To Wear Hijab or Not: Muslim Women’s Perceptions of Their
Healthcare Workplaces
Terrie C. Reeves
University of North Carolina Greensboro
Laila Azam
Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, WI
This study explored relationships among women’s choices to disclose a possibly stigmatizing religious
persuasion, and their organizational citizenship, commitment, and justice perceptions. Hijabis perceived
greater support from and were more committed to their organizations than non-hijabis; the two groups
did not differ in overall organizational justice perceptions. Multivariate analysis found that the
combination of wearing hijab, performing externally oriented citizenship behaviors, and being
organizationally committed were significantly related to a woman’s perception that her organization was
interactionally just, but not that it was distributively or procedurally just. Positive organizational
outcomes resulting from encouraging workers to disclose stigmatizing characteristics are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Since 9/11 the media have implicitly stereotyped Muslims as aggressive terrorism supporters whose
way of thinking is anathema to Western values (Peer, 2010; Schevitz, 2002). Muslims are assumed to be
intrinsically more religious than Christians or Jews (Fischer, Greitemeyer, & Kastenniüller, 2007), and
Muslim women have been viewed as the recipients of unequal treatment, suppressed by their (male)
family members (Bartkowski & Read, 2003). However, a prominently reported New York Times poll
showed that U.S. Muslims are thriving (Goodstein, 2009). “American Muslim women, contrary to
stereotype, are more likely than American Muslim men to have college and post-graduate degrees. They
are more highly educated than women in every other religious group except Jews. American Muslim
women also report incomes more nearly equal to men, compared with women and men of other faiths”
(Goodstein, 2009, p.11). Given such a mixed message, it is not surprising that organizations may be
unclear about how best to treat Muslim employees fairly.
This study explored relationships among U.S. Muslim women’s self-identification, perceptions of
workplace discrimination and fairness, and workplace involvement. It drew on the discrimination and
stigma literature to examine religious expression and its consequences for Muslim women working in
healthcare organizations. We distinguished between physicians, whom we defined as “professionals,” and
non-physicians in order to explore difference between Muslim women who do and do not wear hijab, and
between professionals and non-professionals.
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
41
RELIGION AS STIGMA
Stigmas are personal characteristics labeled as flaws within a certain social context (Ragins, 2008); a
person with a stigmatizing characteristic is viewed as being in a separate, stereotypical group of lower
status (Link & Phelan, 2001). The U.S. has a history of stigmatizing minority religion groups such as
Catholics and Jews (Fox, 2007; Gitelman, 1973; Rosenfield, 1982). Since the 9/11 2001 attacks,
sociopolitical events such as terrorist atrocities anywhere in the world seem to heighten anti-Arab
reactions (Oswald, 2005). Moreover, U.S. official reactions—e.g., tougher travel screening measures for
people traveling from 14 predominately Muslim countries, and bans on some groups purportedly with
religious affiliation (Burns, 2010)—may exacerbate bias and negative public reaction to Muslims (Peer,
2010). From 2003 to 2007, discrimination cases against Muslim travelers and hate crimes increased,
while across the media, defamation and bias “spread widely” (ADC Research Institute, 2008), with a shift
away from stigmatizing specific groups or nationalities, e.g., Arab nationals, to a vilification of Islam as a
faith (McGurn, 2009). In contrast to studying majority reactions, this paper examines the stigmatized
individuals’ perceptions, cognitive processes, and beliefs (Crocker & Major, 2003; Miller, Smith, &
Mackie, 2004).
Religion as Invisible Stigma: The Decision to Disclose
Like gender preference or illness, religious persuasion can be an invisible social identity. When the
religion is viewed negatively, disclosing that religious affiliation in the workplace could stigmatize an
individual (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005). Research shows, with very little doubt, that stigmatization
has negative consequences on the stigmatized individual (e.g., among others Beals, Peplau, & Gable,
2009; Clair et al., 2005; Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991; Goff, Steele,
& Davies, 2008; Halperin, Pedahzur, & Canetti-Nisim, 2007), which implies that those who profess
stigmatized religions are likely to keep them invisible. However, some people choose to reveal invisible
stigma characteristics and to encounter the resulting bias (Ragins, 2008). Disclosure can be verbal (Clair
et al., 2005), but in some religions, disclosure can be though clothing. In the U.S. for example, some
Jewish women choose to wear hair-covering wigs, some Sikhs choose to wear the Kara and/or other
articles of faith, and some Muslim women choose to wear headscarves, usually called hijab in the U.S.
(Williams & Vashi, 2007).1 Wearing an hijab, which covers the hair, neck, and shoulders, discloses an
otherwise hidden religious preference, and we expect that hijabis, i.e., women who wear hijab, will
perceive more workplace stigmatization, discrimination, and other negative reactions than their
colleagues.
Perceived Status Consequences of Disclosure
Stigmatizing another person means to exercise power over that person (Link & Phelan, 2001); in
addition to being stereotyped and discriminated against, a stigmatized person looses status. It follows that:
Hypothesis 1A. Muslim women who believe that religious discrimination has negatively
impacted their status or career in the past are less likely to disclose religious
affiliation by wearing hijab.
According to status characterization theory (Joseph Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972), individuals
perceived to have characteristics or capabilities that result in better overall organizational performance are
accorded higher status and accorded greater resources and rewards. Such people, with specialized
educations and/or accumulated expertise are often called professionals. Following Friedson (1983), here
professionals are defined as physicians, one of the traditional, independent professions. In social contexts,
professional group members are expected to contribute disproportionably more toward successful group
outcomes without regard to actual successes (Joseph Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980; Chizhik,
Alexander, Chizhik, & Goodman, 2003). Both high and low status group members associate professional
behaviors--and rewards--with anyone who merely possesses the hi-status characteristics, e.g., physician’s
42
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
credentials (J. Berger, Ridgeway, & Zelditch, 2002). Second-order expectations, i.e., what individuals
think others expect of them, may even determine the individuals’ behavior more than first order
expectations, i.e., what individuals expect of themselves (Troyer & Younts, 1997).
