Intangible Capital

IC, 2022 – 18(3): 469-488 – Online ISSN: 1697-9818 – Print ISSN: 2014-3214
https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Wellbeing of female employees:

What workplaces attract women?
Irene Campos-García
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Spain)
[email protected]

Received January, 2022

Accepted October, 2022

Abstract
Purpose: Previous research has highlighted that employee wellbeing in the workplace is closely linked to
equity, achievement, and interactions. However, gender inequality in employment opportunities, work-life
imbalance, the gender pay gap, and the existence of the glass ceiling are workplace realities and generate
failures that can reduce women’s wellbeing. Based on the theories of organisational justice, affective
events, and transactional stress, this research attempts to identify the initiatives or actions that can act as
true levers to promote equality and to contribute to the creation of inclusive and attractive workplaces
for female employees.

Design/methodology: This study was carried out using the Delphi method. The panel consisted of a
group of Spanish experts from the academic and professional fields who had close relationships with
the topic of research.

Findings: Parity objectives and flexibility measures are actions that can be effective in achieving gender
equality in companies. Factors related to equitable, fair, and non-discriminatory treatment are the main
determinants of female wellbeing in the workplace. The quality of female employment and having
leaders capable of creating inclusive environments increases the attractiveness of organisations for
women.

Originality/value: This research yields interesting findings on the responsibility and role of companies
in fulfilling the demands of female employees and in making women fall in love with the workplace.

Keywords: Female employees, Wellbeing, Attractive workplaces, Gender equality, Working conditions, Delphi
method

Jel Codes: M12, M14

To cite this article:
Campos-García, I. (2022). Wellbeing of female employees: What workplaces attract women?. Intangible
Capital, 18(3), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

-469-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

1. Introduction
In recent years, organisations have intensified their interest in encouraging improved wellbeing for their
employees and making their workplaces more charming. Previous research has emphasised that the factors that
contribute to positive experiences in the workplace are related to a pleasant work environment, conciliation,
professional development opportunities, and relationships with bosses, among others (Anitha, 2014; Juniper,
White & Bellamy, 2009; Warr, 2003). Accordingly, The Great Place to Work Institute maintains that the best
companies to work for are those that offer fair, ethical, inclusive, and healthy working conditions and
environments. Specifically, Sirota and Klein (2013) point out that there are three key factors for employees to feel
enthusiastic in their workplaces: equity, achievement, and interactions.

However, gender inequality in employment opportunities, work-life imbalance, the gender pay gap, and the
existence of the glass ceiling are workplace realities and generate failures that can reduce women’s satisfaction and
wellbeing. What women really love in their workplaces is related to working conditions and gender equality in
terms of daily work experiences, career development, and promotion possibilities (McKinsey, 2021). In a similar
vein, Milhouse (2005) has revealed that lack of work-life balance and high levels of job dissatisfaction caused by
work-related dimensions, including pay, promotion, feeling of being accepted, equity, and equality, are the main
conditions that hinder women’s happiness in the workplace.

More and more companies have placed on their agenda awareness and sensitisation initiatives, conciliation and
equality promotion strategies, and diversity and inclusion policies aimed at empowering women and giving
greater visibility to female talent. However, women continue to have lower job expectations and are generally
more likely than men to request full-time leave or temporary reductions in working hours, or refuse training
programmes outside work hours, overtime, or the possibility of geographical mobility due to the difficulty of
reconciling work commitments with family and housework (OECD, 2014; The World Bank, 2019). These
disadvantages contribute to the gender pay gap: once all of the compensable factors such as experience, industry,
and job level are accounted for, a woman doing the same job as a man, with the exact same qualifications as a
man, is still paid 2% less (Payscale, 2021). There are also imbalances in female representation in the workforce,
even more pronounced in leadership positions. In 2021, women hold only 29% of senior management positions
worldwide, and 13% of companies have no women in leadership positions (Grant Thornton, 2020; McKinsey,
2021).

The slow progress towards equality contrasts with the rapid increase in women’s educational levels and
experience, leading to criticism that female talent remains unrecognised, and is undervalued and underutilised
(Beaupre, 2022; Knowles & Mainiero, 2021; Tatli, Vassilopoulou & Özbilgin, 2013). Therefore, creating a truly
egalitarian and inclusive culture is essential to value female talent, reenchant, and make workplaces attractive for
women. Based on behavioural theories of individuals, groups and organizations —affective events (Carver &
Scheier, 1990; Lazarus, 1991; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), transactional stress (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984) and organisational justice (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1990)—the objective of this research is to
investigate which practices act as the most effective levers to advance equality and create fairer and more
equitable workplaces that attract and retain female talent. This study was carried out by applying the Delphi
method —which is recommended in areas of knowledge that do not have sufficient empirical evidence or
development (Landeta, 2006)— which involved forming a group of Spanish experts from the academic and
professional fields who had close relationships with the topic of research.

Until now, there are numerous publications with an informative and divulgative character mainly based on
statistics or surveys of female employees (e.g., Women Peace and Security Index Report prepared by the
Georgetown Institute, reports of the European Institute for Gender Equality; the report Women at work: A global
perspective from Deloitte or the Global Gender Gap Report published by the World Economic Forum). To the
author's knowledge, this research is the first to use the Delphi methodology to explore the state of the issue and
it seeks to confirm, discuss and complement previous findings. It represents a theoretical opportunity for
research because much of the previous literature focuses mainly on studying and quantifying the levels of well-
being, satisfaction or job stress of women and, in some cases, comparing them with those of their male

-470-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

counterparts(Bender, Donohue & Heywood, 2005; Clark, 1997; Hendrix, Spencer & Gibson, 1994; Qian & Fan,
2019), while this study is directed towards different aspects that have not previously been addressed in depth,
such as, for example, the effectiveness of certain policies and initiatives, trust or mistrust towards gender quotas
or the responsibility that must be assumed in the face of existing challenges.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. The second section compiles the useful theories to support
this research. The third section details the materials, procedure, and method used in the study. The fourth section
shows the results obtained after applying the Delphi method to a group of female experts. The discussion is
presented in the fifth section and, finally, the conclusions and implications are presented.

