Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

Gender Diversity in the workplaceand its effects on Employees’

Performance

Dr. S. Gokula Krishnan

Associate Professor
Department of Management Studies
Acharya Institute of Technology, Bengaluru – 560107. India

Abstract

Interaction among the people from diverse backgrounds would be at greater level to meet the requirements
of globalization in the present scenario. No employee across globe want to live and work in an insular
environment, instead that would like to be part of a worldwide economy, so that they can contribute more to
the global framework. Due to this, organizations (profit & non-profit) have to become more diversified from
all possible dimensions, especially diversity in workforce to remain competitive in the business world. In the
process of remaining competitive, management should maximize and capitalize the diversity in workforce of
their own. Hence, the managers of the present and future should know how to recognize the strategies
involving in organizational changes and development which will accommodate a multicultural environment
to retain and attract the employees to achieve the common goal of any organization, i.e. profit maximization
through better employee performance on the macro level, diversity is competitive advantage for any
organization.Present paper, based on empiricalstudy aims to explore the effects of workforce diversity in
terms of gender on performance of the employees’ in food processing industry employees in Kerala. The
descriptive study surveyed 230 respondents through convenience sampling technique and has the sampling
adequacy of 0.771 (KMO Test’s) and Bartlett’s sphericity test (p = 0.000). Data was analysed through
ANOVA, Correlation and regression analysis. The findings of the study has disclosed that diversity in terms of
gender includes a vital contribution to predict the performance of the employees’. Further, this study has
well-tried that Gender Diversity and performance of the employee’s differ across gender, age group, and
work experience. The study significantly contributes towards advancements for gender diversity and its
effects on employees’ performance in an organization. Once the organization is certain regarding
distinctiveness among the gender diversity of the workforce, they will succeed and reduce conflicts, focus on
high utilization of human at work, make sure the person-organization fit, person-job fit and person-group fit
which is able to improve the performance of the workers in a company. The outcome of such gender diversity
is more productivity, high satisfaction and engaged employees.

Key Words: 1.Diversity, 2.Workforce, 3.Gender Diversity, 4.Employee Performance, 5.Productivity, 6.Culture.

1. Introduction
In current scenario, employing diversified workforce is a necessity for every organization but to manage
such diversified workforce is also a big challenge for management. Workforce diversity is strength for the
organization if managed properly, can increase the productivity and thus performance of the
organization.Workforce diversity refers to organizations that are getting a lot of heterogeneous group
with the combination of individuals in terms of gender, age, race, and education background (Clements &
Spinks, 2009). Diversity may be outlined as acknowledging, understanding, accepting, and valuing
variations among individuals with reference to age, class, race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, etc. (Esty et
al. 1995). Firms got to embrace diversity and appearance for tactics to become comprehensive
organizations as a result of diversity and the potential to yield bigger work productivity and competitive
benefits (SHRM 1998). Managing diversity could be a key part of effective employee management within
the geographic point (Black Enterprise 2001). Demographic changes (women within the geographic
point, structure restructuring, and civil right legislation) would require organizations to review their
management practices and develop new and artistic approaches in managing individuals. Positive

1888

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

changes can increase work performance and client service, thus, reflecting on overall productivity of the
organization.

Companies will succeed at diversity if, they initiatesto create, manage and value the diversity in terms of
gender (Hayes, 1999; Jackson et al., 1992).The organization should assign this work to a senior manager
(Jackson et al., 1992). The organization should link concerns for diversity to human resource
management decisions around recruitment, selection, placement, succession planning, performance
management, and rewards (Cascio, 1998). The strategy (diversity or otherwise) must be based on the will
of the human resources, strength, and culture of the organization (Hayes, 1999). Managers must
understand their firm’s culture first and then implement diversity strategies according to that culture
(Hayes, 1999). Culture divides the acceptance of diversity, thus, a through understand of culture at
workplace.