One reward professionals expect is professional control over the services they provide (Eliot
Friedson, 1970; Larson, 1977), through “exclusive ownership of an area of expertise and knowledge”
(Evetts, 2003, p.30). Control over and demonstration of expertise by providing health services is such a
reward for physicians. Anything that impedes their ability to provide health services directly challenges
physicians’ professional status and standing. If a patient refuses treatment from a physician because she
displays a stigmatizing characteristic, for example, the consequence is not just one instance of bias, but is
an actual threat to the physician’s professional status and power (Link & Phelan, 2001) and thus to her
career. In addition, second-order expectations mean that if a biased patient rejects a physician’s services
and prefers treatment from a lower status group member such as a nurse, both higher status physicians’
and lower state nurses’ working and relative status positions are altered. While both physicians and nonphysician will be impacted by religious bias, physicians, being higher status, may lose more than nonphysicians. Merely witnessing an instance of another physician not being allowed to practice her
profession because she was stigmatized may have the same impact (Ragins, 2008). In sum, then, based on
status theory we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1B. Muslim women who witnessed or were the subject of negative outcomes
due to religious affiliation in the past are less likely to disclose their religion by
wearing hijab in the present.
Hypothesis 1C. Muslim female physicians who have witnessed or were subject to
discrimination’s negative outcomes are less likely than a non-physician to wear
hijab.
Perceptions of Organizational Support
People with invisible stigmatizing characteristics are more likely to disclose those characteristics if
they perceive organizational support for other groups with differences. The organization’s culture,
practices, or policies (Ragins, 2008), or its positive diversity climate (Clair et al., 2005; Ely & Thomas,
2001) may signal its support of diverse groups. When such “safe haven” (Ragins, 2008, p.205)
arrangements exist, employees feel valued and protected within the organization, regardless of their
personal characteristics. Therefore:
Hypothesis 2A. Women who perceive more support from their organizations are more
likely to wear hijab.
Many physicians are associated with organizations in which professional activity is recognized as the
organization’s “major goal activity” (Etzioni, 1964, p.82). Accordingly, professionals’ needs are of
primary importance, so organizational arrangements meet those needs. For example, in hospitals,
physicians are the primary health services providers, so hospitals’ arrangements suit physicians. However,
in contrast to bureaucracy’s usual heteronomous arrangements, physicians usually operate quite
autonomously even when their work is carried out within a bureaucracy structured to meet their needs
(Barnett, Barnett, & Kearns, 1998; Britten, 2001). Indeed, because their group memberships and ties may
be more important to them than their organizational ties, physicians may be less likely than other
organizational members to view the organization as supportive (Hekman, Bigley, Steensma, & Hereford,
2009; Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000). Specifically, a physician is likely to view any
organizational arrangement that might impede her professional autonomy as unsupportive, especially if
“ideologies of professional work bump up against ideologies of administrative organization” (Bunderson,
2001, p.717). In contrast, non-physicians may not expect autonomy nor associate autonomy with
organizational support, so we hypothesize that:
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
43
Hypothesis 2B. Professionals (physicians) are less likely to perceive that their
organizations are supportive than non-professionals.
Religion as Social Identity: Disclosure or Deployment
The groups to which we belong and are consigned help each of us define a personal social identity.
Age, gender, ethnicity, language, or other obvious marker or characteristic may identify groups, but
invisible characteristics may also signify identity (Clair et al., 2005). “Invisible social identities are
common in organizations,” (Clair et al., 2005, p.79) and, in addition to sexual preference, include chronic
illness, disability, mixed-race heritage, or religion. A U.S. Muslim woman whose social identity includes
religious group membership may choose to discuss her religion with co-workers or she might choose to
wear hijab. However, wearing hijab “places the religious convictions of Islamic women on their sleeves”
(Bartkowski & Read, 2003, p.88). It signals that the wearer’s social identity is strongly associated with
Islamic community membership while it simultaneously challenges her co-workers to confront
preconceived stereotypes (Creed & Scully, 2000) of Islam, of Muslims in general, and of Muslim women
in the workplace in particular. On-lookers cannot be ignorant of the hijabi’s religion, and her clothing
may actually force any who see her to confront the legitimacy of U.S. socially constructed stereotypes.
Wearing hijab becomes identity “deployment” that “has the principal effect of politicizing the personal”
(Creed & Scully, 2000, p.394) through clothing choice, with the result “that the values, categories, and
practices of individuals become subject to debate” (Bernstein, 1997, p.537-38) related to the group. For
example, if an hijabi’s performance at work should be sub-standard, other people may associate poor
performance with being Muslim, even if performance and religious conviction are unrelated. Thus, the
hijabi risks corroborating or elaborating negative stereotypes through her clothing choice, in addition to
any personal risks she may incur. Given the risks and given that wearing hijab in the U.S. entails identity
deployment, wearing hijab becomes more than a personal expression of faith. By challenging colleagues’
and others’ perceptions, the hijabi can become a social change advocate at micro, workgroup, and macro,
societal levels.
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP
There is considerable personal downside for individuals who conceal stigmatizing characteristics.
