Gender Diversity and Employee Performance in the Tanzania Textile Firms

Flora Amsi¹, Abraham Kiflemariam²

¹The Institute of Social Work, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
²Human Resource Department, Directorate of Accademic, Research and Consultancy, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

DOI: 10.4236/jhrss.2023.112015                

Abstract

Employees’ performance is considered to be the lifeline of any organization considering the competitive environment that exists in the today’s business world. One of the factors that can be used to promote employees’ performance is gender diversity. In this regard, many researchers have been attracted to study such relationship. But most prior empirical studies focused on employee’s performance as a single dimensional variable instead of being multidimensional variable. Employees’ performance can be categorized as adaptive, contextual and task performance. In this regard, the article aimed at examining the influence of gender diversity on employees’ performance dimensions. The sample size was 618 whereby 203 respondents were from Dar es Salaam; 173 from Mwanza; 117 from Shinyanga and 125 from Simiyu who were chosen by using multistage sampling technique. In total, 554 respondents filled in and returned the questionnaire which makes the response rate of 89.6%. Mean scores and Structural Equation Model (SEM) were used as data analysis techniques. The findings revealed that gender diversity had a statistically significant and positive influence on all employees’ performance dimensions i.e. adaptive, contextual and task performance. Hence, the article recommends that organizations must ensure the appropriate mix of men and women at workplace through engendered recruitment, retention and career development. However, promotion and appointment of the higher positions such as managerial positions should base on the merits of an individuals and not on their gender.

Keywords

Gender Diversity, Employees’ Performance, Textile Industry and Tanzania

1. Introduction

Globally, business operates in a competitive environment that demands better employees’ performance (Samantha, Senthuran, & Priyantha, 2021) . In this regard, employees’ performance is one of the critical aspects in the business firms (Sriviboon & Jermsittiparsert, 2019) because it determines firm survival Pradhan and Jena (2017) and sustainability (Samantha, Senthuran, & Priyantha, 2021) . Despite the need for better employees’ performance, most businesses including the textile firms suffer from low employee performance (Al-Zubi, Ali, & Alqtish, 2017) .

Employee performance has been defined differently by scholars, for instance Durga (2017) defined performance as the act of executing a task successfully or an accomplishment of tasks in the organization. Safitri et al. (2019) define employee performance as the act of carrying out fully the assigned tasks by considering predefined objectives. Pradhan and Jena (2017) explain employee performance in terms of adaptive, contextual and task performance within the workplace. According to Pradhan and Jena (2017) , employee performance can be analyzed into three dimensions including adaptive performance, contextual performance, and task performance.

Employees’ task performance relates to the allocated fundamental work responsibilities in the employees’ line of work (Motowidlo & Van-Scotter, 1994) . Hesketh and Neal (1999) explain adaptive performance as the ability of individual to be able to adjust with the ever-changing business environment. This category of employee performance involves the employees’ ability to provide required assistance to the job settings in the changing environment. Contextual performance includes prosocial attitudes such as volunteering for extra work, teamwork spirit and ensuring sharing of key resources and information for the better organization performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) . Employees who exhibit contextual performance tend to abide to the rules, procedures and policies of the business and put effort in their work.

In any organization, resources can be categorized into three groups namely as physical resources, human resources, and financial resources. Among the three resources, human resources are the most critical assets of any organization (Stone-Romero, Alvarez, & Thompson, 2009) . This is supported by Chijoke and Chinedu (2015) who posit that employees are the critical asset, and their performance is crucial. This argument is in line with Sriviboon & Jermsittiparsert (2019) who posited that good firm performance is highly determined by the performance of its employees.

Employees performance can be influenced by several factors including reward (Fareed, Ul-Abidan, & Shahzad, 2013; Mishra & Panda, 2018; Salah, 2016) , employee training (Nassary, 2018; Afroz, 2018; Garavan, McCathy, & Carbery, 2020) , employee engagement (Reijseger, Peeters, Taris, & Schaufeli, 2017) , and gender diversity (Onwuchekwa, Onwuzuligbo, & Ifeanyi, 2019) . But gender diversity is the main factor that influences employee performance. This is supported by Ali, Kulik and Metz (2011) and Giulian and Poli (2019) who attest that gender diversity is gaining popularity in the business context and has attracted more interest in the field of human resource due to its ability to enhance performance of employees.

Gender diversity can be defined as an appropriate mix of male and female workers within an organization (Onwuchekwa, Onwuzuligbo, & Ifeanyi, 2019) . Studies such as that of (Chew, Lee, Tan, & Tee, 2011; Chepkemoi, Rop, & Chepkwony, 2022) show that the practice of having a good mix of male and female employee has been on the rise due to its capacity of tapping into abilities and skills from the different gender. Also in their study, Kirton and Green (2015) posit that gender diversity is one of the important practices that is found to positively improve employee performance. This is in line with the opinion of (Sharma et al., 2016; Emiko & Eunmi, 2009; Kochan et al., 2002) who contend that firms that prioritize gender diversity practices have a prospect of success and improved employee performance.