2. Wellbeing of Female Employees: Theoretical framework

Wellbeing can refer to mental, psychological, or emotional aspects of workers and previous literature has tried to
identify and combine in different models the factors that can contribute to it to a greater or lesser degree (Danna
& Griffin, 1999; Fisher, 2014; Schulte & Vainio, 2010; Sirota & Klein, 2013; Stansfeld, Shipley, Head, Fuhrer &
Kivimaki, 2013). For example, Danna and Griffin (1999) suggest that wellbeing is affected by three general sets
of antecedent factors: work setting, personality traits, and occupational stress. Schulte and Vainio (2010) point
out that workforce well-being depends on 6 factors: workplace factors, environmental factors, occupational
hazards, health, host and demographic factors, and socioeconomic status. Work characteristics —e.g., decision
latitude, work demands, work social support, control, work pace or conflicting demands— and personal social
support are the main determinants according to Stansfeld et al. (2013). Sirota and Klein (2013) emphasize that
equity —fair salary, safe working conditions, respectful and dignified treatment, and equal employment
opportunities—, achievement —meaning of the work and an inspiring organisational purpose— and
interactions —relationships with teammates— are the factors that can condition the work experiences and the
enthusiasm of the employees.

Previous literature has also shown that there are certain differences in the way men and women behave, perceive
and value their experiences in the workplace (Bender et al., 2005; Clark, 1997; Qian & Fan, 2019). Part of these
differences can be explained by traditional gender roles, the gendered division of labor and occupational gender
segregation, which have favored discriminatory and unethical practices, and significant gender inequities in
women’s treatment and interactions, employment opportunities, career development, or promotion (Eagly &
Stefen, 1984; Eagly & Wood, 2011). On the one hand, the theory of organisational justice (Colquitt, 2001;
Greenberg, 1990) posits that organisations should have effective procedures in place to ensure appropriate
behaviour towards members and it explains why employees’ perceptions of organisational justice are likely to
affect their wellbeing and job satisfaction (Cropanzano & Li, 2006). Different research have shown that high
levels of organisational justice (in its two dimensions; that is, procedural and distributive justice) positively affect
workers' wellbeing and job satisfaction, revealing gender differences in preferences and orientations towards the
different dimensions (Caleo, 2016; Clay-Warner, Culatta & James, 2013; Choi, 2011; Lee & Farh, 1999; Simpson
& Kaminski, 2007).

The wellbeing of employees can also be affected by the affective experiences they have at work. Affective Events
Theory (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Lazarus, 1991; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) proposes that organisational events
are proximal causes of affective reactions and work environment features predispose the occurrence of certain
types of affect-producing events, which may then lead to positive or negative emotions. Basch and Fisher (1998)
developed event-emotion matrices, which specify the types of work events that occur and the particular positive
and negative emotions most likely to be caused by those events. While events classified as receiving recognition,
goal achievement, involvement in challenges, planning, decision making or problem-solving, and goal progress
and organisational reputation, among others, stimulate positive feelings (e.g., pleasure, happiness, enthusiasm,
relief, optimism, power or affection), two event categories —acts of colleagues and acts of management— are
the main events that cause negative emotions (frustration, disappointment, annoyance, anger, unhappiness,
sadness, disgust and hurt). In addition, socially undesirable and illegitimate behaviours or events by organisations
or colleagues that lead to negative events can activate negative emotions and become work stressors (Van
Katwyk, Fox, Spector & Kelloway, 2000). Apart from the adverse effects that stress at work generates on

-471-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

employee productivity, absenteeism and worker turnover, work stressors represent a risk or potential threat to the
wellbeing of employees, according to the transactional stress theory (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Gender roles and prescriptive gender stereotypes once again explain some of the gender differences found in the
perceived severity and frequency of occurrence of individual stressor events (Cocchiara & Bell, 2009; Hendrix et
al., 1994; Richardsen, Traavik & Burke, 2016; Spielberger & Reheiser, 1994) and in the results of stress in the
face of negative emotions and ‘dirty’ workplace politics (Webster, Adams, Maranto & Beehr, 2018).

Summarizing, events related to inequalities in employment opportunities, the pay-gap or the existence of a glass
ceiling, which go against the principles of organisational justice, would more likely trigger negative emotions and
high levels of stress. According to affective event theory and transactional stress theory, it can significantly
reduce the wellbeing of female employees.

3. Materials and method

With the aim of reaching consensus and prioritising initiatives or actions that can act as true levers to promote
equality and contribute to the creation of enchanting and inclusive workplaces for female employees, this
research applied the Delphi method. This qualitative scientific method is a systematic and iterative process aimed
at obtaining the opinions and consensus of a group of experts (Gordon, 1994; Linstone & Turoff, 1975;
Landeta, 2006; Turoff & Linstone, 2002). The application of this structured and prospective method has proven
to be useful in the field of social sciences, being especially suitable in complex, dynamic, ambiguous areas of
knowledge with little previous empirical evidence (Grime & Wright, 2016; Landeta, 2002; Ortega, 2008).

First, after defining the problem and identifying the objective, a questionnaire was designed. The theories of
organisational justice, affective events, and occupational stress informed the design of the questionnaire. It was
made up of three blocks of questions (see Appendix I) and included different types of questions: 5-point Likert-
type, dichotomous, weighting, and open questions.

Second, the selection of the panel of experts was carried out by contacting female professionals who, due to
their knowledge and experience, had a close relationship with the research question and could contribute a
relevant perspective to the research. Specifically, 26 businesswomen, professionals, and academic women were
invited via email to participate in the study. In selecting the number of invitees, possible refusals to participate
and dropouts during the development of the method were considered. The invitation included presentation of
the research team, the objectives of the research, and the conditions of participation (guarantee of anonymity,
response times, etc.). The final panel was made up of 20 women: 8 businesswoman or managers who are part of
Professional Women's Nekwork in Spain and who have decision-making in the strategies and policies in their
companies (40%), 7 professional in human resources departments (35%), and 5 women professor and/or
reserarchers from different Spanish universities with extensive research experience in the field of business and
gender (25%). This distribution guaranteed the heterogeneity and significance of the composition of the group
of experts. Table 1 reveals the competence coefficients of experts based on the information that the experts
themselves showed about the degree of knowledge and argumentation they had based on their training and
experience (from 0 to 10 points). The competence coefficient was calculated as the average of the knowledge
coefficient plus the argumentation coefficient (see, for example, Barroso Osuna & Cabero Almenara, 2013); a
‘high’ competence rating was assigned when the coefficient was equal to or greater than nine.