First, concealing stigmatizing characteristics usually requires maintaining an uncomfortable “façade of
conformity” (Hewlin, 2009). There is the constant struggle to balance social identities, one of which is
invisible to co-workers, and the ambiguity and possible awkwardness associated with masquerading as
being in a social group when one is not actually part of that group (Clair et al., 2005). People with
concealed characteristics face uncertainty about having them accidentally revealed by someone from
another social situation, and about experiencing work relationship changes if they are disclosed (Ragins,
2008). Workplace uncertainty leads to workplace stress and anxiety (Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009; Stephan,
Stephan, & Gudykunst, 1999). Workplace stress is often termed emotional exhaustion (Cropanzano,
Rupp, & Byrne, 2003) or emotion-related strain (Chang, Johnson, & Yang, 2007). Emotion-related
stressors and the resulting negative affectivity (Chang et al., 2007) have been associated with decreased
job performance (Cropanzano et al., 2003). Social exchange theory would indicate that an employee
concealing an invisible stigmatizing characteristic at work will associate the resulting emotion-related
stress with the work organization, will decrease behaviors that benefit the organization as much as
possible, and will associate with organizational members as little as possible. While, employees in
negative affective states are likely to try to maintain a satisfactory core task performance level in order to
avoid official sanctions, discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors may decrease because they are
not officially recognized nor subject to official penalties (Chang et al., 2007; Cropanzano et al., 2003;
Tyler & Blader, 2003). Positive affective states and organizational citizenship behaviors are positively
related (Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006) so we hypothesize that employees experiencing stress due to social
identity concealment and negative affectivity may discontinue citizenship behaviors in contrast to those
who disclose:
44
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
Hypothesis 3A. Hijabis are more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors
than their non-hijab wearing colleagues.
By wearing hijab, a woman invites challenge to U.S. negative stereotypes imputed to Muslim women.
To counter the stereotype, an hijabi must be seen in a favorable light by others. Employees who engage in
organizational citizenship behaviors garner reputations as organizational contributors (Salamon &
Deutsch, 2006), enhance their social status (Bowler & Brass, 2006; Flynn, 2003; Snell & Wong, 2007),
and thus gain favor among colleagues. Moreover, impression management theories suggest that
individuals with social motives are more likely to engage in outward-directed citizenship behaviors that
have an impact beyond the group or organization and that advance social and organizational agendas
while simultaneously providing individual benefits (Bolino, 1999; Grant & Mayer, 2009). Thus, we
further hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3B. Hijabis are more likely to engage in forms of outward directed, instead of
inward-directed, organizational citizenship behaviors than non-hijabi colleagues.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Belonging to and being accepted by a group helps people define themselves and their status and to
view themselves positively (Correll & Park, 2005; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Feelings of positive selfidentity and self-worth engender loyalty and commitment toward the group reinforcing these feelings
(Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992). Those with possibly stigmatizing characteristics may more
highly value acceptance as group members and be commensurately more committed than those without
the characteristic. Further, Rupert et al. (2010) found that cultural minorities are more organizationally
committed, in general, than are majorities. These two generalities imply that women who wear hijab in
the workplace will be more committed to their organizations than those who choose not to wear hijab, but
physicians’ organizational commitment may be subordinated to their professional organization
commitment (q.v., Perceptions of Organizational Support section, above).
Hypothesis 4A. Hijabis are more likely to be organizationally committed than nonhijabis.
Hypothesis 4B. Female Muslim physicians are less likely than female Muslim nonphysicians to be committed to their organizations.
PERCEPTIONS OF WORKPLACE JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
When employees perceive that they are being treated fairly and justly, they are more likely to be
satisfied with workplace and managerial treatment (Lamertz, 2002). Fair treatment, that is, organizational
justice, can be distributive, procedural, or interactional (e.g. Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt,
2001; Colquitt, Wesson, Porter, Conlon, & Ng, 2001; Fortin, 2008). Distributive justice pertains to
outcomes fairness (Fortin, 2008), judged according to perceptions of equity, equality, and appropriate
input/output ratios (Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006). Procedural justice relates to fairness of
processes used to determine outcomes and make decisions (Colquitt et al., 2006; Fortin, 2008).
Interactional justice’s two “subfacets” (Colquitt et al., 2006), interpersonal and informational justice, deal
with decision makers’ respect for others, and the accuracy and completeness of information they provide,
respectively (Colquitt, 2001). Justice has been associated with outcomes such as organizational
citizenship behaviors, commitment, low turnover, and performance (Colquitt et al., 2001). Moreover, the
relationship between commitment and “extra-role” organizational performance appears to be stronger
than its relationship with “in role” performance (Lavelle et al., 2009, p.338).
People going beyond core task requirements to engage in citizenship behaviors, are likely to view
themselves and their organizational group positively, to feel positively about their own identity as a group
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
45
member, and to feel loyalty and commitment toward that group (Grant, Dutton, & Rosso, 2008). Beyond
that, engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors engenders more organizational citizenship
behaviors (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997), just as prior organizational commitment engenders
more organizational commitment (Brockner et al., 1992). Given the positive relationship between
citizenship behaviors, commitment, and positive affectivity, it makes sense that more organizational
citizenship behaviors, especially extra-role behaviors, would prompt greater organizational commitment
and vice versa, and that the resulting positive affectivity would impact perceptions of organizational
fairness and justice.
Hypothesis 5. Compared to non-hijabis, hijabis are more likely to perceive that their
organizations treat them fairly and with justice and, at the same time, to be more
committed and to engage in more citizenship behaviors.
In summary, then, we hypothesize that prior instances of discrimination and organizational support
help a woman decide whether or not to wear hijab in the workplace, and wearing hijab will impact a
woman’s organizational citizenship behaviors, commitment, and justice perceptions.
DATA AND MEASURES
Female members of two U.S. Muslim healthcare professional organizations were asked to be
respondents via on-line survey. Demographic items were usually scored categorically, but respondents’
perceptions of their jobs, workplace environments, and colleagues were dichotomously or Likert-scaled.
Several items invited open-ended responses. In total, 119 responses were recorded.
Measures
Consequences
Perceptions of consequences were measured with “direct” and “perceptual” questions. The direct
questions, dichotomously coded, were in the form, ”I have witnessed . . . ” or “I have experienced. . . .”
