Addressing workplace diversity to improve employee performance: implications for SOEs in Namibia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Figure 2. Workplace diversity dimensions and employee performance. Source: Emerged from statistical analysis (2023).

Table 1. Reliability and convergent validity of the reflective latent variables.

Latent variable	Indicator	Loading	VIF	Mean	SD	Cronbach’s alpha	CR	AVE
Age diversity	AD1	0.833	1.766	0.563	0.032	0.794	0.796	0.660
	AD2	0.791	1.766	0.535	0.031
Educational background	EB3	0.804	1.488	0.359	0.030	0.805	0.810	0.504
	EB4	0.645	1.799	0.287	0.036
	EB5	0.754	1.834	0.336	0.031
	EB6	0.622	1.811	0.278	0.030
Employee performance	EP1	0.785	2.512	0.276	0.045	0.811	0.816	0.518
	EP2	0.615	1.771	0.342	0.023
	EP3	0.706	2.088	0.268	0.025
	EP7	0.761	1.295	0.309	0.023
Ethnicity diversity	ED1	0.717	2.442	0.288	0.028	0.843	0.844	0.571
	ED2	0.790	2.082	0.317	0.030
	ED3	0.708	1.859	0.286	0.031
	ED6	0.803	1.600	0.322	0.039
Gender diversity	GD1	0.726	1.953	0.467	0.040	0.823	0.869	0.726
	GD2	0.962	1.953	0.616	0.041
Religion	R1	0.674	1.412	0.295	0.146	0.808	0.811	0.517
	R2	0.721	1.726	0.309	0.146
	R4	0.745	2.054	0.317	0.100
	R6	0.734	1.871	0.309	0.107

Note: SD: standard deviation; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted.

Source: Survey (2023).

Table 2. Discriminant validity of latent variables and collinearity evaluation of predictors.

Discriminant validity of latent variables by Fornell–Larcker’s criterion
Latent variable	AD	EB	EP	ED	GD	RD
Age diversity (AD)	0.812
Educational background (EB)	0.747	0.710
Employee performance (EP)	0.580	0.621	0.720
Ethnicity diversity (ED)	0.592	0.708	0.451	0.756
Gender diversity (GD)	0.627	0.673	0.418	0.667	0.852
Religion diversity (RD)	0.127	0.286	0.177	0.480	0.336	0.719
Note: Diagonals in bold are the square roots of AVE.
Discriminant validity evaluation for the reflective variables by HTMT criterion
Latent variable	AD	EB	EP	ED	GD	RD
Educational background (EB)	0.745
Employee performance (EP)	0.577	0.612
Ethnicity diversity (ED)	0.592	0.729	0.449
Gender diversity (GD)	0.637	0.692	0.422	0.684
Religion diversity (RD)	0.128	0.290	0.176	0.482	0.349
Collinearity evaluation between the predictor constructs by inner VIF values
Latent variable	Employee performance
Age diversity (AD)	1.000
Educational background (EB)	1.000
Employee performance (EP)	----
Ethnicity diversity (ED)	1.000
Gender diversity (GD)	1.000

Source: Survey (2023).

Table 3. Direct effects of key latent variables.

Hyp	Direct effect	M	SD	Coeff	T Stat	p values	Decision
H1	Age diversity -> Employee performance	0.242	0.064	0.294	3.825	0.000	Supported
H2	Educational background -> Employee performance	0.325	0.073	0.455	4.306	0.000	Supported
H3	Ethnicity diversity -> Employee performance	0.054	0.074	−0.027	0.708	0.479	Not supported
H4	Gender diversity -> Employee performance	0.005	0.060	−0.070	0.158	0.875	Not supported
H5	Religion -> Employee performance	0.029	0.046	0.046	0.488	0.626	Not supported

Source: Survey (2023).

Data availability statement

The datasets utilized and analyzed in this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.