On the contrary, researchers such as (Randel, 2002; Wegge, Roth, Neubach, Schmidt, & Kanfer, 2008) argue that gender diversity may create intergroups biases which in turn may end up harming the performance of the employees. Furthermore, other empirical studies established no significant relationship, negative relationship or weak relationship between gender diversity and employee performance. Prior empirical studies (such as Adams & Ferreira, 2009 ; Ahern and Dittmar, 2011 ) opine that there is negative relationship between gender-diversity and performance whereas Miller and Carmen (2009) argue that there is no link between the two. These findings have attracted interest among the researchers to carry out more studies on the relationship between gender diversity and employee performance.

Notwithstanding, various studies have been conducted on the influence of gender diversity on employee performance, but these studies examined employee performance on its totality without considering the three dimensions of employees’ performance i.e., adaptive performance, contextual performance, and task performance. It is even supported by Amsi, Kiflemariam and Ngui (2022) who argue for examining employee engagement using its dimensions because it is likely that an independent variable may not have the same influence on the employees’ performance dimensions.

Similarly, Amsi et al. (2022) adopted the Contingency theory to examine the mediation effect which mainly focuses on the external environmental factors to the firm. However, the theory cannot well explain the relationship between gender diversity and employees’ performance dimensions because gender diversity is an internal factor to the organisation. It is likely that gender diversity may have different influence across the three dimensions of employee performance. It is therefore the aim of this article to investigate the influence of gender diversity on employees’ performance dimensions i.e. adaptive, contextual and task performance.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sociocultural Theory

This article was grounded on Sociocultural Theory which was put forth by Vygotsky (1978) . The theory assumes that organization culture and context may influence the behavior of individuals. House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004) posit that culture may have effect on the extent of inclusivity of men and women in the organization. Matsumoto and Juang (2013) explain that the social interaction and organization culture at workplace are the factors that may influence individuals’ behaviors including their job performance.

Sanderson (2010) improved the theory by focusing more on the way circumstances that surround individuals and how their behaviors, feelings and thoughts are affected specifically by their surroundings, socio-cultural elements, within the organization. Workplaces that embrace diversity influence positive behaviors (Ullah, 2020) . Further, Sanderson (2010) explains that sociocultural perspective describes peoples’ behaviors and mental process as shaped several factors including gender.

In this regard, sociocultural approach provides an understanding on the motivation which causes a person to behave in a particular way. In support to this, Matsumoto and Juang (2013) argue that individual behavior is influenced by culture and the context which behavior occurs, therefore this theory provides an understanding of motivation which causes a person to behave in a particular way. Hofmann and Hinton (2014) argue that social, and culture of the workplace determines individuals’ behavior and perception. Similarly, Farndale, Beijer, Van Veldhoven, Kelliher, and Hope-Hailey (2014) argue that organizational culture and societal factors play crucial role in determining employees’ behaviors such as employees’ performance.

Based on the Sociocultural Theory, organizations that embrace gender diversity encourage employees’ positive behavior. For instance, Galinsky, Bond and Hill (2004) posit that when individuals experience conducive and inclusive working environment, they exhibit behaviors such as improved performance. The theory therefore explains well the way gender diversity may influence the performance of employees in the organization. Managers are responsible to create an environment that promotes gender diversity and exert their efforts to enhance their performance. Hence, this theory is relevant and suitable to explain the influence of gender diversity on the employee performance dimensions.

2.2. Empirical Literature Review

Employee performance is one of the crucial variables that determines survival and success of firms. Dynamic and competitive business environment requires high focus on the exploitation of its human resource especially attention should be paid more on the employee performance (Wright & Snell, 2009) . Businesses should, therefore, focus on enhancing gender diversity practices in order to improve employee performance (Gruman & Saks, 2011) .

Various studies were conducted to examine the influence of gender diversity on employees’ performance. For instance, Zhuwao, Ngirandu, Ndlovu, & Setati (2019) conducted a study in higher learning institution in South Africa and established positive relationship between gender diversity and employee performance. Similarly, Hapompwe, Mulenga, Siwale and Kukano (2020) conducted a study in Compulsory Standards Agencies (ZCSA) in Zambia and found significant positive relationship between gender diversity and employee.

Odhiambo, Gachoka and Rambo (2018) carried out a study in the public universities in western Kenya and established that gender diversity positively influences the performance of employees in the public universities. Kyalo & Gachunga (2015) carried studies in Kenya and established that there is a positive correlation on the gender diversity and employee performance. Also, in their study on the influence of gender diversity and employee performance, Rizwan, Khan and Nadeem (2016) established a significant and positive relationship between gender diversity and employee performance.