Perceptual questions asked if respondents believed their careers had suffered due to racial or ethnic
affiliation discrimination. If a respondent believed she had been discriminated against in terms of her
career--hiring, promotion, and/or advancement--she was accorded a score of “Yes, perceived past
discrimination = 1;” otherwise discrimination perception was recorded as “No, perceived no
discrimination, or don’t know = 0.”
Perceptions of Environmental Support
One dichotomously scored item (“Islam is seen positively at my organization”) and nine 5-point
Likert-scaled items measured organizational and environmental support perceptions. Principal component
analysis of Likert-scaled items showed that they represented three (Eigen values >1.5) constructs. Direct
oblim rotation showed that all variables were highly correlated with their respective construct (all
loadings greater than .67), so factor scores were used in further analyses.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behaviors may contribute to bringing extra resources into the organization
from outside, or they may positively impact internal processes by benefiting the workgroup’s
psychological atmosphere, “outside” and “internal” citizenship, respectively. The first was measured with
one binary response question: “Do you recruit for your organization?” The second consisted of four
items measuring group function attendance with possible responses ranging from “never” = 0 to “every
week” = 4. These four items were first summed and were then assigned a score of 0 = “little or none,”
when the summed score was 4 or less, or 1 = “some or a lot” for sums above 4.
46
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
Organizational Commitment
Using principle component analyses, these eight items, scored on a 7-point Likert scale, were reduced
to two constructs, which we called “emotional” (“feelings” about the organization) and “demonstrated”
(talking about or doing things for the organization) commitment. Regression factor scores resulting from
direct oblim rotation were used to compare hijabis with non-hijabis. Then, due to unequal variances and
small numbers, the two constructs were further reduced to two binary variables: scores above the mean
factor score on commitment were scored 1 = emotional (or demonstrated) commitment, or 0 = not
emotionally (or demonstratively) committed.
Fairness and Justice
Twelve items, eight based on comparisons to other healthcare organizations, and four based on
within-organizational interactions, were rated on 5-point Likert scales and were highly correlated with
each other. Principle component analysis showed that, in general, the items represent the three justice
constructs supported in previous research, i.e., distributive justice, process fairness, and interactional
fairness. Appendix A shows all questions and their related constructs.
RESULTS
Contrary to our expectations, almost half (49.6 percent) of the women answered “yes,” to the question
“Do you wear hijab in the workplace?” All other demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS, IN PERCENTAGE
(May not total to 100% due to rounding error)
Characteristic
Wears hijab
Yes
49.6
Yes
27.0
North East
No
50.4
No
73.0
South East
Midwest
West
26.3
7.9
57.0
8.8
Hospital or
medical center
Integrated
system/ HMO
Military
Research or
educational
Other
30.3
Management
16.0
Clinical care
4.2
LT, home, or
mental care
18.0
Education/residency training
26.1
Current position
Highest education
completed
19.3
Baccalaureate
or less
27.4
Masters degree
14.5
Professional
degree
38.8
Doctoral degree
21.0
40 hours or less
per week
21.0
41 – 60 hours
per week
35.3
61 – 75 hours
per week
5.9
More than 75
per week
44.0
26.6
11.0
18.3
Is a physician
Region of the
country in which
employed
Type of
organization in
which employed
Hours worked
(mean = 52
hours/week)
No
response
16.8
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
47
Perceptions of Consequences and Support
χ2 analysis first showed that women who have had a patient decline their services (Pearson χ2 p =
.027 and Fisher’s exact test p = .032), and who experienced discrimination in their careers (Pearson’s χ2
and Fisher’s exact test both p = .003) are significantly less likely to wear hijab than those who have
experienced neither. Adding the characteristic of being an MD or not resulted in very small groups,
making χ2 tests inappropriate, but percentages would indicate that MDs who have had a patient refuse
services are less likely to be hijabis than those who have not had patients decline services. χ2 tests also
showed a significant difference (Pearson χ2 p = .019, Fisher’s p = .024) between the two groups based on
the binary item “Islam is seen positively in my organization,” although the three organizational support
constructs were not significant indicators.
Given the number of respondents and the insignificance of some items, a parsimonious logistic
regression model was run to predict a woman’s choice of wearing hijab or not in the workplace. The
model included two binary items (discrimination impacted career; Islam seen positively) and an
interaction term ((being an MD)*(having services declined))(see Table 2). Overall, this model was found
to significantly increase accuracy at predicting whether a woman would choose to wear hijab or not
(decrease in –2LL of 20.747;p = .000), even though the interaction term does not add significantly to the
model.
TABLE 2
RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION (WITH THREE VARIABLES ONLY): DO
PERCEPTIONS OF CONSEQUENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT DIFFERENTIATE
HIJAB STATUS?
Step
0
1
-2 Log
Liklihood
120.044
99.296
Variable
Discrimination has impacted
career *
Islam seem positively in
organization *
Being an MD by having prof.
services declined
Constant
Change in –2LL χ2
df
sig
Cox &
Snell R2
Nagelkerke
R2
20.747
3
.000
.212
.284
β
2.701
s.e.
1.100
Wald
6.026
df
1
sig
.014
Exp β
14.900
-1.305
.510
6.546
1
.011
.271
1.619
1.196
1.833
1
.176
5.047
.339
.412
.675
1
.411
1.403
* Reference category for dichotomously scored variables
The data, thus, provide support for Hypothesis 1A, but not for Hypothesis 1B. Women who believe
their careers have been negatively impacted in the past by discrimination are less likely to choose to wear
hijab, but having patients refuse services or witnessing a colleague being discriminated against did not
impact a woman’s choice. We also found support for Hypothesis 2A, that women who perceive
organizational support are more likely to wear hijab than those who do not perceive support, but for
hijabis, the organizational support must be specifically directed at acceptance and support of Islam and
Muslims instead of being generally supportive of all individual differences.