Knowledge Argumentation Competence Competence

ID Profile
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Rating
1 Manager 7 8,5 7,75 Medium
2 Academic 8.5 8 8.25 Medium
3 HR professional 7 7.5 7.25 Medium
4 Manager 7 8 7.5 Medium
5 Academic 9.5 9 9.25 High
6 HR professional 7 8.5 7.75 Medium
7 Manager 8.5 8 8.25 Medium
8 Manager 9 9.5 9.25 High

-472-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Knowledge Argumentation Competence Competence

ID Profile
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Rating
9 HR professional 7 8.5 7.75 Medium
10 HR professional 7 8 7.5 Medium
11 Academic 8.5 8 8.25 Medium
12 Academic 9 8 8.5 Medium
13 Manager 8.5 9.5 9 High
14 HR professional 8 8.5 8.25 Medium
15 Manager 8 9.5 8.75 Medium
16 HR professional 7 8.5 7.75 Medium
17 Academic 8 9 8.5 Medium
18 HR professional 7.5 8.5 8 Medium
19 Manager 8 9.5 8.75 Medium
20 Manager 8.5 10 9.25 High
Table 1. Competence coefficients of experts

In the third stage, between March and June 2021, the exchange of information with the group of experts took
place in two rounds. The questionnaire was provided to the experts to complete and after receiving the
questionnaires duly completed in the first round, the data were tabulated and analysed. Specifically, means,
frequency distribution, and standard deviations were identified and then interpreted and evaluated. This
quantitative analysis was enriched with the qualitative analysis of all the observations and contributions provided
by the experts. In the second round, the experts received the questionnaire again with modifications (see
Appendix II) accompanied by their responses and the results of the analysis from the previous round. This
feedback encouraged reevaluation and the development of arguments for those members whose responses
showed greater dispersion. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data from the second round resulted in a
greater convergence of opinions and the delimitation of the consensus opinion.

4. Results
4. 1. Round 1
The first round resulted in convergence and consensus for some questions, while others showed great dispersion,
as Table 2 shows.

Question M [SD] Frecuency

I. Current status and measures for gender equality in companies
The current state of 2.15 [0.366] (1) Effective equality will soon be
equality in companies achieved =0
(2) There are still obstacles to
achieving real equality in the short
or medium term =17
(3) Real equality will not be
achieved in the near future =3
Measures that so far 2.7 [0.801] (1) Government: quotas =1
have contributed most (2) Equality Plans =7
to promoting equality (3) Social movements =9
in companies (4) Companies =3
Legislation based on 1.55 [0.51] (1) Yes =9
gender quotas (2) No =11
More effective (1) Sensitization and awareness days =3.65 [1.27]
measures to pursue (2) Objectives and commitments =1.9 [0.91]
equality and equity in
the workplace (3) Flexibility measures =2.05 [1.23]
(4) Diversity programs =3.35 [1.14]
(5) Mandatory gender quotas =3.6 [1.57]

-473-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Question M [SD] Frecuency

II. Workplaces that can ‘charm’ women: Conditioning factors and initiatives
Determinants of the (1) Training opportunities =3.8 [1.38]
wellbeing of female (2) Inclusive culture =4.1 [1.07]
employees in the (3) Flexibility and conciliation =3.75 [1.37]
workplace
(4) Opportunities for promotion =4.15 [1.31]
(5) Elimination of the wage gap =4.4 [0.88]
Measures that (1) Work-life balance and co-responsibility measures =2.3
increase the [1.26]
attractiveness of a (2) Quality in female employment =2.0 [1.21]
company for women (3) Initiatives for the development and promotion =2.6
[1.14]
(4) Measures to prevent workplace harassment =3.65 [1.35]
(5) Health and well-being plans =4.0 [1.21]
III. Future prospects: The best workplaces for women
Difficulties or (1) Persistence of gender-biased business attitudes =2.2
challenges in making [1.47]
workplaces attractive (2) Barriers that women put on themselves =3.35 [1.6]
to women (3) Publicity and non-conviction =3.25 [1.25]
(4) Lack of transparency =2.55 [1.05]
(5) Underrepresentation of women in leadership positions
=3.3 [1.45]
Impact on (1) Retention of female talent =4.25 [0.97]
organisations of (2) More productivity and job satisfaction =4.35 [0.87]
having women (3) Reduction of absenteeism and turnover =3.45 [1.23]
‘delighted’
(4) Improvement of the corporate image =3.45 [1.22]
(5) Social progress of women =3.7 [1.52]
Table 2. First round results: Means, standard deviations and/or frequency distribution

Specifically, in the first block of questions, the panel of experts reached a broad consensus regarding the current
state of gender equality at the Spanish business level. Specifically, 85% of the sample (17 respondents) stated
that despite some progress, there were still obstacles to achieving real equality in the workplace in the short or
medium term. The remaining 15% were somewhat less optimistic, believing that real and effective equality of
opportunities in the workplace would take many years to accomplish. None of the experts opted for responses
that pointed out the absence of inequality or the achievement of real equality in the very short term.

Regarding the measures that have contributed the most to promoting equality in the business environment in
Spain so far, there was a disparate result. Specifically, nine experts (45%) agreed that the most effective measure
was the work by social movements and professional networks of women that promote equal opportunities in the
workplace. Seven experts (35%) indicated the application of equality plans as the most favourable measure
(despite the fact that many companies already had such plans, the new Royal Decree-Law 6/2019 of March 1
requires companies with more than 50 workers to negotiate and apply these plans). Three experts (15%) pointed
out that the initiatives created from corporate social responsibility and launched by the companies themselves
were those that have contributed the most to progress. Finally, one of the respondents (5%) stated that the most
effective measure had been the imposition of gender quotas to increase the presence of women in certain
hierarchical positions. The observations made in relation to this question were along the same line: the real
changes in favour of equality do not arise through imposition.

The disparate result obtained in the previous question highlights the gap in opinions regarding gender quotas.
Eleven experts (55%) were against laws that compel companies to apply gender quotas, imposing sanctions in
case of non-compliance. The most used arguments to justify their responses were: 1) sanctions do not contribute
to cultural change; 2) quotas can generate negative effects if certain positions are filled by female candidates who
‘adjust’ worse or are less capable than their male counterparts, and may lead to reverse discrimination; and 3) this
type of legislation detracts from and demeans the contribution and worth of women who really deserve to

-474-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

occupy positions of responsibility and leadership. On the contrary, the remaining nine experts were in favour of
quotas, although most of them agreed that the change must necessarily occur in the culture of the organisations.
Finally, it should be noted in this question that there were significant differences by group: HR professionals
were most in favour of quotas.

Finally, the first block of questions included an enquiry about the most effective measures to pursue equality and
equity in the workplace. In this case, there was a consensus, and all responses showed a low standard deviation.
Specifically, most experts positioned the parity objectives (i.e., the creation of objectives and commitments to
achieve parity in the selection processes, the remuneration policy, maternity and paternity leave, etc.) and the
flexibility measures (i.e., those that promote work organisation and the reconciliation of personal, family, and
professional life) as the most effective and second most effective measures, respectively. The vast majority of
experts also ranked diversity programmes for senior management (linking their pay to gender equality objectives)
as the third most effective measure. Gender quotas and awareness-raising sessions to eliminate gender biases in
the workplace were the measures that received the lowest scores. Regarding the determination of parity
objectives and commitments, it is recommended that such objectives and procedures should be audited and
verified by external professionals in order to guarantee compliance. Awareness-raising events are very useful at an
early age when values are not yet well defined. Their impact is useful to maintain beliefs but not to produce a
change of mentality or business culture.