Notwithstanding the presence of prior empirical studies that support the gender diversity-performance relationship, there are other prior empirical studies that argue differently. For instance, Gallego, Garcia and Rodriguez (2010) conducted a study in various organizations in Spain and found insignificant relationship between gender diversity and employee performance. Similarly, Sheth (2018) conducted a study in the telecommunication industry in Gujarat and found no association on the gender diversity and employee performance. In the same vein, Nielsen & Madsen (2017) conducted study and found no significant correlation between gender diversity and employee performance. Likewise, Nang’oni and Kembu (2018) conducted a study on the influence of gender diversity on employee performance at Kenya urban roads authority and established that the effect of gender diversity on employee performance was weak.

Meanwhile recognizing different arguments of prior empirical studies, there is a possibility that gender diversity may have an influence on the employees’ performance dimensions i.e., adaptive, contextual and task performance. The mix of male and female employees in the organizations may influence employees’ ability to adjust with the ever-changing working environment (adaptive performance); pro-social attitudes such as volunteering for extra work, teamwork spirit resources and information sharing (contextual performance) and ability to implement allocated fundamental work responsibilities in the employees’ line of work (task performance).

In this case, this article hypothesized that gender diversity positively influences adaptive, contextual and task performance and, categorically coded as H₁, H₂ and H₃ to indicate first, second and third hypothesis. The first hypothesis states that gender diversity positively influences adaptive performance while the second hypothesis states that gender diversity positively influences contextual performance. The third hypothesis states that gender diversity positively influences task performance.

3. Research Methods

This article used cross-sectional design which involves collection of data at one point in time (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 2013) . The design facilitates the collection of data that make possible to generate robust conclusion and creates hypotheses that can be investigated. This design is relevant because the article examined the influence of gender diversity on the employee performance dimensions in the textile firms. Cross-sectional design also facilitates greater control over precision of estimates (Thisted, 2006) .

Moreover, the design is relevant because data were collected only once, at a specific point in time. Questionnaires were used for data collection adopting Onwuchekwa et al. (2019)’s measurements on gender diversity and Pradhan and Jena (2017)’s measurements on employees’ performance dimensions. Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, Shinyanga and Simiyu were selected as the geographical locations of this empirical work. These regions were chosen by considering the business density of the textile firms and activities carried within the regions. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2016) Dar es salaam has the highest business density (i.e. 18,358 employees) and also considered to be a commercial city, while Mwanza and Shinyanga regions’ economy are dominated by textile firms with a density of 15,630 and 11,250 employees respectively. In addition, Simiyu region represented regions with relatively lower business density (10,540) but it is dominated by textile industries National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2016) .

The population of the study was 55,778 textile firm employees National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2016) and the sample size was 618 textile firm employees. Respondents were selected using probability sampling technique which allows for the generalization of the study findings (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010) . Cluster sampling technique was adopted in the selection of the employees from the selected geographical regions namely Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, Shinyanga and Simiyu. Workplaces were then randomly selected to obtain employees who responded to the questionnaires. To calculate the sample size, Taro Yamane formula was applied.

$n=N/\left(1+N\times e^2\right)$ ,

where N = 55,778 and e = 4%

$n=55778/\left(1+55778\times {0.04}^2\right)=618$

where:

n is the sample size

N is the population

e is the sampling error

The sample size of Dar es Salaam region was 203 respondents, 173 respondents from Mwanza, 117 respondents for Shinyanga and 125 respondents for Simiyu region. However, 554 respondents filled in and returned the questionnaire which makes the response rate of 89.6%. In the questionnaire, gender diversity items were adopted from Onwuchekwa et al. (2019) while task, adaptive and contextual employees’ performance items were adopted from Pradhan and Jena (2017) . Data were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM). This method was appropriate because of its capacity to accommodate multiple dependent variables i.e. adaptive, contextual and task performance. Assessment of the internal consistency was performed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Construct reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were used to assess both construct reliability and convergent reliability. Alpha coefficients for the gender diversity, adaptive performance, contextual performance, and task performance were 0.842, 0.823, 0.933, and 0.843 respectively.

Nevertheless, the use of SEM requires an assessment of the Goodness of Fit indices, which include absolute indices, incremental fit indices, and parsimony fit indices. The absolute fit indices that were the focus of this article were the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The recommended GFI is 0.90 or a value which is closer to 0.90 (Byrne, 2010; Thadani & Cheung, 2008) . On the other hand, Hooper, Coughlan and Mullen (2008) report a recommended value of RMSEA of less than 0.08. However, a RMSEA value of 0.08 shows that the model fairly fits the data. In the case of incremental fit indices, the article tested for the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index.