Harvery et al, (2012) argued that the model of diversity is one amongst inclusion that reflects a globalized
economy and philosophical system in a multicultural workforce where value is placed on thought of
diversity, and also the perspectives shared from individual views are reflected on organizations to
maximize their productivity.Harvey (2012) stated that having a workforce that reflectsthe dynamic
demographics of the global consumer market, ability to better understand their desires and
preferences.Further, productivity and costs can be analyzed in structuring the business through diversity.
Within the deficit model, organizations that do not have a strong diversity inclusionof culture will invite
higher absence, lower productivity and more turnover which can result in higher costs to the corporate.

2. Research Objectives:
Objective 1: To analyse the Gender diversity of the workforce at food processing industry employees in
Kerala.
Objective 2: To analyse the employees’ performance among the food processing industry employees in
Kerala.
Objective 3: To study the perception on Gender Diversity, and Employee Performance across Gender,
Age, Educational Qualification, Experience, Marital Status, Nature of Job and Department of the
respondents.
Objective 4: To study the relationship between Gender Diversity variables and Employee Performance
among the food processing industry employees in Kerala.

3. Review of Literature:
Disparities based on Gender of the employees in a working unit will be strengthened and accomplished
by generalization and inclinations that represent the positive characteristics and higher status to the male
employees in an organization (Leonard & Levine, 2003).Furthermore, as indicated by Brown (2008),
critical measure of diversity in workforce remains ineffective if the gender related issues are not
diagnosis and prompt actions were missed. Secondly, Brown (2008), mentioned that the exploration of
prospect female employees and treating them higher or equally to the male employees of the organization
is vital. Kossek et al., (2005) argued that around 54% of senior womenemployees are in the workforce as
contrasted with 80% of men employees. Moreover, women employees keep on having high base on the
"imperceptible care" economy, which identifies with mind giving and household work. Providing an
equivalent opportunity in terms of work to female employees in the organization is very important to
enhance the level of engagement (Kochan et al., 2003). Separation on employees in view of gender has
brought contracting specialists who are paid higher than elective specialists, will not yield any more gains
in productivity (Barrington &Troke, 2001). Also, Wentling& Rivas, (2000) mentioned that when an
organization having differing workforce will yield predominant managers who takes care of the customer
required in the better way. Recruiting and employing female employees, minorities and others will
facilitate the organizations to knock the potential and specialty markets in the globe. From the research
results of Jackson & Joshi (2003), a significantly positive associate has been found between team with
gender diversity and intra-team participation moderately different from gender. Moreover, gender

1889

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

diversity in group was decidedly identified with group execution, however again this was genuine just
inside locales portrayed by generally high gender diversity.

In examination, Jayne &Dipboye (2004) contended that gender diversity does not really bring positive
result, for example, expands inspiration, enhancing abilities, fabricate duty, and decrease conflict. To
wrap things up, the contention that greater diversity is related will bring down quality since it places
performing individuals in positions for which they are not suited (Rothman et al., 2003; Herring, 2005).
Further, Williams & O'Reilly (1998) recommend that the most exact confirmation proposes that diversity
is well on the way to back off gathering working (Herring, 2005). To put it plainly, commentators of
diversity display propose that gathering contrasts result in conflict and its orderly expenses. Hence,
cynics of the business case for diversity demonstrate have scrutinized the genuine effect of diversity
programs on the primary concern of business organization (Herring, 2005).

Great workforce diversity hones the region of HR are accepted to upgrade worker and authoritative
execution (Adler, 1986). Overseeing diversity includes utilizing, and utilizing the social contrasts in
relationship building abilities', thoughts and inventiveness to add to a shared objective, and doing it in a
way that gives the organization an aggressive edge (Morrison, 1992). There is a solid connection between
great diversity practices and benefits in view of late examinations (Hayles&Russell, 1997). Diversity
permits expanded innovativeness, a more extensive scope of points of view, better issue definition, more
choices and better arrangements (Adler, 1986). It is additionally contended that, with diminishing
homogeneity in the workforce, it has turned out to be essential for organizations to create break even
with circumstances and diversity administration arrangements to keep up the aptitude of employees with
differing foundations to secure their aggressive position in the market places (Shaw 1993; Gilbert &
Ivancevich 2000).