To test hypothesis 2B, logistic regression was used to determine if Muslim women’s perceptions of
organizational support differentiated physician status. Even though prediction improved from 54 percent
to 61.5 percent correctly identified, these are not significantly different, so Hypothesis 2B is not
supported.
48
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
Univariate Analyses: Examining Variables One-by-one
Univariate analyses of characteristics hypothesized to be associated with hijabi status were
insignificant for organizational citizenship, alone, and organizational commitment, alone. However,
contrary to our expectations, women who are hijabi physicians are significantly more likely to report
being emotionally committed to their organizations than non-hijabi physicians (χ2 p =.05), so hypothesis
5B is not supported. Hijabis do not significantly differ from non-hijabis with regard to overall
organizational justice perceptions, but hijabis perceived greater respect and fair treatment from their
supervisors (χ2 p = .087) than non-hijabis. Interestingly, hijabi physicians perceive that their pay and
fringe benefits (χ2 p = .02), the consideration they receive when they make mistakes (χ2 p =.03), and the
respect they get from their supervisees (χ2 p =.02) are significantly fairer than their non-hijabi physician
colleagues.
Multivariate Analyses: Examining the Variables Together
Using multivariate analyses, we tested how well the three constructs 1) hijabi status, 2) outside or
internally directed citizenship behaviors, and 3) emotional or demonstrated commitment predicted scores
on the three justice constructs--distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, then we checked results
by testing how well the first three predicted the underlying individual items comprising the three justice
constructs. Variance-covariance matrices were equal for analyses (Box’s test of equality), except as noted.
Wears Hijab, Performs Outside Citizenship Behavior, and Demonstrates Commitment
Wearing hijab, performing outside organizational citizenship behaviors, and reporting demonstrated
organizational commitment, together, were shown to be significantly related to a woman’s perception that
her organization was interactionally just (F for Pillai’s Trace, Wilks; Lambda, Hotelling’s Trace, and
Roy’s Largest Root, p ≤ .047; 92 d.f.), but not distributively or procedurally just. Variables’ variancecovariance matrices may not be equal (Box’s test of equality), so the statistics may not be robust, but the
confirmatory univariate tests support the multivariate tests.
Wears Hijab, Performs Outside Citizenship Behavior, and is Emotionally Committed
Women who wear hijab, engage in outside organizational citizenship, and are emotionally committed
to an organization are significantly more likely to perceive that their organization is distributively fair (F
ratio for all four statistics, p ≤ .012; 39 d.f.). The univariate tests show that this especially appears to be
the case regarding perceptions of fair contract (p = .034) and salary fairness (p = .005).
Wears Hijab, Performs Internally Oriented Citizenship Behavior, and Demonstrates Commitment
Women who wear hijab, engage in internally oriented citizenship behaviors, and demonstrate their
organizational commitment are significantly more likely to perceive greater procedural (F ratio for all
four statistics ≤ .034; 44 d.f.) and interactional justice (F ration on all four statistics ≤ .02; 85 d.f.) in their
organization as shown by a significant three-way interaction among independent variables on both
process and the interactional justice. Box’s test shows that equal variance-covariance matrices may not be
assumed for the interactional variable, but univariate tests add support for the multivariate findings.
Wears Hijab, Performs Internally Oriented Citizenship Behavior, and is Emotionally Committed
The combination of these three independent variables was not found to significantly impact any of the
justice variables.
DISCUSSION
Results confirm that if a Muslim woman perceives a favorable environment and few negative
consequences, she will be more likely wear hijab, even though by wearing hijab, a woman may move
beyond mere religious disclosure to political message deployment through clothing (Bartkowski & Read,
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
49
2003; Creed & Scully, 2000). While active disclosure has a considerable downside (Clair et al., 2005;
Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Goff et al., 2008; Halperin et al., 2007; Hewlin, 2009; Ragins, 2008), we have
argued that there is a downside to non-disclosure (Chang et al., 2007; Cropanzano et al., 2003). Results
show that the benefits accruing to diversity friendly organizations could be substantial: employees may
more completely deploy their social identities (Creed & Scully, 2000), which can, in turn, lead to
increased organizational citizenship, commitment, and perceptions of organizational fairness and justice.
Fair treatment is associated with positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, rule compliance, decreased
conflict, and greater organizational performance (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001;
Lamertz, 2002) instead of the organizational withdrawal and job dissatisfaction associated with unfair
treatment (Chang et al., 2007; Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007; Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005). In
addition, demonstrated commitment appears to be important for justice perceptions. Organizations might
take greater advantage of hijabis’ seeming predisposition for performing outside citizenship behaviors;
such behaviors allow hijabis the potential to deploy their identities strategically as “collective action”
(Bernstein, 1997, p.537) outside the organization and also to demonstrate organizational diversity
practices to outsiders. Using highly motivated hijabi employees to recruit or speak for the organization
should thus benefit both organization and employee.
Our expectation that there would be few hijabis in the workplace was not supported by our
quantitative analysis, but open-ended answers paint a slightly different picture than the numbers. In
response to the question, “If you do not wear hijab, please share your thoughts on why you do not wear
hijab,” non-hijabis’ answered, “I knew my patients would not like a covered woman,” “(I was) afraid of
judgment and hostility both from within (the) Muslim community, from employers/school, and from
family,” “I am afraid of discrimination by my employer, co-workers, and patients,” “I actually was afraid
to wear hijab at a VA hospital in a suburban area,” or “I am not ready to accept that kind of rejection (that
comes with wearing hijab).”