The adjusted value of AGFI is based on the degrees of freedom (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and must be at least 0.08 (Chau & Hu, 2001) . For the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the latent variables must not be correlated and it has to be at least 0.90 (Hair & Black, 2010) . In addition, the article also calculated the parsimony fit indices that examined the goodness of fit of the model, which is obtained as division between Chi-square (λ²) and the degree of freedom (df). It is recommended to be less than or equal to 5 (Ullman, 1996) . All the mentioned model fit indices were used to test the structural equation model.

In addition, assumptions of SEM such as multicollinearity, linearity, normal distribution and homoscedasticity were observed before applying the selected inferential data analysis technique. With regard to normal distribution, Shapiro Wilks Tests was conducted and it was insignificant at 0.125 which indicated that data were normally distributed. Homoscedasticity condition was also tested to understand whether the residual values of a dependent variable i.e. performance of employees are equally distributed. If they are not equally distributed, the problem of heteroscedasticity occurs and distorts the quality of results (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) .

In the process of testing for homoscedasticity and heteroscedasticity, the scatter plot as shown in Appendix 1 was used and revealed that the residual values of the dependent variable are equally distributed. The residual values neither concentrated in some values nor departed far at other values. This indicated that the homoscedasticity condition was achieved and there was no a problem of heteroscedasticity.

4. Findings

Article findings are divided into two groups which are descriptive and inferential findings. The descriptive findings were used as initial findings to provide additional information in the interpretation and discussion of the inferential findings.

4.1. Descriptive Findings

Data set that was used in the article entitled social engagement, gender diversity and employee performance by Amsi, Kiflemariam and Ngui (2022) were used for descriptive statistics in this article.

Demographic characteristics were categorized into five groups: age, gender, education, marital status, and work experience. In terms of gender, 54.5% of the respondents were male, while 45.5% of the respondents were female. Regarding marital status, 39.5% of the respondents were single, 47.5% were married, 10.5% were divorced, and 2.5% were widowed/widowers. Respondents were categorized into five age groups: 20 - 25, 26 - 45, 46 - 55, 56 - 60, and 60+ years old. Respondents aged 20 - 25 years old were 141 (25.5%), 86 (15.5%) were 46 - 55 years old, 24 (4.3%) were 56 - 60 years old, and those aged above 60 years were 16 (0.2%). Most respondents (i.e., 286, or 51.6%) were between the ages of 26 and 45 years.

This study established that 18 respondents (3.2%) had no formal schooling, 117 respondents (21.1%) were of primary school qualification, and 178 respondents (32.1%) had received an O-level certificate. Moreover, 50 respondents (9.0%) A-level certificate holders, 81 (14.6%) held a degree/advanced diploma, and 3 respondents (0.5%) had postgraduate qualifications. Thus, the descriptive findings demonstrated that O-level was the highest education level for the majority of respondents.

The article also established that the majority of respondents (i.e., 208 or 37.5%) had worked within the textile industry for a period of 1 to 4 years, while 123 respondents (22.2%) had worked for less than a year. In addition, 122 (22%) had a working experience of 5 - 9 years, and 100 respondents (18.1%) had work experience exceeding 9 years. The findings from Table 1 illustrate the distribution of the demographic characteristics of respondents.

In this article, mean scores were used to rank the variables of the study. Oxford (1990) and Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) categorized mean scores into low, medium and high. Low mean scores range between 1 and 2.54, medium scores 2.5 to 3.4 and high mean score 3.5 to 5.0. The mean scores for gender diversity ranged between 4.26 - 4.56, this is an indication that gender diversity items were highly ranked by respondents.

Respondents rated the application of these items in the organization at a high level, with mean score ranging from 4.26 to 4.56. Respondents agreed that they felt valued by others regardless of their gender (mean score = 4.56), followed by the item on the organization focusing on a good mix of men and women (mean score = 4.38), and men and women having equal opportunities for career development (mean score = 4.35). In addition, most respondents agreed that there

Table 1. Demographic characteristics.

Source: Field data (2020).

was a good mix of both genders in job allocation (mean score = 4.33), that there was no difference in work performance between the genders (mean score = 4.29), and that appointments to a managerial position were based on merit and not gender (mean score = 4.26).

Adaptive performance was coded into seven specific items: AP1 to AP7. The first item (AP1) was on the mobilization of collective intelligence for effective teamwork, AP2 concerned employees managing changes in their jobs when the situation demanded it, and AP3 was about effectively handling teamwork in the face of changes. AP4 was on a mutual understanding on viable solutions in the organization, AP5 was about respondents losing temper their when facing criticism from team members, AP6 was concerned with whether employees were comfortable with work flexibility, and AP7 was on how well they could cope with organizational changes from time to time. In this case, AP5 and AP7 were dropped because the items did not meet the minimum coefficients of reliability.

