Research Design
The survey questionnaire was made available through a dedicated internet webpage,
hosted by www.surveymonkey.com, a web-based survey-hosting service. Participants
were able to access the survey for a period of 15 days during December 2015.
3.5.1 Pilot Study
Prior to the survey being administered, a pilot study was conducted for the survey with
four respondents in order to understand whether the questionnaire was easy to
understand and whether the answers yielded would address the research questions
effectively. Based on feedback from all four pilot survey respondents, the original
questionnaire was amended to improve readability through clarification of the term
“glass ceiling”. Two pilot survey participants also expressed that Questions #11, #12,
and #13 were visually similar to each other and difficult to discern the key construct
examined, so the text of these questions were reformatted through adding emphasis by
underlining key words. Highlighting the differences in the question constructs was
expected to yield a decrease in participant fatigue and non-response. There were no
other significant changes in the format, order, or content of the survey questions.

Of the four pilot survey participants, three were individuals which fit the research
population criteria, and the other individual did not work within one of the targeted
organizations. None of the pilot survey participants’ responses were included in the
analysis, due to breach of anonymity and possible social desirability bias, as a result
from knowing that their responses would not be anonymous.
3.5.2 Survey Design
Participants were informed via the introductory text on the landing page of the nature,
purpose, commitment, of the survey and research (Figure 3.3). The survey instrument
contained thirty-one questions, asked on five subsequent pages, where participants
were able to track their completion progress (Figure 3.4) via a display bar located at the
top of each survey page. Content and format of questions were adapted from those
contained in the research of Foley (1998); Foley, Kidder & Powell (2002); and Hwang
(2015).
Consisting of two-parts, the survey’s first three pages (twenty-two questions) asked of
participants’ perceptions of glass ceilings, perceived discrimination, and level of
perceived organizational justice, career advancement and achievement orientation, as
well as intentions to leave the organization. See table Questions in this section were
developed in order to support correlation and regression testing of the theoretical
framework model (Figure 3.1) All items in this first section were measured on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly agree” to 5 “strongly disagree”, with 3 “neutral /
undecided” in the middle. A sixth “decline to answer” option was available for all
questions. See Table 3.2 for a listing of survey instrument questions and answer-
options of questions numbered 1 to 22.
The last two pages (nine questions) sought demographic characteristics such as
gender, gender-presentation, race, age, career-level, education-level, relationship
status, and whether they had dependent children. All items in this first section contained
nominal values, selectable from close-ended multiple choices. A “decline to answer”
option was available for all questions. See Table 3.3 for a listing of survey instrument
questions and answer-options of questions numbered 23 to 31.
3.6 Data Collection and Preparation
All survey data was collected via the web-based survey-hosting service, where the final
dataset was exported in a file format compatible with the statistical software packaged
used during data analysis, IBM SPSS Statistics Version 21. Before publication, all
survey answer values (in string-form) were assigned hidden numerical values to
minimize translation error during the data transfer process.

3.7 Data Analysis
The data analysis was carried out in four main steps, with different methods used to
interpret the data for Sections 1 and 2 of the theoretical model. For Section 1, regarding
the inter-group relationships of sociodemographic factors on levels of perceived glass
ceilings, descriptive statistics were first used to understand the demographic profiles of
the respondents, and basic features of the dataset (Trochim, 2006). At the same time,
sociodemographic constructs and their categorical variables were re-coded for data
reduction purposes (See Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Re-coded Sociodemographic Categorical Variables
Socio-
demographic
construct
Survey Items Re-coded to
Variable
SPSS value
assigned
Gender
Decline to Answer - 2
Male - 0
Female - 1
Transgender male / Trans-man
Non-cisgender 3Transgender female / Trans-woman
Gender-queer / Androgynous
Gender
Expression
Generally in-line with my workplace gender "norms" - 0
Strongly more masculine than workplace gender "norms"
Not in-line with
workplace
gender
"norms"
1
Slightly more masculine than workplace gender "norms"
Strongly more feminine than workplace gender "norms"
Slightly more feminine than workplace gender "norms"
Androgynous / gender non-conforming
Sexual
Orientation
Straight / Heterosexual - 0
Gay / Lesbian / Homosexual
LGBTQ 1
Bisexual
Queer / Pansexual
Asexual / Auto-sexual
Race /
Ethnicity
White / Caucasian - 0
Aboriginal / Indigenous
Racial / Ethnic
Minority
1
Arab
Black / African / Afro-Caribbean Canadian
East Asian
Hispanic / Latino
South Asian
South East Asian
Multiple race / ethnicity