3.1. Hypothesis Development

The past research on diversity in workplace proposes that diversity can be either hindering or gainful for
workgroup execution (Williams &O‟Reilly, 1998). For example, workgroup diversity is emphatically
connected with innovativeness and critical thinking abilities (Bantel& Jackson, 1989; Jehn et al., 1999)
and adversely related with cohesiveness and collaboration (Pelled et al., 1999). Smith et. al. (2006)
results shows consistency with the previous study that if females are performing on high in the firm it'll
provide negative sign to the investors and leads the firm performance toward decline. Ahern &Dittmar
(2010) tried that presence of feminine shows either negative or neutral result on firm performance.
Mirza, Mahmood, Andleeb, & Ramzan, (2012) stated that thereason could be belifes of individuals that
girls are emotional, aggressive, risk loath, less assured and not well educated and a few invisible barriers,
that are engineered by society to stay ladies in lower position. Apesteguia, Azmat, &Iriberri, (2012)
argued that team which has 3 female employees having worse team dynamics than the mixed or all-male
teams and also mixed teams show the great performance. Diversity in terms of gender would be
positively related to good team outcomes.(Badal, & Harter, 2013) Financial performance of the business
unit positively affected by gender diversity, which will have logical implications. David Rock &Heigi Grant
(2016) mentioned in their paper that setting political, social and moral reasons for boosting a more
diversity in the workplace, and there is no better motivation for promoting diversity than having more
creative team in the organizations. By selecting the employees based on their creativity will promote both
diversity and creativity which would enhance the diversity level of organizations.
Kyalo, &Gachunga (2015) argued that positive relationship exists between gender diversity and employee
performance. Chaudhry, & Sharma (2016) found that diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity were
associated with employee performance.FurtherGowrishanker, Kanagaraj, & Krishnan, (2017) have found
age diversity of the workforce is a significant predictor of the employees’ performance. Odhiambo,
Gachoka, & Rambo, (2018) has identified that employee performance is positively influenced by gender
diversity in public university in western Kenya.

Hypothesis 1: Gender diversity is positively correlated with the employee performance.

1890

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

4. Methodology
4.1. Respondents of the study:
Thedescriptive study sample consist of 230 employees working in food processing companies of Kerala,
India. Responses were collected with the help of questionnaires through convenience sampling technique.
Around 114 (49 per cent) were male and 116 (50percent) were female respondents. The age of the
employees ranged from 20 years to 66 years with a mean age of 35 years approximately. Further, 74 (32
percent) were single and 156 (68 percent) were married. With respect to educational qualifications of
employees 127 (55 per cent) found to be ITI or Diploma holders; 59 (26 per cent) of employees were
completed their higher secondary school level; 25 (11 per cent) of employees graduates and around 19 (8
per cent) of employees completed their secondary school level. Further, 54 (23per cent) employees had
more than 10 years of career experience while 176 (77 per cent) had less than 10 years of career
experience.
Table No: 1. Respondents of the study

Variable Frequency %
Male 114 49
Gender
Female 116 50
20-29 Years 33 14
30-39 Years 94 41
Age
40-49 Years 76 33
50 Years & Above 27 11
Single 74 32
Marital Status
Married 156 68
SSLC 19 8
Plus Two 59 26
Educational Qualification
Graduate 25 11
ITI / Diploma 127 55
2-5 Years 119 52
6-10 Years 57 25
Work Experience
11-15 Years 33 15
>15 Years 21 9
Managerial Level 11 5
Position Executive Level 54 24
Operational Level 165 78

4.2. Measures:
4.2.1. Workforces’ Gender Diversity (GD):
Gender Diversity (GD) variables have been measured using the 9 items, adopted Abbas, Qaisar, Hameed &
Abdul (2010) such as (GD1) - The employees have not been discriminated by employer while hiring and
recruitment process on gender basis; (GD2) - The organization does a good job of hiring women; (GD3) -
Fair treatment is given to all employees whether they are male or female; (GD4) - Opportunities for
growth and advancement exist for women in the organization; (GD5) - A career development that
includes women is encouraged within the organization; (GD6) - The organization’s training and
development program is developed to meet the criteria/requirement of the male and female; (GD7) -
Women are involved in the organization’s decision making as much as men; (GD8) - The performance
criteria for success are expected to be higher for men than for women, and (GD9) - I am positive about
gender diversity in this workplace. Each variable measured on 5-point Likert scale (i.e.) 1=Strongly
Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree and Cronbach’s alpha values of GD is 0.841.