In the second block of questions regarding organisations that could ‘charm’ women, the main determinants of
the wellbeing of female employees in the workplace were asked. The elimination of the persistent wage gap
(factor related to equitable, fair, and non-discriminatory treatment) was the response that achieved the highest
score —some experts pointed out the need for executive management to make a real commitment to non-
discriminatory policies and act as prescribers. The next most relevant factors pointed out by the experts were the
same opportunities for access, professional development, and promotion and non-existence of the glass ceiling,
followed by an inclusive culture and a healthier work environment. The lowest score is obtained by the factors
linked to work flexibility and family reconciliation: some experts indicated that some companies pay a lot of
attention to ‘family friendly’ policies but do not consider options for female employees who are not mothers or
have not yet formed a family.

Regarding the question about the attractiveness of a company in the eyes of a woman, the results showed that
the quality of female employment (equitable treatment, fair remuneration, job security, etc.) was the measure
marked as the most important. Conciliation and co-responsibility (e.g., flextime and flexplace policies, options to
reduce working hours or extend maternity/paternity leave, etc.) and the initiatives for the development and
promotion of female talent were the second and third most important measures. With the lowest scores are the
measures to prevent workplace harassment based on sex and sanctioning policies against sexist practices,
followed by the occupational health and wellness plans (e.g., nutrition programmes, coaching on mental health or
psychosocial wellbeing, programmes to promote physical activity, services of rehabilitation or physiotherapy,
etc.) that can contribute to improving the organisational climate and increasing the attractiveness of the
employer companies in the eyes of all employees, not just women. The small variation found when ordering and
scoring the measures may have been, as some experts pointed out, due to the personal situation of each expert
woman at each moment.

Panelists were also asked about other initiatives that could make women fall in love with their workplaces. The
most repeated initiatives were related to paying greater attention to pre-onboarding processes (e.g., writing job
offers without discriminatory biases, requesting blind curriculums vitae, and establishing the same questions
during the selection stage), unbiased career plans for women, publicity and transparency in the promotion and
remuneration policies according to merit, and the need to individually assess the reality of each woman according
to her personal circumstances (e.g., whether she was a mother or not). Interestingly, the need to correct the
behaviour of some female bosses that slow down the professional development of other women —known as
queen bee syndrome (Baykal, Soyalp & Yesil, 2020; Harvey, 2018)— was also revealed.

-475-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

The third block of questions aimed to determine future prospects in relation to the best workplaces. First, the
experts were asked about the main difficulties or challenges in making workplaces attractive for women. The
persistence of sexist business attitudes and obsolete cultures was pointed out by 90% of the experts as the
greatest obstacle, followed by the lack of transparency and a discrepancy between what it is said and what it is
done. A broad consensus was also reached on the other difficulties presented, which obtained lower but similar
scores. Placement of diversity and corporate welfare issues on agendas more as a form of publicity and image
than by conviction, the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions and the scarcity of role models,
and the barriers that women put on themselves regarding insecurity and underestimation of female talent, were
also issues identified as holding back the charm of workplaces for women. Again, the small variation in the order
and score of the responses can be explained by the work experiences of each expert and the differences that
may appear by the type of sector (i.e., masculinised or feminised) and occupation.

Finally, the experts were asked to assess the impact of having the female employees ‘delighted’. The increase in
the global productivity of the company, together with the retention capacity of female talent, were the benefits
most underscored by 85% of the panellists. With an average of 3.7 points, contribution to the professional and
social progress of women was ranked as the third most relevant benefit. Reduction in absenteeism and female
turnover and the improvement of the corporate image were benefits less and equally scored.

The quantitative and qualitative analysis carried out in this first round revealed a broad consensus on issues
related to: 1) the current state of gender equality; 2) the measures that can be more effective to achieve gender
equality in companies; 3) the main determinants of female wellbeing in the workplace; 4) initiatives that increase
the attractiveness of organisations for women; 5) the challenges that organisations must face in order to make
their female employees ‘fall in love’ with them; and 6) the benefits that companies can enjoy by having women
‘delighted’. However, a high dispersion was found in opinions about the measures and agents responsible for
promoting gender equality in companies, as well as in the evaluation and impact of gender quotas. The
disagreements expressed, together with the answers obtained from the open questions and the observations
noted by the experts, led to the reformulation of some questions and the modification of the questionnaire that
was used in the second round.

4. 2. Round 2
The results obtained in the second round are shown in Table 3.

Question M [SD] Frecuency

I. Gender equality in companies
Agents responsible for 1.7 [0.8] (1) Society =10
promoting equality so far (2) Companies =4
(3) Government =6
Agents responsible for (1) Society =2.45 [0.68]
promoting equality in the future (2) Companies =1.6 [0.75]
(3) Government =1.95 [0.82]
Usefulness of gender quotas 1.65 [0.49] (1) Quotas as an initial
measure =7
(2) No quotas =13
Government's most useful 1.95 [0.76] (1) Economic sanctions =6
measure (2) Economic incentives =9
(3) None =5
II. Best places to work
Most valued actions to choose an (1) Fair on-boarding processes =2.75 [0.64]
employer (2) Public promotion/remuneration policies=1.9 0.63]
(3) Leaders and inclusive environments =1.35 [0.49]
Ideal remuneration package (1) Financialcompensation =57.37 [20.3]
(2) Non-financialcompensation =42.63 [19.8]
Table 3. Second round results: Means, standard deviations and/or frequency distribution

-476-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

In relation to the first block of questions on gender equality in companies, the second questionnaire included a
question to clarify who has been largely responsible for the progress in this area. Specifically, the questionnaire
asked which agents —society (especially women through social movements, professional networks, etc.),
companies (based on their own initiatives created by CSR), or government authorities (through legislation in
favour of the application of equality plans, recommendations to increase the presence of women in certain
positions, etc.)— and in what proportions have contributed to promoting equality in the business environment in
Spain. Consistent with the responses found in the first round, but reaching greater agreement, the experts noted
that the greatest contribution had come from the claims of society, followed by government measures and,
finally, by companies’ initiatives.

With the intention of establishing differences between past and future responsibility, the following question was
asked: “Which agent should assume greater responsibility in the future?”. In this case, the group of experts also
showed a high consensus, pointing out that companies should take greater responsibility than society. That is,
employers should involve decision-making managers more fully, and they should assume a more relevant role in
promoting equality. Additionally, government authorities should regulate the legal framework to facilitate changes
in values and culture. This would make it easier for society to be impregnated with these changes, progressively
becoming more just and egalitarian. In short, from now on it would be necessary to reverse the levels of
commitment that the different agents have previously assumed and make companies become primarily
responsible for the change.