Second, proceeding descriptive statistics analysis section 1 in the theoretical model,
two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the independent variables to
examine test null hypotheses H01 to H07 – that is to see what, if any, differences in
levels of perceived glass ceilings exist within and between sociodemographic groups.
Analysis of profile plots was used as a tool for examining the relative behavior of all
variables in a multivariate data set.
Third, to prepare data for inferential analysis for model section 2, basic descriptive and
correlation analysis were performed on the constructs of perceived glass ceiling,
perceived organizational justice, advancement aspirations and expectations, job
satisfaction, and intentions to leave. Thereafter, both a reliability analysis and principal
factor analysis with an Oblique (Direct Oblimin) rotation method were conducted on the
construct scales for data reduction purposes, due to oblique rotation’s ability to produce
more accurate and reproducible results for factors expected to be correlated (Costello &
Osborne, 2005). Cronbach Alpha coefficients of the scales were computed using
reliability analysis to verify internal consistency of constructs discussed in Section 3.3.
Based on the coding of survey questions to the constructs being examined, Likert scale
values were treated as ordinal values. Subsequently, item-total correlation testing was
conducted to consolidate various items within each scale, to yield an average measure
of each construct with multiple items (Perceived Glass Ceilings, Perceived
Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction, and Intentions to Leave).
Fourth, correlation testing was used to further verify research hypotheses 1 to 4 (Figure
3.1), and subsequently identify the most significantly correlated items between the
model constructs (Figure 3.2). Specifically, Pearson’s R correlation test was the chosen
statistical method since the framework construct items consisted entirely of ordinal data
of which the scales were uniform across all questions. Statistical significance was
considered for p-values less than 0.05.
Detailed findings from descriptive statistical analysis is presented and discussed in
Chapter 4, and further discussions on implications of results are discussed in Chapter 5.
3.8 Research Reliability and Validity
According to Mohamad, et al. (2014), reliability of research refers to the characteristic
that the results of an instrument are stable, consistent, and repeatable under similar
conditions. Validity, on the other hand, requires that the research results are relevant
and meaningful to the research questions and hypotheses. Both characteristics of
research shape, in tandem, the robustness of any research.
To ensure reliability of research, the theoretical models and survey instrument questions
were replicated closely to previous research on related constructs (as indicated in
Section 3.3. In practice, however, the research context and researchers’ interpretation
of results may yield variances. The specific findings need to be qualified with reference
to the difference in context. Nonetheless, because the methods used in this research

are clearly described and can be reproduced under similar contexts with little difficulty,
the research is considered reliable.
In addition to referencing previously completed studies, this research sought the input of
Pilot survey respondents to ensure the internal validity of the research, where
participants provided feedback on the ease-of-completion and relevancy of the
questions towards the overall research topic. Although online-surveys generally have
poor completion rates relative to paper-based questionnaires (Nulty, 2008), the results
from the sample of this survey instrument are discussed with 90% confidence level with
a 6.5% margin of error, or a 95% confidence level with a 7.7% margin of error based on
a sample size calculator available from Raosoft (2004).
During research design phase, alternative non-survey-based data collection methods
were strategized in the event the initial data interpretation proved that survey results
and participant rates would not support robust analysis.
3.9 Ethics and Participant Rights
All steps and methods used in this research were conducted in reference to the
supervising research ethics committee’s approved ethics response form.
In all invitations made to the Pride Employee Resource Groups, copies of the approved
research ethics response form were provided for the Chairs of these organizations to
understand the code of ethics required by the supervising research ethics committee,
and to assure the organizations of the standards followed in soliciting, collecting,
analyzing, and publishing their memberships’ response.
On the survey landing page (Figure 3.3), all participants were provided a participant
information sheet integrated into the survey tool, where the following items were
specifically addressed and/or explained in understandable language, as verified by pilot
survey participants:
i. Purpose and anticipated benefits of the research;
ii. Sample inclusion criteria;
iii. Nature of participation is voluntary, without remuneration, private, and
confidential;
iv. Disclaimer of potentially sensitive questions;
v. Option to decline or discontinue survey any time;
vi. Contact information of the researcher and research advisor;
vii. Researcher’s potential conflict of interest with involved organizations
Further, within the online-survey tool, options to record individually-identifying
information such as IP-address were actively disabled to ensure that individuals’
workplace location would not be inadvertently stored within survey results, as a means
of further protecting participant anonymity and reducing the risk exposure of
confidentiality breach.