1891

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

4.2.2. Employees’ Performance:

Employees’ Performance Scale (EPS) - 10 itemsbyGowrishanker, Kanagaraj, & Krishnan, (2017),i.e. I enjoy
my tasks and the division’s work approach (EP1); I am committed to the mission and direction of my
organization (EP2); I am motivated to complete the task that is assigned to me (EP3); I co-operate well
with my colleagues of different ethnicity (EP4); Opposite gender can perform well and I enjoy working
with them (EP5); My performance level affects my salary level (EP6); I am satisfied with my current
salary level (EP7); I am given the chance to try my own method of doing the job (EP8); By learning more
skills through courses/training, I can improve my task performance (EP9) and Good employee
performance is important for the future growth of my organization (EP10). Each variable measured on 5-
point Likert scale (i.e.) 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree and Cronbach’s alpha values of EPS is
0.826.

4.2.3. Analysis:Descriptive Statistics, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Correlation and Regression

test were deployed for the analysis.

5. Results, Discussions and Findings

5.1. Descriptive Statistics of Gender Diversity of the workforce:
There were as much as 74% of the employees agreed to the first statement of Gender Diversity (GD1),
while 26% of them neither agreed nor disagreed. 54% of the employees are agreed with GD2, while 30%
neither agreed nor disagreed and 15% are not agreed. 53% of the employees are agreed, while 32% are
neither agreed nor disagreed, and 11% are disagreed with GD3. 50% of the employees are agreed with
GD4, whereas 29% of the employees are neither agreed nor disagreed. 51% of the employees are agreed;
40% of the employees are neither agreed nor disagreed and 10% disagreed with GD5. 60% of the
employees agreed with GD6, while 27% of them neither agreed nor disagreed. 54% of the employees are
agreed with GD7, while 35% neither agreed nor disagreed and 11% are not agreed. 51% of the employees
are agreed, while 35% are neither agreed nor disagreed, and 15% are disagreed with GD8. 63% of the
employees are agreed with GD9, whereas 24% of the employees are neither agreed nor disagreed. The
mean score of the variables of gender diversity are GD1 = 3.77; GD2 = 3.56; GD3 = 3.63; GD4 =3.42; GD5
=3.53; GD6 =3.61; GD7 = 3.55; GD8 = 3.47; GD9 = 3.67 respectively and it reveals that more than half of
the employees are agreed with the variables of the gender diversity.

Table No: 2 Descriptive Statistics of Gender Diversity

GD 1 GD 2 GD 3 GD 4 GD 5 GD 6 GD 7 GD 8 GD 9
SD 2.20 1.70 1.70 3.90 1.30 3.90 2.20 3.90 3.50
D 7.80 13.50 9.10 17.80 8.30 9.10 9.10 10.90 9.60
N 25.70 30.90 32.20 28.70 40.00 26.50 35.20 34.80 23.90
A 40.00 35.20 38.70 31.70 37.00 43.00 38.30 34.80 42.60
SA 24.30 18.70 18.30 17.80 13.50 17.40 15.20 15.70 20.40
Mean 3.77 3.56 3.63 3.42 3.53 3.61 3.55 3.47 3.67
S.D. 0.979 0.999 0.943 1.094 0.875 1.004 0.932 1.009 1.017

5.2. Descriptive Statistics of Employees’ Performance:

63% of the respondents are agreed with EP1 (Mean = 3.53; SD = 1.206), while 22% are disagreed. 52% of
the respondents are agreed with EP2 (Mean = 3.27; SD = 1.446), while 29% are disagreed. 67% of the
respondents are agreed EP3 (Mean = 3.88; SD = 1.023), while 25% are neither agreed nor disagreed. 68%
of the respondents are agreed with EP4 (Mean = 3.79; SD = 0.903), while 22% are neither agreed nor
disagreed. 60% of the respondents are agreed with EP5 (Mean = 3.73; SD = 1.027), while 28% are neither
agreed nor disagreed. 54% of the respondents are agreed with EP6 (Mean = 3.53; SD = 1.060), while 31%
are neither agreed nor disagreed. 48% of the respondents are agreed with EP7 (Mean = 3.33; SD = 1.183),