Mean scores for adaptive performance items ranged from 4.11 to 4.19, with item-specific mean scores being AP1 = 4.17, AP2 = 4.16, AP3 = 4.15, AP4 = 4.19, and AP6 = 4.11. Even though all specific items of adaptive performance were at a high mean score range, AP4 led with a mean score of 4.19. This means that mutual understanding led to employees having viable solutions for work-related challenges happening within the organization. The item with the least mean score was AP6 (mean score = 4.11) and this item was about employees’ flexibility about their work. However, this does not undermine the fact that other items of adaptive performance were also important since all items under this variable had high mean scores.

Task performance had six (6) items, which were coded as TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5, and TP6. The first item (TP1) was about compliance to high standards of work, and TP2 was about employees’ capability of handling assignments without much supervision. Other items were TP3, which was on respondents being passionate about their work, and TP4 was concerned with respondents’ belief about their colleagues’ high performance. The fifth item (TP5) was concerned with the timely completion of tasks by respondents, and TP6 focused on how organizational goal are achieved through the performance of multiple assignments. Given the fact that TP6 did not meet the minimum coefficients for the reliability statistics, it was dropped. Thus, TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, and TP5 were selected for the descriptive analysis.

Mean scores for task performance were high and ranged from 4.23 to 4.57. Among the specific items of task performance, TP5 and TP2 led by both having mean scores of 4.57. These were followed by TP3 (mean score = 4.55), TP1 (mean score = 4.40), and TP4 with the least mean score of 4.23.

Contextual performance consisted of nine (9) items coded from CP1 to CP9. These items were concerned with employees being used to extending help to co-workers when needed (CP1), loving handling extra responsibilities (CP2), and extending sympathy and empathy to co-workers when they were in trouble. Other items included participating actively in group discussion and work meetings (CP4), employees praising co-workers for their good work (CP5), and employees deriving a lot of satisfaction by nurturing others in the organization (CP6). The seventh item (CP7) was about respondents being able to maintain good coordination among fellow workers, while CP8 was about the employee’s ability to guide their colleagues beyond their job purview. In addition, CP9 was about respondents being able to communicate effectively with colleagues for the purposes of problem-solving and decision-making. However, CP1, CP4, CP3 and CP6 were dropped because they did not meet the minimum coefficient for the reliability statistics. In this case, CP2, CP5, CP7, CP8 and CP9 were selected in the descriptive statistics.

The mean score showed that all the selected items under contextual performance were highly ranked because they ranged between mean scores of 4.42 and 4.49. Specifically, the mean scores were CP2 = 4.42, CP5 = 4.49, CP7 = 4.46, CP8 = 4.43, and CP9 = 4.49. Even though all items were highly ranked, CP5 and CP9 led by both having the highest mean score of 4.49, followed by CP7 and CP8, which both had a mean score of 4.46. The item with the least mean score was CP2, with a mean score of 4.43.

This indicated that under contextual performance, more respondents were of the opinion that they were performing well when they could effectively communicate to their colleagues for the purposes of problem-solving and decision-making. In addition, they preferred to praise co-workers for their work. However, this did not undermine the importance of other items within the contextual performance variable, which were also highly ranked by the respondents. More details are shown in Appendix 2.

4.2. Inferential Results

The findings of the article focused on the influence of gender diversity on the dimension of employees’ performance dimensions (adaptive, contextual and task performance). This article hypothesised that gender diversity positively influences adaptive employees’ performance. It was revealed that gender diversity had a positive significant influence on adaptive performance. Regression weight was 0.110 and significant at 0.028 which was less than 0.05. This implies organization must diversify its workforce based on gender and employee performance well considering their ability to adjust with dynamic work environment.

In this case, employees exhibited their ability on collective intelligence, change management in their job, handling teamwork in the face of changes, mutual understanding on viable business solutions and accepting criticism from team members. Likewise, employees in the organization that adopted gender diversity demonstrated their abilities on dealing with work flexibility, hence H₁ was accepted.

The article also hypothesised that gender diversity positively influences contextual employees’ performance. It was established that gender diversity positively and significantly influences contextual employees’ performance. Regression weight was 0.382 significant at the P-value of 0.001. These findings suggested that workplace that embraced gender diversity practices, its employees were willing to extend their help to co-workers and ready to handle extra responsibilities. In addition to these, workers actively participated in group discussion and ready to share knowledge and ideas with their colleagues. Based on this discussion, H₂ was also accepted.

The article hypothesised that gender diversity positively influences task performance of employees. Gender diversity positively and significantly influence task performance with a regression weight of 0.453 and P-value of 0.001. In this regard, firms that adopted the practices of inclusivity specifically gender diversity practice, its employees tend to maintain high standards of their work without much supervision. Also, workers completed their assignment on time and that can handle multiple assignments to ensure that organizational goals were well achieved, hence H₃ was accepted.