Figure 3.3 Survey Instrument Welcome Page and Participant Information Sheet (PIS)
Figure 3.4 Survey Instrument Sample Question Page

Table 3.2 Listing of all Original Survey Questions and Answers – Items 1 to 22
Question
#
Item /
Corresponding
Model Construct
Question
Answer Options
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 PD1 I feel alienated or discriminated against at work because of my gender
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
2 PD2
There are colleagues who feel alienated or discriminated against at
work because of their gender
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
3 PD3
I feel alienated or discriminated against at work because of how I
express my gender
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
4 PD4
work because of how they express their gender
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
5 PD5
I feel alienated or discriminated against at work because of my sexual
orientation
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
6 PD6
work because of their sexual orientation
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
7
PD7 (Reverse
Coded)
I am comfortable discussing aspects of my life which may reveal /
disclose my sexual orientation.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
8 PD8 I feel alienated or discriminated against at work because of my race
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
9 PD9
work because of their race
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
10
GC1 (Reverse
Coded)
There are equal opportunities for members from minority gender /
race / sexual orientation groups to be promoted to the top of the
organization.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
11 GC2
Members from particular gender / race / sexual orientation groups are
promoted relatively faster than others to the top of the organization
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
12 GC3
relatively more likely to be promoted to the top or the organization
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
13 GC4
relatively more likely to be better compensated/rewarded at the top of
the organization.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
14 SJ
I am aware of what my organization is doing to improve employee
diversity and inclusion.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
15 OJ-D Distribution of promotions and rewards is fairly allocated at work.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
16 OJ-P
The procedures in determining distributions of promotions, and
rewards are fair at work.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
17 AAE1 I aspire to be promoted in this organization
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
18 AAE2
I am confident that if I am willing to put in the work required, I will be
promoted in this organization.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
19 JS1 In general, I enjoy working for this organization.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
20 JS2 In general, I feel comfortable being myself at work.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
21 IL1 I have thoughts about leaving this organization.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer
22 IL2 I am actively seeking to leave this organization.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral /
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Decline to
Answer

