You are here
Methodological foundations for assessing the gender orientation of corporate culture in an enterprise
The article examines the methodological foundations for assessing the gender orientation of an enterprise's corporate structure. It is substantiated that under the conditions of modern socio-economic transformations, achieving gender equality is becoming a key factor in the sustainable development of organizations. Corporate culture, as a system of shared values, norms, and behavioral models, reflects the enterprise's real, rather than declarative, attitude toward gender equality issues. At the same time, methodological tools for assessing the gender orientation of corporate culture remain insufficiently developed, as existing approaches are largely limited to demographic or legal indicators, ignoring structural and value-based dimensions.
The purpose of the study is to develop and substantiate a methodological approach to assessing the gender orientation of an enterprise's corporate culture based on the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. The proposed approach covers four levels of perception—individual, group, organizational, and inter-organizational—and four spheres of assessment: managerial-economic, socio-psychological, legal-regulatory, and spiritual. Such multidimensionality allows for the identification of differences in gender sensitivity at various levels of interaction within the enterprise. To ensure the comparability of heterogeneous indicators, the study employs Harrington’s generalized desirability function, which integrates quantitative and qualitative parameters into a single dimensionless assessment scale. This ensures the possibility of an objective assessment of the level of gender balance in the corporate environment and the determination of deviations from the desired state of equality. A methodological approach is proposed that provides a comprehensive assessment of the gender orientation of corporate culture and creates a foundation for managerial decisions aimed at enhancing inclusivity, harmonizing labor relations, and increasing the economic performance of the enterprise. It is proven that the effect of forming a gender-oriented corporate culture manifests at three levels: micro-, meso-, and macroeconomic, ensuring the interconnection between the development of individual enterprises, industries, and the national economy as a whole. It is concluded that the implementation of this approach facilitates the integration of social and economic aspects of corporate governance, forming a basis for the sustainable development and competitiveness of the organization.
Keywords: gender equality, corporate culture, assessment methodology, inclusivity, organizational development, social responsibility, desirability function.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3277-02241. Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R. E. (2011) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Schein, E. H. (2017) Organizational Culture and Leadership (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
3. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 616 p.
4. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5. Beck, D. & Cowan, C. (1996) Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
6. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: Wiley.
7. Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (2000) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (Revised & Updated ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
8. O’Reilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. A. (1996) Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, pp. 157–200.
9. Semykina, M. V. & Belyak, T. O. (2018) Korporatyvna kultura v systemi sotsialno-trudovykh vidnosyn: monohrafiia [Corporate culture in the system of social and labor relations: monograph]. Kropyvnytskyi: KOD.
10. Fedotova, I. V. (2018) Vyznachennia rivnia gendernoi chutlyvosti korporatyvnoi kultury pidpryiemstva [Determination of gender sensitivity level of the enterprise corporate culture]. Ekonomika transportnoho kompleksu – Economics of the Transport Complex, 31, pp. 27–44. Available at: https://doi.rg/10.30977/ETK.2225-2304.2018.31.0.27.
11. Volodchenko, Zh. M. & Kondratiev, I. M. (2020) Henderni osoblyvosti korporatyvnoi kultury sotsialnoi orhanizatsii [Gender features of corporate culture in social organizations]. Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu “Chernihivskyi kolehium” imeni T. H. Shevchenka – Bulletin of the National University "Chernihiv Collegium" named after T. H. Shevchenko, 167(11), pp. 17–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4515150.
12. Stave, C., Levin, L. & Henriksson, P. (2023) Gender equality culture: Measuring attitudes towards gender equality in the transport sector. Proceedings of The Global Conference on Women’s Studies, 2(1), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.33422/womensconf.v2i1.76.
13. Blomkvist, K., Engzell, J., Kappen, P. & Zander, I. (2025) Exploring innovative work behavior: A gender perspective on corporate competitive culture, role models and intrapreneurs. Journal of Business Research, 189, Article 115155. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115155.
14. Yilmaz, M. K., Hacioglu, U., Tatoglu, E., Aksoy, M. & Duran, S. (2023) Measuring the impact of board gender and cultural diversity on corporate governance and social performance: Evidence from emerging markets. Economic Research – Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(2), Article 2106503. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2106503.
15. Utoft, E. H. (2020) Exploring linkages between organisational culture and gender equality work – An ethnography of a multinational engineering company. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79, Article 101791. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101791.
16. Steyn, R. & De Bruin, G. (2018) Investigating the validity of the Human Resource Practices Scale in South Africa: Measurement invariance across gender. SA Journal of Human Resource Management – a1038. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v16i0.1038
17. Van Zyl, C. J. J. (2016) Measurement invariance across gender and ethnicity on the Emotional Quotient Inventory 2.0. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(2), pp. 141–148. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2016.1163898.
18. Handy, C. (1999) Understanding Organizations (4th ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
19. Cooke, R. A. & Szumal, J. L. (2021) Creating Constructive Cultures: Leading People and Organizations to Better Performance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
20. Fedotova, I., Rachwal-Mueller, A., Riznyk, I. & Panchenko, A. (2024) Methodological approach to assessing stakeholders’ perception of corporate culture in enterprises. European Scientific Journal of Economic and Financial Innovation, 1(13), pp. 131–147.Available at: https://doi.org/10.32750/2024-0113.
21. Ovcharenko, M. I. & Cherviakova, S. V. (2013) Metodychne zabezpechennia otsinky stanu korporatyvnoi kultury pidpryiemstva [Methodical support for assessing the state of corporate culture of an enterprise]. Marketynh i menedzhment innovatsii – Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2, pp. 130–141. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2013.2-11.
22. Miranda de Souza, A., Soares de Lima, G. E., Nalon, G. H. et al. (2021) Application of the desirability function for the development of new composite eco-efficiency indicators for concrete. Journal of Building Engineering, 40, Article 102374. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102374.
23. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1), 1–17.
24. Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226041223.001.0001
25. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.
26. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance, 17(3), 320– 337. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x
27. McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. New York: McKinsey& Company.
28. Catalyst. (2020, June 24). Quick take: Why diversity and inclusion matter. Catalyst Research Center. Available at: https://www.catalyst.org/research/why-diversity-and-inclusion-matter/(Accessed:1 October 2025).
29. Fluchtmann, J., Adema, W., & Keese, M. (Eds.). (2024). Gender equality and economic growth: Past progress and future potential (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 304). Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/fb0a0a93-en
30. International Labour Organization. (2019). Women in business and management: The business case for change. Geneva: ILO.
31. World Economic Forum. (2025). Global Gender Gap Report 2025. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2025 / (Accessed: 1
October 2025)32. Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of the Enterprise. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
33. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(S5), S71–S102. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261725
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 ekon_2_2025_14_178-198.pdf | 675.4 KB |