1892

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

while 27% are neither agreed nor disagreed and 25 are disagreed. 54% of the respondents are agreed
with EP8 (Mean = 3.45; SD = 1.119), while 28% are neither agreed nor disagreed. 41% of the respondents
are agreed with EP9 (Mean = 3.17; SD = 1.178), while 35% are disagreed. 76% of the respondents are
agreed with EP10 (Mean = 4.05; SD = 1.005), while 17% are neither agreed nor disagreed.

Table No: 3 Descriptive Statistics of Employee Performance

EP 1 EP 2 EP 3 EP 4 EP 5 EP 6 EP 7 EP 8 EP 9 EP10
SD 8.70 20.90 2.60 0.90 2.60 4.30 8.30 7.40 5.70 0.40
D 13.50 7.80 6.10 8.70 8.70 10.90 16.50 10.90 29.10 9.60
N 14.30 19.10 24.80 22.20 28.30 31.30 27.00 28.30 24.30 16.50
A 43.00 28.30 33.50 47.40 34.30 33.90 30.90 36.50 24.80 31.30
SA 20.40 23.90 33.00 20.90 26.10 19.60 17.40 17.00 16.10 42.20
Mean 3.53 3.27 3.88 3.79 3.73 3.53 3.33 3.45 3.17 4.05
S.D. 1.206 1.446 1.023 0.903 1.027 1.060 1.183 1.119 1.178 1.005

5.3. Analysis of Variance – One Way

Perception on Gender Diversity differs across Gender, Age, Educational Qualification, Experience, Marital
Status, Nature of Job and Position of an employee.
Perception on Gender Diversity significantly varies across Gender (F = 135.09 > 2.56; p = 0.00 < 0.05);
Age (F = 154.80 > 2.56; p = 0.00 < 0.05); Level of Education (F = 2.72 > 2.56; p = 0.00 < 0.05); Work
Experience (F = 112.41 > 2.56; p = 0.00 < 0.05); Marital status (F = 128.71 > 2.56; p = 0.00 < 0.05) at 0.05
significant level. Hence Perception on Gender Diversity differs across Gender, Age, Educational
Qualification, Experience, and Marital Status of the employees.

Table No: 4 One Way - ANOVA – Gender Diversity

Level of
Gender Age Group Experience Marital Status
Education
B.G W.G B.G W.G B.G W.G B.G W.G B.G W.G
Sum of
278.79 49.11 84.81 130.38 2.27 740.71 257.92 54.61 73.48 135.87
Squares
df 1 238 1 238 1 238 1 238 1 238
Mean
278.79 0.21 84.81 0.55 2.27 3.11 257.92 0.23 73.48 0.57
Square
F 135.09 154.8 2.72 112.41 128.71
Sig. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Table No: 5 One Way - ANOVA – Employees’ Performance

Level of
Gender Age Group Experience Marital Status
Education
B.G W.G B.G W.G B.G W.G B.G W.G B.G W.G
Sum of
252.06 73.89 187.82 73.82 206.02 75.32 265.71 73.64 255.11 74.61
Squares
df 28 201 28 201 28 201 28 201 28 201

1893

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

Mean
252.06 0.37 187.82 0.37 206.02 0.38 265.71 0.37 255.11 0.38
Square
F 675.42 503.75 541.62 714.42 677.03
Sig. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
B.G – Between Groups; W.G – Within Groups

Perception on Employees’ Performance significantly varies across Gender (F = 675.42 > 2.56; p = 0.00 <
0.05); Age (F = 503.75 > 2.56; p = 0.00 < 0.05); Level of Education (F = 541.62 > 2.56; p = 0.00 < 0.05);
Work Experience (F = 714.42 > 2.56; p = 0.00 < 0.05); and Marital status (F = 677.03 > 2.56; p = 0.00 <
0.05) at 0.05 significant level. Hence H1b is accepted, i.e. Perception on Employees’ Performance differs
across Gender, Age, Educational Qualification, Experience and Marital Status of the employees.