Table 3.3 Listing of all Original Survey Questions and Answers – Items 23 to 31
Question #
Item /
Corresponding
Model
Construct
Question
Answer Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
23 DEM01
With which gender
below do you most
identify?
Transgender
female /
Trans-woman
Female
Transgender
male / Trans-
man
Male
Gender-
queer /
Androgynou
s
Decline to
Answer
24 DEM02
Which of the
following best
describes your gender
expression in the
workplace? Gender
expression can be
described in terms
of outward
appearance, body
language, speech,
and general
behaviour.
Strongly
more
masculine
than
workplace ge
nder "norms"
Slightly
more
masculine
than workpl
ace gender
"norms"
Strongly more
feminine than
workplace
gender
"norms"
Slightly
more
feminine
than
workplace
gender
"norms"
Generally
in-line with
my
workplace
gender
"norms"
Androgyn
ous /
gender
non-
conformin
g
Decline to
Answer
25 DEM03
Which of the following
best
describes your sexual
orientation?
Gay / Lesbian
/ Homosexual
Bisexual
Straight /
Heterosexual
Queer /
Pansexual
Asexual /
Auto-sexual
Decline to
Answer
26 DEM04
best describes your
current position level?
Senior
Leadership /
Executive
Senior
Manageme
nt
Supervisory /
Middle
Management
Employee
Decline to
Answer
27 DEM05 What is your age? 18-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59
60 or
older
Decline to
Answer
28 DEM06
With which
race/ethnicity below
do you most identify?
Aboriginal /
Indigenous
Arab
Black / African
/ Afro-
Caribbean
Canadian
East Asian
Hispanic /
Latino
South
Asian
South
East
Asian
White /
Caucasia
n
Multiple
race /
ethnicity
Decline to
Answer
29 DEM07
What is the highest
level of school you
have completed, or
the highest degree
you have received?
Elementary
school or
equivalent
High school
degree or
equivalent
Some college
but no degree
Associate
degree
College
Undergradu
ate /
Bachelor's
degree
Graduate
degree
Post-
Graduate
degree
Decline to
Answer
30 DEM08
best describes your
current relationship
status?
Married /
Common-law
union
Widowed
Separated /
Divorced
Single
Decline to
Answer
31 DEM09
Do you have
children?
Yes and they
are
dependent on
my daily care
Yes and
they are not
dependent
on my daily
care
No
Decline to
Answer

4. RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the survey. The table below provides an overall summary of the results – the
hypotheses tested, the variables and main methods involved in testing the hypotheses, as well as the outcome and
chapter sections which present in detail each hypothesis’ testing outcomes.
Table 4.1 Overall Summary of Hypotheses, Variables, Testing Methods, Outcomes, and corresponding Chapter Sections
Hypothesis Tested Variables involved Method used Outcome Section
H01
There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between males and
females.
i. Gender;
ii. Perceived Glass Ceilings
Two-way
ANOVA
Failed to Reject
Null Hypothesis
4.3.1H02
i. Sexual Orientation
Failed to Reject
Null Hypothesis
H03
Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between genders is
not significantly different for LGBTQ-identified populations than heterosexual-
identified populations.
i. Gender;
ii. Sexual Orientation;
iii. Perceived Glass Ceilings
Failed to Reject
Null Hypothesis
H04
There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between the
population who behave “in-line” with workplace gender norms and the
population who behave “outside” of workplace gender norms.
i. Perceived Organizational Justice
i. Job Satisfaction Gender
Expression;
Failed to Reject
Null Hypothesis
4.3.2
H05
populations.
i. Race
Rejected Null
Hypothesis
H06
Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between gender
expression groups is not significantly different for White/Caucasian-identified
populations than Racial/ethnic minorities.
i. Gender;
ii. Sexual Orientation;
Failed to Reject
Null Hypothesis
H07
Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between races is
not significantly different for males than females.
i. Race;
ii. Gender;
Failed to Reject
Null Hypothesis
4.3.3
H1
Higher levels of perceived glass ceilings are antecedents to lower levels of
perceived organizational justice (negative correlation).
i. Perceived Glass Ceiling
ii. Perceived Organizational Justice
Factor Analysis
and Bivariate
Correlation
Significant
linear
correlation
4.4
&
4.5
H2
Perceived organizational justice (OJ) is positively correlated with higher
employee advancement expectations (AE).
ii. Advancement Expectations
Significant
linear
correlation
H3
Perceived organizational justice (OJ) is positively correlated with higher
employee job satisfaction (JS).
ii. Job Satisfaction
Significant
linear
correlation
H4
Perceived organizational justice (OJ) is negatively correlated with employee
intentions to leave the organization (IL).
ii. Intentions to Leave
Significant
linear
correlation

To further present the results of the survey, Sections 4.1 and 4.2 provide a breakdown
of the survey responses used in hypotheses-testing. Sections 4.3 to 4.5 present the
findings from survey analysis using methods described in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3.
Finally, Section 4.6 summarizes the outcomes of the survey vis-à-vis the targeted
hypotheses as well as the variables and methods used to test the hypotheses.
As discussed in section 3.4.2 of research sampling, a total of 116 valid surveys
remained after discarding responses with a significant proportion of missing items
(n=12), determined to be where responses had >20% of questions were unanswered.
Of the remaining surveys, questions which received a “Decline to Answer” response
were coded “Missing”.