In the second round, the question regarding gender quotas was reformulated to check the confidence in quotas
as an effective measure. Given the widespread idea that real changes in favour of equality do not arise through
imposition, the establishment of quotas by the government (with sanctions for non-compliance) was questioned
by most experts —in a greater proportion by the academic subgroup. However, 35% of those who were against
quotas pointed out that, given the inaction of the companies, they could serve as a ‘start-up’ measure to direct
equality, though they should not be maintained over time. The reformulation of the question allowed a greater
consensus. Accordingly, in a subsequent question about the possible consequences (positive or negative) of
government measures on equal treatment and opportunities, a greater number of experts considered incentives
more effective than sanctions.

Regarding the second block of questions about the most attractive places to work, after consensus was reached
on the items that increase attractiveness in the eyes of women and other initiatives that could make female
employees fall in love, panellists were asked to order what they would prioritise when applying as candidates for a
job. The results were clear: the most valued organisations were those that had leaders capable of creating
inclusive environments and individually evaluating the reality of each employee according to their personal
circumstances. Subsequently, the women were attracted to organisations that shared their promotion and
remuneration policies publicly and in a transparent and objective manner. Fair on-boarding processes (for
example, job offers without discriminatory biases, anonymous curriculums vitae, same questions during the
selection stage, etc.) were positioned third.

Finally, based on the results obtained in the first round, the last question had to do with remuneration in a good
place to work. On the assumption of receiving an equitable and fair salary, the experts were asked to ponder an
‘ideal remuneration package’ in the case of receiving an increase in their total earnings. Financial remuneration
(salary, incentives, and benefits) obtained an average weight of 57.37% (minimum value 30% and maximum
value 90%), while non-financial remuneration (formulas for wellbeing and emotional salary) were weighted at
42.63 % (minimum value 10% and maximum value 60%). In other words, the experts gave a slightly higher value
to the financial component, although they pointed out the great importance that non-financial remuneration had
for them.

As can be seen, the second round led to greater agreement on the items that previously showed great dispersion
and contributed to qualifying and enriching other issues. Therefore, the use of new rounds of evaluation was
rejected, and the evaluation process was concluded. Table 4 below summarises the agreements reached in the
round 1 and round 2.

-477-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Questions 1 Round 1: Rephrased Questions 2 Round 2:

(n = 20) Results (n = 20) Results
Current state of equality in companies Consensus

Measures that so far have contributed No consensus

most to promoting equality in
companies

Agents responsible for promoting Consensus

equality so far
Agents responsible for promoting Consensus
equality in the future
Legislation based on gender quotas No consensus

Confidence in quotas as an effective Consensus

starting measure
Desired consequences of government Consensus
measures on equality
More effective measures to pursue Consensus
equality and equity in the workplace
Determinants of the wellbeing of Consensus
female employees in the workplace
Measures that increase the Consensus
attractiveness of a company for women
Initiatives that make female employees N/A (Open
‘fall in love’ question)
Most valued actions to choose an Consensus
employer
Ideal remuneration package N/A (Open
question)
Difficulties/challenges in making Consensus
workplaces really attractive to women

Impact on organisations of having Consensus

women 'delighted'
Table 4. Summary of responses of expert group responses

5. Discussion
From the application of the Delphi method, some findings can be discussed. Researchers such as Danna and
Griffin (1999), Schulte and Vainio (2010) and Sirota and Klein (2013) have already underlined the importance of
workplace factors and equity for greater employee well-being and the experts here have pointed out, also in line
with the arguments offered by the theories of organizational justice and affective events in the workplace, that
the wellbeing of female employees is fundamentally based on fair, equal, and non-discriminatory treatment.
Previous literature has revealed that more and different stressors than men (Cocchiara & Bell, 2009; Hendrix et
al., 1994; Richardsen et al., 2016), and persistent gender inequalities affect women’s expectations, feelings,
preferences, and behaviour in the workplace, with consequent impact on their wellbeing. Women generally report
lower job expectations than men and feel less job satisfaction, especially in ‘male- dominated workplaces’
(Bender et al., 2005; Clark, 1997; Sloane & Williams, 2000; Qian & Fan, 2019). Regarding preferences, compared
to men, women are significantly less likely to identify earnings as the most important aspect of a job; they
identify social relations at work —good coworkers and a good supervisor— as a more important aspect (Clark,
1997; Konrad, Corrigall, Lieb & Ritchie Jr, 2000). Accordingly, female employees rate trust in management at
their workplaces as more important than men do (Helliwell & Huang, 2011), and they value jobs that have more
flexible working conditions (Fortin, 2005; Hill, Jacob, Shannon, Brennan, Blanchard, & Martinengo, 2008). These
previous findings are similar to those reported in this study: the experts confirmed that financial remuneration is
an essential issue but underlined the great importance of non-financial remuneration and of having leaders who
promote an inclusive culture and a healthier work environment. Today many companies have different wellness

-478-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

plans that they offer for the benefit of their employees (for example, nutrition programs, physical activity,
physiotherapy services...). However, less attention is paid to wellbeing from an emotional perspective and
advancing in terms of gender equality and opportunities isa priority issue for this purpose. In other words,
activities in favour of physical wellbeing should be complemented, to a greater degree, with activities that
contribute to greater emotional wellbeing of employees, in general, and women, in particular. Because providing
procedures to ensure and generate appropriate behaviours and more positive emotions and reactions could
bring, according to the theory of organizational justice and affective events, numerous benefits for organisations.
In addition, in line with Sirota and Klein (2013), who maintain that interactions are an important factor that can
condition work experiences, the emotional wellbeing of employees is here also closely linked to the behaviour of
leaders: in recent years, attention has been focused on transformational, democratic, charismatic, inspirational or
situational leadership styles, and a good example of this is the proliferation of literature focused on measuring
the impact of such styles on followers and their attitudes (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bhatti, Maitlo, Shaikh, Hashmi &
Shaikh, 2012; Conger, Kanungo & Menon, 2000; Salas-Vallina, Simone & Fernández-Guerrero, 2020).