Appendix 3 and the structural equation diagram summarise the relationship between gender diversity and employee performance dimensions (adaptive, contextual and task performance). Structural equation model indices for the structural equation were all within the recommended values, which indicated that the model fitted well the data. These indices are CMIN/DF (2.68), GFI (0.926), Adjusted GFI (0.906), CFI (0.952), and RMSEA (0.055). Figure 1 presents the diagrammatic relationship between gender diversity, and employee performance dimensions i.e. adaptive, contextual and task performance.

Figure 1. Direct relationship between gender diversity and employees’ performance dimensions.

5. Discussion of Findings

Results of this article are supported by other prior empirical studies such that of Khan, Sohail, Khan, Uddin and Basit (2019) who found that gender diversity positively influences employee performance. In the same vein, current findings are in line with those of Zhuwao, Ngirandu, Ndlovu and Setati (2019) who conducted a study in higher learning institution in South Africa and established positive relationship between gender diversity and employee performance. Similarly, other studies’ findings (such as Kyalo & Gachunga, 2015; Odhiambo, Gachoka, & Rambo, 2018; Hapompwe, Mulenga, Siwale, & Kukano, 2020 ) are congruent with the findings of this article. Authors reported a significant positive relationship between gender diversity and employee performance. Likewise, findings of this article mirror that of Rizwan, Khan and Nadeem (2016 ) who established a significant and positive relationship between gender diversity and employee performance.

On the contrary, other empirical studies established no significant relationship, negative relationship or weak relationship between gender diversity and employee performance. For instance, prior empirical studies such as that of (Adams & Ferreira, 2009; Ahern and Dittmar, 2011) found negative relationship between gender-diversity and performance. However, the findings from these empirical studies differ from the results of this article because these studies did not examine employee performance into its three dimensions i.e., adaptive, contextual and task performance instead the performance of employee were analysed on its totality.

On the other hand, prior studies like (Nielsen & Madsen, 2017; Nang’oni & Kembu, 2018) established weak relationship between gender diversity and employee performance. Whereas studies like (Miller & Carmen, 2009; Sheth, 2018) found no association on the gender diversity and employee performance. These findings differ from the findings of the present article since the article focused on the three dimensions of employee performance (adaptive, contextual and task performance).

With respect to the theory, the article findings are in line with the Social Cultural Theory. Social Cultural Theory argues that organizational culture and context may influence the behavior of individuals. Workplaces which embrace gender diversity practices influence positive behaviors. Sociocultural perspective describes peoples’ behaviors and mental process as shaped by several factors including gender diversity. This premise is in line with the findings of this article which revealed a statistically significant and positive influence of gender diversity on the adaptive, contextual and task performance.

5.1. Conclusion

The article generally concludes that gender diversity significantly and positively influences the dimensions of employee performance i.e. adaptive, contextual, and task performance. In this regard, a good mix between men and women; equal opportunities for managerial positions, an optimal mix of the genders in job allocation; equal opportunities in career development, and a gender quota policy within the organization provides an environment for improving employee performance. Hence, a conducive internal environment within the organization in terms of gender diversity practices plays an important role in promoting employee performance in terms of adaptive, task and contextual performance.

5.2. Recommendations

The findings of this article established that gender diversity has an influence on all the three dimensions of employee performance i.e. adaptive, contextual and task performance. Gender diversity practices lead to a better employees’ performance; hence managers must foster gender diversity practices in the organisations. These can be achieved through safeguarding the practice of good mix of men and women at workplace. The gender quota policy in activities such as recruitment, retention and career development must be gender sensitive. However, promotion and appointment of the higher positions such as managerial positions should base on the merits of an individuals and not on their gender.

5.3. Limitations of the Study

This article focused on textile firms only, hence similar studies can be conducted to examine whether these findings extend to other economic sectors with different characteristics from those of the textile sector. In addition to this, the article did not categorise its findings across different business sizes, including micro, small, medium, and large businesses. It is possible that gender diversity has different influences on employee performance dimensions across different business sizes.