4.1 Descriptive Statistics on Sociodemographic Items
Descriptive statistics for all valid sociodemographic items are found in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2 Descriptive Results of all Valid Sociodemographic Items
Demographic Variables Frequency Total Valid Percentage
Gender (re-coded)#
Male 66 56.9
Female 46 39.7
Non-Cisgender 4 3.4
Total 116 100
Gender Expression (re-coded) #
Generally in line with workplace gender norms 76 66.1
Not in line with workplace gender norms 39 33.9
Decline to Answer 1
Total 116 100
Sexual Orientation (re-coded) #
Straight / Heterosexual 31 27.4
LGBTQ 82 72.6
Decline to Answer 3
Total 116 100
Race / Ethnicity (re-coded) #
White / Caucasian 86 74.8
Racial / Ethnic Minority 29 25.2
Decline to Answer 1
Total 116 100
Career Level
Employee 53 46.1
Supervisory / Mid-Management 50 43.5
Senior Management 11 9.6
Executive 1 0.9
Decline to Answer 1
Total 116 100
Age Range
18-20 1 0.9
21-29 28 24.3
30-39 41 35.7
40-49 25 21.7
50-59 18 15.7
60+ 2 1.7
Decline to Answer 1
Total 116 100
Education
HS or Equivalent 11 9.5
Some college no degree 22 19
Associate degree 4 3.4
Undergrad 49 42.2
Graduate 19 16.4
Post-grad 11 9.5
Total 116 100
Relationship Status
Single 46 40.4
Separated / Divorced 4 3.5
Married / Common-law 64 56.1
Decline to Answer 2
Total 116 100
Possession of Children
Yes and Dependent 13 11.2
Yes not Dependent 11 9.5
No 92 79.3
Total 116 100
#
Pre-coded Survey Questions are found in Table 3.1

4.2 Descriptive Statistics on Non-Sociodemographic Constructs
The following table presents the overall number of responses to the questions
pertaining to non-socio-demographic constructs. Further breakdown of contributing
questions and their responses will be provided for each construct scale in sub-sections
4.2.1 to 4.2.5.
Table 4.3 Survey Questions Contributing to Non-Sociodemographic Constructs
Survey Question
N
Valid Missing
Members from particular gender / race / sexual orientation
groups are more likely to be promoted to the top or the
organization, relative to others.
116 0
groups are promoted faster to the top of the organization,
relative to others.
116 0
groups are more likely to be better compensated at the top of
the organization, relative to others.
116 0
Distribution of promotions and rewards are fairly allocated at
work.
114 2
The procedures in determining distribution of promotions and
rewards are fair at work.
113 3
I am confident that if I am willing to put in the work required, I
will be promoted in this organization.
116 0
In general, I enjoy working for this organization. 116 0
In general, I feel comfortable being myself at work. 116 0
I have thoughts about leaving this organization. 114 2
I am actively seeking to leave this organization. 114 2

4.2.1 Perceived Glass Ceilings
This construct consisted of three survey questions, responses as presented below.
Perceived Glass Ceilings.
Members from particular gender / race / sexual orientation groups are more likely to be
promoted to the top or the organization, relative to others.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 12 10.3 10.3 10.3
Disagree 28 24.1 24.1 34.5
Neutral / Undecided 18 15.5 15.5 50.0
Agree 43 37.1 37.1 87.1
Strongly Agree 15 12.9 12.9 100.0
Total 116 100.0 100.0
Members from particular gender / race / sexual orientation groups are promoted faster to
the top of the organization, relative to others.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 28 24.1 24.1 35.3
Agree 39 33.6 33.6 87.1
Strongly Agree 15 12.9 12.9 100.0
Total 116 100.0 100.0
Members from particular gender / race / sexual orientation groups are more likely to be
better compensated at the top of the organization, relative to others.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 28 24.1 24.1 37.9
Agree 24 20.7 20.7 87.1
Strongly Agree 15 12.9 12.9 100.0
Total 116 100.0 100.0