Another interesting topic of discussion is that of quotas, which are rejected as an effective long-term measure. It
has been suggested that quotas should only serve as a “start-up” measure, because most experts consider them a
trap and believe that changes do not occur by imposition —this view was more pronounced by the academic
women’s subgroup. Nevertheless, in Spain, the Code of Good Governance of Listed Companies established in
2015 the objective of achieving 30% female representation on the boards of directors by 2020, with an increase
in the quota to 40% by 2022. This legislation has ‘pushed’ the advancement of women on boards of directors:
women occupied 22.79% of the seats in 2017 and the percentage grew to 34.2% in 2021 in IBEX-35 companies
(CNMV, 2022). But in this respect, it has been observed that the quotas serve more to “say that they have been
met” than to contribute to real progress, because the majority of female members are independent external
directors. The very low number of female executive directors on boards and the underrepresentation of women
in the management committees show, in general, little attention to the internal promotion of talent and female
leadership (Campos-García, 2021a). In addition to the quotas set by governments or attached public bodies,
there are also many companies that, along with other inclusion and diversity policies, have determined gender
quotas to promote female representation in certain hierarchical positions (Campos-García, 2021b).

Lastly, in relation to the responsibility for change, it is clear that governments, the private sector and society as a
whole have a relevant role when it comes to advancing in the field of gender equality —as recognized by the
2030 Agenda regarding SDG 5. While a coordinated and joint effort is required, the main focus is on changing
social attitudes through education and company actions to end inequalities in the workplace.

6. Conclusions
Previous research has highlighted that employee wellbeing is closely linked to factors of equity, and the gender
imbalances that exist among treatment, training and career development, remuneration, or promotion practices
are a workplace reality that can reduce women’s enchantment, engagement, and productivity. This research has
explored and confirmed the initiatives or actions that can act as true levers to promote equality and contribute to
creating inclusive and attractive workplaces for female employees.

The application of the Delphi method has yielded four main conclusions:

1. There are still obstacles to achieving real equality in the workplace in the short or medium term. The
parity objectives and the flexibility measures to promote work organisation and the reconciliation of
personal, family, and professional life are the actions that can be most effective in achieving gender
equality in companies.

2. Factors related to equitable, fair, and non-discriminatory treatment are the main determinants of female
wellbeing in the workplace.

-479-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

3. The quality of female employment and having leaders capable of creating inclusive environments and
individually evaluating the reality of each employee according to their personal circumstances increases
the attractiveness of organisations for women.

4. Companies should increase their degree of responsibility and adopt a much more proactive role in the
challenge of eliminating sexist business attitudes and obsolete cultures in their workplaces. Thus, they
could benefit from higher productivity, lower absenteeism and turnover costs, and greater attraction,
retention, and use of female talent and, therefore, greater global competitiveness.

Important implications can be derived from these conclusions. At a theoretical level, this research supports many
of the findings found by other researchers (Schulte & Vainio, 2010; Sirota & Klein, 2013) but also provides new
evidence on the measures that may be more effective in promoting female wellbeing in workplaces and the
relevant role of leaders and organizations as a whole. Regarding the practical implications, the need for directors
and HR managers to consider the context and composition of the workforce to assess what initiatives are
required in each workplace seems evident. In companies with a highly masculinised workforce, it may be
especially relevant to pay greater attention to these initiatives in order to maximise the benefits of fully and
effectively utilising all available talent (Swailes et al., 2014). Companies must also focus attention on the
appointment and training of leaders capable of creating inclusive environments, applying new styles of
leadership that contribute to the emotional wellbeing of employees and promoting women’s development and
promotion policies. Fair selection and on-boarding processes, the establishment of clear criteria and promotional
objectives, as well as the elimination of obstacles and business attitudes that give rise to the glass ceiling are the
main measures to achieve equality and the professional advancement of women. The Spanish Royal Decree-Law
6/2019 on ‘Urgent measures to guarantee equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in
employment and occupation’ has been a step in this direction. Finally, workplace culture and organisational
practices have a significant impact on the advancement of gender equality; hence, the importance of avoiding
‘dirty policies’ (Webster et al., 2018) and ensuring that gender goals and initiatives are a vehicle to achieve greater
equality and diversity and a more inclusive and hospitable culture for women is evident. Organisations may not
be completely free from undesirable behaviour, but it is possible to minimise it through prevention and training
efforts within the company.

The main limitation of this research has to do mainly with the use of the technique chosen for data collection.
The subjective nature of the responses and opinions expressed by the participants is highlighted, which may be
conditioned by their personal and family circumstances. Therefore, from now on it could be interesting to
replicate the research in order to capture differences according to the different sociodemographic variables of
the experts or in different sectors of activity (taking into account, for example, the proportion of women in the
total workforce or leadership positions). Another important advance would be to include men in the panel of
experts in order to identify whether or not there are similarities in certain points of view and how different the
positions are.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
This paper has been supported by Project PID2021-124641NB-I00 of the Ministry of Science and Innovation
(Spain).

References
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308-323. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-
2013-0008

-480-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Barroso Osuna, J.M., & Cabero Almenara, J. (2013). La utilización del juicio de experto para la evaluación de
TIC: El coeficiente de competencia experta. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 65(2), 25-38.
https://doi.org/10.13042/brp.2013.65202
Basch, J., & Fisher, C.D. (1998). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work events and associated emotions (pp.
1-20). Australia: Bond University.
Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095
Baykal, E., Soyalp, E., & Yeşil, R. (2020). Queen bee syndrome: a modern dilemma of working women and its
effects on turnover intentions. In Strategic Outlook for Innovative Work Behaviours (pp. 165-178). Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50131-0_9
Beaupre, J.G. (2022). To lead or not to lead: exploring how young women’s early career experiences impact their
leadership ambition. Gender in Management: An International Journal. In press. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-11-
2021-0344
Bender, K.A., Donohue, S.M. & Heywood, J.S. (2005). Job satisfaction and gender segregation. Oxford Economic
Papers, 57(3), 479-496. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpi015
Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G.M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M.A., & Shaikh, F.M. (2012). The impact of autocratic and
democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. International business research, 5(2), 192.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n2p192
Caleo, S. (2016). Are organizational justice rules gendered? Reactions to men’s and women’s justice violations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1422-1435. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000131
Campos-García, I. (2021a). The COVID-19 scenario in terms of gender: An analysis in IBEX-35 companies.
Sustainability, 13(10), 5750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105750
Campos-García, I. (2021b). The female way to happiness at work: Happiness for women and organisations. In
The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in the Digiral Era (pp. 743-745). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42412-1_37
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process
view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19
Choi, S. (2011). Organizational justice and employee work attitudes: The federal case. The American Review of
Public Administration, 41(2), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010373275
Clark, A.E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: why are women so happy at work?. Labour Economics, 4(4),
341-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(97)00010-9
Clay‐Warner, J., Culatta, E., & James, K.R. (2013). Gender and organizational justice preferences. Sociology compass,
7(12), 1074-1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12094
CNMV (2022). Presencia de mujeres en los Consejos de Administración y en la alta dirección de las sociedades cotizadas.
Available at: http://www.cnmv.es/Portal/verDoc.axd?t=%7B8b5d2f80-dc98-4f91-ab94-
4822e3e44ab2%7D#:~:text=A%20finales%20de%202021%2C%20la,gobierno%20corporativo%20de%20las
%20sociedades
Cocchiara, F.K., & Bell, M.P. (2009). Gender and work stress: Unique stressors, unique responses. International
Handbook of Work and Health Psychology (3rd ed, 123-145). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell..
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470682357.ch7
Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