Professional organizations may differ from non-professional ones (Scott et al., 2000), so these
professional women may face different circumstances regarding discrimination than other Muslim women
in the workplace. First, the women all work in the professionally oriented healthcare setting. However,
while higher work group status has been suggested as a mitigator of discrimination (Schaffer & Riordan,
2011), Van Laer (2011, p.1219) also found that workplace discrimination is the “micro expression of
macro-level power dynamics.” Our survey did not deal specifically with immediate work groups, but
speaking as professional group members, our respondents made comments such as, “I do not yet feel that
I have incorporated being Muslim into my professional identity.” These women did not feel that
workgroup status, even if high, allowed them to show demographic differences by wearing hijab and they
are very cognizant of the political and power nuances conveyed by hijab. For example, non-hijabis said,
“I hate that it (hijab) has become such a lightning rod as far as who people think you are or what you
stand for,” “I don’t want to bring politics into the mix and I feel that it’s better that I maintain a modest
dress code without drawing any extra attention by the hijab.”
Another difference may be the nature of the work, itself. The helping professions like medicine, are
characterized as being more tolerant of individual differences (Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009) because they are
supposed to help all people regardless of individuals’ characteristics. This may imply that helpingprofession organizations are also more tolerant and supportive of employees’ individual differences.
However, until relatively recently in the U.S., the professions have been occupied almost exclusively by
men, usually of Anglo-Saxon descent, and analysis of the professions has been almost silent on the
subject of gender (Davies, 1996; Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009). Some have argued that professionalism and
Weberian bureaucratic structures developed side by side under 19th and early 20th century Western
patriarchal norms, which assumed Protestant male dominance (Davies, 1996; Reed, 1996; Rumens &
Kerfoot, 2009). An alternative argument is that in the early days of the professions, those who could
afford professional services demanded dealings only with respectable persons and so “insisted on dealing
with ‘gentlemen’” (Macdonald, 1995, p.124), a circumstance leading to professional patriarchy. From
either viewpoint, there is no prima facie evidence that professional organizations offer more support for
diversity than others.
50
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
LIMITATIONS
Enrolling study participants was challenging because reaching them was difficult, and because of the
nature of the study. The number of respondents is, therefore, relatively small and may not represent the
population. There may be a self-selection bias favoring hijabis because an hijabi introduced the study to
potential participants. It was difficult to locate reliable demographic data about U.S. Muslim women,
particularly Muslim women in healthcare occupations, so it was difficult to compare our sample with the
population. Finally, U.S. Muslims are most heavily represented in California, New York, and Illinois
(Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2009), yet more than half of our sample is Midwestern.
Regarding the survey, the phrasing on organizational fairness and justice questions may bias answers:
some questions asked for industry comparisons, while others asked for organization or colleague
comparisons. Colleagues’ personalities may impact scores on the latter but not the former.
We have shown that hijabis perceive greater support from and are more committed to their
organizations than non-hijabis, but it should be noted that two additional factors not included in this study
may increase their organizational commitment. First, hijabis may report more organizational commitment
than non-hijabis because of their perceptions of the organization’s support (Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002), but this direct relationship was not explored here. Secondly, hijabis may display greater
organizational commitment than non-hijabis without actually being more committed because doing so
adds to their positive image and furthers their political agenda.
CONCLUSIONS
For this study, we built on the discrimination and stigma literature, especially drawing on research
pertaining to hidden stigmatizing characteristics. Although religion is mentioned in that literature, sexual
preference or disease is more often the context. The comments of women who choose not to wear hijab
support the stigma literature and our expectation that hijab exposes its wearer to negative outcomes; the
data analyses support our somewhat counter-intuitive social identity perspective argument that wearing
hijab involves many considerations beyond the possible resulting negative reactions. The take-home
lesson for managers seems to be that mindful cultural intelligence (Thomas, 2006) is necessary even in
U.S.-only based organizations. Despite the media’s mixed message, the immense added benefit Muslim
women, both hijabis and non-hijabis, can bring to an organization may reward managers’ effort to fully
engage them, resulting in considerable organizational benefits.
Among our respondents, it appears that deploying identity is associated with good organizational
citizenship behaviors, greater organizational commitment, and perceptions of greater organizational
fairness and justice. Our analysis did not determine direction of causation between these three, but our
results do offer an intriguing exploration of possible relationships. Given the benefits accruing to
organizations from good citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, and perceptions of
organizational justice (Chang et al., 2007; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2007), urging
employees to fully deploy social identities in the workplace apparently makes good business sense. At the
least, our study suggests that encouraging workplace disclose of hidden characteristics would benefit
organizations. U.S. managers should not shy away from workplace discussions of the Muslim hijab, in
specific, and religion, in general, despite continuing media focus on French Muslim women’s clothing,
and the lengthy history of similar problems in other EU countries (Giddens, 2004). Like other nations, the
U.S. has a history of religious, racial, and ethnic discrimination, but our study implies that U.S.
organizations in the present would be more likely to gain maximum benefits from their workforces if such
a history is not repeated with U.S. Muslim women.
ENDNOTE
1. There is a relatively large literature that discusses both the exact English meaning and the
meaning in context of the Qur’anic verses often cited as the basis for wearing hijab, but no
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
51
consensus has been reached. Moreover, whether or not wearing hijab is enjoined by the Qur’an is
not the topic of this paper. We merely observe that some Muslim women choose to wear hijab in
the workplace and some make the opposite choice. In addition, while this paper discusses
organizational factors that may influence a woman’s choice about wearing hijab in the workplace,
we do not claim that organizational factors are the sole reasons for that choice.
REFERENCES
ADC Research Institute. (2008). 2003 - 2007 Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab
Americans. Washington, D.C.: American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee.
http://www.adc.org/PDF/hcr07.pdf.
Barnett, J. R., Barnett, P., & Kearns, R. A. (1998). Declining professional dominance? Trends in the
proletarianisation of primary care in New Zealand. Social Science and Medicine, 46(2), 193-207.