5.4. Correlation Analysis

Hypothesis: Gender diversity of the workforce is positively correlated with the employee performance.

Gender Diversity variables, GD2 - The organization does a good job of hiring women (r = 0.165**; p =
0.012 < 0.01); GD3 - Fair treatment is given to all employees whether they are male or female (r =
0.269**; p = 0.000 < 0.01); GD4 - Opportunities for growth and advancement exist for women in the
organization (r = 0.190**; p = 0.004 < 0.01); GD5 - A career development that includes women is
encouraged within the organization (r = 0.179**; p = 0.007 < 0.01); GD6 - The organization’s training and
development program is developed to meet the criteria/requirement of the male and female (r = 0.176**;
p = 0.007 < 0.01); GD7 - Women are involved in the organization’s decision making as much as men (r =
0.206**; p = 0.002 < 0.01); GD8 - The performance criteria for success are expected to be higher for men
than for women (r = 0.226**; p = 0.001 < 0.01) and GD9 - I am positive about gender diversity in this
workplace (r = 0.219**; p = 0.001 < 0.01) at 0.05 significant level and GD1 - The employees have not been
discriminated by employer while hiring and recruitment process on gender basis(r = 0.126*; p = 0.050 <
0.05) at 0.01 significant level. Hence, Hypothesis is accepted i.e. gender diversity of the workforce is
positively correlated with the employees’ performance.

Table No: 6 Correlations

DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 DG5 DG6 DG7 DG8 DG9

Correlation 1 .215** .174** .292** .253** .239** .234** .109 .299**
DG1
Sig. .001 .008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .100 .000
Correlation .215** 1 .134* .274** .370** .244** .311** .270** .306**
DG2
Sig. .001 .043 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Correlation .174** .134* 1 .156* .241** .260** .196** .256** .194**
DG3
Sig. .008 .043 .018 .000 .000 .003 .000 .003
Correlation .292** .274** .156* 1 .183** .320** .394** .314** .364**
DG4
Sig. .000 .000 .018 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000
Correlation .253** .370** .241** .183** 1 .198** .341** .288** .291**
DG5
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .005 .003 .000 .000 .000
Correlation .239** .244** .260** .320** .198** 1 .148* .296** .283**
DG6
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 .025 .000 .000
Correlation .234** .311** .196** .394** .341** .148* 1 .124 .276**
DG7
Sig. .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .025 .059 .000
DG8 Correlation .109 .270** .256** .314** .288** .296** .124 1 .294**

1894

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

Sig. .100 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .059 .000

Correlation .299** .306** .194** .364** .291** .283** .276** .294** 1
DG9
Sig. .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Employee Correlation .126* .165* .269** .190** .179** .176** .206** .226** .219**
Performance Sig. .050 .012 .000 .004 .007 .007 .002 .001 .001
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed);*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed).

5.5. Regression Analysis:

Table No: 7Regression Table

Method Enter
Dependent Variable Employee Performance
Variables Entered Gender Diversity
R .621
R Square .351
Adjusted R Square .325
F Value (ANOVA) 27.435
Sig. (p) value .000
β – Gender Diversity .328

Gender Diversity of the workforce is predicting the employee performance in an organization since (p=
0.000 < 0.01; F= 27.435> 2.58; β= 0. .328) and the model summary table shows that 35.1% of the
employee performance can be predicted by the gender diversity of the workforce in the organization.
Hence H3 is accepted, i.e. gender diversity of the workforce is predicting the employee performance in an
organization.