Appendix 1: Testing for Homoscedasticity

Appendix 2: Mean Scores

Appendix 3: Inferential Results

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the Boardroom and Their Impact on Governance and Performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007
[2]	Afroz, N. (2018). Effects of Training on Employee Performance: A Study on Banking Sector, Tangail Bangladesh. Global Journal of Economic and Business, 4, Article ID: 111124. https://doi.org/10.12816/0048158
[3]	Ahern, K., & Dittmar, A. (2011). The Impact of Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 137-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr049
[4]	Ali, M., Kulik, C. T., & Metz, I. (2011). The Gender Diversity-Performance Relationship in Services and Manufacturing Organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1464-1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.561961
[5]	Al-Zubi, Z., Ali, N., & Alqtish, A. (2017). The Effects of Low Morale and Motivation on Employee Productivity and Competitiveness in Jordanian Industrial Companies. International Business Research, 10, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v10n7p1
[6]	Amsi, F., Kiflemariam, A., & Ngui, T. (2022). Affective Engagement, Gender Diversity and Employee Performance in the Tanzanian Textile Industry. Open Journal of Business and Management, 10, 2829-2850. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2022.105140
[7]	Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98). Jossey-Bass.
[8]	Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
[9]	Chau, P., & Hu, P. (2001). Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model Comparison Approach. Decision Sciences, 32, 699-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x
[10]	Chepkemoi, G., Rop, W., & Chepkwony, P. (2022). The Relationship between Gender Diversity and Employee Performance in the County Government of Bomet, Kenya. East Africa Journal of Business, 5, 90-98. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajbe.5.1.564
[11]	Chew, E. W., Lee, K. M., Tan, S. C., & Tee, S. F. (2011). The Effects of Workforce Diversity towards the Employee Performance in an Organization. UTAR.
[12]	Chijoke, N. N., & Chinedu, F. E. (2015). Effects of Rewards on Employee Performance in Organization: A Study of Selected Commercial Banks in Awka Metropolis. European Journal of Business and Management, 7, 80-88.
[13]	Durga, P. R. (2017). The Impact of Workforce Diversity on Organizational Effectiveness: A Study of Selected Banks in Tigray Region of Ethiopia. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 6, 427-434. https://doi.org/10.21275/29121604
[14]	Emiko, M., & Eunmi, C. (2009). Diversity Management and the Effects on Employees’ Organizational Commitment: Evidence from Japan and Korea. Journal of World Business, 44, 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.018
[15]	Fareed, Z., Ul-Abidan, Z., & Shahzad, F. (2013). The Impact of Rewards on Employee’s Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Management and Administrative Science Review, 2, 431-442.
[16]	Farndale, E., Beijer, S. E., Van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., Kelliher, C., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2014). Work and Organisation Engagement: Aligning Research and Practice. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1, 157-176. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2014-0015
[17]	Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Hill, E. J. (2004). When Work Works: A Status Report on Workplace Flexibility. Who Has It? Who Wants It? What Difference Does It Make? Families and Work Institute.
[18]	Gallego, I., Garcia, I. M., & Rodriguez, L. (2010). The Influence of Gender Diversity on Corporate Performance. Revista de Contabilidada-Accounting Review, 13, 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(10)70012-1
[19]	Garavan, T., McCarthy, A., & Carbery, R. (2020). Training and Organizational Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Temporal, Institutional and Organizational Context Moderators. Human Resource Management Journal, 31, 93-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12284
[20]	Giulian, M., & Poli, S. (2019). Which Relationship between Gender Diversity, Intellectual Capital and Financial Performance? International Journal of Business and Management, 14, 101-115. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v14n10p101
[21]	Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance Management and Employee Engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.004
[22]	Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: Global Edition (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
[23]	Hapompwe, C. C., Mulenga, M., Siwale, J., & Kukano, C. (2020). Impact of Age and Gender Diversity on Employee Performance in Organizations. A Case Study of Zambia Compulsory Standards Agency (ZCSA). International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 10, 447-456. https://doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.10.06.2020.p10253
[24]	Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and Performance. In D. R. Ilgen, & D. P. Pulakos (Eds.), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation and Development (pp. 21-55). Jossey-Bass.
[25]	Hofmann, S. G., & Hinton, D. E. (2014). Cross-Cultural Aspects of Anxiety Disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 16, 450-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-014-0450-3
[26]	Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
[27]	House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage Publications.
[28]	Khan, F., Sohail, A., Khan, S. M., Uddin, M., & Basit, A. (2019). The Effect of Workforce Diversity on Employee Performance in Higher Education Sector. Journal of Management Information, 6, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.31580/jmi.v6i3.515
[29]	Kirton, G., & Greene, A.-M. (2015). The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315767147
[30]	Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, D., & Joshi, A. K. (2002). The Effects of Diversity on Business Performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 42, 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10061
[31]	Kyalo, J. M. K., & Gachunga, H. (2015). Effect of Diversity in Workplace on Employee Performance in the Banking Industry in Kenya. Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 2, 145-181.
[32]	Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2013). Culture and Psychology (6th ed.). San Francisco State University.
[33]	Miller, T., & Carmen, T. M. (2009). Demographic Diversity in the Boardroom: Mediators of the Board Diversity-Firm Performance Relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 755-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00839.x