Bartkowski, J. P., & Read, J. N. G. (2003). Veiled submission: Gender, power, and identity among
evangelical and Muslim women in the United States. Qualitative Sociology, 26(1), 71.
Beals, K. P., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2009). Stigma management and well-being: The role of
perceived social support, emotional processing, and suppression. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 35(7), 867-879.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American
Sociological Review, 37(3), 241-255.
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., & Zelditch, M. (2002). Construction of status and referential structures.
Sociological Theory, 20(2), 157-179.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of
Sociology, 6, 479-508.
Bernstein, M. (1997). Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay
movement. American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 531-565.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy
of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98.
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social
network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 70-82.
Britten, N. (2001). Prescribing and the defence of clinical autonomy. Sociology of Health & Illness, 23(4),
478-496.
Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an
institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 37(2), 241-261.
Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional
employees: Doctors' responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 717-741.
Burns, J. F. (2010, 01/13). Britain moves to ban Islamic group. New York Times J1, p. 1.
52
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R. E., & Yang, L.-Q. (2007). Emotional strain and organizational citizenship
behaviours: A meta-analysis and review. Work & Stress, 21(4), 312-332.
Chizhik, A. W., Alexander, M. G., Chizhik, E. W., & Goodman, J. A. (2003). The rise and fall of power
and prestige orders: Influence of task structure. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(3), 303-317.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible
social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78-95.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative
theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,
100(1), 110-127.
Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Conlon, D. E., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality & Social
Psychology Review, 9(4), 341-359.
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A
sociofunctional threat-based approach to "prejudice". Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 88(5),
770-789.
Creed, W. E. D., & Scully, M. A. (2000). Songs of ourselves: Employees' deployement of social identity
in workplace encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(4), 391-421.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (2003). The self-protective properties of stigma: Evolution of a modern classic.
Psychological Inquiry, 14(3/4), 232-237.
Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: The affective consequences of
attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60(2), 218-228.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34-48.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work
attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(1), 160-169.
Davies, C. (1996). The sociology of professions and the profession of gender. Sociology, 30(4), 661-678.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on
work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
53
Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Evetts, J. (2003). The construction of professionalism in new and existing occupational contexts:
Promoting and facilitating occupational change. The International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy, 23(4/5), 22.
Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., & Kastenniüller, A. (2007). What do we think about Muslims? The validity
of westerners' implicit theories about the associations between Muslims' religiosity, religious identity,
aggression potential, and attitudes toward terrorism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(3),
373-382.
Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of
favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 539-553.
Fortin, M. (2008). Perspectives on organizational justice: Concept clarification, social context integration,
time and links with morality. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(2), 93-126.
Fox, J. (2007). Religious discrimination: A world survey. Journal of International Affairs, 61(1), 47-67.
Friedson, E. (1970). Professional Dominance. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Friedson, E. (1983). The reorganization of the professions by regulation. Law and Human Behavior,
7(2/3), 279-290.
Giddens, A. (2004). Beneath the hijab: A woman. NPQ: New Perspectives Quarterly, 21(2), 9-11.
Gitelman, H. M. (1973). No Irish need apply: Patterns of and responses to ethnic discrimination in the
labor market. Labor History, 14(1), 56-68.
Goff, P. A., Steele, C. M., & Davies, P. G. (2008). The space between us: Stereotype threat and distance
in interracial contexts. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 94(1), 91-107.
Goodstein, L. (2009). Poll finds U.S. Muslims thriving, but not content. New York Times.(March 2), 11.
Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and
the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898-918.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression
management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(4), 900-912.
Halperin, E., Pedahzur, A., & Canetti-Nisim, D. (2007). Psychoeconomic approaches to the study of
hostile attitudes toward minority groups: A study among Israeli Jews. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1),
177-198.
Hekman, D. R., Bigley, G. A., Steensma, H. K., & Hereford, J. F. (2009). Combined effects of
organizational and professional identification on the reciprocity dynamic for professional employees.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 506-526.
54
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
Hewlin, P. F. (2009). Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating facades of
conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 727-741.
Hosmer, L. R. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical
implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67-91.
Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced
states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 561575.
Lamertz, K. (2002). The social construction of fairness: Social influence and sense making in
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 19-37.
Larson, M. S. (1977). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley and London:
University of California Press.
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V.
(2009). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multifoci analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 337-357.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363.
Macdonald, K. M. (1995). The Sociology of the Professions. London, Thousand Oaks, New Dehli: Sage
Publications.
McGurn, W. (2009, Sep 8). Main Street: Christian girls, interrupted. Wall Street Journal, p. A.19.
Miller, D. A., Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2004). Effects of intergroup contact and political
predispositions on prejudice: Role of intergroup emotions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(3),
221-237.
Oswald, D. L. (2005). Understanding anti-Arab reactions post-9/1 1: The role of threats, social categories,
and personal ideologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(9), 1775-1799.
Peer, B. (2010, 14 Aug). Zero tolerance. Financial Times, pp. 1-2.
Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social
psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10(2),
111.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2009). Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on
the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf.
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible
stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194-215.
Reed, M. I. (1996). Expert power and control in late modernity: An empirical review and theoretical
synthesis. Organization Studies, 17(4), 573.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714.
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
55
Rosenfield, G. (1982). The polls: Attitudes toward American Jews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(3),
431-443.
Rumens, N., & Kerfoot, D. (2009). Gay men at work: (Re)constructing the self as professional. Human
Relations, 62(5), 763-786.
Rupert, J., Jehn, K., Engen, M., & Reuver, R. (2010). Commitment of cultural minorities in organizations:
Effects of leadership and pressure to conform. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(1), 25-37.
Salamon, S. D., & Deutsch, Y. (2006). OCB as a handicap: An evolutionary psychological perspective.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(2), 185-199.