4.2.2 Perceived Organizational Justice
This construct consisted of two survey questions, responses as presented below.
Perceived Organizational Justice.
Distribution of promotions and rewards are fairly allocated at work.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 33 28.4 28.9 39.5
Agree 41 35.3 36.0 96.5
Strongly Agree 4 3.4 3.5 100.0
Total 114 98.3 100.0
Missing 0 2 1.7
Total 116 100.0
The procedures in determining distribution of promotions and rewards are fair at work.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 27 23.3 23.9 35.4
Agree 33 28.4 29.2 93.8
Total 113 97.4 100.0
Missing 0 3 2.6
Total 116 100.0

4.2.3 Advancement Expectations
This construct consisted of one survey question, responses as presented below.
Advancement Expectations
I am confident that if I am willing to put in the work required, I will be promoted in this
organization.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 17 14.7 14.7 18.1
Agree 41 35.3 35.3 69.8
Strongly Agree 35 30.2 30.2 100.0
Total 116 100.0 100.0
4.2.4 Job Satisfaction
This construct consisted of two survey questions, as presented below.
Job Satisfaction.
In general, I enjoy working for this organization.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 2 1.7 1.7 3.4
Agree 57 49.1 49.1 62.9
Strongly Agree 43 37.1 37.1 100.0
Total 116 100.0 100.0

In general, I feel comfortable being myself at work.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 11 9.5 9.5 12.1
Agree 51 44.0 44.0 62.9
Strongly Agree 43 37.1 37.1 100.0
Total 116 100.0 100.0
4.2.5 Intentions to Leave
This construct consisted of two survey questions, as presented below.
Intentions to Leave.
I have thoughts about leaving this organization.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 32 27.6 28.1 43.9
Agree 36 31.0 31.6 92.1
Total 114 98.3 100.0
Missing 0 2 1.7
Total 116 100.0
I am actively seeking to leave this organization.
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 45 38.8 39.5 71.1
Agree 8 6.9 7.0 98.2
Total 114 98.3 100.0
Missing 0 2 1.7
Total 116 100.0

4.3 Two-way ANOVA of Sociodemographic-related Model Constructs
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed on the re-coded
independent sociodemographic variables to examine test null hypotheses H01 to H07 -
that is to see what, if any, differences in levels of perceived glass ceilings exist within
and between sociodemographic groups.
4.3.1 Main and Interaction Effects of Gender and Sexual Orientation of Perceived
Glass Ceilings
The assumption of homogeneity of variances was tested and found untenable using
Levene’s Test, F (3,105) = 2.942, p = .037. Contributing to the violation of this
assumption is the wide difference between group sizes (e.g., 3 straight/heterosexual
males compared to 62 LGBTQ males). Nonetheless, results are presented below.
For null hypotheses H01, H02, and H03 which sought to test the main and interaction
effects of Gender and Sexual Orientation on levels of perceived glass ceilings, A
2(Gender: male vs female) x 2 (Sexual Orientation: Straight/Heterosexual vs LGBTQ)
between subjects ANOVA was conducted to study to study levels of perceived glass
ceilings between women and men as a function of sexual orientation.
Main effects of gender were not considered significant due to p-value, F (1,109) =
2.132, p = .147, despite men (M = 2.96, SD = 1.28) having notably lower perceptions of
glass ceilings than women (M = 3.16, SD =.93), based on profile plot analysis of these
two variables (Figure 4.1).
Similarly, main effects of sexual orientation were not considered significant, F (1,109) =
1.423, p = .236, and Straight / Heterosexual populations (M = 3.01, SD = .99) had
negligibly lower perceptions of glass ceilings than LGBTQ populations (M = 3.05, SD =
1.21).
Interaction effect of gender and sexual orientation was also not significant, F (1,109) =
.694, p¸= .407, indicating failure to reject null hypotheses H01, H02, and H03. See
Table 4.9, Table 4.10, for additional information.
H01 - There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between males
and females.
H02 - There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between
H03 - Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between
genders is not significantly different for LGBTQ-identified populations than
heterosexual-identified populations.

Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics – Gender and Sexual Orientation Two-
way ANOVA with Perceived Glass Ceiling Levels
Dependent
Variable:
Glass Ceiling Index
Gender Mean
Std.
Deviation N
Male Straight / Heterosexual 2.2223 1.57521 3
LGBTQ 3.0000 1.26607 62
Total 2.9642 1.27764 65
Female Straight / Heterosexual 3.1026 .90316 26
LGBTQ 3.2407 .98229 18
Total 3.1591 .92759 44
Total Straight / Heterosexual 3.0115 .98993 29
LGBTQ 3.0542 1.20647 80
Total 3.0428 1.14854 109
Table 4.10 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – Gender and Sexual
Orientation
Dependent
Variable:
Glass Ceiling Index
Source Type III Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 2.931
a
3 .977 .735 .533
Intercept 301.626 1 301.626 226.971 .000
Gender 2.833 1 2.833 2.132 .147
Sexual
Orientation
1.891 1 1.891 1.423 .236
Gender * Sexual
Orientation .922 1 .922 .694 .407
Error 139.536 105 1.329
Total 1151.687 109
Corrected Total 142.467 108
a. R Squared = .021 (Adjusted R Squared = -.007)

Figure 4.1 Profile Plot of Main and Interaction Effects of Gender and Sexual Orientation
on levels of Perceived Glass Ceilings
4.3.2 Main and Interaction Effects of Gender Expression and Race/Ethnicity on
Perceived Glass Ceilings
For null hypotheses H04, H05, and H06 which sought to test the main and interaction
effects of Gender Expression and Race/Ethnicity on levels of perceived glass ceilings,
A 2(Gender Expression: in-line with workplace “norms” vs. not in-line with workplace
“norms”) x 2 (Race/Ethnicity: White/Caucasian vs Racial/Ethnic Minority) between
subjects ANOVA was conducted to study to study levels of perceived glass ceilings
between gender expression conformity as a function of race/ethnicity. The assumption
of homogeneity of variances was tested and found tenable using Levene’s Test, F
(3,110) = 1.007, p = .392.
Main effects of gender expression were not considered significant due to p-value, F
(1,114) = .47, p = .49, as both gender expression conforming (M = 3.07, SD = 1.07) and
non-conforming had same levels of perceived glass ceilings (M = 3.16, SD = 1.27). This
test failed to reject null hypothesis H04:
H04: There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between the
population who behave “in-line” with workplace gender norms and the population
who behave “outside” of workplace gender norms.
Race/ethnicity, however, showed significant main effects, F (1,109) = 6.13, p = .01 and
Racial/ethnic minorities (M = 2.96, SD = 1.02) had significantly higher perceptions of

glass ceiling levels than White/Caucasian populations (M = 2.96, SD = 1.14), rejecting
the null-hypothesis that:
H05: There is no difference in the mean perceived glass ceiling between
populations.
Instead, the alternative hypothesis is written as:
Ha5: Main effect of Race on Perceived Glass Ceilings:
Race has a significant effect on levels of Perceived Glass Ceilings.
Interaction effect of gender expression and race was not significant, F (1,109) = 1.07,
p¸= .30, indicating failure to reject null hypotheses H06:
H06 - Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between
gender expression groups is not significantly different for White/Caucasian-
identified populations than Racial/ethnic minorities.
See Table 4.11, Table 4.12, and Figure 4.2 for illustration.
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics – Gender Expression and Race/Ethnicity Two-way
ANOVA with Perceived Glass Ceiling Levels
Dependent
Variable:
Glass Ceiling Index
Gender Expression Mean
Std.
Deviation N
In-line with gender
norms
White / Caucasian 2.99 1.08 59.00
Racial / Ethnic Minority 3.35 1.00 17.00
Total 3.07 1.07 76.00
Not in-line with
gender norms
White / Caucasian 2.90 1.29 27.00
Total 3.16 1.27 38.00
Total White / Caucasian 2.96 1.14 86.00
Total 3.10 1.14 114.00