6. Major Findings, Suggestions and Implications:

The results of the study have found that Gender Diversity of the workforce and Employee Performance
significantly varies across gender of the respondents, age group of the respondents, marital status,
educational qualification, position of the employees and work experience of the employees. Further,
gender diversity of the workforce is positively correlated with the employee performance of the
organization. Regression analysis revealed that gender diversity of the workforce can predict the
employees’ performance in an organization. Different gender in work groups stimulate harmonious
relations and favorable attitudes inside a company,which will enablemore contribution and enhancing
team performance to achieve the requirements in various market conditions. a mix of staff drawn from
various cultures might additionally rouse organization diverse experiences, attitudes, views, approaches
to figure and totally different levels of commitment to work, so influencing the performance of their
organizations (Gitonga, Kamaara, &Orwa, 2016).Krishnan, Wesley, &Renjitha, (2017) stated that if an
organization is keen on bringing and ensuring the uniqueness in terms of gender diversity among the
employees, organization will be able to achieve the higher engagement level and reduced conflicts, and
also business unit will get the improvised employees’ performance.

7. Limitations of the Study:

At first, the present study is confined itself to understand and analyse the gender diversity’s association
and its impact on the performance of the employees’, hence the authors have not focused on the other
diversity’s in workforce such as age, education, ethnicity and etc. Secondly, the research has been
conducted among the employees in the food processing industry in Kerala, hence the results and
implications may not be suitable to the other sector/ industries.

1895

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

8. Conclusion and Further Research:

This study set out to examine the area of gender diversity of the workforce, with particular reference to
the relationship with employees’ performance. As a result of research carried out, certain trends emerged
in this respect and, with what was outlined in the literature review, results appeared to be the main
driving force behind employees’ performance is age diversity of the workforce. This research paper has
enabled the authors to learn from the literature review and there is an evidence to prove that gender
diversity of the workforce has a positive impact on Employees’ performance. This research indicates that
there is scope to further develop this concept and further research into the area of employees’
performance resulting from other workforce diversities will be required. Further studies can be extended
to the other industries and sectors in the business world by including other diversities of the
workforce.Finally, the authors conclude that gender diversity of the workforce is a significant predictor of
the employees’ performance

9. References:
 Abbas. Q & Hameed. A (2010). Gender Discrimination and Its Effect on Employee Performance or
Productivity. Paper presented at the Conference of the Euromed Academy of Business, University
of Nicosia, Cyprus
 Adler. NJ (1986) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Kent Publishing Co.:
Boston, Mass
 Ahern, K. R. & Dittmar, A. K. (2010). The changing of the boards: The value effect of a massive
exogenous shock, working paper, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.
 Apesteguia, J., Azmat, G., &Iriberri, N., (2012). The Impact of Gender Composition on Team
Performance and Decision Making: Evidence from the Field. Management Science, 58 (1), 78-93
 Badal, S., & Harter, J. K. (2013). Gender Diversity, Business-Unit Engagement, and Performance.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(4), 354–365
 Baer. M., Niessen. A., &Ruenzi. S., (2007). The Impact of Work Group Diversity on Performance:
Large Sample Evidence from the Mutual Fund Industry. Centre for Financial Research, University
of Cologne,USA
 Barrington, L. &Troske, K. (2001). Workforce Diversity and Productivity: An Analysis of
Employer-Employee Matched Data. www.conference-board.org
 Black Enterprise. (2001).Managing a multicultural workforce. Black Enterprise Magazine (July
2001), 13(12) black-enterprise.vlex.com
 Brown, S. L. (2008). Diversity in the Workplace: A Study of Gender, Race, Age, and Salary Level.
UMI Number: 3297416 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
 Cascio. WF (1998). Managing Human Resources. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
 Chaudhry, S., &Sharma, D. (2016). Role of gender and ethnicity diversity on the performance of
employee. International Journal of Research in IT and Management, 6(11), 112-119
 Clements, P., & Spinks, T. (2009). The equal opportunities handbook: how to recognise diversity,
encourage fairness and promote anti-discriminatory practice. London: Kogan Page.
 David Rock, Heidi Grant Halvorson, &Jacqui Grey (2016). Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable –
and That’s Why They Perform Better. Harvard Business Review. hbr.org
 Esty. K., Griffin, R. Marcie S. Hirsch, M. and Schorr-Hirsh, M. (1995). Workplace diversity: A
managers guide to solving problems and turning diversity into a competitive advantage. Avon,
MA: Adams Media Corporation
 Gilbert, J.A. & Ivancevich, J.M. (2000). Valuing diversity: a tale of two organizations. Academy of
Management Executive, 14 (1), 93–105
 Gitonga, D.W., Kamaara, M., &Orwa, G., (2016). Workforce Diversity and the Performance of
Telecommunication Firms: The Interactive Effect of Employee Engagement (A Conceptual
Framework).International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(6), 65 – 77