-481-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., & Menon, S.T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational
Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 21(7),
747-767. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200011)21:7<747::AID-JOB46>3.0.CO;2-J
Cropanzano, R., & Li, A. (2006). Organizational politics and workplace stress. In Viogoda-Gadot, E., Drory, A.
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics (pp. 139-160). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847201874.00017
Danna, K., & Griffin, R.W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the
literature. Journal of management, 25(3), 357-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500305
Eagly, A.H., & Steffen, V.J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social
roles. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(4), 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (2011). Social role theory. Handbook of theories in social psychology, 2, 458-476.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
Fisher, C.D. (2014). Conceptualizing and Measuring Wellbeing at Work. In P. Y. Chen, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide, Work and Wellbeing, Vol. III, (pp.9-33). Chichester, England: John Wiley &
Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell018
Fortin, N.M. (2005). Gender role attitudes and the labour-market outcomes of women across OECD countries.
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21(3), 416-438. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gri024
Gordon, T.J. (1994). The delphi method. Futures research methodology, 2(3), 1-30.
Grant Thornton (2020). Women in business 2020. Available at: https://www.grantthornton.global/en/insights/women-
in-business-2020/
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of management, 16(2),
399-432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208
Grime, M.M., & Wright, G. (2016). Delphi method. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07879
Harvey, C. (2018). When queen bees attack women stop advancing: Recognising and addressing female bullying
in the workplace. Development and Learning in Organizations, 32(5), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-04-2018-
0048
Helliwell, J.F. & Huang, H. (2011). Well-being and trust in the workplace. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(5),
747-767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9225-7
Hendrix, W.H., Spencer, B.A., & Gibson, G.S. (1994). Organizational and extraorganizational factors affecting
stress, employee well-being, and absenteeism for males and females. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9(2),
103-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230631
Hill, E.J., Jacob, J.I., Shannon, L.L., Brennan, R.T., Blanchard, V.L., & Martinengo, G. (2008). Exploring the
relationship of workplace flexibility, gender, and life stage to family-to-work conflict, and stress and burnout.
Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800802027564
Juniper, B., White, N. and Bellamy, P. (2009). Assessing employee wellbeing: is there another way?. International
Journal of Workplace Health Management, 2(3), 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538350910993412
Knowles, J., & Mainiero, L. (2021). Authentic talent development in women leaders who opted out: Discovering
authenticity, balance, and challenge through the kaleidoscope career model. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 60.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020060
Konrad, A.M., Corrigall, E., Lieb, P., & Ritchie Jr, J.E. (2000). Sex differences in job attribute preferences among
managers and business students. Group & Organization Management, 25(2), 108-131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601100252002
Landeta, J. (2002). El método Delphi. Una técnica de previsión del futuro. Ariel, Barcelona.

-482-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 73(5), 467-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American psychologist, 46(4), 352-367.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.352
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer publishing company.
Lee, C., & Farh, J.L. (1999). The effects of gender in organizational justice perception. Journal of Organizational
Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 20(1),
133-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199901)20:1<133::AID-JOB911>3.0.CO;2-#
Linstone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The delphi method (pp. 3-12). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
McKinsey (2021). Women in the workplace 2021: The state of women hangs in the balance. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-live/webinars/women-in-the-workplace-2021-the-state-of-
women-hangs-in-the-balance
Milhouse, V.H. (2005). Women, organizational development, and the new science of happiness. Advancing Women
in Leadership Online Journal, 19, 1-15.
Ortega, F. (2008). El método Delphi, prospectiva en Ciencias Sociales a través del análisis de un caso práctico.
Revista Escuela de Administración de Negocios, 64, 31-54. https://doi.org/10.21158/01208160.n64.2008.452
Payscale (2021). The state of the gender pay gap 2021. Available at: https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
Qian, Y., & Fan, W. (2019). Men and women at work: Occupational gender composition and affective well-being
in the United States. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(7), 2077-2099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0039-3
Richardsen, A.M., Traavik, L.E., & Burke, R J. (2016). Women and work stress: More and different?. In
Connerley, M.L., & Wu, J. (editors), Handbook on Well-being of Working Women (123-140). Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9897-6_8
Salas-Vallina, A., Simone, C., & Fernández-Guerrero, R. (2020). The human side of leadership: Inspirational
leadership effects on follower characteristics and happiness at work (HAW). Journal of Business Research, 107,
162-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.044
Schulte, P., & Vainio, H. (2010). Well-being at work–overview and perspective. Scandinavian journal of work,
environment & health, 36(5), 422-429. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3076
Simpson, P.A., & Kaminski, M. (2007). Gender, organizational justice perceptions, and union organizing.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19(1), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-006-9032-9
Sirota, D., & Klein, D. (2013). The enthusiastic employee: How companies profit by giving workers what they want. New
Yersey: Pearson Education.
Sloane, P.J., & Williams, H. (2000). Job satisfaction, comparison earnings, and gender. Labour, 14(3), 473-502.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9914.00142
Stansfeld, S.A., Shipley, M.J., Head, J., Fuhrer, R., & Kivimaki, M. (2013). Work characteristics and personal social
support as determinants of subjective well-being. PLoS One, 8(11), e81115.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081115
Swailes, S., Downs, Y., & Orr, K. (2014). Conceptualising inclusive talent management: Potential, possibilities and
practicalities. Human Resource Development International, 17(5), 529-544.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.954188
Tatli, A., Vassilopoulou, J., & Özbilgin, M. (2013). An unrequited affinity between talent shortages and untapped
female potential: The relevance of gender quotas for talent management in high growth potential economies
of the Asia Pacific region. International Business Review, 22(3) 539-553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.07.005

-483-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

The World Bank (2019). Proportion of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, female (% of 24 hour day). Available
at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.TIM.UWRK.FE
Turoff, M., & Linstone, H.A. (2002). The Delphi method-techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Van Katwyk, P.T., Fox, S., Spector, P.E., & Kelloway, E.K. (2000). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being
Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(2),
219-230. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.219
Warr, P. (2003). Well-Being and the Workplace. In Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds). Well-being:
Foundations of hedonicpsychology (392-412). New York: Russell SageFoundation.
Webster, J.R., Adams, G.A., Maranto, C.L., & Beehr, T.A. (2018). “Dirty” workplace politics and well-being: The
role of gender. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(3), 361-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318769909
Weiss, H.M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1-74.