Table 4.12 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – Gender Expression and
Race/Ethnicity
Dependent
Variable:
Glass Ceiling Index
Mean
Square F Sig.
a
3.00 2.70 2.15 0.10
Intercept 833.525 1.00 833.53 664.91 0.00
Gender Expression .593 1.00 0.59 0.47 0.49
Race Ethnicity 7.681 1.00 7.68 6.13 0.01
Gender Expression
* Race Ethnicity 1.339 1.00 1.34 1.07 0.30
Error 137.895 110.00 1.25
Total 1241.134 114.00
Corrected Total 145.985 113.00
a. R Squared = .055 (Adjusted R Squared = .030)
Figure 4.2 Profile Plot of Main and Interaction Effects of Gender Expression and
Race/Ethnicity on levels of Perceived Glass Ceilings

4.3.3 Main and Interaction Effects of Gender and Race/Ethnicity on Perceived
Glass Ceilings
For null hypotheses H07 which sought to test the interaction effects of Gender and
Race on levels of perceived glass ceilings, again a 2(Gender: male vs female) x 2
(Race/Ethnicity: White/Caucasian vs Racial/Ethnic Minority) between subjects ANOVA
was conducted to study to study levels of perceived glass ceilings between gender as a
function of race/ethnicity.
Interaction effect of gender and sexual orientation was not significant, F (1,111) = .445,
p¸= .506, indicating failure to reject null hypotheses H07. Note for this way ANOVA
Race/Ethnicity again demonstrated significance as a main effect, F (1,114) = 4.495, p =
.036. Despite non-significance of gender main effects again, F (1,114) = 1.245, p =
.267, from profile plot analysis of Figure 4.3. The higher perceived level of glass ceilings
in women is also noted in Figure 4.1, which examines the main and interaction effects
between sexual orientation and gender. Nonetheless, this test fails to reject the null
hypothesis:
H07 - Interaction between Race and Gender on Perceived Glass Ceilings:
Magnitude of difference in perceived levels of glass ceilings between races is not
significantly different for males than females.
Table 4.13 and Table 4.14 provide additional information on the Two-way ANOVA on
Gender and Race/Ethnicity with Perceived Glass Ceiling Levels as the dependent.
Table 4.13 Descriptive Statistics – Gender and Race/Ethnicity Two-way ANOVA with
Perceived Glass Ceiling Levels
Dependent
Variable:
Glass Ceiling Index
Gender Mean
Std.
Deviation N
Male White / Caucasian 2.90 1.29 51.000
Total 2.98 1.27 66.000
Female White / Caucasian 3.01 0.90 33.000
Total 3.20 0.96 45.000
Total White / Caucasian 2.94 1.15 84.000
Total 3.07 1.16 111.000

Table 4.14 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – Gender and
Race/Ethnicity
Dependent
Variable:
Glass Ceiling Index
Mean
Square F Sig.
a
3.00 2.45 1.877 0.138
Intercept 831.717 1.00 831.72 636.671 0.000
Gender 1.626 1.00 1.63 1.245 0.267
Race Ethnicity 5.872 1.00 5.87 4.495 0.036
Gender * Race
Ethnicity
.581 1.00 0.58 0.445 0.506
Error 139.780 107.00 1.31
Total 1192.687 111.00
Corrected Total 147.137 110.00
a. R Squared = .050 (Adjusted R Squared = .023)
Figure 4.3 Profile Plot of Main and Interaction Effects of Gender and Race/Ethnicity on
levels of Perceived Glass Ceilings

Karen Tsang (2016) - Perceived Glass Ceilings

Karen Tsang (2016) - Perceived Glass Ceilings

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Karen Tsang (2016) - Perceived Glass Ceilings

Similar to Karen Tsang (2016) - Perceived Glass Ceilings (20)

Karen Tsang (2016) - Perceived Glass Ceilings