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2011). The role of work group status as a contextual variable in
relational demography research. Journal of Business Diversity, 11(1), 19-32.
Schevitz, T. (2002, Tuesday, November 26). FBI sees leap in anti-Muslim hate crimes. 9/11 attacks
blamed for bias--blacks still most frequent victims. San Francisco Chronicle, p. 1.
Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional Change and Healthcare
Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Snell, R. S., & Wong, Y. L. (2007). Differentiating good soldiers from good actors. Journal of
Management Studies, 44(6), 883-909.
Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A
comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 613-628.
Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and Development of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization
Management, 31(1), 78-99.
Troyer, L., & Younts, C. W. (1997). Whose expectations matter? The relative power of first- and secondorder expectations in determining social influence. American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 692-732.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and
cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361.
Van Laer, K., & Janssens, M. (2011). Ethnic minority professionals' experiences with subtle
discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 64(9), 1203-1227.
Williams, R. H., & Vashi, G. (2007). Hijab and American Muslim women: Creating the space for
autonomous selves. Sociology of Religion, 68(3), 269-287.
APPENDIX A
INDIVIDUAL ITEMS USED IN SURVEY AND CONSTRUCTS BASED ON PRINCIPAL
COMPONENT ANALYSIS
Which of the following describe your position? (categorical—management, clinical care, LT , home, or
mental health care, education or residency training, other)
56
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
Which of the following types of organizations best describe your current work setting? (categorical—
hospital or medical center, integrated system or HMO, military organization, research or
educational organization, other)
In a typical week, how many hours would you estimate that you work in your office, outside your office,
or at home on tasks related to your career?
What was the highest level of education you completed excluding technical school? (baccalaureate or
less, some post baccalaureate or masters degree, professional degree, e.g., MD, doctoral degree,
e.g., PhD, EdD, ScD)
Do you wear hijab?
(yes/no)
Consequences
Direct
Have you ever been witness to any incidents or circumstances in which a fellow worker’s career
in healthcare was affected by racial/ethnic discrimination? (yes/no)
If you provide patient care, has a patient/client declined your care/services because of religion,
name, perceived cultural affiliation, or accent? (yes/no)
Indirect
In my career, I have been negatively affected by racial/ethnic discrimination (5-point Likert scale)
In the past five years, do you feel that you failed to be hired because of your race/ethnicity?
(yes/no or don’t know)
In the past five years, do you feel that you failed to be promoted because of your race/ethnicity?
(yes/no or don’t know)
In the past five years, do you feel that you failed to receive fair compensation because of your
race/ethnicity? (yes/no or don’t know)
In the past five years, do you feel that you were discriminated against in career advancement
because you have an accent or speak in a dialect or dress differently than others?
(yes/no or don’t know)
Organizational support
Islam is seen positively in my organization (agree/disagree)
Perceptions of Muslims’ treatment in the professions and the organization
Muslim professionals usually have to be more qualified than others to get ahead in my
organization (5-point Likert scale)
In the healthcare industry, other professionals have greater opportunities to advance than Muslim
professionals (5-point Likert scale)
Other professionals share career related information with Muslim professionals (5-point Likert
scale)
Evaluations are equal for whites, minorities, and Muslims (5-point Likert scale)
There are limited opportunities for Muslims to advance in their careers (5-point Likert scale)
Perceptions of support for Muslims in the workgroup
Muslim professionals generally receive more support from their supervisors than do other
professionals (5-point Likert scale, reversed)
Muslim professionals get more employee support than non-Muslims (5-point Likert scale,
reversed)
Perceptions of the general environmental conditions
The quality of relationships between Muslims and other racial/ethnic groups could be improved
(5-point Likert scale)
The quality of relations between Muslims and other professional groups could be improved (5point Likert scale)
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012
57
Citizenship behaviors
Outside citizenship behavior
Are you involved in recruiting for your organization? (yes/no)
Internal citizenship behavior
As part of the healthcare team, you may or may not be involved in the following non-work
activities with both minority and white professionals from your organization. Please indicate how
often.
Informal lunches (never/< every 3 months/≥ every 3 months/≥ every month/every week)
Informal dinners (never/< every 3 months/≥ every 3 months/≥ every month/every week)
Activities after work (never/< every 3 months/≥ every 3 months/≥ every month/every week)
Attending cultural events (never/< every 3 months/≥ every 3 months/≥ every month/every week)
Organizational commitment
Emotional organizational commitment
I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization (7-point Likert scale, reversed)
I do not feel ‘emotionally’ attached to this organization (7-point Likert scale, reversed)
This organization has a great deal of meaning for me (7-point Likert scale)
I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at this organization (7-point Likert scale, reversed)
Demonstrated organizational commitment
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career at this organization (7-point Likert scale)
I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it (7-point Likert scale)
I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own (7-point Likert scale)
I think I could become as attached to another organization as I am to this one (7-point Likert
scale, reversed)
Organizational Fairness and Justice
In comparison to other healthcare organizations
When compared to other in the field of health care, how do you rate the fairness with which you
have been treated by your organization in the distribution of the following rewards? (5-point
Likert) (Rewards are fairly distributed if they are related to prevailing market standards, effort,
training, experience, and achievement of objectives; the more effort, training, experience, and the
higher the achievement, the more rewards there should be.)
Employment contract
Length of severance pay
Salary
Paid professional membership dues
Continuing education tuition/support
Promotions
Recognition
Physical facilities
Within the organization
Indicate how fairly you believe you are treated regarding: (5-point Likert scale)
The sanctions and treatment I receive when I make a mistake.
The degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from those who supervise me.
The degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from the employees I supervise.
The amount of independent thought and action I can exercise in my job.
58
Journal of Business Diversity vol. 12(2) 2012