1896

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

 Gowrishanker, K.L., Kanagaraj, N., & Krishnan, S.G., (2017). Age diversity of the Workforce and
Employees’ Performance - A Descriptive Study. International Journal of Marketing & Financial
Management. 5(10), 01-11
 Harvey, Carol, P. M. June, Allard. (5th Ed.). (2012). Understanding and managing diversity, New
Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. pp. xii–393. ISBN 0-13-255311-2.
 Harvey, Carol P. (2012). Understanding and Managing Diversity, New Jersey: Pearson Education,
Inc. pp. 51–55. ISBN 0-13-255311-2
 Hayes, S. C. (1999). Science and the success of behavioral healthcare. Behavioral Healthcare
Tomorrow, 8(3), 54-56
 Hayles, V.R. & Russell, A.M. (1997). The diversity directive: Why some initiatives fail and what to
do about it. Chicago: Irwin
 Herring, C. (2005). Does Diversity Pay? : Racial Composition of Firms and the Business Case for
Diversity. www.genderprinciples.org
 Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K., & Alvarez, E. B.(1992). Socialization amidst diversity: The impact of
demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15,
45-109
 Jayne, M. E. A. &Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging Diversity to Improve Business Performance
Research Findings and Recommendations for Organizations. Human Resource Management,
Winter, 43(4), 409– 424
 Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field
study in diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
741–763
 Jackson, S. E. & Joshi, A. (2003). Diversity in social context: A multi attribute, multilevel analysis
of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 675-702
 Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn. K., Leonard, J., Levine, D., & Thomas, D.
(2003). The Effects of Diversity on Business Performance: Report of the Diversity Research
Network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3-21
 Kossek, E., Lobel, S. A. & Brown, J. (2005). Human Resource Strategies to Manage Workforce
Diversity Examining „The Business Case‟.
 Krishnan, S.G., Wesley, J.R., &Renjitha, B, (2017). Perceived Person-Environment Fit and
Employees’ Turnover Intention. International Journal of Current Advanced Research, 06(08),
5218-5224. DOI:
 Kundu, S. C. (2003). Workforce Diversity Status: A Study of Employees Reactions, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 103 (4), 215 – 226
 Kyalo, J., &Gachunga H., (2015). Effect of diversity in workplace on employee performance in the
banking industry in kenya. The strategic journal of Business and Change Management,2 (53), 145-
181
 Leonard, J. S., Devine (2003). Diversity, Discrimination and Performance. (p40). California:
Institute For Research on Labour And Employment , UC Berkeley.
 Mirza, H.H., Mahmood, S, Andleeb, S., & Ramzan, F., (2012). Gender Diversity and Firm
Performance: Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Social and Development Sciences 3(5), 161-166
 Odhiambo, M. W., Gachoka, H. G., & Rambo, C. M. (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(11), 249–272
 Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work
group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28
 Shaw, M. (1993). Achieving equality of treatment and opportunity in the workplace. In: Harrison,
R. (ed). Human resource management: issues and strategies. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley, 189–
210

1897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138

Journal of the Social Sciences July 2020 48(3)

 Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). 1998. "SHRM survey explores the best in
diversity practices. Fortune 500 firms outpace the competition with greater commitment to
diversity." The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). www.shrm.org
 Smith, N., Smith, V. & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm performance?
A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 55(7), 569-593
 Wentling R. M. & Rivas N. P. (2000). Current Status of Diversity Initiatives in Selected
Multinational Corporations. Human Resource Development Quarterly 11(1), 35-60
 Williams, K. Y., &O‟Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity: a review of 40 years of
research. In B. Staw, & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, 20, 77–140

1898

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673138