[34]	Mishra, S., & Panda, G. (2018). Impact of Competency Based Training Need Assessment on Individual Performance: A Study on Employees of Easel Mining Industries. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7, 157-159. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.7.20534
[35]	Motowidlo, S. J., & Van-Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence That Task Performance Should Be Distinguished from Contextual Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475
[36]	Nang’oni, W. S., & Kembu, A. S. (2018). Influence of Gender Diversity at Kenya Urban Roads Authority. The Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 17, 46-55.
[37]	Nassary, R. P. (2018). The Effects of Training on Employees’ Performance in Public Institutions: A Case of Arusha Municipality, Tanzania. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science (IJRIAS), 5, 235-246.
[38]	National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2016). National Accounts of Tanzania Mainland, 2001& 2012. Retrieved from Ministry of Finance.
[39]	Nielsen, V. L., & Madsen, M. B. (2017). Does Gender Diversity in the Workplace Affect Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention? International public Management Review, 8, 77-115. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i11/4898
[40]	Odhiambo, M. W., Gachoka, H., & Rambo, C. (2018). Relationship between Gender Diversity and Employee Performance of Public Universities in Western Kenya. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8, 249-272.
[41]	Onwuchekwa, F., Onwuzuligbo, L., & Ifeanyi, T. T. (2019). Gender Diversity and Employee Engagement: A Study of Cable Manufacturing Companies in Anambra State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 21, 61-67.
[42]	Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Newbury House.
[43]	Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the Use of Language Learning Strategies Worldwide with the ESL/EFL Version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)00047-A
[44]	Pradhan, R. K., & Jena, L. K. (2017). Employee Performance at Workplace: Conceptual Model and Empirical Validation. Business Perspectives and Research, 5, 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2278533716671630
[45]	Randel, A. E. (2002). Identity Salience: A Moderator of the Relationship between Group Gender Composition and Work Group Conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 749-766. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.163
[46]	Reijseger, G., Peeters, M. C., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). From Motivation to Activation: Why Engaged Workers Are Better Performers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 117-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9435-z
[47]	Rizwan, M., Khan, M. N., & Nadeem, B. (2016). The Impact of Workforce Diversity towards Employee Performance: Evidence from Banking Sector of Pakistan. American Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 53-60.
[48]	Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2013). Beginning Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Primer (7th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
[49]	Safitri, F. A. et al. (2019). The Effect of Training, Discipline, Motivation, and Satisfaction on Employee Achievement. SSRN Electronic Journal, 5, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3313138
[50]	Salah, M. A. (2016). The Influence of Rewards on Employees’ Performance. British Journal of Economics, Management and Trade, 13, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJEMT/2016/25822
[51]	Samantha, R., Senthuran, N., & Priyantha, M. (2021). An Empirical Study on Employees’ Job Performance at ABC Group of Companies. In Proceedings of the 5th International Research Symposium on HRM 2021 (pp. 1-17). Chartered Institute of Personnel Management of Sri Lanka. http://www.cipmlk.org/research
[52]	Sanderson, C. A. (2010). Social Psychology. John Willey & Sons.
[53]	Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[54]	Sharma, P., Kong, T. T. C., & Kingshott, R. P. (2016). Internal Service Quality as a Driver of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, and Performance: Exploring the Focal Role of Employee Well-Being. Journal of Service Management, 27, 773-797. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2015-0294
[55]	Sheth, H. (2018). Impact of Workforce Diversity on Employee Performance with Special Reference Telecommunication Industry in Gujarat. Doctoral Dissertation, Technological University.
[56]	Sriviboon, C., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Influence of Human Resource Practices on Thai Pharmaceutical Firm Performance with Moderating Role of Job Involvement. Systematic Review in Pharmacy, 10, 234-243.
[57]	Stone-Romero, E. F., Alvarez, K., & Thompson, L. F. (2009). The Construct Validity of Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Contextual Performance and Related Constructs. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 104-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.10.003
[58]	Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
[59]	Thadani, D. R., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2008). Online Social Network Dependency: Theoretical Development and Testing of Competing Models. In The 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-9). The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.331
[60]	Thisted, R. A. (2006). The Cross-Sectional Study: Investigating Prevalence and Association. The University of Chicago.
[61]	Ullah, M. (2020). Women Empowerment and Social Development in Afghanistan through Micro Finance. International Journal of Academic Research in business and Social Sciences, 10, 377-389. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i12/8324
[62]	Ullman, J. B. (1996). Structural Equation Modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick, & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed., pp. 709-819). Harper Collins College Publishers.
[63]	Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process. Harvard University Press.
[64]	Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K.-H., & Kanfer, R. (2008). Age and Gender Diversity as Determinants of Performance and Health in a Public Organization: The Role of Task Complexity and Group Size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1301-1313. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012680
[65]	Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Human Resource and Capabilities. In J. Sstorey, P. Wright, & D. Ulrich (Eds.), The Roultedge Companion to Strategic Human Resource Management (pp. 756-772). Oxford University Press.
[66]	Zhuwao, S., Ngirande, H., Ndlovu, W., & Setati, S. T. (2019). Workforce Diversity and Its Effects on Employee Performance in Higher Education Institution in South Africa: A Case Study of University of Venda.