Appendix I: Questionnaire Round 1

Block I. Current status and measures for gender equality in companies

1. Regarding the current state of equality in Spanish companies, with which statement do you agree most?
1) The progress made in recent years is encouraging to soon achieve real and effective equality of
opportunity
2) Despite some progress, there are still obstacles to achieving real equality in the workplace in the short or
medium term
3) Real equality in business and employment will not be achieved in the near future

2. What measure do you think has contributed the most to promoting equality in companies so far? (Mark only
one)
1) Recommendation by the government to impose gender quotas on companies to increase the presence
of women in certain positions —the 2007 Equality Law invites but does not oblige and does not
sanction.
2) Obligation to negotiate and apply Equality Plans in companies with more than 50 workers by Royal
Decree-Law 6/2019 of March 1.
3) Social movements and networks/professional associations of women who actively fight for equal
opportunities in the workplace
4) Initiatives launched by the companies themselves

3. Would you be in favor of laws that force companies to apply gender quotas by imposing sanctions in case of
non-compliance?
1) Yes
2) No, because ___________

4. Rank from 1 to 5 (1 = most important; 5 = least important) which measures do you think would be most
effective in pursuing equality and fairness in the workplace:

-484-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Order
Sensitisation and awareness days to eliminate gender bias in the workplace
Specification of objectives and commitments to achieve parity in selection processes, remuneration
policy, maternity and paternity leave, etc.
Flexibility measures to favor the organization of work and the reconciliation of personal, family and
professional life
Advanced diversity programs —mentoring, coaching, etc.— for senior management and linking their
remuneration to gender equality objectives
Mandatory gender quotas in certain hierarchical positions (with sanction in case of non-compliance)

Observations (if any): __________

Block II. Workplaces that can ‘charm’ women: Conditioning factors and initiatives

5. Rate from 1 to 5 (1 = not very important; 5 = very important) how important the following aspects are to
achieving the well-being of the female collective in the workplace:

1 2 3 4 5
1) Training opportunities and continuous learning
2) Inclusive culture and pleasant work environment
3) Flexibility and conciliation
4) Opportunities for promotion and lack of glass ceiling
5) Elimination of the wage gap

Observations (if any): __________

6. Order from 1 to 5 (1 = the most important; 5 = the least important) which initiatives or measures do you
think increase the attractiveness of a company in the eyes of a woman:

Order
Work-life balance and co-responsibility measures [options to reduce working hours or extend
maternity leave, financial aid for the birth of children, flexible hours...]
Quality in female employment [job security, fair pay and equitable treatment]
Initiatives for the development and promotion of female talent [a broad representation of women in
positions of responsibility/leadership often leads to supportive behavior, the formation of alliances,
gender awareness and a commitment to changing social structures]
Measures to prevent workplace harassment based on sex and sanctioning policies for sexist practices
Health and well-being plans [nutrition programs, coaching and mental health or psychosocial well-
being sessions, programs to promote physical activity, rehabilitation or physiotherapy services, etc.]

Observations (if any): __________

-485-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Do you think that any other initiative not included previously could help organizations 'fall in love' with their
employees?
Explain______

Block III. Future prospects: The best workplaces for women

7. Order from 1 to 5 (1 = the most important; 5 = the least important) what do you think are the greatest
difficulties or challenges that exist to make workplaces really attractive for women:

Order
Persistence of gender-biased business attitudes and outdated cultures
Barriers that women themselves put on themselves (insecurity and undervaluation of female talent)
Diversity and/or corporate well-being are issues placed on the agenda more as a form of publicity
and image than by conviction
Lack of transparency and discrepancy between what is said and what is done
Underrepresentation of women in positions of responsibility and leadership

Observations (if any): __________

8. Rate from 1 to 5 (1 = very little; 5 = a lot) the impact you think having 'delighted' women on their staff has on
companies:

1 2 3 4 5
1) Retention capacity of female talent
2) Increased productivity and overall job satisfaction
3) Reduction of absenteeism and female turnover
4) Improvement of the corporate image before all its collaborators
5) Contribution to the social progress of women

Observations (if any): __________

Appendix II: Questionnaire Round 2

Block I. Gender equality in companies

1. In relation to the measures that have contributed the most to promoting equality in the business world in
Spain to date, mark the answer with which you agree the most. Who do you think has been most responsible for
the advance?

-486-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

1) Society (especially women through social movements, professional networks, etc.).

2) The companies (based on their own initiatives created from CSR).
3) Government authorities (through legislation in favor of the application of equality plans,
recommendation to increase the presence of women in certain positions, etc.).

Observations (if any): __________

2. Rank from 1 to 3 (1 = to a greater extent; 3 = to a lesser extent) which agent do you think should assume
greater responsibility in promoting gender equality at the business level from now on.

Order
Society
Companies
Governmentalauthorities

Observations (if any): __________

3. Regarding gender quotas, approximately half of the panel of experts has disagreed. Most of those who have
advocated it have underlined its usefulness mainly as a 'starter' measure, which can subsequently contribute to
culture change in organizations. Based on these results, which statement do you agree with the most?
1) Quotas, as an initial measure, can be useful to direct equality and the possibilities of promotion of
women.
2) I do not trust that quotas are a useful measure to promote equality or promotion or as an initial
measure.

Observations (if any): __________

4. In relation to government measures to guarantee equal treatment and opportunities for men and women, what
consequence do you consider most effective?
1) Economic sanctions in case of non-compliance [‘penalties’]
2) Economic incentives in case of compliance ['prizes']
3) None of the above because __________

-487-
 Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2046

Block II. Best places to work

5. As a potential job candidate, rank from 1 to 3 (1 = most preferred; 3 = least preferred) which organizations
you would prefer to apply to based on the actions they take.

Order
Organizations with fair on-boarding processes (e.g., job offers without discriminatory bias,
anonymous resumes, same questions during the selection stage, etc.).
Organizations that elaborate transparently and objectively and make public their promotion and
remuneration policies.
Organizations that have leaders / bosses capable of creating inclusive environments and individually
assessing the reality of each employee according to their personal circumstances.

6. Assuming that you receive an equitable and fair salary, if you could decide how to receive an increase in
remuneration, weight your 'ideal extra remuneration package' as a percentage (sum of percentages = 100%).

%
Financial compensation (salary, incentives and benefits)
Non-financial compensation (well-being and emotional salary)
100% TOTAL

Intangible Capital, 2022 (www.intangiblecapital.org)

Article's contents are provided on an Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Creative commons International License. Readers are allowed to
copy, distribute and communicate article's contents, provided the author's and Intangible Capital's names are included. It must not be
used for commercial purposes. To see the complete license contents, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

-488-